MICHAEL A. BERTA (SBN 194650)
`RYAN J. CASAMIQUELA (SBN 228559)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 471-3100
`Facsimile:
`(415) 471-3400
`michael.berta@arnoldporter.com
`ryan.casamiquela@arnoldporter.com
`
`NICHOLAS H. LEE (SBN 259588)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 S Figueroa St, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Telephone:
`(213) 243-4000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 243-4199
`nicholas.lee@arnoldporter.com
`
`MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (SBN 122196)
`IRENE I. YANG (SBN 245464)
`SUE WANG (SBN 286247)
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone:
`(415) 772-1200
`Facsimile:
`(415) 772-7400
`Mbettinger@sidley.com
`Irene.yang@sidley.com
`Sue.wang@sidley.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants ADOBE INC. &
`X.COMMERCE INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-08297-RS
`
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND
`X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PATENT
`LOCAL RULE 3-3
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`ADOBE INC. D/B/A/ ADOBE SYSTEMS
`INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC. D/B/A/
`MAGENTO,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Ctrm: 3
`Judge: Richard Seeborg
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0001
`
`

`

`would have been motivated to combine any one of the references identified by Defendants in reference to
`the ’168 patent with any other of the references identified by Defendants in reference to the ’168 patent
`in a manner that renders obvious the asserted claims of the ’168 patent.11
`F.
`Prior Art Patents to the ’755, ’287, and ’044 Patents
`Patent Number and Bates
`Country
`Date of Issue
`of Origin
`
`Exhibits13
`
`6,990,654 (“Carroll”)
`7,266,370 (“Paddon Patent”)
`6,005,568 (“Simonoff”)
`
`8,667,415 (“Rudolph”)
`6,546,397 (“Rempell”)
`
`8,819,542 (“Cudich”)
`
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`August 26, 2014
`
`A/O
`
`Anticipation
`and/or
`Obviousness12
`O
`January 24, 2006
`September 4, 2007 A/O
`December 21,
`A/O
`1999
`March 4, 2014
`Apr. 8, 2003
`
`O
`O
`
`C3, D3, E3
`C4, D4, E4
`C5, D5, E5
`
`C7, D7, E7
`C17, D17,
`E17
`C37, D37,
`E37
`
`Prior Art Published Patent Applications to the ’755, ’287, and ’044 Patents
`G.
`Publication Number and
`Country
`Date of Publication Anticipation
`Exhibits15
`Bates
`of
`and/or
`Origin
`Obviousness14
`
`11 The arguments pertaining to the ’397 patent apply equally to the ’168 patent, since the references
`presented in these contentions as invalidating prior art with respect to the ’168 patent are also presented
`as invalidity prior art for the ’397 patent. Moreover, the ’397 patent and ’168 patent share a specification
`and are directed to highly similar claimed inventions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`been motivated to combine the same prior art references in a manner that renders obvious both claimed
`inventions.
`12 Specific claims that are anticipated and/or rendered obvious, or elements taught by these references are
`identified in the claim charts attached hereto. Defendants’ identification of whether a particular reference
`anticipates or renders obvious the Patents-in-Suit is based upon Plaintiff’s apparent positions as to claim
`scope.
`13 Exhibit C–* indicates Defendants assert the reference against the ’755 patent. Exhibit D–* indicates
`Defendants assert the reference against the ’287 patent. Exhibit E–* indicates Defendants assert the
`reference against the ’044 patent.
`14 Specific claims that are anticipated and/or rendered obvious, or elements taught by these references are
`identified in the claim charts attached hereto.
`15 Exhibit C–* indicates Defendants assert the reference against the ’755 patent. Exhibit D–* indicates
`Defendants asset the reference against the ’287 patent. Exhibit E–* indicates Defendants assert the
`reference against the ’044 patent.
`
`30
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`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
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0002
`
`

`

`U.S.
`
`2006/0063518 (“Paddon
`Application”)
`U.S.
`2006/0200749 (“Shenfield”)16
`E.U.
`EP 1 698 984 (“Shenfield”)
`2005/0193380 (“Shenfield II”) U.S.
`2006/0248121 (“Shenfield III”) U.S.
`2005/0125771 (“Shenfield IV”) U.S.
`2005/0273705 (“McCain”)
`U.S.
`2007/0118844 (“Huang”)
`U.S.
`2004/0243931 (“Stevens”)
`U.S.
`2009/0013310 (“Arner”)
`U.S.
`U.S.
`60/969,428 (“Arner”)17
`03/081389
`W.O. /
`(“Greensage”)
`PCT/U.S.
`2006/0225032 (“de Klerk”)
`U.S.
`2008/0222572 (“Nathan”)
`U.S.
`2006/0190580 (“Shu”)
`U.S.
`2007/0282858 A1 (“Arner II”) U.S.
`2004/0187090 (“Meacham”)
`U.S.
`2002/0169852 (“Schaeck”)
`U.S.
`2007/0094609 (“Gilboa”)
`U.S.
`61/038241 (“Wong”)
`U.S.
`2008/0201453
`U.S.
`(“Assenmacher”)
`2005/0057560 (“Bibr”)
`2006/0136422 (“Matveief”)
`2004/0207659 (“Goodman”)
`2005/0021756 (“Grant”)
`
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`March 23, 2006
`
`September 7, 2006
`September 6, 2006
`September 1, 2005
`November 2, 2006
`June 9, 2005
`December 8, 2005
`May 24, 2007
`December 2, 2004
`January 8, 2009
`January 8, 2009
`October 2, 2003
`
`October 5, 2006
`Sept. 11, 2008
`August 24, 2006
`December 6, 2007
`September 23, 2004
`November 14, 2002
`April 26, 2007
`March 20, 2008
`Aug. 21, 2008
`
`March 17, 2005
`June 22, 2006
`October 21, 2004
`January 27, 2005
`
`A/O
`
`A/O
`A/O
`O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`
`A/O
`A/O
`O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`A/O
`
`C4, D4, E4
`
`C11, D11, E11
`C11, D11, E11
`C8, D8, E8
`C9, D9, E9
`C10, D10, E10
`C12, D12, E12
`C13, D13, E13
`C16, D16, E16
`C14, D14, E14
`C14, D14, E14
`C1, D1, E1
`
`C19, D19, E19
`C18, D18, E19
`C32, D32, E32
`C33, D33, E33
`C35, D35, E35
`C36, D36, E36
`C38, D38, E38
`C40, D40, E40
`C41, D41, E41
`
`C42, D42, E42
`C44, D44, E44
`C47, D47, E47
`C48, D48, E48
`
`H.
`
`Title
`
`Prior Art Publications to the ’755, ’287, and ’044 Patents
`Date of
`Author and
`Anticipation
`Publication
`Publisher
`and/or
`
`Exhibits19
`
`16 U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2006/0200749 and EP 1 698 984 have almost identical disclosures.
`Defendants have provided a chart with citations to EP 1 698 984, but the same disclosures can be found
`in U.S. Patent. Appl. Publ. No. 2006/0200749.
`17 U.S. Provisional Pat. Appl. 60/969,428 is incorporated by reference into U.S. Patent. Appl. Publ. No.
`2009/0013310. Each Arner reference can be considered independently. A chart showing how the
`disclosure of U.S. Provisional Pat. Appl. 60/969,428 provides 35 U.S.C. § 112 support for the claims
`appearing in U.S. Patent. Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0013310 is included as an appendix to each of claim
`charts C-14, D-14, and E-14.
`19 Exhibit C–* indicates Defendants assert the reference against the ’755 patent. Exhibit D–* indicates
`Defendants assert the reference against the ’287 patent. Exhibit E–* indicates Defendants assert the
`reference against the ’044 patent.
`
`31
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`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
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0003
`
`

`

`BROWN0002633, BROWN0002634, BROWN0002639). Thus, a POSITA would have been motivated
`to modify Akira’s system to utilize a web services registry, as disclosed in Xpressmo, as a POSITA
`would have understood that the address of the web service and symbolic names of the inputs and outputs
`of the web services are necessary pieces of information to access the web service.
`In addition, Akira discloses storing and retrieving information representative of said defined UI
`object and related settings in a database, and that the Player utilizes information stored in said database to
`generate for the display of at least a portion of one or more web pages. Akira discloses that the Response
`Director utilizes 5 database tables, 3 that are for lookup only and 2 that are write only.
`(BROWN0002542 at BROWN0002544). Once the phone characteristics are determined, the Response
`Director utilizes the AkiraOne File Database to send the appropriate file to the device.
`(BROWN0004967 at BROWN0004990). A POSITA would have found Akira’s disclosures of storing
`and retrieving information representative of the defined UI object and related settings in a database, and
`the Player utilizing information in said database to generate for the display of at least a portion of one or
`more web pages relevant to and compatible with implementing Xpressmo’s system. Xpressmo similarly
`discloses that it uses the Xpressmo Response Director to detect handset characteristics and serve the
`correct application to each respective handset - whether MIDP 2.0, HTML, or WAP. (“Xpressmo - The
`Publishing and Deployment Platform for Mobile Devices, About Us” at 2). A POSITA would have
`understood that storing information related to the correct application for each respective handset and
`device differences in a database would improve system performance by enabling the Response Director
`to efficiently search the database for the correct settings and application for each respective handset.
`For at least the reasons discussed in the Akira and Xpressmo references, an ordinary artisan
`would be motivated to create device independent application authoring tools that store symbolic names
`required for evoking one or more web components and the address of the web service in a registry, and
`further that stores information representative of defined UI object and settings in a database that the
`Player utilizes to generate the display of at least a portion of one or more web pages.
`6.
`Motivations to Combine - Huang and Shenfield (U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. 2006/0200749)
`A POSITA would have looked to Shenfield because it is in the same field and pursues the same
`objective (cross-functionality) as Huang. Shenfield, like Huang, relates to the “communication of
`services over a network.” (Shenfield, ¶[0001]; see also Huang, ¶[0002] (“This invention relates to …
`web services.”).) Both address the problem of web-service cross-functionality across multiple platforms.
`(See Shenfield, ¶[0003] (stating need for programs “that can be run on client devices having a wide
`variety of runtime environments”), ¶[0005] (same); Huang, Abstract (“allow use of web services across
`75
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`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
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0004
`
`

`

`organizations”), ¶[0003] (“integrating various software applications with one [an]other”).) A POSITA
`would have recognized that Shenfield and Huang are in the same technical field and address substantially
`similar problems as the ’755 patent and, therefore, would have looked to and considered the teachings of
`Shenfield when implementing Huang’s system.
`A POSITA would have found Shenfield’s disclosures of utilizing a web-services registry relevant
`to and compatible with implementing Huang’s system. For example, Huang discloses generating
`mapping files (or adaptors) that relate its “Generic WS Object Model 130” to vendor-specific objects by
`“access[ing] a WSDL (Web Service Definition Language) description for each vendor” via, for example,
`SOAP. (Huang, ¶¶[0008], [0044]-[0045], [0077].) A POSITA would have understood that Shenfield
`discloses accessing the same information “in a Universal Discovery Description and Integration (UDDI)
`services registry” and utilizing the same protocol “Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)” to allow
`“client devices 100” to communicate with the web service (Shenfield, ¶[0025]) and, therefore, Huang’s
`system could be readily modified to utilize a web services registry, such as the UDDI registry disclosed
`in Shenfield. A POSITA would further understand that Shenfield discloses storing a registry in a
`computer memory (i.e., application repository 700) (Shenfield, ¶[0044]) that stores similar data, performs
`similar functions, and is connected to the system and end-users in a similar manner, such that it is
`analogous to Huang’s database 124.
`A POSITA would have understood that the registry of the modified Huang-Shenfield system
`would include Huang’s web components (i.e., Huang’s “Opportunity” object in the “Generic WS Object
`Model 130”), the symbolic names of the inputs and outputs of web services (i.e., Huang’s
`“OpportunityName” and “OpportunityId” attributes for the “Opportunity” object), and their addresses.
`Huang explains that its symbolic names for web service objects (web components) and their attributes
`(inputs and outputs) are necessary intermediaries to interact with web services. Further, a POSITA
`would have recognized that an address of the web service, such as the URL, would be a necessary piece
`of information to access the specified web service. Indeed, Huang confirms such information is
`necessary, including the symbolic names and address of the web service in its exemplary binding.
`(Huang, ¶[0139].)
`A POSITA would have understood that the registry must contain all necessary information, such
`
`76
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`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
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0005
`
`

`

`as the binding information used in Huang’s system, to access a web service and, therefore, would have
`found including in the registry Huang’s symbolic names and web-service addresses obvious.
`Indeed, a POSITA would have been motivated to modify the system of Huang to utilize a registry
`of web components (e.g., Huang’s “Opportunity” object in the “Generic WS Object Model 130”), the
`symbolic names of the inputs and outputs of web services (e.g., Huang’s “OpportunityName” and
`“OpportunityId” attributes for the “Opportunity” object), and their addresses. For example, doing so
`would improve system performance by eliminating the need to analyze each web service for web
`components and the associated inputs and outputs on a per request basis. (Huang, ¶[0049] (“The
`WSManager 127 may be invoked by the Designer 104, e.g., to get a list of web service objects.”).) A
`registry would further enable a user of Huang’s system to search for web services rather than requiring
`pre-existing knowledge of a specific web service, its capabilities, and its address. (Id.) Including the
`address of a web service in the registry would allow the user interface of Huang to maintain its
`functionality of using a web address as an input to identify the relevant, available web services (and the
`corresponding symbolic names) from the registry. (Huang, ¶¶[0077], [0105], Fig. 3.)
`Additionally, utilizing a registry of the symbolic names of Huang would have been a
`straightforward, conventional way to implement a system that accesses web services. A POSITA would
`have known that symbolic names were used for accessing various types of data and services. (U.S.
`Patent No. 7,873,625, Abstract, 1:10-11, 1:39-40; U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2006/0230462, ¶¶[0005], [0032], [0035].) Therefore, a POSITA would have found implementing a
`registry in the above manner an obvious option to simplify and streamline data processing and record-
`keeping relating to Huang’s web services. A POSITA would also have been motivated to store the
`registry in Huang’s database 124 to leverage already-existing data stores in Huang’s system.
`A POSITA would also have had a reasonable expectation of success. First, the use of registries
`containing symbolic names and addresses in the context of web services was common and well known.
`(U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0067421, ¶¶[0005]-[0007], Figs. 1-2; Shenfield, ¶¶[0025],
`[0044]; see also Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 9,063,755, 1068-69 (explaining WSDL provides
`symbolic names for web services).) Thus, a POSITA would have known how to implement such a
`registry in Huang’s system without disrupting system function. Second, Huang’s system utilizes data
`77
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`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
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0006
`
`

`

`formats (SOAP and WSDL) consistent with the information available on well-known web services
`registries, including those disclosed in Shenfield, such that modifying Huang’s system to incorporate
`such a feature would have been easy for a POSITA to implement. (Id.) Third, Huang’s system includes
`a comparable data store (database 124) to Shenfield’s application repository 700 that could store the
`registry. (Id.) Indeed, the above modification would have been a mere combination of known
`components and technologies to produce predictable results. (Id.) See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
`Further, a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Huang’s Designer 104 with Shenfield’s
`solution of “platform-specific” presentation and workflow components to enable Huang’s applications to
`accommodate the resource constraints of less-powerful, internet-accessible devices. In view of
`Shenfield’s disclosures that explain that native applications “provid[e] a relatively optimized application
`program for each runtime environment” over other “resource intensive” solutions, that its “component
`applications 105 may be executed as native code or interpreted by another software module” (which a
`POSITA would have understood to include web browsers), and that its invention maintains the principle
`“write once run everywhere” (Shenfield, ¶¶[0005], [0029], [0056]), a POSITA would have been
`motivated to implement Shenfield’s device-specific components (Player that is a device-dependent code)
`in Huang’s system to achieve the same benefits and better tailor operation of its applications on a wider
`range of devices. Specifically, a POSITA would have been motivated to replace Huang’s players with
`Shenfield’s device-specific code (player) that can be tailored to provide instructions that optimize the
`display of content specified in Huang’s device-independent applications for each runtime environment,
`thus improving performance and user experience for a broader set of end users. (Id.; Shenfield, ¶¶[0005],
`[0029], [0056]; see also id., ¶[0054].)
`Further, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing
`Shenfield’s device-dependent components to the system of Huang. Specifically, Shenfield’s device-
`specific components would have been compatible with Huang’s device-independent components because
`Huang’s application and Shenfield’s device-independent components utilize similar code (Huang’s XML
`definitions (Huang, ¶¶[0008], [0042], [0059]) versus Shenfield’s “structured definition language”
`(Shenfield, ¶[0040]), including XML (id., ¶[0046])). Further, Shenfield’s platform-specific presentation
`78
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`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
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0007
`
`

`

`components and device-specific workflow components would operate similarly to the functionality of
`Huang’s player, executing an application and providing instructions that are interpreted by the runtime
`environment.
`Further, in view of Huang’s suggestion and Shenfield’s disclosure of a system that generates both
`the application and player, a POSITA would have been motivated to produce the player using Huang’s
`designer in the Huang-Shenfield system. Indeed, because Huang’s designer already generates code, a
`POSITA would have found doing so beneficial because this design would efficiently leverage the same
`software to generate platform-specific components. Indeed, altering Huang’s system to generate a player
`that allows for the presentation of its application, as disclosed in Shenfield, would have been a simple
`substitution of known elements to achieve predictable results.
`II.
`GROUNDS OF INVALIDITY BASED ON 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1, 2 PER PATENT LOCAL
`RULE 3-3(D)
`
`Written Description, Enablement, and Indefiniteness for the ’397 and ’168 Patents
`A.
`The ’397 Asserted Claims are invalid for lack of written description and enablement under 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, and for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the
`applicant regards as his invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Defendants reserve the right to supplement
`these Invalidity Contentions to further identify bases for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶¶ 1 & 2.
`1.
`’397 Patent: Written Description
`To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must demonstrate that the
`patentee possessed the full scope of the claimed invention as of the filing date of the patent. Ariad
`Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris
`Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1376-79 (Fed. Cir. 2009); LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping,
`Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1344-47 (Fed. Cir. 2005). If the specification demonstrates that the inventor
`possessed only some, but not all, embodiments encompassed by a claim, the claim is invalid under the
`written-description requirement. ICU, 558 F.3d at 1376-79 (affirming summary judgment that claims to
`medical valves were invalid where claims encompassed both spiked and spikeless valves but
`specification described only spiked valves); LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1337-39 (affirming summary
`judgment that broad claims to seamless image compression were invalid where specification described
`79
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`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
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0008
`
`

`

`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Ryan J. Casamiquela
`Michael A. Berta (SBN 194650)
`Ryan J. Casamiquela (SBN 228559)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 471-3100
`Facsimile:
`(415) 471-3400
`michael.berta@arnoldporter.com
`ryan.casamiquela@arnoldporter.com
`Nicholas H. Lee (SBN 259588)
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 S Figueroa St, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Telephone: (213) 243-4000
`Facsimile:
`(213) 243-4199
`nicholas.lee@arnoldporter.com
`Irene I. Yang (SBN 245464 )
`Michael J. Bettinger (SBN 122196)
`Sue Wang (SBN 286247)
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California St., Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 772-1200
`Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
`Irene.yang@sidley.com
`Mbettinger@sidley.com
`Sue.wang@sidley.com
`Attorneys for Defendants ADOBE INC.
`& X.COMMERCE INC.
`
`Dated: July 19, 2021
`
`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
`
`96
`DEFENDANTS ADOBE INC. AND X.COMMERCE, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT
`TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3 / CASE NO. 3:20-CV-08297-RS
`
`Adobe v. Express Mobile - IPR2021-01225
`PO_EM044_2010-0009
`
`