Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`FLYPSI, INC., (D/B/A FLYP),
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:22-cv-00031-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S CORRECTED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
`10,334,094; 10,125,554; AND 11,218,585
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 13
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 13
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION 0002. .ecccccecccccecceccecceseeseseeseeseeseeeeceeceeceesseceeeaeeeeeaeeaetseseeeeeseeserseeseeeeeteeees 1
`
`GOOGLEIS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENTONITS SECTION 273
`DEFENSE0.000. oe cc ecceseescescesceseeseeseseeeseeseesesseeseesessesesecsecsecsecsaeaeeseeaeeseeseceeeeeeeessesseaeeaeesees 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Facts Material to Google’s Section 273 Defense Are Not Genuinely
`Disputed ..0..........cccccceccceeccesccceseeesseceseceseecaeeesseceseceseeesecesaeceseceseeseseeeseeesseseseeeeeeeees 1
`Flyp’s Argument that GV’s OutgoingPo Somehow
`Changed After July 17, 2012, to Include “Transmitting an Access
`Telephone Numberto a Mobile Device Over a Data Channel” Lacks
`Evidentiary Support ..................cccccccsccessceesceesecesccesseeesecesaeeeseceeceeseeesseesseeesseeeeeeees 3
`Flyp’s Reference to the Non-Accused ; tsisSY and to GV App
`Changes in 2017 Are Red HerringS...0............ceccceccesceeseeeceeseeeseeeeeseeeseenseeseeeseeeees 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The‘
`the outgoing
`
`is completely different and separate from
`accused by Flyp.................:::: 6
`
`The 2017 GV Applications rewrite did not affect the outgoinga 7
`
`CONCLUSION 00. ooecccccecccceccceecceeeceesceeeeeceseeeeaeceneceaeceaecesaeeeaeeeaeeeseceeeeseaeeeeseseeeenseeeeeeeees 8
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 3 of 13
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Lexon Ins. Co. v. FDIC,
`7 F.4th 315 (5th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................................6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 273 ........................................................................................................................1, 2, 8
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 4 of 13
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 4 of 13
`
`L
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Flyp’s Opposition fundamentally misapprehends the facts material to Google’s Section 273
`
`infringement defense with respect to the Outgoing Call Patents. The material facts are defined by
`
`Section 273 itself, and the record makesclear that there is no genuine issue as to any materialfact.
`
`It is undisputed that Google Voice (“GV”) was launched in 2009, more than three years before the
`
`critical date of July 17, 2012 (one yearbefore the effective filing date of the Asserted Patents). GV
`
`undopedinchedrr
`record evidencemakesclr
`ee. In fact, the only expert who reviewed and compared the Google Voice source
`code from 2009-2022, Google’s expert Dr. Oded Gottesman, confirmed hoi
`
`Pe Underthe express terms of Section 273,
`
`Google cannot infringe the Outgoing Call Patents even if, as Flyp claims, that GV call flow
`
`practices the asserted claims.! Because Flyp points to no evidence sufficient to support any
`
`infringementverdict, summary judgment for Google should be granted.
`
`II.
`
`GOOGLEIS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ONITS SECTION 273
`DEFENSE
`
`A.
`
`The Facts Material to Google’s Section 273 Defense Are Not Genuinely
`Disputed
`
`1 As explained in Google's Motion,beca ifFlypiscorrectthattheaccusedprocesspracticesalltheasserted
`
`claim elements, then the claims are subject to the Section 273 defense and summary judgment of
`no infringementis appropriate underthat section. Alternatively, if Flyp
`cannot
`provethatall of the
`elements read on the
`—the same
`process that has been in use by Google Voice since 2009—then axiomatically there can be no
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C.§271(a). To be clear, Google maintains thatFS
`
`o
`that has existed from 2009-2023 does notpractice all
`the elements of Flyp’s patents. But either way, Google is now entitled to summary judgment of
`non-infringement on the Outgoing Call Patents.
`
`-|-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 5 of 13
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 5 of 13
`
`Section 273 providesthat
`
`[a] person shall be entitled to a defense under Section 282(b) with respect to subject matter
`consisting of a process,
`.
`.
`. that would otherwise infringe a claimed invention being
`asserted against the person if—(1) such person, acting in good faith, commercially used
`the subject matter in the United States, .
`.
`.
`; and (2) such commercial use occurredatleast
`1 year before the earlier of either—(A) the effective filing date of the claimed invention”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 273. Those requirements are the totality of what Google must prove by clear and
`
`convincing evidenceto establish the Section 273 non-infringement defense.
`
`There are no genuine disputes as to any of the few basic facts material to the Section 273
`
`inquiry. First, it is undisputed that Flyp is asserting the Outgoing Call Patents against GV and,
`
`nore specifcaly, instI second, iti
`
`undisputed that Google publicly and commercially launched GV in March 2009, and that users
`
`have commercially used GV to make outgoing phonecalls from mobile devices ever since March
`
`2009. See Dkt. 147-3 at 24-25 (timeline); Dkt. 148-4 at 5—16. Third,it is undisputed that Google’s
`
`launch and commercial use of GV, inclidingi. occurredat
`
`least one year before the July 17, 2013, effective filing date of the Outgoing Call Patents. Jd.
`
`The record evidence indisputably establishes thatPe
`I 1110 cies:
`
`«
`
`Publications, articles, and publicly distributed videos from 2009 to 2012 describing the same
`outgoing call features that are being accused in GV from 2019 to today, including Dkt. 148-4
`at 9; Dkt. 147-17 at 259:14-262:15; Ex. 25 at 182:8-184:1; Dkt. 148-5 (“Wecall this feature
`‘direct access numbers.’ Here’s how it works: Until today, the Google Voice app had to make
`a request to the Google Voice server every time you wanted to makea call to send us the phone
`number you wanted to dial. Then the call would be connected via a Google Voice access
`number. With direct access numbers, we assign a unique phone numberto every person you
`call. This means that we no longer need to use your data networkto access the server each time
`you makea call, so calls will be placed muchfaster.”);? Dkt. 147-8 at 19 (citing Google Voice
`
`? Flyp’s suggestion that Google never produced this document is wrong. Opp.at 9. The document
`was produced as GOOG-FLYP-00000863, Ex. 28, on July 1, 2022, Ex. 29, and again as GOOG-
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 6 of 13
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 6 of 13
`
`2010),
`25,
`(Jan.
`YouTube
`browser,
`mobile
`your
`in
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neiOa38DuqI); Dkt. 147-4 at 243:4-10, 104:16—111:3;
`Ex. 26 at 183:7—186:11; Ex. 27 at 218:24—220:8 (same).
`
`See, e.g., Exs. 32-34.
`
`«=
`
`Testimony of multiple Google engineers who were directly
`management of GV explaining that
`
`involved in the creation and
`
`. See, e.g. Dkt. 147-7 at
`61:16—62:15, 71:8—74:14, 78:16—79:22; Dkt. 147-6 at 20:16—19; Dkt. 147-11 at 16:17—19,
`
`106:2—17, 106:18—107:18
`
`
` ; Dkt. 147 at 7-8.
`
`Flyp’s Opposition tacitly concedes that as to every Outgoing Call Patent claim element
`
`(except for one), pre- and post-July 17, 2012 GVPO in
`
`materially the same manner. Flyp does not dispute that at all times from 2009 to today GV has
`
`permitted outgoing calls on a mobile device from a secondary number (GV number) associated
`
`with a primary number(cell phone number), implemented through apps and a mobile web browser.
`
`Flyp doesnot disputtn
`
`ee. Ex. 32; Ex. 34. And Flyp does not dispute that
`
`B.Flyp’s Argument thsII Sonschow
`ChangedAfter July 17, 2012, to Include “Transmitting an Access Telephone
`Numberto a Mobile Device Over a Data Channel” Lacks Evidentiary
`Support
`
`The only claim element where Flyp suggests that Google may have made a changeis
`
`FLYP-PA-00021059 on July 26, 2023, before the close of fact discovery. Ex. 30. And Flyp expert
`Dr. Conte considered the documentfor his report. See Ex. 31 at 6.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 7 of 13
`
`“automatically transmitting information that indicates an access telephone numberto the mobile
`
`device via a data channel.” Opp. at 3 (quoting °554 Patent claim 1, and citing similar elements
`
`from ’094 and °585 Patent claims). But Flyp cites no evidence supporting its contention. To create
`
`the appearance of a dispute concerning this single element, Flyp does the following:
`
`Step 1: Flyp’s infringement expert, Dr. Nettles, opines that
`
`oe: ico. 55 52)
`
`Step 2: Flyp’s validity expert, Dr. Conte,
`
`EE). See also Dkt. 147-4 at 186:17-187:2.
`
`Step 3: Flyp carefully ensures that its two experts do nothing to determine whether or how
`
`I. Dt. 147-4 at 245:11-248:24. Both experts admitto
`
`7. Dkt. 147-17 at 121:10-15
`GI. 2 19: 16-25: Ex. 25 at 247:11-248:24
`
`; Dkt. 147-4 at 188:15—
`
`!
`
`!
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 8 of 13
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 8 of 13
`
`190:25. And, both experts admit thatee
`eee
`I Dt. 147-17 at 221:20-222:2: Dkt. 147-4 at 245:11-248:24.
`
`Step4:Flyp then uses the lack of knowledge and inconsistency between its separate
`
`
`
`|| to assert that there must have been an intervening—but unidentified and wholly
`
`
`
`undefined—change in the way the system works. Opp. at 13 (“This necessarily evidences an
`
`intervening change.”). Yet, neither expert can identify any such change—becausethe evidence
`
`00OU
`
`In essence, Flyp and its experts stuck their heads in the sand and now suggestthat there is
`
`confusion—thatthat must be resolved by a jury—becausethey couldn’t see what was happening
`
`while their heads were buried.
`
`Thefacts relating to the history and operation ofPe
`Po are unrebutted by Flyp, such that there are no genuine factual disputes
`
`for a jury to resolve. The law does not permit Flyp to avoid summary judgment by engineering a
`
`conflict between its own experts’ opinions and then claiming that a jury must resolve that conflict.
`
`Flyp mustpointto actual record evidence that gives rise to a genuine dispute about a materialfact,
`
`particularly given the overwhelming record evidence establishing thatPo
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 9 of 13
`
`IL.A, supra. But Flyp does not and cannot point to any record evidence to support its speculation
`
`Co. v. FDIC, 7 F Ath 315, 322 (Sth Cir. 2021) (“Summary judgmentis not foreclosed by ‘some
`
`metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated
`
`assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.””).
`
`C.
`
`Flyp’s Oppositiontries to confuse the issue by pointing toPo
`
`. But neither of those is material.
`
`ee. Opp.at 4; see also Ex. 36 at 60:24—-61:3, 34
`eeeeereer—CSGS;:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 10 of 13
`
`In this case, Flyp is accusing
`
`See citations in Section II.A, supra.
`
`To compound the confusion, Flyp’s Opposition cites Dr. Conte’s analysis ofPs
`
`(Opp. at 6) and suggests that this analysis shows
`
`0 105 7
`
`2012. (/d. at 6.) This is a red herring.
`
`Dr. Conte admits that he
`
`Ex. 25 at 18:14—20:15; 85:23-86:3, 186:6—15.
`
`Dkt. 147-19 at 26
`
`Lastly, Flyp points—at a high level and in a nonspecific way—to
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 11 of 13
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 11 of 13
`
`Pe and attempts to contrive a fact issue about whether theP
`Po changedat that time. Opp. at 10-12. That argumentfails.
`
`eeee
`ee
`EE See Dkt. 147-17 at 103:8-14, 121:10-12; Dkt. 147-4 at 186:6-15.
`Everything Flyp now cites makes clearthat
`EE Opp.at 10-12:see also Dkt. 174-8 at 38:14
`ee
`ee
`Po There is not a scintilla of evidence thai
`had anything to do with, or changed in any way,PO To the
`contrary, the record is undisputedtha
`a. Dkt. 147-6 at 38:1—4; 67:15—18. That is why Flyp’s experts could not and did not identify
`any difference betweenSs before and after July 17, 2012.
`
`Il.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Ultimately, the record evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that (1) Google
`
`commercially launched GV in March 2009; (2) users have commercially used GV to make
`
`outgoing phone calls from mobile devices from March 2009 to today; and (3) the launch and
`
`commercial use ofGV, includingPE
`
`occurred at least one year before the July 17, 2013, effective filing date of the asserted claims.
`
`These are the facts material to Google’s Section 273 defense. Flyp does not and cannot point to
`
`any record evidencethat creates a genuine dispute, so summary judgmentis warranted.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`DATED: December 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Robert W. Unikel
`Robert W. Unikel (Pro Hac Vice)
`robertunikel@paulhastings.com
`John A. Cotiguala (Pro Hac Vice)
`johncotiguala@paulhastings.com
`Daniel J. Blake (Pro Hac Vice)
`danielblake@paulhastings.com
`Grayson S. Cornwell (Pro Hac Vice)
`graysoncornwell@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 499-6000
`Facsimile: (312) 499-6100
`
`Elizabeth Brann (Pro Hac Vice)
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`Ariell N. Bratton (Pro Hac Vice)
`ariellbratton@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi (Pro Hac Vice)
`robertlaurenzi@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`Joshua Yin (Pro Hac Vice)
`joshuayin@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Dan L. Bagatell (Pro Hac Vice)
`dbagatell@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 219 Filed 12/12/23 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`3 Weatherby Road
`Hanover, NH 03755
`Telephone: (602) 351-8250
`Facsimile: (602) 648-7150
`
`Andrew T. Dufresne (Pro Hac Vice)
`adufresne@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`33 E. Main St. Ste. 201
`Madison, WI 53703
`Telephone: (608) 663-7460
`Facsimile: (608) 663-7499
`
`Paige Arnette Amstutz
`State Bar No.: 00796136
`pamstutz@scottdoug.com
`SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 495-6300
`Facsimile: (512) 495-6399
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 6th day of December, 2023, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing document was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system.
`
`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.
`
`/s/ Robert W. Unikel
`Robert W. Unikel
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`