Cas 2:18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 633 Filed 0207120 Pagelof 22 PagelD #:44069
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
`(rhodesmg@cooley.com)
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`
`San Francisco, CA 9411 1-5800
`
`Telephone: (415) 693-2000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 693-2222
`
`HEIDI L. KEEFE (178960)
`(hkeefe@cooley.com)
`MARK R- WEINSTEIN (193043)
`(mweinstein@cooley.com)
`MATTHEW J. BRIGHAM (191428)
`(mbrigham@cooley.com)
`3175 Hanover Street
`
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1 130
`Telephone:
`(650) 843-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-7400
`
`Attorneys/0r Defendants
`FA C‘EBOOK, INC, WHA TSAPP INC,
`
`and INSTA GRA M, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC,
`
`WHATSAPP INC ., and
`
`IN STAGRAM LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT AND MOTION To
`STRIKE
`
`The Hon. George H. Wu
`
`Hearing Date: February 20, 2020
`Time: 8:30 am.
`
`Ctrm: 9D
`
`\DOOHJONUI-b—LJJMH
`
`NNNNMNNNNF—F—I—I——I——I—WHJONLh-bmmh‘owwfiaJONLh-bmmh‘o
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`DEFENDAN'IS‘ REPLY [SO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY J UDGMENI'
`
`001
`
`Facebook’s Ex. 1026
`
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`001
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02107120 PageZof 22 PagelD #:44070
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`1.
`
`US. PATENT NO. 7,372,961
`A.
`The ’96] Patent is Not Infringed Under the Theory BlackBerrfi
`0t
`Has Asserted Throughout Thls Case, and BlackBerry Should
`Be Allowed to Change Its Theory Now ................................................. 1
`
`1
`
`The Sole Asserted ’961 Patent, Claim 2, is Invalid Under § 101 .......... 3
`B.
`II.
`US. PATENT NO. 93491205
`111. US. PATENT NO. 8,209,634 9
`A.
`Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Should Be Granted ............. 9
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................... 11
`B.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8429236 12
`vs. PATENT NO.830171314
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8677250 15
`
`1V.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`i
`
`DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY [SO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`002
`
`Facebook’s Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`1 2
`
`3
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l?
`
`l8
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`2?
`
`28
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`002
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02t07t20 Page30f 22 PagelD #:44071
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`l 2
`
`3 4
`
`5 AIice Corp. Pty. v. CLSBanIc Int’i,
`6
`573 US. 208 (2014)................................................................................ 4, 5, 12, 15
`
`7 Ancora Techs. v. HT(.7Am.,
`8
`908 F_3d 1343 (Fed, C11: 2018) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 5, 13
`
`9 Aptafis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`718 F. App’x 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................... 11
`
`10
`
`”
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc,
`788 F_3d 1371 (Fed, C11: 2015) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 13
`
`Bascom GfobaI Internet Servs., Inc. v. A T& T MobiIity LIJC,
`827 F_3d 1341 (Fed, C11: 2016) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 14
`
`380 Tech v. Buyseasons,
`899 F_3d 1281 (Fed, Cir_ 2018) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4
`
`‘6 Charchoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc,
`17
`920 F_3d 259 (Fed, Cir_ 2019) .............................................................................. 12
`
`18
`19
`
`Core WireIess Licensing SARIJ v. LG 1516303.,
`880 F_3d 1356 (Fed, Cir. 2018) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 16
`
`20 Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Googie LLC,
`906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 16
`
`21
`
`22 Datamtze, LLC v. I’Iumtree Soflware, Inc,
`417 F .3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 US. 898 (2014) ............................ 8
`
`23
`
`2‘4
`25
`
`Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F_3d 1350 (Fed, Cir_ 2016) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4, 11
`
`26 Halltburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`27
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 13
`
`28
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`ii
`
`DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY [SO
`MO'I‘ION FOR Smmuw JUDGMENT
`
`003
`
`Facebook’s Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`003
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02l07l20 Page40f 22 PagelD #:44072
`
`\DCXJHO‘NLh-b-UJN—
`
`”NMNMNNMMI—‘l—‘I—I—II—I—I—II—I—II—mflmmLmN—CwmflamLWN—O
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech, Inc,
`540 F.3d 1337 ......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Bank,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed Cir, 2015) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed, Cir. 2017) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4
`
`Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. (.‘lontech Labs, Inc,
`429 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 14
`
`MAZ Encryption Techs. v. Blackberry,
`No. 13-304-LPS, 2016 WL 5661981 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2016) .............................. 5
`
`Mortg. Grader v. First Choice Loan Servs.,
`811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 5, 13
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. ,
`572 US. 898 (2014)................................................................................................ 8
`
`Personal Web Tech. v. Google,
`No. l3-cv-13 17, 2020 WL 470189 (ND. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020) ............................... 4
`
`Saflran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed, Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 10, 11
`
`Sitrick v. Dreamworlcs,
`
`516 F.3d 993 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................ 5
`
`SRI In! ’l v. (.‘isco Sys,
`
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 5, 13
`
`In re TLI Commc ’ns LLC Patent Ling,
`323 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 12, 14, 15
`
`Wading Techs. Int ’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 15
`DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY [SO
`MO'I‘ION FOR Smmuw JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`iii
`
`004
`
`Facebook’s Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`004
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02107120 PageSof 22 PagelD #:44073
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`TWo-Way Media v. Comcas! Cable Commc ’m‘,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Unilac USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC,
`772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... 14
`
`Statutes
`
`3S U-S-C-§ 101 ............................................................................................ 3, 5,11,15
`
`.—
`
`\DOOHJQLA-b-UJM
`
`”NMNMNNMMI—‘l—‘I—I—II—I—I—II—I—II—WHJCNLh-p-UJN—‘owwfiaJCNLh-h-LHN—O
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`iv
`
`DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY [SO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`005
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`005
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02(071’20 Page60f 22 PagelD #:44074
`
`I—‘
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Defendants submit the following reply in support of their motion for summary
`
`judgment and motion to strike:
`
`l.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,372,961
`
`A.
`
`The ’96] Patent is Not Infrin ed Under the Theory BlackBerry Has
`Asserted Throughout This
`ase, and BlackBerry Should Not Be
`Allowed to Change Its Theory Now
`
`BlackBerry does not dispute that under the only theory it advanced throughout
`
`this cas&%that the accused value for “output H(SV)” in claim 1[b] is the value stored
`
`in the global variable md—Facebook does not infringe the ’961 patent. The Court
`
`should grant summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to this theory.l
`
`10 Whether BlackBerry should be allowed to change its theory should be decided
`
`I 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`separately from the issue of summary judgment. For the reasons explained below, it
`
`should not be permitted to do so.
`
`BlackBeITy’s opposition argues that Facebook and its expert were “mistaken”
`
`in interpreting BlackBerry’s infringement theory as alleging that the value placed in
`
`“global storage md” was the accused H(SV) in step 1[b].
`
`(Opp. at 2,) But this is
`
`precisely what BlackBerry said, both in its infringement contentions and in the report
`
`of its expert, Dr. Rubin. For example, BlackBerry’s infringement contentions stated:
`
`
`
`(Opp, Ex, E at 21 (emphasis added); see also ECF 552 at 2 (excerpt from preliminary
`
`infringement contentions served in September 2018 including the same allegation).)
`
`22 And BlackBerry’s expert report said substantially the same thing:
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`27 —
`
`1 As ex lained in Defendants’ 0 position to BlackBerry’s motion to exclude Dr. Katz,
`28 Defen ants properly disclosed tIIJ'Iis non-infringement position. (See ECF 600.)
`DEFENDAN'I'S' REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR Sun-mm Jl'DGMEN'l'
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—Ul844—GW—KSx
`
`1
`
`006
`
`Facebook's EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`006
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed OZIO'HZO PageTr‘of 22 PagelD #:44075
`
`(Opp. Ex. A. ‘llSl (highlighting added).) BlackBerry’s identification of “global
`
`storage md” was not a mere typo as BlackBe
`
`
`’ claims. Followin and in support of
`
`
`
`included a block of source code that included line 533 below. which
`
`[NJ
`
`DJ
`
`1)..42..
`
`\DGOHJCN
`
`
`
`ECF 552-14. Katz Decl. Ex. B at 7’0-7’1. '155 citinor Rubin Re on and identi
`
` ' see also, e.g., Opp. Ex. E at 23 (showing citation to code in the
`
`ring
`
`infringement contentions).) Dr. Rubin‘s source code citations were entirely consistent
`
`with BlackBerry’s repeated and unequivocal allegation that the accused H(SV) in
`
`claim l[b] is the value placed in the global variable md.
`
`The crux of BlackBerry’s argument is that Facebook should have discovered
`
`BlackBerry’s mistake, based on the “context” and “entirety” of its infringement
`
`theory. and disregarded BlackBerry’s express allegations. But the statements quoted
`
`above identifying “global storage md” as the claimed “output H(SV)” are the onlv
`
`statements in BlackBegy’s contentions or expert report that actually tie the accused
`
`source code to the “output HgSV)” limitation in claim 1|b|. BlackBerry and its expert
`
`never cited or referred to “buf‘ as the claimed output H(SV).
`
`(Opp. Ex. E at 24
`
`(including source code that includes a formula for the variable “buf‘ but no allegation
`
`that “but" is the value H(SV)); id. at 13. 24-31 (including allegations for other claim
`
`limitations and no allegations that these are related to H(SV) in limitation l[b]): Opp.
`
`Ex. A. “H 184-85 (cepying the infringement contentions at 24 to describe some code
`
`that includes buf, but never tying that code to the value H(SV)).) Nothing in
`DEFENDAXTS’ REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR SI'MMAR‘L' JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2: l 3-CV-01844-GW-KSX
`
`2
`
`007
`
`Facebook's EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`007
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 633 Filed OZIO'HZO PageSof 22 PagelD #:44076
`
`BlackBerry’s contentions or expert report called into question the explicit allegation
`
`that global md is the accused H(SV). As for Facebook’s reasonable reliance on that
`
`allegation in its response, Dr. Rubin acknowledged:
`
`
`
`(ECF 552-2, 325: 1 8-3265.)
`
`BlackBerry’s attempt to shift the blame to Facebook should be rejected.
`
`It was
`
`BlackBerry’s responsibility as the patentee to understand what it accused and to
`
`diligently investigate non-infringement positions clearly provided in discovery. As
`
`explained in Facebook’s opening brief and in its opposition to BlackBerry’s motion
`
`to strike relating to Dr. Katz, Facebook explicitly informed BlackBerry in its
`
`interrogatory responses—months before service of its opening expert report—that the
`
`code it identified for the “determining” step “operates on a value different from the
`
`accused H(SV).” (ECF 552-5 at 2.)
`
`The prejudice from this late change in theory is clear. Facebook and its expert
`
`relied on and responded to the s ecific alle ations made by BlackBerry—which even
`Dr. Rubin acknowledgedifliCF 552-2, 325:18-32625.) Dr. Rubin
`
`made his changes after service of Dr. Katz’s report and after his deposition, giving Dr.
`
`Katz no opportunity to respond. If the Court were to permit BlackBerry to change its
`
`infringement theory qfler the service of all expert reports, Facebook’s expert would
`
`need an opportunity to provide a supplemental
`
`report
`
`to respond to them.
`
`BlackBerry’s change simply came too late and would be too prejudicial.
`
`B.
`
`The Sole Asserted ’96] Patent, Claim 2, is Invalid Under § 101
`
`BlackBerry argues “the claims of the ’96] Patent are directed to a specific
`
`solution for generating secure cryptographic keys that overcomes the Bleichenbacher
`
`\DOOHJONLh-Ib-LJJM—‘
`
`MNMNMNNMNH—IH—nHH—H—nH
`
`OOHJQUWLLHN—‘OwOOHJONLh-b-WN—‘O
`
`vulnerability.” (Opp. at 9.) But the sole asserted method claim uses only “result-
`DEI-‘IENDAN'I'S' REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR Sun-mm Jt'DGMEN’l'
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`3
`
`008
`
`Facebook's EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`008
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02i07i20 Pagerf 22 PagelD #:44077
`
`based functional language” to require the generic results of “determining” whether a
`
`generated random value is less than a given desired range, “accepting” that value if it
`
`is less than the given range, and “providing” it to some other process to use, and
`
`“rejecting” the value and starting over if it is not less than the given range.
`
`(Mot. at
`
`8-9-2) Such a basic concept, embodied in a method claim reciting only abstract,
`
`functional results, is not patent-eligible subject matter. E.g., Eiec. Power Grp. v.
`
`Alsiom SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1351, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“lengthy” claims reciting
`
`“functions” but no actual improvement in computer technology); Two- Way Media v.
`
`(Tomcast Cable (.‘ommc’ns, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim required
`
`functional results, but did not “sufficiently describe how to achieve [the] results in a
`
`non-abstract way”). Under Alice step 1, when the claims are properly “[s]tripped of
`
`excess verbiage,” the claims are “directed to” nothing more than the abstract idea of
`
`generating a random value within a desired range, no different in substance than
`
`generating random values in games of chance, such as roulette or craps. Intellectual
`
`Ventures I v. Capital One Fm, 850 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017); PersonaiWeb
`
`Tech. v. Googfe, No. 13-cv-131?, 2020 WL 470189, at *1-5, *13 (ND. Cal. Jan. 29,
`
`2020) (invalidating claims applying a cryptographic hash fill’lCtiOl’l).
`
`At Alice step 2, BlackBerry mistakenly argues that Defendants “waived” any
`
`argument that the ordered combination was unconventional.
`
`(Opp. at 10.) But
`
`Defendants’ opening brief plainly argued the “claim limitations here, whether
`
`individually or as an ordered combination, merely restate the abstract
`
`idea of
`
`repeatedly generating random numbers until an acceptable value is obtained.” (Mot.
`
`at 10 (emphasis added).) “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of
`
`an abstract idea using conventional and well—understood techniques, the claim has not
`
`been transformed” into patent-eligible subject matter. BSG Tech v. Buyseasons, 899
`
`F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Mot. at 9-10; ECF 552-14, Katz Decl., Ex. A,
`
`\DOOHO‘NLh-b-LJJM—
`
`”NMNMNNMMI—‘l—‘I—I—II—I—I—II—I—II—WHJCNLh-p-UJN—‘owwM-JCNUWLLHN—o
`
`2 Claim 2 generates another value like the abstract “rejecting” step of claim 1.
`DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY [SO
`MOTION FOR Sunvmkv JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`4
`
`009
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`009
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02(07i20 Page 10 of 22 PagelD #144078
`
`.—
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`1111 61-77, 81-86, 305-312. The concepts in the asserted claim are so basic, they do not
`
`distinguish the claim from the abstract idea itself.
`
`(Mot. at 8.) BlackBerry itself is
`
`unable to articulate any “inventive concept” in claim 2.
`
`Nor does BlackBerry identify any actual “factual dispute” over A lice step 2.
`
`(See Opp- at 10.) BlackBerry simply invokes “Ex. B 1111 23 8-240, 243,” but conclusory
`
`expert testimony is not sufficient to defeat summary judgment. E.g., Sitrick v.
`
`”i Dreamworks, 516 F.3d 993, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mortg. Grader v. First Choice
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Loan Servs., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming grant of summary
`
`judgment of § 101 invalidity despite expert declaration). Nothing recited in claim 2
`
`10
`
`“transform[s] the abstract idea into something more” that is patent eligible. Two- Way
`
`11 Media, 874 F-3d at 1339.3
`
`12
`
`13
`
`l4
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1?
`
`18
`
`l9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`11.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,349,120
`
`BlackBerry has struggled throughout this litigation to explain why the visual
`
`cues provided by all accused products (blue dot, bolded text, etc.), and the additional
`
`physical one provided by Instagram (Vibration), do not qualify as “notifications” under
`
`the ’120 patent. Every single time BlackBerry has spoken about this issue, it has
`
`abandoned earlier theories and offered new explanations, and its opposition here is no
`
`exception- But BlackBerry’s shifting arguments cannot change the undisputed
`
`operation of the accused products and the lack of any issue of material fact.
`
`BlackBerry argues that the fact that its earlier motion for summary judgment
`
`failed means that Defendants’ motion should suffer the same fate.
`
`(Opp. at 10-11.)
`
`But BlackBerry bears the burden of establishing infringement and the record has
`
`changed considerably since BlackBerry’s motion. For example, in arguing that the
`
`24
`
`visual cues provided by Defendants’ products were not “notifications,” BlackBerry’s
`
`25 W are unavailing. EfiuSR1Int’i v. Cisco Sysg 930 F.3d 1295,
`26
`i2331(ie%f('r.43£)199)11§1?3‘313‘113tefé‘fécaret;“ET?"£3is3f(§1§1‘ilcqufitzerLi;cA"i353
`27
`Techs. v. Biackberr ,No. 133-0-4LPS, 20 6 WL 5661981, at *7)(D. Del. SQ)? 29,
`2016) (specific1mp ementation requiring “-twotable limitatlons”).
`
`28
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K5x
`
`5
`
`anzmnxs-rs' REPLY 150
`MOTION mu SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`010
`
`Facebook’s Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`010
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed OZIOWZO Page 11 of 22 PagelD #144079
`
`\DOOHO‘NLh-b-LJJM—
`
`NNNNMNNNNF—F—I—I——I——I—WHJCNMLWN—owwraJCNLh-me—o
`
`earlier motion spent several pages attempting to analogize those cues to the numeric
`
`counter mentioned in the Court’s claim construction order and pointing to excerpts of
`
`the prosecution history.
`
`(ECF 317 at 17-21.)4 The Court rejected both arguments.
`
`(ECF 468 at 50 (“BlackBerry’s reliance on portions of the intrinsic record in crafting
`
`its arguments appears somewhat irrelevant, given that the bolding and blue dot in
`
`Facebook Defendants’ example from the accused instrumentalities is different than
`
`simply adding a numeric counter.”),) BlackBerry’s opposition here largely abandons
`
`those points and relies on new arguments. And those arguments either lack any
`
`evidentiary support in the record or rely on incorrect legal arguments.
`
`Visual Notifications: With respect to the visual cues, BlackBerry argues that
`
`they “were not intended to draw attention at the time the message is received.” (Opp.
`
`at 1 1 (italics in original)_) But BlackBerry does not even argue that there is any delay
`
`between the receipt of a new message and the presentation of these visual cues. The
`
`parties are in full agreement that these visual cues appear simultaneously with receipt
`
`of the incoming message.
`
`(ECF 552-12, 116; ECF 552-1 1, 115; ECF 552-10, 116; ECF
`
`540-18 Ex. 14, 161223-1622 (“Q. So at the time that the message comes in [] the
`
`message chat is displayed with both the blue dot and with the blue coloring ofthe time
`
`value- Correct? A. That’s correct.”).)
`
`BlackBerry also makes much of the fact that Defendants’ internal documents
`
`do not specifically refer to these visual cues as “notifications.” The way the visual
`
`cues work is undisputed, and the Court has provided an express construction of
`
`“notifications.” Whether those undisputed visual cues are described internally as
`
`“notifications” is irrelevant to whether they meet the Court’s express definition.
`
`BlackBerry next makes a new claim construction argumentithat the visual
`
`cues provided by the accused products cannot be “notifications” because the claim
`
`4 BlackBeny inaccurately states that it brou ht its motion for summary jud ment
`“after the close of fact discovery”_(0pp. at 1).
`lackBerry filed its motlon on Ju y 18,
`2019 (ECF 24?), approximately srx weeks before the close of fact discovery.
`DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY [SO
`MOTION FOR Sunvmmr JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`6
`
`O1 1
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`011
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed OZIOWZO Page 12 of 22 PagelD #144080
`
`separately recites the ability to display a silenced message thread “in a different
`
`manner” from a non-silenced thread.
`
`(Opp. at 12-13.) But nothing in the Court’s
`
`claim construction or the patent specification suggests that a visual notification cannot
`
`be manifested as a change in the way a message thread appears in the inbox. The
`
`“displayed..- in a different manner” limitation provides a way to visually distinguish
`
`silenced from non-silenced threads. The visual cues provided by the accused
`
`products, on the other hand, appear identically for both muted and non-muted threads.5
`
`BlackBerry also argues that Dr. Rosenberg provided “credible testimony that a
`
`POSITA would not consider minor visual differences such as bolded text and blue
`
`dots to be notifications in light of the examples in the patent.” (Opp. at 13.) But these
`
`are just legal arguments about the meaning of “notifications,” dressed up as expert
`
`testimony. BlackBerry’s argument appears to be that the phrase in the Court’s
`
`construction, “that would not otherwise have been noticed,” requires a cue that is more
`
`shocking, jarring or otherwise more intrusive than what the accused products’ visual
`
`cues provide. But the Court’s construction does not impose any such requirement.
`
`The visual cues (c.g., blue dot, bolded text, etc.) clearly draw the user’s attention to
`
`message conversations with new messages, and BlackBerry does not dispute that
`
`without them, a user could not visually distinguish a conversation that has new
`
`messages from one that does not. (ECF 552-7, 181 :16-182z9.)
`
`Instagram Vibration Notifications: Even if the Court were to find factual
`
`issues with respect to the visual cues, it must grant partial summary judgment with
`
`respect to Instagmm BlackBerry’s opposition doubles down on the sole argument it
`
`has, that the haptic vibration is not a “notification” because it occurs while the
`
`\DOOHO‘NLh-b-LJJM—
`
`NNNNMNNNNF—F—I—I—u—ni—I—I—WHJCNMLWN—wafiaJCNLh-me—o
`
`5 BlackBerry also argues the inventor testified that the atent was intended to prevent
`what he callcd_“verbose” notifications.
`((gpp. at 13.)
`ut the Court has provlded an
`ex ress definltlon of “notifications” that
`r. Kalu admitted that he had never seen.
`( eefe Decl- Ex. 35, 16424-16524.) Mr. Kalu’s testimony is thus irrelevant to the
`meanin% of “notifications.” See Howmedica ()steonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech,
`Inc, 54 F.3d 133 1', 134? (Fed. Cir. 2008) F‘EIlnventor testimony as to the inventor’s
`subjective intent is irrelevant to the issue
`0 arm construction.” . DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY [SO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY .l UDGMENT
`
`o 7
`
`"
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`012
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`012
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 02(07i20 Page 13 of 22 PagelD #144081
`
`Instagram inbox is displayed on the screen.
`
`BlackBerry’s argument should be rejected because, aside from having no
`
`support in the claim language as explained in Defendants’ opening brief, it turns the
`
`definition of “notification” into a subjective inquiry into whether or not a user would
`
`be distracted by the particular visual or physical cue in question. For example,
`
`BlackBeny argues that the purpose of the patent is to “prevent unwanted notifications
`
`that would distract a user in situations where the user is not focused on the messaging
`
`application,” and thus, “[a] haptic bump that is provided only when the application is
`
`opened and navigated to the inbox would not provide such a distraction from other
`
`tasks.” (Opp. at 13-14 (emphasis added).) In other words, a user who happens to be
`
`staring at her lnstagram inbox is already focused on her messaging application, and
`
`thus, a new message vibration does not provide a “distraction” from that task.
`
`Putting aside that the concept of “distraction” is found nowhere in the Court’s
`
`construction or the patent specification (which does not contain even one instance of
`
`the word “distraction” or any variant of it), BlackBerry’s argument
`
`is entirely
`
`subjective—it would cause the definition of “notification” to turn on what a human
`
`operator happens to be doing at the moment the vibration occurs.
`
`If the inbox is
`
`displayed but the user happens to be doing something else (or for some other reason
`
`is not looking directly at her phone), then a new message vibration could certainly
`
`provide “a distraction from other tasks.” (Id)
`
`The Court should also reject BlackBerry’s argument because it would render
`
`the claims indefinite under § 1 12. The Federal Circuit has made clear that claims are
`
`indefinite when their scope turns on the subjective experience of a human operator.
`
`See, c.g., IntervaI Licensing v. AOL, Inc, 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
`
`Datamize, LLC‘ v. Plumtree Sofiware, Inc, 417 F.3d 1342, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2005),
`
`abrogated on other grounds Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 US. 898
`
`(2014)- For example, the Federal Circuit in Interval Licensing held that the claim
`
`\DOOHO‘NLh-b-LJJM—
`
`NNNNMNNNNF—F—I—I——l——I—WHJCNMLWN—wafiaJCNLh-me—o
`
`phrase, “unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user,” was indefinite in a
`DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY [SO
`MOTION FOR Sunvmkv .l UDGMENT
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`8
`
`013
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`013
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed OZIOWZO Page 14 onZ Page|D#:44082
`
`I—l
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`l9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`claim directed at presenting information to a user through a computer display. The
`
`Federal Circuit found the phrase “highly subjective” and cited with approval the
`
`district court’s observation that “whether something distracts a user from his primary
`
`interaction depends on the preferences of the particular user and the circumstances
`
`under which any single user interacts with the display.” Interval Licensing, 766 F.3d
`
`at 13711- The court found the phrase indefinite because it “offers no objective
`
`indication of the manner in which content images are to be displayed to the user.” Id.
`
`BlackBerry’s arguments about requiring “distraction” of the user urge the Court to
`
`create § l 12 infirmities in the ’120 patent, by rendering the applicability of the term
`
`“notification” dependent on how end users perceive the physical and visual cues
`
`provided by the accused products.
`
`In. U.S. Patent No. 8,209,634
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment of Non—Infringement Should Be Granted
`
`BlackBerry’s opposition rests on the false premise that Defendants’ motion
`
`relies on limiting “messaging correspondents” to “users.” (Opp. at 1?.)
`
`It does not.
`
`The motion instead relies on the fact that BlackBerry cannot show that the accused
`
`numeric character represents the number of “distinct senders” as required by the claim.
`
`BlackBerry’s exposition of the claim construction process conspicuously
`
`avoids the key point raised here—how is a conversation or chat itself a “distinct sender
`
`of an electronic message”? As Defendants’ opening brief explained, messages within
`
`a conversation or chat are sent by the individual participating users.
`
`(Mot. at 22.)
`
`BlackBerry does not argue that the chat or conversation itseffever sends messages.
`
`BlackBerry argues that “newly received messages are sorted into separate line
`
`items in the recipient’s inbox,” i.e., based on chats or conversations.
`
`(Opp. at 18.)
`
`But BlackBerry does not explain how the on-screen display of a chat or conversation
`
`has an thin to do with how the messa es were sent—or b whom.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`9
`
`Drurnmyrs' erpm ISO
`MOTION FOR Sl'A-ix-Lmv Jl'DGMEN’l'
`
`014
`
`Facebook’s Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`014
`
`

`

`Case
`
`:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed OZIOWZO Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:44083
`
`
`
`Finally, BlackBerry’s opposition attempts to obscure this issue by coining a
`
`new phrase about sending a message “on behalfofa group conversation,” to somehow
`
`suggest that a group conversation may be regarded as a distinct sender. (Opp. at 18.)
`
`But BlackBerry does not dispute that
`
`the individual participants of a group
`
`conversation are the entities that actually send the messages. The fact that messages
`
`may be associated with a group conversation does not make the group conversation
`
`itself into the sender of those messages.
`
`BlackBerry’s revisionism with respect to its statements to the PTAB should also
`
`be rejected. BlackBerry said more than enough to confirm that its infringement theory
`
`falls outside the scope of the claims. See Sqflran v. Johnson & Johnson, 712 F.3d
`
`549, 559 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A]pplicants rarely submit affirmative disclaimers along
`
`the lines of ‘I hereby disclaim the following ...’ during prosecution and need not do so
`
`to meet the applicable standard”). BlackBerry does not deny (a) that it expressly
`
`argued to the PTAB that
`
`the “1M sessions” in Canfield are not “messaging
`
`correspondents,” and (b) that it cannot identify any material difference between the
`
`1M sessions in Canfield and the chats and conversations in the accused products.
`
`BlackBerry instead tries to recast its arguments to the PTAB as a response to
`
`Defendants’ obviousness argument that there could be a one-to-one correspondence
`
`between the number of 1M sessions in Canfield and the number of distinct senders
`
`(i.e. for 1M sessions that only had two members).
`
`(Opp. at 19-20.) But BlackBerry
`
`made arguments about that issue in addition to its argument on pages 34-35 of its
`
`Patent Owner Response that the IM sessions in Canfield were simply not “messaging
`
`correspondents.”
`
`(ECF 540-24, at 36-40.) Federal Circuit law is clear that “an
`
`\DOOHJONLh-lb-LJJM—‘
`
`MNMNMNNMMH—IH—nHH—H—nH
`
`OOHJQUWLLHN—‘OwOOHJONLh-b-WN—‘O
`
`applicant’s argument that a prior art reference is distinguishable on a particular ground
`Dlil-‘I-LNDAN'I'S' REPLY ISO
`MOTION FOR Sun-mm Jl'DGMEN'l'
`
`Case No. 2:18—cv—01844—GW—K8x
`
`10
`
`015
`
`Facebook's EX. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1026
`IPR2019-00706
`
`015
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 633 Filed 0207120 Page 16 of 22 PagelD #144084
`
`can serve as a disclaimer of claim scope even if the applicant distinguishes the
`
`reference on other grounds as well.” Safiran, 712 F.3d at 559 (citation omitted).
`
`BlackBerry should be held to its clear statements that the “IM sessions” in Canfield—
`
`which are indistinguishable from the accused conversations and chats—are not
`
`“messaging correspondents.”
`
`BlackBerry’s statements to the PTAB are relevant irrespective of whether they
`
`rise to the level of disclaimer. See, e.g., Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotax Inc, 718
`
`F. App’x 965, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (prosecution history relevant even in the absence
`
`of disclaimer)- The fact that BlackBerry consistently distinguished “1M sessions”
`
`from the participating “messaging correspondents” in that session further supports
`
`Defendants’ argument.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Nothing in the patent specification suggests that counting and reporting the
`
`number of messaging correspondents (i.e. distinct senders) is any less abstract than
`
`simply counting the number of new or unread messages. The specificat