Cas 2:18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08708719 Pagelof 25 PagelD #:18701
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
`(rhodesmg@cooley.com)
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
`
`Telephone:
`Facsimile:
`
`(415) 693-2000
`(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
`
`Attornc sfor Defendants
`FA CE 00K, INC, WHA TSAPP INC,
`and [NSIEA GRA M, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-01844;
`
`plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC, WHATSAPP INC,
`
`and INSTAGRAM LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SNAP INC.,
`
`2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`FACEBOOK DEFENDANTS’
`
`OPPOSITION T0 BLACKBERRY’S
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`
`JUDGMENT 0F INFRINGEMENT
`
`(U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,677,250,
`8,279,173, AND 9,349,120)
`
`Hearing Date: September 5, 2019
`Time: 8:30 A.M.
`Ctrm: 9D
`
`Defendant.
`
`Assigned to the Hon. George H. Wu
`
`
`
`\DWHJGNLh-h-WNu—I
`
`NNMMNMNMNI—Ir—II—Ir—II—II—Ir—II—Ir—II—Imummhmm~o~omqmmhmm~o
`
`Case Nos. 2: l 8-cv-01 844;
`2:18—cv—02693 GW{KSX)
`
`OPP. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT or INFRINGEMENT
`
`(’250, ’173, ’120 PATENTS)
`
`001
`
`Facebook’s Ex. 1027
`
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`001
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08i08i19 Page20f 25 PagelD #:18702
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I_
`
`INTRODUCTION ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1
`
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2
`III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`BlackBerry Has Not Shown Infringement of the ’250 Patent 2
`B.
`BlackBerry Has Not Shown Infringement of the ’173 Patent 10
`
`C.
`
`BlackBerry Has Not Shown Infringement of the ’120 Patent 15
`
`l-
`
`BlackBerry Has Not S_ho_wn_that the Accused Muting
`Features Satisfy All Limitatlons of the Asserted Claims .......... 15
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The'Accused Products Continue to Provide
`Notlficatlons Even for “Muted” Conversatlons
`and Chats ......................................................................... 15
`
`The Accused Facebook andWhatsApp Products
`Do Not Store a Flag Indicating That a Chat Is Muted 20
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 21
`
`Case Nos. 2: l S—cv—O 1844;
`2313*5V—02693 GWIKSX)
`
`i
`
`Opp. To MSJ PARTIAL Sun-{ARV
`JUDGMENT 01-“ INFRINGEME NT
`(’250, ’173, ’120 PATENTS)
`
`002
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`002
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08I08I19 Page30f 25 PagelD #:18703
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3 Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pagels!
`
`4 DeMartini Sports, Inc. v. Worth, Inc,
`5
`239 F_3d 1314 (Fed, C11: 2001) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2
`Kahn v. Gen. Motors (for .,
`135 F_3d 1472 (Fed,
`ir_ 1998) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`
`9
`
`I. & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc,
`471 F.3d 1311 (Fed. C11: 2006) ............................................................................ 2
`Mcdtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC,
`5?] US. 191 (2014) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2
`
`10 Nazomi Commc ’ns, Inc. v._Arm Holdings, PLC,
`11
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. CH. 2005) __________________________________________________________________________ 15
`Soremckun v. Thrifty quIess, Inc.,
`509 F.3d 928 (9th CH. 2007) ................................................................................ 2
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`TypeRi rht Ke board Cor . v. Microsoft Corp,
`
`374 .3d 151 (Fed. CUir. 2004) ......................................................................6, 10
`
`Unifoc USA, Inc. v. Microsofi Cor .,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011 ............................................................ 2, 5,13, 21
`
`Statutes
`
`18 Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R- Civ- P.
`
`331885;1112:1111:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i1i:11111i1:11:11:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:1111:1112:
`
`mm
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`_
`_
`Cease—15103 2318-93-0] 8:14“
`2' 18 wezo). (1W(Kbx)
`
`1
`
`003
`
`OPP. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT 01-“ INFRINGEMENT
`(250, ’173, '120 Mums)
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`003
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08i08i19 Page4of 25 PagelD #:18704
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`\DWHJGNLh-h-WNu—I
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`In its rush to have something heard at the same time as the pending motions for
`
`summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 101, BlackBerry filed an error laden and
`
`deficient motion for partial summary judgment seeking to establish that several
`
`accused products infringe claims across multiple patents. Tellingly, the “Statement
`
`of Uncontroverted Facts” accompanying the motion relies almost entirely on bald
`1
`
`statements that BlackBerry’s experts analyzed the systems and provided opinions.
`
`When those opinions are closely analyzed, they demonstrate BlackBerry’s inability to
`
`show that any accused product infringes any asserted claim.
`
`The ’250 patent requires enabling a “game application” to utilize a “contact list”
`
`for an instant messaging application, but BlackBerry and its expert point only to a
`
`“Chats list” that does not contain a list of the user’s contacts and cannot be accessed
`
`by any supposed game application. The deposition of BlackBerry’s expert also
`
`uncovered a profound lack of knowledge, as he repeatedly changed positions multiple
`
`times in an attempt to salvage BlackBerry’s theory, raising credibility issues that
`
`provide a separate basis for rejecting BlackBerry’s motion. With respect to the
`
`’173 patent, which requires the display of a “tag type indicator” for every tag in a tag
`
`list, BlackBerry’s expert admitted that he was relying on a blank area of the screen —
`
`on which nothing is displayed — as the supposedly displayed indicator. For the
`
`20
`
`’120 patent, which requires the ability to silence a_ll new message notifications within
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`a thread, BlackBerry’s expert acknowledged that the accused products continue to
`
`show visual cues that inform the user ofthe receipt of new messages, even for silenced
`
`threads- These and the other flaws with BlackBerry‘s analysis, as discussed below,
`
`24
`
`actually show non-infringement of the asserted patents. But at a minimum, they raise
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.
`
`' E.g., SUF Nos. 29-36.
`
`_
`_
`”mafia” 21138—9v_m 81M“
`2' 18 ””26” (1W{Kbx)
`
`1
`
`004
`
`OPP. TO MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT 01-“ INFRINGEMENT
`(250, ’173, '120 Mums)
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`004
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08i08i19 PageSof 25 PagelD #:18705
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`ll.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`\DWHJGNLh-h-WNu—I
`
`NNMMNMNMNI—Ir—II—Ir—II—II—Ir—II—Ir—II—Imummhmm~o~omqmmhmm~o
`
`BlackBerry’s motion only attempts
`
`to establish literal
`
`infringement,
`
`not infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.2 The standard for proving literal
`
`infringement is well-settled, and exacting. Literal infringement exists only “when
`
`every limitation recited in the claim appears in the accused device, i.e. when ‘the
`
`properly construed claim reads on the accused device exactly.” DeMartt'm' Sports,
`
`Inc. v. Worth, Inc, 239 F.3d 1314, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
`
`The absence of even a single limitation precludes a finding of literal infringement.
`
`See,
`
`(1g. Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp, 135 F.3d 1472, 1417-78 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`Whether an accused product infringes a claim presents a question of fact. See Uniloc
`
`USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp, 632 F.3d 1292, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 201 l).
`
`BlackBerry bears the burden of proving infringement. See, 6g. , Medtronic, Inc.
`
`v. Mirowski Famiiy Ventures, LLC, 571 US. 191, 198—199 (2014).
`
`In the context of
`
`summary judgment, “[w]here the moving party will have the burden of proof on an
`
`issue at trial,” as here, “the movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable
`
`trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Soremekun v. thrifty Payiess,
`
`Inc, 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007); see also, e.g., L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc,
`
`471 F-3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As established below, BlackBerry has not
`
`carried its burden with respect to any of the asserted claims or any of the accused
`
`products addressed in its motion.
`
`[11. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`BlackBerry Has Not Shown Infringement of the ’250 Patent
`
`It
`
`is somewhat puzzling that BlackBerry’s motion chose to lead with the
`
`’250 patent
`
`considering the profound deficiencies
`
`in BlackBerry’s
`
`theory.
`
`The problems with BlackBerry’s infringement theory run the gamut of summary
`
`2 BlackBerry’s two technical experts (on which BlackBerry’s motion entirely relies)
`only evaluated literal infringement for purposes of the present motion.
`(Schonfeld
`Dep., 22:21-23:4, Keefe Ex. 1; Rosenberg Dep., 132:2-9, Keefe Ex. 2.)
`_
`_
`OPP. To MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`Case Nos' 2' 1 8mm] 844’
`JUDGMENT or INFRINGEMENT
`Z'lg'w'mém GWlKS")
`{’2‘50 '173 '120 PATENTS)
`
`2
`
`005
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`005
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08l08l19 Pagefiof 25 PagelD #:18706
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`\DWHJGNLh-h-WNu—I
`
`NNMMNMNMNI—Ir—II—Ir—II—II—Ir—II—Ir—II—Imummhmm~o~omqmmhmm~o
`
`judgment defects, from BlackBerry and its expert misunderstanding how the accused
`
`products operate, to serious credibility issues with Black Berry’s expert that cannot be
`
`resolved on summary judgment. At a minimum, genuine issues of material fact
`
`remain as to whether Facebook infringes any claim of the ’250 patent.
`
`The problem with BlackBerry’s infringement arguments begin at limitation
`
`[9.3], which recites “enabling a game application on the electronic device to utilize a
`
`contact list for an instant messaging application for playing games with contacts in
`
`the contact list by identifying game play in the contact list.” BlackBerry’s arguments
`
`about
`
`this limitation provide a clear example of either misunderstanding or
`
`misrepresenting how the accused products work.
`
`In order to fully understand why
`
`BlackBeny’s motion must fail, it is helpful to unpack and explain its theory.
`
`Under BlackBerry’s theory, the “game application” corresponds to an Instant
`
`Game that can be invoked from Facebook Messenger or the Facebook website.
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., 29:4-13, 29:23-30:9; Mot. at 6-7.) The only specific game that
`
`BlackBerry and its expert identify or discuss is “Words with Friends,” created by non-
`
`party Zynga, Inc.
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., 2923-309; Chen Decl., 1l5.)3 Blackberry then
`
`alleges that
`
`the claimed “contact list for an instant messaging application,”
`
`corresponds to the “Chats” list shown on the Facebook website and through the
`
`Messenger app- (Schonfeld Dep., 33:21-34zl (citing Schonfeld Decl., pp. 16 & 27);
`
`see also Mot- at 14-6.) With those understandings in mind, we now turn to the
`
`specific requirements in limitation [9.3].
`
`As noted, limitation [9.a] requires that the alleged “game application” (like
`
`Words with Friends) be enabled “to utilize a contact list for an instant messaging
`
`application” BlackBerry simply assumes without explanation that the Chats list
`
`qualifies as a “contact list” for purposes of claim 9. But a reasonable jury could
`
`3 For each witness from whom Facebook submits a declaration herewith, BlackBerry
`has already received document discovery and taken their depositions under Fed. R.
`Civ. Pro. 30(b)(l) and 30(b)(6).
`_
`_
`Case No” 2' 1 8mm] 844’
`2'18“”2693 “MKS”
`
`OPP. TU MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT or INFRINGEMENT
`{’250 '173 '120 Plum-rs)
`
`3
`
`006
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`006
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844—GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08i08l19 PageTOf 25 PagelD #:18707
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`conclude that the Chats list is not a contact list. As explained in the accompanying
`
`declaration of Facebook engineer Kun Chen, who was deposed by BlackBerry prior
`
`to the filing of its motion,—
`
`_ (Chen Dec1.,1|1|4, 9,)
`
`This difference is illustrated by the exemplary Chats list shown at the right,
`.ullvomon 9?
`11:02 AM
`(E V I
`
`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
`
`which shows
`
`9,
`,
`five exem la
`1 ) 6; Chats
`(
`p Ty
`The first two chats correspond to group chats that
`
`chats.
`
`Id,
`
`have user-selected titles (e.g., “Running group” and
`“Ice cream on Sundays!”), and do not identify any
`
`+ Yoursmw
`I
`'
`I
`
`'
`
`participating users or “contacts.” The remaining @: 7'”?"-i"9,9'?‘i"
`i
`three chats include two one-on-one conversations “a? Icecreamcn Sundays!
`(one between the user and Emma Coleman and the
`I
`..
`I.
`I
`w EmrnaColeman
`
`’-
`other between the user and Derek Rodgers), and one
`fig; PM.” E177“
`group conversation (including both Emma and
`Derek)- Although the Chats list can include the fl DerekRodgers
`names of individuals, as shown, the list is oriented
`'
`I
`I
`i
`
`.-
`
`I
`
`-|
`
`around conversations, not individual contacts.
`
`(Id)
`
`Thus, the names of other users may be missing from,
`or included multiple times in,
`the Chats list (as
`
`.
`
`0
`
`shown), and contacts who are not in those chats will not be listed at all. (Id)
`
`c4
`
`'9'!
`
`BlackBerry’s infringement theory apparently assumes that any list that may
`
`show names of individuals qualifies as a “contact list,” regardless of how the list is
`
`organized or presented, and regardless of its purpose. BlackBerry never asked for a
`
`construction of “contact list,” the Court did not construe it, and the term is not defined
`
`_
`_
`C.“ N05 2' lag—“4,1844“
`2.18-cv-0269. GWlKSX)
`
`4
`
`007
`
`OPP. 'I'o MSJ PARTIAL Sl'xn-IARY
`Jl'DGMEN’l' 0F INFRINGEMENT
`(’250 '173 '120 ans)
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`007
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08108119 PageSof 25 PagelD #:18708
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`p—n
`
`\DOOHJGNLh-h-MM
`
`,— O
`
`.— p—n
`
`.— [NJ
`
`I—‘_At.»
`
`.— Ln
`
`16
`
`,— MD
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`23
`
`24
`
`in the ’250 patent.4 The term “contact list” therefore takes on its ordinary and
`
`everyday meaning, and at a minimum, a question of fact exists as to whether the
`
`“Chats” list qualifies under that ordinary meaning. See Uni/ac, 632 F.3d at 1301-02
`
`(application of the claim to the accused device was a question of fact). A reasonable
`
`jury could conclude that a list of “Chats” is not the same as a list of contacts, and
`
`therefore does not qualify as a contact list.
`
`This is not the only flaw with BlackBerry’s infringement theory — diving down
`
`to a more technical level reveals profound deficiencies. As noted, limitation [9.21]
`
`expressly requires that the alleged “game appt’t'catt'on” be enabled “to utilize a contact
`
`it'stfbr an instant messaging application.” But as shown below, an Instant Game such
`
`as Words with Friends (the alleged “game application”)—
`
`(Chen Dec1., 1|10.)
`
`4 The specification does not provide meaningful guidance on this issue. Figure 3
`shows an exemplary “Mike’s Contact List” that includes a section for conversations
`(304), but unlike the accused Chats list, the contact list in the specification also
`contains a specific section (308)
`that provides an actual
`listing of contacts.
`(’250, Figs. 3-4,)
`
`25
`26
`
`5 The term “API” stands for Application Programming Interface (API), which is an
`interface that allows software programs to gain access to certain functionality. (Chen
`Decl., 116; Schonfeld Dep., 38:6-24.) Here, Facebook provides an API for its Instant
`27 Games platform that provides a series of functions that allow game developers to adapt
`23
`their games to interact with the features of Facebook Messenger. (Chen Decl., 1|6.)
`_
`_
`.
`_
`OPP. 'I'U MSJ PARTIAL SI'HXIARY
`c.2153 F10” 2' 138-04)] 844’
`Jl'DGMEN'l' 0F INFRINGEMENT
`2.18-..v-0269_ 6“st)
`(’250 '173 '120 Pun-rs)
`
`5
`
`008
`
`Facebook's EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`008
`
`

`

`Cas 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08I08!19 Pagegof 25 PagelD #:18709
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`p—n
`
`\DOOHJGNUi-lh-LDM
`
`,— O
`
`.— p—n
`
`relied— was accurate.
`
`l—I—lWM whether
`
`.— 4:1.
`
`.— Ln
`
`16
`
`In other words,
`
`It was clear from the deposition of BlackBerry’s expert that, when he wrote his
`
`declaration, he did not understand the limitationsof—
`He had never tested it, and could not confirm-
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., at 3S:25-36:6, 462147;?) When asked
`
`— on which he expressly
`
`17 - A reasonable jury could decide, based on the lack of knowledge and
`
`18
`
`19
`
`equivocations of BlackBerry’s expert, to not credit him or BlackBerry’s theory of
`
`infringement
`
`that he attempted to support.
`
`See TypeRight Keyboard ( .‘orp. v.
`
`20 Microsofl (Warp, 374 F.3d 1 151,
`
`1 158-59 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[S]ummary judgment is
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`not appropriate where the opposing party offers specific facts that call into question
`
`the credibility of the movant’s witnesses”).
`
`The problems do not end there. Limitation [9.a| also recites “enabiing a game
`
`appficalion on (he e/ecironic device to urifize a contact listibr an instant messaging
`
`application
`
`by identifying game play in the contact list.” BlackBerry’s analysis
`
`of the latter portion oflimitation [9.3] (“by identifying game play in the contact list”)
`
`does not mention— BlackBerry appears to treat
`
`“utiliz[ing] a contact list for an instant messaging application,” and “identifying game
`Case Nos. 2: lS-cv-01844;
`OPP. To MSJ PARTIAL SIMMARY
`2:18—cv—02693GW(KSx)
`“Baa-"1'13;133135333;
`
`6
`
`009
`
`Facebook's EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`009
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08t08t19 Page 10 onS Page|D#:1871O
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`play in the contact list,” as two separate and independent requirements that can be
`
`shown by disparate and unrelated functionalities. (Schonfeld Decl., 111140-41, 53-54,)
`
`But the claim links the two by reciting the ability to “utilize a contact list
`
`by identifying game play in the contact list.” BlackBerry has articulated no theory
`
`that accounts for these interrelated requirements.
`
`BlackBerry’s expert had no idea whether—
`6
`v—
`8 _— had any role in the display of the Chats list (the alleged “contact list”),
`
`9
`
`let alone identifying game play in the alleged contact list.
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., 50:21-
`
`105m—
`11— An Instant Game, such as Words with
`12 F....d.,— mammary
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`thus cannot Show that Facebook “enabl[es] a game appiicatian
`
`to utiiizc a contact
`
`fist ... by identifying game pluy in the contact list.”
`
`There are even more problems. BlackBerry’s expert admitted that
`
`the
`
`16— would be invoked, if at all, by the Instant
`
`17 Game (the alleged “game application”). (Schonfeld Dep., 3?:7—13, 48:18-49:4 ) But
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`BlackBerry’s expert admitted that he had no idea “if the Words with Friends game
`
`ever—.” (Id., 32:16-20.) Nor could he
`
`answer this question with respect to any other game available through Facebook
`
`Instant Games. (1d, 37*':21-38:4,)6 BlackBerry’s expert further admitted that he had
`
`never looked at the source code for Words with Friends (or any other Instant Game).
`
`(id, at 31:5-3221.) He, in fact, claimed he did not need it. (Id, at 32:6-3324.) In any
`
`24
`
`case, BlackBerry has
`
`zero evidence of any game
`
`application that used
`
`25 —
`
`26
`
`6 An Instant Game does not need to use— in order to
`function.
`(Schonfeld Dep., 39:10-22; Chen Decl., 118.) The mere existence of an
`27
`o erational Instant Game therefore, does not provide evidence that the game ever uses
`28 —
`
`_
`_
`_
`c.2156 “105' 2' lf-cv-01844,
`2'18““0269' “MKS”
`
`7
`
`010
`
`OPP. To MSJ PARTIAL Sl'x-n-IARY
`Jl'DGMEN'l' 0F INFRINGEMENT
`(’st '173 '120 mers)
`
`Facebook's EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`010
`
`

`

`Case :IB-CV-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08t'08t19 Page 11 onS Page|D#:1871l
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1— peorerfmd the function of
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“utiliz[ing] a contact list” by “identifying game play in the contact list,” as the claim
`
`requires. This failure of proof provides a further basis to deny BlackBerry’s motion
`
`for summary judgment.
`
`BlackBerry’s theory of infringement also fails with respect to limitation [9.b]
`
`because BlackBerry has not articulated what its theory (if any) actually is — and its
`
`expert’s attempts to do so at his deposition called his credibility into question.
`
`Limitation [9.b] recites, in relevant part, the step of “preparing game messages to be
`
`sent to the particuiar contact by including game progress data in an instant messaging
`
`10 message and an identifier to associate the data with the game application.” A clear
`
`1 1
`
`requirement ofthis claim language is that the “identifier” must be included in a “game
`
`12 message” that
`
`is sent
`
`to the particuiar contact
`
`(e. g,
`
`the other game player).
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`BlackBerry’s expert agreed. (Schonfeld Dep., 60:247.)
`
`The only example of the claimed “identifier” in BlackBerry’s motion is
`
`“a banner
`
`including the name of the game being played.”
`
`(Mot. at 7-8.)
`
`But BlackBerry’s expert admitted that he did not know whether that information is
`
`actually sent to the particular contact, as the claim expressly requires.
`
`(Schonfeld
`
`19—
`20—
`21—-)
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`The deposition of BlackBerry’s expert played out like a game of cat-and-mouse,
`
`in which BlackBerry’s expert repeatedly demurred as to what, if anything, was the
`
`“identifier to associate the data with the game application” in the accused product i
`
`repeatedly testifying that such an identifier existed but never identifying what it was.
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., 57:2-58:21, 61 :20-63118, 70:17-72:15.)
`
`The section of his
`
`declaration addressing limitation |9.b| identified two different IDs used with Instant
`
`28 Games—— — but the declaration does not state whether
`_
`_
`_
`OPP. m MSJ PARTIAL Sl'x-n-IARY
`c.2156 ”105' 2' lf-cv-01844,
`Jl'DGMEN’l' 0F INFRINGEMENT
`2'18“”269' (”WK”)
`(’250 '173 '120 PATEWS)
`
`8
`
`01 1
`
`Facebook’s Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`011
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08!08!19 Page 12 onS Page|D#:18712
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`those IDs (individually or collectively) correspond to the claimed “identifier.”
`
`(Schonfeld Decl., W42, 55,) The reason for his hesitancy was apparent from the
`
`deposition— BlackBerry’s expert had no idea whether any of these supposed
`
`identifiers was actually included in any “game messages to be sent to the particular
`
`contact,” as the claim expressly requires.
`
`(Schonfeld Dep., 6324-6415, [49:13-20,
`
`150220-15 l : 19.) As for the ‘-,” he had no idea how it was generated, how it
`
`7 was represented, or whether it was generated by the Instant Game or by Facebook.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`(Id, 7823-13.)
`
`The result of the lack of knowledge of BlackBerry’s expert was an unsupported
`
`and conditional opinion; for example, with respect to the -, BlackBerry’s
`10
`testified:—
`u
`12—
`l3 — In other words, to the extent an identifier in Facebook’s
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`l7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`system meets the claim requirement for an identifier — which BlackBerry’s expert did
`
`not know — it was part of his infringement theory. Summary judgment cannot be
`
`granted based on equivocations and evasions.
`
`Counsel for BlackBerry then conducted an improper, leading redirect at the
`
`close of the deposition. Counsel handed his expert pages of the deposition of a
`
`Facebook witness_, which were never cited or included with the expert’s
`
`20
`
`declaration or BlackBerry’s motion, and asked the expert to read them.
`
`(Schonfeld
`
`21 Dep., 142:12-25, 144:4-13, 146:4-14711.) Under the guise of attempting to refresh the
`
`22 memory of the witness, this highly suggestive examination by BlackBerry’s counsel
`
`guided the expert to a brand new ID — a ‘-,” which was never previously
`
`identified. (Id, 143:2-144z2, 15418-15525)?
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`I It is not clear if BlackBerry intends to change its theory to now assert that the ‘-
`26
`27 I” discussed late in the deposition is the claimed “identifier” for purposes of claim
`28
`[9.b]. This would be inappropriate, as any ‘-” argument relies on arguments
`
`Case Nos. 2: lS-cv-01844;
`mmmwm
`
`9
`
`012
`
`OPP. 'IU MSJ PARTIAL Sl'x-n-IARY
`“Begging;1323;331:531,
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`012
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08(08119 Page 13 of 25 Page|D#118713
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`In the end, the repeated equivocations, flat out lack of knowledge, and changed
`
`opinions of BlackBerry’s expert call into question his preparation, knowledge, and
`
`ultimately his credibility as a witness. See i’jipeRight Keyboard Corp, 374 F.3d at
`
`1158-59 (“[S]ummary judgment is not appropriate where the opposing party offers
`
`specific facts that call
`
`into question the credibility of the movants witnesses”).
`
`A reasonable jury could conclude that the testimony of BlackBerry’s expert — the sole
`
`evidence offered in support of the present motion — should not be credited.
`
`B.
`
`BlackBerry Has Not Shown Infringement of the ’173 Patent
`
`BlackBerry has also failed to show infringement of the ’173 patent by the
`
`accused Facebook website and Instagram application. Again, BlackBerry has failed
`
`to carry its burden with respect to multiple limitations of the asserted claims.
`
`Claim 13, from which the sole asserted claim depends, recites a “computer
`
`readable medium” (transitory or non-transitory) that, when loaded into a device,
`
`performs the following functions: “displaying a tag list including tags from one or
`
`more tag sources matching a search string” [13.a|, and “displaying a tag type indicator
`
`for each tag appearing in the tag list, said tag type being indicative of a tag source
`
`associated with the tag” [13.b]. As with the ’250 patent discussed above, to fully
`
`understand the flaws with BlackBerry’s infringement theory, Facebook will unpack
`
`and analyze that theory in more detail than was provided in BlackBerry’s motion.
`
`A key limitation is the display of a “tag type indicatorfor each tag appearing
`
`in the fist,” as recited in claim [13.bl. The Facebook website and Instagram provide
`
`photo tagging features that present the user with a list of tag suggestions, allowing the
`
`user to specify a particular tag for a photo.
`
`(Wang Decl., 119; Douglas Decl., 113.)
`
`The two screen captures below show examples of how the Facebook website and
`
`Instagram can present tag suggestions to the user:
`
`and evidence not included with BlackBerry’s motion. BlackBerry never amended its
`motion or expert declaration to discuss the -, or to withdraw BlackBerry’s
`prior reliance on the other (discredited) identifiers discussed earlier at the deposition.
`
`\DWHJGNLh-h-WNu—I
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`_
`_
`gals: Noaéifiqu-(c‘iéV-YOILEEM,
`'
`'W'
`’ '
`J
`( ”0
`
`l 0
`
`013
`
`OPP. TU MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`.l UDGMENT or INFRINGEMENT
`9250;173:120 Pram-rs)
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`013
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08l08i19 Page 14 of 25 Page|D#118714
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`Facebook Website
`
`Instagram App
`
`\DMHJONLn-h-WNu—I
`
`NMMMMMMMNu—r—Iu—Iv—II—Iu—Ir—II—Ir—Iu—WHJGNLh-h-WNF'ONDOOHJONLh-h-mNi—‘O
`
`QIa"
`
`'
`I-
`-
`'
`Kalia Dermatology and La...
`
`I I
`
`?!
`
`Los Gatos Dermatology
`
`Q.
`
`.. Aaron Derbacher, Your Lo...
`.-
`'i-
`a
`.-
`-
`
`Derek Deaton Real Estate
`
`Derma Spa Clinic
`
`Hafid Derradli - .‘AU-ll'lsh 0
`
`r
`
`Derek Jeter 0
`
`(Douglas Dec1., 1B; Wang Decl., 119.) BlackBerry contends that the tag suggestion
`
`lists shown above correspond to the claimed “tag list” of claim 13.
`
`As noted, a key limitation recites the display of “a tag type indicatorfor each
`
`tag appearing in the tag list” [13.bl, which on its face requires a tag type indicator for
`
`my tag in the list. But the tag suggestion lists shown above (and every example
`
`provided by BlackBerry’s expert) show tag suggestions unaccompanied by any kind
`
`of visual indicator, For example, the screen capture on the left above shows “Derek
`
`Case Nos. 2:]8-cv-01844;
`2:18-cv-02693 GW{KSx)
`
`l l
`
`OPP. To MSJ PARTIAL SUMMARY
`J UDGMEST or INFRINGEMENT
`
`{’250, ’173, ’120 PATENTS)
`
`014
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`
`
`)
`Derrick Rose 0
`II:
`.
`.
`-
`--
`Refined Dermatology
`
`derivenbvoxious
`
`E
`
`hatidderradji 0
`
`derschulteotficial o
`
`- haustierkost
`
`dereckiouben
`
`rnrdblanksl
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`014
`
`

`

`Case
`
`:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08:08119 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:18715
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`\omHJCNU‘I-h-WMr—I
`
`Rogers” with nothing more than his name and a small profile icon (neither of which
`
`BlackBerry contends is a “tag type indicator”), The screen capture on the right shows
`
`substantially the same for Dereck Joubert (among others). All of the example screen
`
`captures provided by BlackBerry show similar examples of tag suggestion lists
`
`containing items displayed without any kind of accompanying indicator. (Mot. at 14;
`
`Schonfeld Decl.,111135, 36, 84, 88, 105, 129.)
`
`How can BlackBerry claim that Facebook and Instagram display “a tag type
`
`indicator fer each tag appearing in the tag list” [13.b], when the accused products
`
`indisputably display tag suggestions without any such indicator? Or stated more
`
`simply, how can the absence of an indicator qualify as an “indicator”?
`
`BlackBerry responded to this question by inventing a new term— “blank
`
`indicator” — which it claims is displayed alongside certain tag suggestions. (Schonfeld
`
`Decl., 1186
`
`(underlining
`
`NNNNNNNNNI—ll—‘I—ll—il—ll—i—ll—‘F‘I—lWHJCNUI-h-WM—‘CQWHJCNUI-DIU’M—‘O
`
`added)_) BlackBerry’s motion even goes as far as to show screen captures of
`
`Instagram and Facebook in which BlackBerry placed 0 omciamarreD
`
`red boxes over empty areas of the screen to show the
`
`locations of these supposed “blank indicators” (see example from BlackBerry’s
`
`motion shown at the right). (See Mot. at 14.)
`
`There is no such thing as a “blank indicator.” (Wang Decl., 1113; Douglas Decl.,
`
`119.) What BlackBerry calls a “blank indicator” is actually the absence of any indicator
`
`at all- (Id; Schonfeld Dep., 1 16:19-22
`
`
`(Citing
`
`Schonfeld Decl., 1150); see also id, 115:5-10.) BlackBerry’s reliance on its newly
`
`concocted “blank indicator” does not even remotely meet its burden of showing that
`
`claim [13.b] is satisfied; to the contrary, it establishes non-infringement.
`
`BlackBerry’s attempts to rationalize its “blank indicator” argument are easily
`
`rejected. BlackBerry argues that the absence of any displayed indicator for Facebook
`Case Nos. 2: lS-cv-01844;
`OPP. 'IU MSJ PARTIAL Sl'x-n-IARv
`2:18-cv-026936W(KSx)
`“Dag-ass;1:233:33;
`
`12
`
`015
`
`Facebook’s EX. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1027
`IPR2019-00706
`
`015
`
`

`

`Case :18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 280 Filed 08!08!19 Page 16 onS Page|D#:18716
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT
`PROPOSED TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`friends and unverified lnstagram profiles somehow qualifies as a “tag type indicator”
`
`because, according to BlackBerry, the lack of an indicator distinguishes those tag
`
`suggestions from other suggestions where some kind of indicator is in fact displayed.
`
`(Mot. at 18; Schonfeld Decl., W86, 87, 107.) But arguing that the absence of an
`
`indicator somehow qualifies as an “indicator” cannot be reconciled with the plain
`
`claim language which expressly recites “displaying a tag type indicatorfor each tag.”
`
`“Displaying” requires an affirmative act of displaying the claimed “indicator.” In the
`
`case of tag suggestions for Facebook friends and lnstagram unverified profiles,
`
`no such indicator is displayed.
`
`(Wang Decl., 1113; Douglas Decl., 1l9 n.2.)
`
`In other
`
`10 words, the step of “dispiaying a tag type indicator” does not occur for those tag
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`suggestions.
`
`BlackBerry has not established,
`
`for purposes of summary