Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 9
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1of9
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACODIVISION
`
`FLYPSI, INC. (D/B/A FLYP),
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-31-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`es
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF FLYP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
`
`FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONCERNING INFRINGEMNT OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 10,334,094, 11,012,554, AND 11,218,585 (ECF NO. 150
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 9
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 9
`
`Google has been unable to identify any genuine factual disputes that would preclude
`
`summary judgment of infringement regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 10,334,094; 11,012,554; and
`
`11,218,585 (the “OutboundPatents”). Its Response (ECF No. 179) instead relies exclusively on
`
`(1) improper claim construction arguments that the Court should disregard; and (2) an affirmative
`
`defense under Section 273 that does not preclude summaryjudgmentofinfringement because(a)it
`
`is decided under a different standard and (b) it does not bring into dispute whether the accused
`
`Google Voice practices the limitations in the asserted claims (and in fact requires that it does). The
`
`Court should thus grant Flyp partial summary judgmentof infringement on the Outbound Patents
`
`and reserve the open questions underlying Google’s affirmative Section 273 defense for the jury.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Google’s Opposition Underscores That No Genuine Dispute of Material Fact
`Remains Regarding Whether the Accused Google Voice Infringes.
`
`Google identifies only two purportedly disputed claim limitations:
`
`element le (“receiving, at a switch associated with the server, an
`outgoing call from the handset. . .”), and
`
`element 1g (“receiving, at the switch, information from the server
`directing the switch to .
`. .”).
`
`(Resp. at 6.) But Google does not identify any genuine factual disputes about these limitations.
`
`Google instead relies exclusively on untimely claim construction arguments that Flyp has moved
`
`to strike from Dr. Gottesman’s expert report.
`
`(ECF No. 152 at 2-11.) Once those claim-
`
`construction disputes are disregarded, no genuine disputes of material fact remain.
`
`1.
`
`The only two purported disputes of fact that Google identifies are
`untimely claim construction issues it has presented through its expert.
`
`Google misapprehends claim construction as a jury question in suggesting that “Flyp asks
`
`the Court to step into the role of the jury and resolve the parties’ disputes on grounds that Google’s
`
`expert purportedly used an improper claim construction.” (Resp. at 6.) But construing claimsis
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 3 of 9
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 3 of 9
`
`the Court’s role, and it is thus “improper for experts to argue claim construction to the jury.” See
`
`Mobile Equity Corp. v. Walmart Inc., 2022 WL 19917854, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2022)
`
`(quoting Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`
`Flyp has movedto strike Dr. Gottesman’s untimely claim construction opinions, including
`
`the two opinions that Googlerelies on as presenting material disputes here: (1) construing “switch”
`
`to exclude VoIP (to require a PSTN switch) based on an alleged prosecution-history disclaimer
`
`and (2) construing “receiving, at the switch, information from the server directing the switch to”
`
`to exclude the switch receiving instructions from the sever. (ECF No. 152 at 8-10.) If the Court
`
`grants Flyp’s Motion to strike those opinions from Dr. Gottesman’s report, Google has not
`
`identified any other disputes a jury would need to resolve before determining that the accused
`
`Google Voice practicesall the limitations in the Outbound Patents.
`
`material fact otherwise.
`
`Google is wrong that Dr. Gottesman has not applied a specialized meaning to “switch.”
`
`Dr. Gortesnenais
`
`(ECF No. 152-4 at 283:7—283:25; ECF No. 152-2 at § 47; Mot. Ex. 3 at 55:4—56:2, 64:22-65:23
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 4 of 9
`
`EEeee
`
`oneeeeeee—CC‘CHS
`
`Apart from this claim-construction argument, there is no genuine dispute whether the
`
`accused Google Voice includes a switch. Google misrepresents the testimony of its corporate
`
`designee by contending
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 5 of 9
`
`SSi:
`
`there is no genuine dispute of material fact whether the accused Google Voice includes a switch,
`
`including for the reasons set forth in Flyp’s Motion.
`
`3.
`
`In Google’s opposition, it subtly retreats fromits position thai .
`
`it for the same reasons explained above.
`
`, and the Court should reject
`
`107 F. Supp. 2d 992, 993 (E.D. La. 2000), aff'd, 31 F. App’x 151 (Sth Cir. 2001) (striking expert
`
`report and granting summary judgment when report contradicted testimony from corporate
`
`Dr. Gottesman’s Contradiction
`
`Google’s Corporate Testimony
`
`
`
`
`1 All emphasis added.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 6 of 9
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Gottesman’s Contradiction
`
`
` (Mot. Ex. 1 at 124:23-125:12.)
`Google’s Corporate Testimony
`
`
`
` (Mot. Ex. 2 at 14:3-14:18.)
`
`
`Ultimately, based on Google’s corporate testimony, there is no genuine dispute whether
`
`
`
`(Mot. Ex. 2 at 74:9-74:22 (emphasis added).) Other than Google’s untimely claim construction
`
`dispute of fact based on Google’s corporate testimony
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 7 of 9
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 7 of 9
`
`B.
`
`Google’s Section 273 Defense Does Not Preclude Partial Summary Judgment
`that the Accused Google Voice Infringes.
`
`Google is mistaken that the question of infringementandits Section 273 defense are mirror
`
`issues. On one hand, Flyp need only show that the accused version of Google Voice practices each
`
`limitation by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580
`
`F.3d 1301, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009). On the other hand, Google must show under the much higher
`
`clear and convincing evidence standard that Google Voice practiced all the same claim limitations
`
`in 2012 or earlier. See 35 U.S.C. § 273(a)-(b).
`
`As explained above and in Flyp’s Motion, there are no genuine disputes remaining
`
`regarding the accused version of Google Voice.It practices each limitation in the asserted claims
`
`from the OutboundPatents. Flyp is thus due partial summary judgmenton that issue. See Mikkelsen
`
`Graphic Eng’g, Inc. v. ZundAm., Inc., 541 F. App’x 964, 971 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming summary
`
`judgment when only noninfringement positions were based on improper claim construction
`
`positions). Whether Google Voicealso practicedall those limitations in 2012 is a separate question
`
`and, as explained by Flyp in opposing summary judgmenton that issue, includes genuine factual
`
`disputes that the jury must resolve. (See ECF No. 174.)
`
`Il.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Flyp therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant partial summary judgment of
`
`infringement regarding the Outbound Patents, as explained in Flyp’s Motion.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 8 of 9
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 8 of 9
`
`DATED:December5, 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
`mrecullough@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
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 9 of 9
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 214 Filed 12/12/23 Page 9 of 9
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 5, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`documentwasfiled electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECFsystem. As ofthis
`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
`
`