Case 2
`
`L8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:39971
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`James R. Asperger (SBN 83 188)
`jamesasperger@quinnemanuel.com
`865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (SBN 177129)
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION
`Edward R. McGah, Jr (SEN 97719)
`Vice President, Deputy General Counsel - Litigation
`41 Ticknor Place
`Laguna Niguel, California 92677
`TeFephone^+l) 650-581-4750
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`BlackBen'y Limited
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED, a
`Canadian corporation,
`
`CASEN0.2:18-cv-01844
`GW(KSx)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC, a Delaware
`corporation, WHATSAPP INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and
`INSTAGRAM, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company
`
`Defendants.
`
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Hearing Date: February 20, 2020
`Time: 8:30 A.M.
`Judge: Hon. George H. Wu
`Courtroom: 9D
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO
`BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Case No, 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`16|
`17
`
`18
`19|
`20|
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24|
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`001
`
`

`

`Case 2j
`
`L8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:39972
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Pase
`
`I.
`
`THE'961 PATENT........................................................................................... 1
`
`A. Defendants' Non-Infringement Argument Is Untimely and Based
`On A MisinterpretationofBlackBerry's Infringement Theory.............. 1
`
`1. Defendants ' svmmaiy judgment motion is based on an
`untimely non-infrmgement theoiy thai should be excluded. ........ 1
`
`2. Defendants ' non-wfringemenl theory is irrelevant and
`should be denied because it ignores BfackBeny 's
`
`infringement theories....................................................................1
`
`3. BiackBeiry did no/ atlempl to change its mfringemen/
`theoiy and thus Dr. Rubin 's clarification slioztVd not be
`
`stricken.........................................................................................A
`
`B. Defendants' Section 101 Argument Improperly Strips The Claim
`Of All Relevant Limitations And Context.............................................^
`
`1. Alice Step One...............................................................................1
`
`2. Alice Step Two ..............................................................................9
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`THE'120 PATENT......................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Factual Issues Preclude Summary Judgment OfNon-
`
`Infringement.......................................................................................... 10
`
`B. Factual Issues Preclude Summary Judgment As To Whether The
`Instagram (iOS) Haptic Bump Is^A Notification.................................. 13
`
`C. Defendants' Non-Infringement Theory Is Nonsensical For The
`
`Asserted Claims .................................................................................... 15
`
`THE'634 PATENT......................................................................................... 16
`
`A. Factual Issues Preclude Summary Judgment OfNon-
`
`Infringement.......................................................................................... 16
`
`1. In The Context Of The '634 Patent, The Accused Products
`Identify A Number of Correspond enls Having Unread
`
`Messages..................................................................................... 16
`
`2. BlackBerry 's Infringement Position^ Is Nof Inconsistent
`With Its Arguments Made During The IPR Proceedings ........... 19
`
`B. The '634 Patent Is Not Invalid Under § 101 .........................................21
`
`THE'236 PATENT.........................................................................................23
`
`THE'713 PATENT.........................................................................................27
`
`-i- Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRK£
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`|
`
`5 6 7 8 9
`
`|
`10|
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`14|
`15
`16|
`17|
`18
`19|
`20|
`21
`22]
`23
`24|
`25
`26 I
`27
`
`28
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`002
`
`

`

`Case 2
`
`L8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:39973
`
`VI. THE'250 PATENT.........................................................................................28
`
`A. The '250 Patent is Not Directed to An Abstract Idea........................... 28
`
`B. The '250 Patent Claims Additional Inventive Elements ...................... 32
`
`VII. CONCLUSION............................................................................................... 32
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20|
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24|
`25
`26|
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-11-
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`003
`
`

`

`Case 2\
`|L8-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:39974
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Pasefs)
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)...:..................:...............................................26
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Lid. v. CLS Bank Inl'l,
`
`57<3 U.S. 208 (2014).................:.....................................................................31
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
`841 F.33 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................22
`
`Ancora TechnoJosies, Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018);.................................................................7, 24
`
`Bascom Global Inlernel Sen'ices, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................:..........:.......................... 10, 26
`
`Berkbeimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................10, 22, 26, 32
`
`~>omf, Inc. v. SemaConnecf, Inc.,
`
`920 F:3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....:.......................................................24, 25, 31
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electromcs, Inc.,
`
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................22, 30
`
`to Research, LLC v. Assa Abloy, Inc.,
`" 236F.Supp.3d67! (E.D.N:Y. 2017).............................................................. 7
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Goo^/e LL(\
`^6f.3~d999\fed. Cir. WSV.Z.
`
`Diamond v. Diehr,
`
`.22,30,31,32
`
`450 US^'175 (1981).........................................................................................9
`
`Duncan Parkins. Tedis., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc.,
`914 F.3(H347 (Fed. Cir. 2019):..........:.......................................................... 19
`
`En fish, LLCv. Micros off Corp.,
`' 82YF.3d '1327' (^ed^[r. 2016).
`
`Fmfan, Inc. v. Secure Computm^ Corp.,
`
`.22
`
`626 F.3d 1197 (FecT. Cir.^010)...................................................................... 16
`
`In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC Pafenf Lifis.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)';.:.................................................................9, 30
`
`yo Collaborative Sen's, v. PrometJieus Labs., Inc.,
`
`566 U.S. 66 (2012)..........................................:..........................................8, 23
`
`1 2
`
`|
`
`3 4
`
`|
`
`5 6
`
`7 8 9
`
`]
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24|
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-111-
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`004
`
`

`

`Case
`
`LS-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:39975
`
`ftion Techs. LLCv. Blackbeny Corp.,
`No:CV 13-304-LPS, 2016 WL 566198F (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2016).
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Barjc/aj Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................7, 9, 22
`
`\e Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Sen's. Inc.,
`?fl^Jd'13T4(Fed/Gr^2016).^^^.^.^^^lL.....................................
`
`?, Inc. v. InAuth, Inc.,
`No."SACVT7-01289'(C.D. Cal. June 6, 2018).............................................. 19
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'!, Inc.,
`No.t.A. 04-1371-JJF, 2006 WL 2435083 (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2006)............... 6
`
`SRI Int'1, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`' 930 F.3d 1295" (]^d.~Cir/2019).....................................................^
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Sys. ,
`No. l:10-cv-ll5', 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79596 (E.D. Va. May 23,
`2017)^.^..^..^^.^^.'..^^:.^Z.^^^..^^^.^:^:..:.^.^^.^'...............7
`
`'Dev.,LLCv. Intuit Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-180-WCB, 2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014) ............ 7
`
`Trading Techs. In I'], Inc. v. CQG, INC.,
`?75 F. App'x 1001 (Fe3. Cir. 2017)......................................................... 10, 22
`
`Unihc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC\
`
`772 Fed. Appx. 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................26
`
`8
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`141
`
`16|
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`17 || 867 F.^d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 20f7)........................................................................7
`
`1811 Statutory Authorities
`
`19||35U.S.C.§ 101.............................................................................................. 1,6, 7, 23
`
`20|
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24|
`25
`
`26
`27 I
`28
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-IV-
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`005
`
`

`

`Case 21
`
`LS-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:39976
`
`Defendants' Motion urges the Court to invalidate BlackBerry's patents as
`
`impermissibly broad under 35 U.S.C. § 101' while, at the same time, also asking the
`
`Court to find that Defendants do not infringe those patents because they fail to meet
`
`specific, narrow limitations within the claims. The Court should see Defendants'
`
`Motion for what it is—a set of contradictory and inconsistent arguments that serve
`
`only to try and avoid trial. BlackBeny requests that the Court deny it in all respects.
`
`I. THE '961 PATENT
`
`A. Defendants' Non-Infringement Argument Is Untimely and Based
`On A MisinterpretationofBlackBerry's Infringement Theory
`
`Defendants' Motion is based on a belated and counterfactual non-infnngement
`
`theory that ignores the substance of BlackBerry's actual infringement theories.
`
`Defendants' non-mfringement theory (1) is untimely because it was not disclosed
`
`until Defendants' rebuttal expert report. and (2) should be denied in any event because
`
`it is based on a calculated mismterpretation ofBlackBerry's infringement theory.
`
`1. Defendcmts' snmman- judgment motion is based on an untimely
`tion-mfnngement the'oiy tTwt should be excluded.
`
`Defendants' Motion is based entirely on a non-mfnngement argument that was
`
`not disclosed to BlackBerrv until sen'ice of Dr. Katz's rebuttal non-infringement
`
`report—well after the close of fact discover). Tellingly. Defendants argue their
`
`theory regarding "global storage md" was disclosed in "interrogatory responses'
`
`(Mot. at 3-4). but then fail to quote those responses or otherwise prove their assertion.
`
`That is because the theory was not timely disclosed. As described in BlackBerry's
`
`pending Motion to Exclude (Dkts. 529. 557). Defendants' mterrogatory response only
`
`alleged that
`
`1 Defendants have now moved for summary judgment that all nine of the originally
`asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Dkts. 239 ('351. '929. and
`'120 Patents): 267 ('173 Patent). & 540 ('961. '634, '236. '713. and 7250 Patents).
`- The untimely-disclosed non-infringement theoiy that fonns the basis of Defendants'
`summary judgment motion for the '961 Patent is one of four undisclosed theories
`BlackBerry has separately moved to strike. See Dkts. 529. 557.
`
`Case No. 2;18-cv-01S44 GW(KSx)
`-1-
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSmON TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`1 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`?.2
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`006
`
`

`

`Case 2
`
`LS-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 38 Page ID #:39977
`
`without any explanation of its theory or basis for such allegation. Dkt.557-3. Indeed,
`
`Defendants' inten-ogatory responses nowhere even refer to the "global storage md"
`
`variable that now is the basis of its new non-infringement argument. Id.
`
`Moreover, Defendants' Motion underscores the prejudice to BlackBen-y from
`
`the belated disclosure of the instant non-infringement theoiy. As explained below,
`
`Defendants' Motion is based on a misinterpretation of BlackBerry's infringement
`
`theory that could and would have been addressed during fact discovery had
`
`Defendants properly and timely disclosed their non-infringement theoiy. Instead,
`
`Defendants sprang the theory in their rebuttal expert report, after BlackBerry had no
`
`opportunity to respond.
`
`2. Defendants ' non-mfrwgemejit fheoiy is irrelevant and should be
`denied because it ignores BlackBeny 's infringement theories.
`
`Defendants' non-infringement argument is predicated on the incorrect
`
`assumption that BlackBerry and Dr. Rubin identified a value H(SV) generated in step
`
`[b] that is different from the value H(SV) compared in step [c], when in fact they
`
`identified the same exact value—the contents of a data structure called "buf."
`
`More particularly. Defendants' non-infringement argument assumes that
`
`BlackBen-y and Dr. Rubin's infringement theory identifies a variable called "global
`
`storage md" as the H(SV) value generated in step [b]. Mot. at 2-4. But Defendants
`
`are mistaken. As explained in BlackBerry's infringement contentions (Ex. E at 13,
`
`24-31), Dr. Rubin's infringement report (Ex. A at ^ 184-85), and further clarified in
`
`Dr. Rubin's December 19, 2019 Clarifications to Expert Report (Ex. C), the value
`
`H(SV) identified by BlackBen-y is generated and placed into a variable called "buf."
`
`This variable "buf is the same value that is eventually compared to order q to
`
`determine whether it is less than said order q. See id.
`
`Rather than read BlackBerry's and Dr. Rubin's disclosures in context and in
`
`their entirety, Defendants and Dr. Katz have seized upon an isolated typo in which
`
`and Dr. Rubin inadvertently wrote "the Accused instrumentalities
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`14
`
`16|
`
`18
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`26 I
`27
`28 I
`
`-2- Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRKE
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`007
`
`

`

`Case 2\
`
`L8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 38 Page ID #:39978
`
`perform a hash function H( ) on said seed value SV from step [l.b]. which is stored
`
`in the location local_md. to provide an output H(SV). which is placed in global
`
`storage md." Mot. at 2 (emphasis added); but see Ex. C (clarifying "global storage
`
`md" should be "buf). However. it is clear from the rest ofBlackBerry's contentions
`
`and Dr. Rubin's report, however. that the reference to "global storage md" was a
`
`typographical en-or. and was intended to refer to "but" Ex. C; Ex. D at 327:14-328: 1
`
`First, immediately following the passages cited by Defendants. BlackBerry and
`
`Dr. Rubin described the specific technical steps by which the hash function generates
`
`values H(SV) and made clear that—in the penultimate step—the results {i.e.. H(SV))
`
`are stored in the variable "buf." not "global storage md." BlackBerry and Dr. Rubin
`
`explained that
`
`separately made clear that
`I •
`
`The contentions and Rubin report also
`
`A proper readme, taking into account all the relevant disclosure in
`
`BlackBerry's contentions and Dr. Rubin's report, makes clear that BlackBerry's
`
`theory was dependent upon the variable "but?
`
`Second. Defendants and Dr. Katz ignore portions of the contentions and Rubm
`
`report that explain
`
`1
`
`"»
`
`3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20
`
`21
`
`T)
`
`23
`
`24
`
`~'s
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Case No. 2:lS-cv-01S44 GW(KSx)
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSmON TO MOTION FOR SlTMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`-•»-
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`008
`
`

`

`Case 2
`
`L8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 38 Page ID #:39979
`
`Thus, it should have been clear to Defendants that BlackBerry's theory relied on "buf
`
`as the output H(SV) that is determined to be less than said order q—not "global
`
`storage md" which is not present in such determination.
`
`Accordingly, the entirety of the contentions and expert report leave no doubt
`
`that "buf contains H(SV) and that the reference to H(SV) being "placed in global
`
`storage md" was an inadvertent error, as both the detailed technical description of the
`
`generation of the hashed seed value H(SV) in step l[c]. as well as the description of
`
`how that H(SV) is used for the comparison in step 1 [d] explicitly point to L\
`
`Notably, Defendants do not otherwise deny that the value of "buf generated
`
`in step [b] is the same as the value H(SV) compared in step [c]—instead, its position
`
`is entirely dependent on its misplaced reliance on "global storage md." Thus, under
`
`the correct application and understanding ofBlackBerry's infringement theory, there
`
`is no dispute that Defendants' request for a finding of non-infringement should be
`
`denied.
`
`3. BkickBern' did not attempt to change its mfrmgement theon' and
`thus Dr. Riibin 's clarification shouTd not be srncken.
`
`Recognizing that its Motion fails under BlackBerry's acmal infringement
`
`theory. Defendants seek to frame that infringement theory as "untimely" and a
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-4-
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSmON TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`009
`
`

`

`Case 2:1|
`
`8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 38 Page ID #:39980
`
`"wholesale change to [BlackBerry's] theory of 'an output H(SV)' in step 1 [b]." Mot.
`
`at 4-6. Not so. As explained above, notwithstanding the sole typo seized upon by
`
`Defendants, BlackBerry's contentions and Dr. Rubin's report consistently referred to
`
`"buf" as containing H(SV) and "global storage md" as containing data used in
`
`generating the seed value SV. See\
`
`In fact, had Defendants timely disclosed their non-mfringement theory during
`
`fact discovery. BlackBeny could and would have clarified and corrected the typo
`
`sooner. But rather than attempt to address the inconsistency between the typo and the
`
`remainder ofBlackBerry's infringement disclosures (which clearly pointed to "but
`
`as containing the "output H(SV)"). Defendants ignored the inconsistency and
`
`umlaterally adopted their own inteqiretation ofBlackBerr}^'s infringement theory-
`
`an inteq^retation it failed to disclose during discovery and only presented for the first
`
`time in Dr. Katz's rebuttal expert report.3 Once this misunderstanding became clear.
`
`Dr. Rubm submitted a correction that replaced]
`
`to Defendants' assertions, no edits were made to the source code identified in the
`
`section of Dr. Rubin's report corresponding to "performing a hash function H() on
`
`said seed value SV to provide an output H(SV)." Compare Mot. at 5 (alleging that
`
`Dr. Rubufs clarifications "replaced the source code citations in [paragraph 181] to
`
`And contrary
`
`3 This is not the first time Defendants have unilaterallv misconstmed BlackBen-v's
`infringement theories while failing to put BlackBen-y on notice thereof. During
`discovery, as this Court found. "Facebook appears to have strategically ignored
`BlackBen-v's infringement alleeations and contentions and unilaterally limited the
`scope of its discovery responses." Dkt. 463 at 9.
`
`Case No. 2:lS-cv-01S44 GW(KSx)
`-s-
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSmON TO MOTION FOR SL-MMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`1 -
`
`) 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`20]
`21
`
`')?
`
`23
`24|
`25
`26|
`27
`
`28
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`010
`
`

`

`Case 2
`
`8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 38 Page ID #:39981
`
`point to different OpenSSL code"), with Ex. A (making no such edits in ^ 181 or any
`
`other paragraph in the "performing a hash function" section).4
`
`Moreover, despite this misunderstanding resulting from Defendants' own
`
`failure to timely disclose its non-infringement theory, BlackBerry offered to postpone
`
`Dr. Rubin's deposition, produce Dr. Rubin for an additional hour of deposition at a
`
`later date, and even to accept a supplemental report from Dr. Katz. Ex. FF; Schmidt
`
`Decl. ^ 38. Having rejected all of these offers, Defendants cannot now claim prejudice
`
`or otherwise seek to strike the corrections. See, e.g., Power Integrations, Inc. v.
`
`FaircHJd Semiconductor Im'l, Inc., No. C.A. 04-1371-JJF, 2006 WL 2435083, at *1
`
`(D. Del. Aug. 22, 2006) (rejecting party's claim that it would be prejudiced by
`
`a supplemental expert report served the day before deposition where the party was
`
`permitted to reschedule the deposition for a later date). This is particularly so in light
`
`of Defendants having had a full and fair opportunity to question Dr. Rubin about the
`
`corrections and his theories of infringement. See, e.g.. Ex. D at 142:5-16, 144:10-
`
`148:18,152:8-153:13, 175:4-177:2,195:15-199:19,228:15-21,320:11-323:2.
`
`B. Defendants' Section 101 Argument Improperly Strips The Claim
`Of All Relevant Limitations-And Context
`
`The Court should also deny Defendants' request to invalidate the '961 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as Defendants have not met their burden of proof with respect
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`17|
`18||
`
`to either Alice step. As an initial matter. Defendants' argument should be denied
`^^ -^-. „..„ ..^. ... „„ _„„ „„„-.,
`
`because it improperly dismisses significant relevant claim limitations as mere
`
`"cryptography jargon." Defendants' argument is thus based on a version of the
`
`Dr. Rubin also provided a few corrections to ^ 166 and 176 in the "generating a
`seed value" section of his report. Ex. C. Those corrections were not in the
`"performing a hash function" section that Defendants take issue with in its Motion.
`Many other courts have denied similar attempts to invalidate cryptography patents
`by ignoring key limitations. See, e.g., MAZ Encryption Techs. LLC v. BJackberjy
`Corp., No. CV 13-304-LPS, 2016 WL 5661981,at *5,*7-8(D. Del. Sept. 29, 2016)
`("Defendant's analogy is unpersuasive. . . . encryption is a relatively sophisticated,
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`24|
`25
`26|
`27
`
`28
`
`-6- CaseNo.2:18-cv-01844GW(KSx)
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`011
`
`

`

`Case 2:
`
`8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 38 Page ID #:39982
`
`asserted claim at its highest level of abstraction—effectively presenting a straw man
`
`that Defendants then frame as an abstract idea. But in so doing, Defendants ignore
`
`controlling precedent, as well as the specific cryptographic and computational
`
`limitations that provide context and make clear that the '961 Patent invention is far
`
`from an abstract idea, or, at a minimum, comprises an inventive concept to render it
`
`patent-eligible.
`
`1. Alice Step One
`
`Inventions directed to an improvement in computer-related technology or that
`
`solve a specific problem in a technological field are not abstract ideas. See, e.g., SRI
`
`7/7/7, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims
`
`directed to using network monitors to identify intruders in the network were not
`
`abstract); Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTCAm., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (claims directed to using license records to authorize user access to programs
`
`were not abstract); Visual Memoiy LLC v. NVID1A Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed to an improved memory system were not abstract);
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(claims were "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation,
`
`i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type" and thus were not abstract).
`
`computer-implemented method of protecting data, unlike the simple, human-
`executable method described in Defendant's analogy."); TecSec, Ific. v. Adobe Sys.,
`No. l:10-cv-115, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79596, at *12-14 (E.D. Va. May 23, 2017^
`(finding claims were "not reducible to putting a sealed envelope (single-level
`encryption) into a second sealed envelope (multi-level encryption) for extra security"
`but rather provided "a specific solution"); Crypto Research, LLC v. Assa Abloy, Inc.,
`236 F. Supp. 3d 671, 684 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (findings claims eligible under § 101
`because they included an "additional limitation" for the claimed cryptographic
`function that was "not simply a 'trivial appendix to the underlying abstract idea'");
`TQPDev., LLC v. Intuit Inc., No. 2:12-cv-180-WCB, 2014 WL 651935, at *3-4, *7
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014) (explaining that the claim limitations "add required steps
`to the core idea underlying the invention" and "nan-ow the claim relative to the
`fundamental principle therein").
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-7-
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`012
`
`

`

`Case 2
`
`8-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 13 of 38 Page ID #:39983
`
`Here, there is no question the asserted claim of the '961 Patent is directed to a
`
`specific improvement in the computer-related field of cryptography. The claim is
`
`directed to generating a cryptographic key "for use in a cryptographic function" that
`
`avoids a specific vulnerability identified in the prior art. As explained in the
`
`background of the invention (col. 2, 11. 23-61), it was discovered by Daniel
`
`Bleichenbacher that certain methods of generating cryptographic keys—including
`
`those "mandated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) FIPS
`
`186-2 Standard"—were vulnerable to a specific attack that would allow hackers to
`
`ascertain cryptographic keys generated using the methods. As explained by an
`
`[inventor of the '961 Patent and by Dr. Rubin at their depositions, Bleichenbacher's
`
`discovery of this attack "was big news in the crypto community," Ex. D at 22:6-26:14,
`
`and "rather surprising." Ex. EE at 26-27'. Indeed, the key generation methods
`
`susceptible to this attack included those used by the financial services industry. Ex. A
`
`at ^ 257. The '961 Patent provided a specific solution to generating ciyptographic
`
`keys vulnerable to this so-called Bleichenbacher attack by disclosing and claiming
`
`specific steps for cryptographic key generation resulting in an improved, more secure
`
`cryptographic key.6 See also Ex. B ^ 229-234.
`
`Defendants, however, incorrectly argue that the .patent "is directed to the
`
`abstract idea of random number generation," despite the fact that generating a random
`
`number is just one of the steps of the asserted claim (i.e., "generating a seed value SV
`
`from a random number generator"). Id. Defendants' "abstract idea" ignores other
`
`steps, such as "performing a hash function" and "providing said key for use in
`
`performing said cryptographic function." Indeed, Defendants argue that the '961
`
`The specific steps and limitations recited in the asserted claim also narrow the
`invention to the field of generating cryptographic keys, thereby avoiding any concern
`the Court may have with respect to "avoiding patents that 'too broadly preempt the
`use of a natural law or abstract idea.'" Dkt. 468 at 4 (quoting Mayo Collaborative
`Sen's, v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)).
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-8-
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`013
`
`

`

`Case 2:t|8-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 14 of 38 Page ID #:39984
`
`1 Patent is directed to an abstract idea only by manipulating and deleting specific
`
`2 cryptographic limitations from the claim under the pretense that they are nothing more
`
`3 || than "cryptography jargon." Mot. at 7-9. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly rejected
`
`4 || such an approach and "cautioned that courts must be careful to avoid oversimplifying
`
`5 || the claims." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (internal citations omitted); In re TLI Commc 'ns
`
`6 \\LLC Patent LHig., 823 F.3d 607,611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450
`
`7 ||U.S. 175, 189 n.l2 (1981) (cautioning that overgeneralizing claims, "if carried to its
`
`8 [| extreme, make[s] all inventions un-patentable because all inventions can be reduced
`
`9 to underlying principles of nature which, once known, make their implementation
`
`10 obvious"). Here, Defendants go far beyond "overs imp lify ing" the claim language of
`
`11 || the '961 Patent—they delete and rewrite almost every word of the claim. Mot. at 8.
`
`12 I [ When properly considered in its cryptographic context, the claims of the '961
`
`13 ]| Patent are directed to a specific solution for generating secure cryptographic keys that
`
`14 overcomes the Bleichenbacher vulnerability—not to an abstract idea. Defendants"
`
`15 arguments therefore fail under Alice Step One.
`
`16 2. Alice Step Two
`
`17 || The asserted claim is also patent eligible because it provides an inventive
`
`18 || concept under Alice Step Two. Contrary to Defendants' assertions, the claim does
`
`19 ]| not "merely recite generating a random value, determining if the value falls within the
`
`20 |] desired range, and then accepting or rejecting the value based on the determination."
`
`21 || Mot. at 9. Again, Defendants' argument misreads the claim and omits key limitations,
`
`22 || such as "performing a hash function" and "providing said key k for use in performing
`
`23 said cryptographic function." Only by ignoring these and other limitations can
`
`24 ]| Defendants argue that the claim "merely restate[s] the abstract idea itself." Mot. at
`
`25||10.
`
`26 |] Defendants also asserts that the claim is directed to the abstract idea of
`
`27 || generating a random number (Mot. at 6) but generating a random seed value SV is
`
`28 just one of the steps of the claim. The remaining steps transform that seed value into
`
`-9- Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`BLACKBERRY'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT & MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1024
`IPR2019-00706
`
`014
`
`

`

`Case 2
`
`|8-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 583 Filed 01/27/20 Page 15 of 38 Page ID #:39985
`
`a cryptographic key k that is improved and more secure than ciyptographic keys
`
`generated using prior art methods. Ex. B ^ 236-243.
`
`Defendants further argue that the individual elements of the asserted claim
`
`"reflect well-known concepts of the prior art" (Mot. at 7), but ignore that the ordered
`
`combination can and does establish an inventive concept. See Bascom Global Internet
`
`\Sen'ices, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The
`
`inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by
`
`itself, was known in the art. As is the case here, an inventive concept can be found in
`
`the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.").
`
`Facebook does not argue, and has therefore waived any argument that the ordered
`
`combination of the purportedly "well-known concepts" claimed in the '961 Patent
`
`was unconventional or known. Tellmgly, Defendants' other invalidity theories are all
`
`based on combinations of multiple references—because the inventive concept of the
`
`'961 Patent was unconventional and unique. Ex. B ^ 238-240, 243. At a minimum,
`
`whether the asserted claim is directed to conventional concepts is a factual dispute.
`
`See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Ch-. 2018).
`
`Also unavailing is Facebook's argument that the problem being solved was not
`
`initially discovered by the inventors. Mot. at 9. The inventors' involvement in
`
`discovering the technological problem ultimately solved by their invention is
`
`irrelevant to the issue of whether the patent is directed to solving that specific
`
`technological problem. See Trading Techs. Int'J, Inc. v. CQG, INC., 675 F. App'x
`
`1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding patent directed to eligible subject matter where
`
`it "resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art."). For all of
`
`these reasons. Defendants' request to invalidate the '961 Patent should be denied.
`
`II. THE '120 PATENT
`
`A. Factual Issues Preclude Summary Judgment Of Non-Infringement
`
`This is not the first time the Cou