Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 19
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`FLYPSI, INC. (D/B/A FLYP),
`
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-31-ADA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`FLYPSI, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 10,334,094; 10,125,554; AND 11,218,585 (ECF NO. 147
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 19
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYOF THE ARGUMENT.....00.....0.cccccccceceseesseceseeteeeeeeees 1
`
`TL ARGUMENTo00oeeeecececeeecececscseseseeeeseeseassesesescsesenesenenecerscscscsesesenesenenesasasacecacsenesenensescaracseeeseaeseeeeeeeees 2
`
`A. A reasonable jury could (and would) find Google has not proven that Google Voice
`practiced the OutboundPatents’ methods before July 2012. .0.....ecccceeeeecesceeesceseeeeseeeeseeeeeeeee 2
`
`The asserted claims from the OutboundPatents require transmitting an access
`1.
`telephone number to a mobile device overa data channel. «..........0..0...ccecceseeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 2
`
`
`
`3. There is a dispute between Dr. Gottesman and Dr. Conte regarding whether the
`pre-2013 version of Google Voice included transmitting the access telephone
`numberbefore the July 2012 critical date. .2.......eececeeeecceceeceseeeeeeeseeceecseesceccseseeseesteatseeetsees5
`
`The additional documents that Google cites in its Motion do not resolve the
`4.
`dispute between Dr. Gottesman and Dr. Conte. .2..........cececeececeeeecesceseeceseeceeeeseeeeseceseeeeseens8
`
`B. There is substantial question of fact whether Google abandonedthe pre-2013 version
`ofGoogle Voice[iT 10
`
`THT. CONCLUSION 200... ccceccccecceccececeseseseseseseseseseseseeeceeesesseseseseseseeessseacsescsesceceeeeseseseeceeeeeceeaeeeeeeees 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 19
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`PerdiemCo, LLC v. IndusTrack LLC,
`2016 WL 8189022 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2016) .o....ccccceeccecececcseeceseeseeseseeeeseesescacsecsceecseeseeeeseeatseeaees 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 273 oaccccecccccccscscesesceseeeseeseeseseseseesessesesesaesacsesacsaeseaesecseseeseeecseesesecseeaeseeseeeeseeaeseaees 2,5, 12,13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 273 (a) nccccccecccceccscesceceseseeseeseseeseecescesescsacscsscscsaesacsassesesaeeacsesacseaceacscseesceseescseeaeeaeaeeecaeeaees 2,12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 273 (D) nee ceccccceccecescecescsceseeseeeescecescssescsacsesscsessesacsacsesecsceacseeacsecsceacsesecseeseeacsceateacaeeecsceases 2,12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 273 (€)(3)
`
`.ceececececescscesesesesesesesessescsessecscscsscscseseeaesesacsesesacacsesesecaesceeesesesesseeeeataeeeenecsteeeeeatees 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 273 (e)(4) onceececcccccccesesceceseeseseesescesesesessesesesacsesacsceseeacsecsesaesesacseaesceaesacsecaeseeseeassceacseeaeeasaees 10
`
`il
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 4 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 4 of 19
`
`No.|Description
`
`TABLEOF EXHIBITS!
`
` 1
`
`Expert Report of Oded Gottesman, Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 9,667,770; 10,051,105; 10,334,094; 11,012,554; AND 11,218,585 (Sept. 12, 2023
`Source Code Supplement in Connection with Exhibit T-2
`
`(Reserved)
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Thomas M. Conte Regarding Validity of the ’770, ’105,
`°094, °554 and ’585 Patents (Oct. 10, 2023
`Deposition Transcript of Thomas Ford (July 27, 2023)
`
`GOOG-FLYP-00002845
`
` 7
`
`GOOG-FLYP-00001065.R
`
`8
`9
`
`Deposition Transcript of| (May 9, 2023)
`Deposition Transcript ofP (Aug. 15, 2023)
`
`1 The undersigned herebystates that true and correct copies of the exhibits noted here are attached
`to this Motion.
`
`ill
`
`2
`
`3
`
`5
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 5 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 5 of 19
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARYOF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Google’s Motion tacitly concedes that any reasonable jury would find, based on a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, that the accused version of Google Voice infringes the asserted
`
`claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,334,094; 10,125,554; and 11,218,585 (the “Outbound Patents”).
`
`Flyp is thus due partial summary judgment of infringement (see ECF No. 150).
`
`Google cannot, however, meet its higher burden of proving prior commercialuse by clear
`
`and convincing evidence. Neither Google norits expert has identified any compelling evidence
`
`from before July 2012 (a year before the Outbound Patent’s July 2013 effective filing dates) that
`
`shows Google Voice practiced a key limitation—transmitting an access telephone numberto a
`
`mobile device over a data channel. The only evidence Google andits expert profferare (1) citations
`
`a. and (2) Google’s self-serving, uncorroborated corporate testimony—testimonythat,
`tbe cle,iy
`ee
`a 0:
`also conveniently ignores its corporate testimonythe
`ee. That testimony puts into reasonable dispute (1) its illogical
`
`position that documents about Google Voice in 2019 show (by clear and convincing evidence)
`
`how it operated before July 2012 and (2) its contention that Google Voice did not changeto include
`
`new infringing materials between July 2012 and the date offirst infringementin 2019.
`
`In short, there are genuine disputes between the parties about whether Google Voice
`
`practiced all the limitations in the asserted claims from the Outbound Patents before 2013 and
`
`whether there were intervening changes to introduce new infringing functionality before first
`
`infringement in 2019. The Court should therefore deny Google’s Motion.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 6 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 6 of 19
`
`Il.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Google’s Motion improperly flips the burden under Section 273 on its head. Congress
`
`explicitly burdened infringers, like Google, to prove prior commercial use by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 273(b). Google cannot satisfy this burden (as it suggests) by simply
`
`pleading a prior commercial use defense and putting the onus on Flyp to rebutit. See id. Google
`
`must instead prove that Google Voice practiced every limitation in the asserted claims from the
`
`Outbound Patents more than a year before their priority dates. See id. § 273(a) (requiring prior use
`
`product “would otherwise infringe”). So, for summary judgment, Google must show thatit has
`
`evidence for every claim limitation of such overwhelming strength that no reasonable jury could
`
`find otherwise. See generally, e.g., PerdiemCo, LLC v. IndusTrack LLC, 2016 WL 8189022, at *1
`
`(E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2016). As explained below, Google hasfailed to do so.
`
`A.
`
`A reasonable jury could (and would) find Google has not proven that Google
`Voice practiced the Outbound Patents’ methods before July 2012.
`
`Google cannot meet its burden on summary judgment because it has not proffered
`
`competent evidence—iuchless clear and convincing evidence—that Google Voice practiced the
`
`methods in the OutboundPatents more than a year before their priority dates. In its Motion, Google
`
`concedesthat the critical question ofprior commercial use under Section 273 turns on the operation
`
`of Google Voice in July 16, 2012. (See ECF No. 147 at 3.) Google does not, however, clearly or
`
`convincingly show the operation of Google Voice before this date because its expert,
`
`Dr. Gottesman, improperly relies on the operation of Google Voice in or after 2013 and on source
`
`— 1
`
`. The asserted claims from the Outbound Patents require transmitting an
`access telephone numberto a mobile device over a data channel.
`
`Google contends that the ’554 patent’s claim 1 is representative for the purposeofits prior
`
`commercial use defense. Similar to the asserted claims from the other Outbound Patents, claim 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 7 of 19
`
`from the °554 patent requires “automatically transmitting information that indicates an access
`
`telephone numberto the mobile device via a data channel.” (See also ’094 patent at claim 1
`
`(“automatically associating a bridge or access telephone numberwith each of a plurality of contact
`
`telephone numbers in the computer memory”); ’585 patent at claim 1 (“automatically transmitting
`
`informationthat indicates an access telephone numberto the mobile device via a data channel’”).)
`
`As explained below, as one non-limiting example of how Google has failed its burden,
`
`substantial evidence showsthat
`
`SS 022:2)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`ae
`s_y
`
`e
`
`ae
`
`e
`es
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`Ss.
`
`'
`
`tN 2 —_—
`
`_ ~—
`
`wa
`
`3. There is a dispute between Dr. Gottesman and Dr. Conte regarding
`whether the pre-2013 version of Google Voice included transmitting the
`access telephone numberbefore the July 2012 critical date.
`
`As Google bears the burden of proof,
`
`its expert, Dr. Oded Gottesman, addressed
`
`Section 273 in his opening expert report. (See Ex. 1 § 229.) He also provided a chart (Exhibit T-2)
`
`that he contends explains the bases for his opinion that Google Voice constituted prior commercial
`
`use for the Outbound Patents “as of July 16, 2012.” Ud.) Dr. Gottesman doesnot identify in his
`
`report or Exhibit T-2 any clear or convincing evidence of Google transmitting information
`
`indicating an access telephone to a mobile device before July 16, 2012.
`
`aa $
`
`120)ARs
`
`Nn
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 10 of 19
`
`(See Ex. 4 at 120 MNi
`
`ee
`
`(Id. § 168.) There is thus a genuine dispute betweenthe experts about
`
`Other than source code, Dr. Gottesmanrelies on two documents in his report to show that
`
`Google Voice purportedly practiced transmitting the access telephone numberto the mobile device
`
`over a data channel. In his Exhibit T-2, Dr. Gottesmanidentifies only GOOG-FLYP-00002845
`
`and GOOG-FLYP-00001065.R as relevant to this limitation. (See Ex. 2 at 10-19, 93, 95.)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 11 of 19
`
`(Ex. 6 at 1 (excerpted and annotated above).)PO
`
`Cx.$19
`
`(See Ex. 4 §§ 169-170).
`
`5217
`
`(See Ex. 1
`
`i citing Es8 618-5)rr
`
`(See
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 12 of 19
`
`(See Ex.1 9217.)
`
`«(ECF No. 150 at 2, 10, 17-18),
`
`This underscores a significant dispute between Dr. Gottesman
`
`and Dr. Conte about the operation of Google Voice before 2013:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 4 § 171.) That is ultimately a dispute for the jury to resolve.
`
`4. The additional documents that Google cites in its Motion do not resolve the
`dispute between Dr. Gottesman and Dr. Conte.
`
`Apparently recognizing that Dr. Gottesman’s analysis is lacking, Google attaches multiple
`
`exhibits to its Motion attempting to refute Dr. Conte’s rebuttal. But none of those documents
`
`resolve the dispute between Dr. Gottesman and Dr. Conte regarding whether pre-2013 Google
`
`Voice practiced transmitting the access telephone numberto the mobile device overa data channel.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 13 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 13 of 19
`
`For example, Google relies on an October 2009 letter it sent to the FCC as evidence that
`
`Google Voice practiced the Outbound Patent’s claim limitations in 2009. (ECF No. 147 at 5 (citing
`
`ECF No. 148-4).) Noticeably absent from Google’s description of the letter (which otherwise
`
`walks throughvarious claim limitations) is any suggestion that it describes transmitting the access
`
`telephone numberto the mobile device overa data channel. (See id.) This is so becausetheletter
`
`lacks such a disclosure and instead appearsto discuss solutions that would not involve pushing an
`
`access telephone numberto a mobile device overa data channel, like web-basedcalling, outbound
`
`VoIP, and the Missed Call Flow. (See ECF No. 148-4 at GOOG-FLYP-00000185-86.)
`
`Google also relies on an unproducedversion of a public blog post from its own website,
`
`printed in July 2023 but purportedly from 2010,
`
`that describes a “direct access numbers”
`
`enhancement to Google Voice’s Blackberry and Android applications. (See ECF No. 147 at 6
`
`(iting ECF No,145-5)
`
`a Evenso, it appears on the document’s face to refer to situations when the user sends a number
`
`to Google Voice and the Google Voice serverinitiates two outboundcall legs (one to the Google
`
`Voice userand one to the contact number) to connectthe call using an access number,ae
`RS 520 CF No. 15152
`
`Pe) The blog post includes no technical details about the
`
`enhancementto this process and doesnotdisclose that it involved transmitting an access telephone
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 14 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 14 of 19
`
`numberto the mobile device overa data channel. If Google is allowedto rely on this unproduced
`
`and unexplained blog post, then it is more properly a point of cross-examination for Dr. Gottesman,
`
`and not dispositiveven
`
`There is thus a genuine dispute about whether the methods from the OutboundPatents were
`
`in commercial use in pre-2013 Google Voice, and summary judgmentis unwarranted.
`
`B.
`
`There is substantial question of fact whether Google abandonedthe pre-2013
`version of Google Voice
`
`Google and Flyp have another fundamental dispute about whether Google modified the
`
`pre-2013 version of Google Voice to incorporate infringing subject matter or, alternatively,
`
`abandonedit entirely. The prior commercial use defense does not grant Google a general license
`
`to all claims under the Outbound Patents, and it explicitly does not give Google license to
`
`incorporate additional infringing subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 273(e)(3). Moreover, “[a] person who
`
`has abandoned commercialuse .
`
`.
`
`. of subject matter may notrely onactivities performed before
`
`the date of such abandonmentin establishing a defense [of prior commercial use] with respect to
`
`actions taken onorafter the date of such abandonment.” Jd. § 273(e)(4).
`
`ESN17
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 15 of 19
`
`(Ex. 9 at 35:3-35:13.)
`
`(Id. at 144:6-23.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 16 of 19
`
`SS «cS.0)
`
`Google tries to skirt these problems by conflating dates and burdens. It incorrectly suggests
`
`Flyp must affirmatively show an intervening change between the Google Voice version available
`
`on July 16, 2012, and the accused version as it was available in 2019, whenthe first of the
`
`OutboundPatents issued. (See ECF No. 147 at 2Pe
`
`I ) 1s Goons burden 1
`
`show(by clear and convincing evidence) that the July 2012 version of Google Voice practicedall
`
`the claim limitations. See 35 U.S.C. § 273(a)-(b). As explained above, it has failed to do so.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 17 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 17 of 19
`
`That said, Flyp has shownthat the current version of Google Voice infringes and has
`
`refuted Google’s contention that the pre-2013 version had the same functionality. For instance,
`
`Dr. Scott Nettles provided unrebutted testimony thatee
`
`§§ 164-171, 120 n.4.) This necessarily evidences an intervening change. A reasonable jury could
`
`thus easily conclude based onthis evidence that Google changed Google Voice after July 16, 2012,
`
`including to begin transmitting access telephone numbers to mobile devices overa data channel.
`
`This is particularly so givenee. Google is
`
`accordingly not due summary judgmentof noninfringementunderSection 273.
`
`Il.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should therefore deny Google’s Motion andreserve for the jury the question of
`
`whether Google has proven prior commercial use by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 18 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 18 of 19
`
`DATED: November28, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Thomas M. Melsheimer
`Thomas M. Melsheimer
`
`Texas Bar No. 13922550
`tmelsheimer@winston.com
`M.Brett Johnson
`
`Texas Bar No. 00790975
`mbjohnson@winston.com
`Michael A. Bittner
`Texas Bar No. 24064905
`mbittner@winston.com
`C. Charles Liu
`
`Texas Bar No. 24100410
`ccliu@winston.com
`Steven R. Laxton
`
`Texas Bar No. 24120639
`slaxton@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 453-6500
`
`Matthew R. McCullough
`California Bar No. 301330
`mrmecullough@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 858-6500
`
`William M. Logan
`Texas Bar No. 24106214
`wlogan@winston.com
`Evan D. Lewis
`Texas Bar No. 24116670
`edlewis@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 651-2766
`
`ATTORNEYSFOR PLAINTIFF
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 19 of 19
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 187 Filed 12/05/23 Page 19 of 19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 28, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`document wasfiled electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECFsystem.As of this
`date, all counsel of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy
`of this document through the Court’s CM/ECF system and by email. Administrative Policies and
`Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases, Western District of Texas, Section
`14.
`
`/s/ Michael A. Bittner
`Michael A. Bittner
`
`