Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`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 NO WILLFULNESS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 10
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION..02.ocecccccccccesccescesceeseesseeseesseeseeeeeseesseeseeeaecsaeeseeeseceeeeeeeseeeseeeeeeseeseessees 1
`
`THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REGARDING
`GOOGLE’S LACK OF PRE-SUIT KNOWLEDGE.......0......0...cccescceccesceesceeeceeeeeseeeeeeesens 1
`
`A.
`
`Flyp Does NotDispute the Material Facts ..................ccececceccceeeceesceeseeeeseeeseeeeseeeees 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`There Is No Evidence That
`Flyp’s Claims ThatGECransmitted Information to
`Defendant Google Are Baseless .................ccccccscceeeceesceeeseeeseceeeeeeeeesseeeeees 2
`
`The Presence of Flyp Patents in the Google Patents Online
`Database Does NotEstablish Knowledge by Those Working on
`Google VOICe «00.2... ceeeceseceseccesceesceeeseceseecseceseccesecesseceseceeeceseeeseeeesseeseeeeseees 3
`
`B.
`
`Cc.
`
`Flyp Presents No Facts That Google Was Willfully Blind.........0000000000eeeee 4
`
`Flyp Presents No Facts That Justify Imputing Google Ventures’
`Knowledge to Google ...........ecccecescceccesceeseesseeseeseeseeeseesecsseeseeeseceeeeeeseeeseeneeeeeees 4
`
`THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REGARDING THE
`LACK OF DELIBERATE OR INTENTIONAL INFRINGEMENT oregregious
`DehaviO8..oeeeccee ccc cceeeeececceccccccccceecececceccccccceeeeececececccuseeeeseceecececseeeeeeceececcccateeeecececeeceesteeeeeess 5
`
`CONCLUSION|... occccecccecccecccces cece cceeeeeesceeeeecaeceseeeaeeeeaeceeeeeeeseaeeeeeeesaeeeeseseeeeeeseeneeeeseeees 5
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 3 of 10
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Group. Ltd.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00967-ADA, 2022 WL 2705269 (W.D. Tex. July 12, 2022) ..............................5
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)....................................................................................................5
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`583 F. Supp. 3d 769 (W.D. Tex. 2022) ......................................................................................5
`
`Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1274-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4778699 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) ...........................4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) .....................................................................................................................5
`
`Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2019 WL 7905455 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019) ...............................1
`
`SimpliVity Corp. v. Springpath, Inc.,
`No. 4:15-13345-TSH, 2016 WL 5388951 (D. Mass. July 15, 2016) ....................................3, 4
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................3
`
`Xiros, Ltd. v. Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc.,
`No. W-21-CV-00681-ADA, 2022 WL 3592449 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022) ...........................3
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Flyp has not presented evidence of willful infringement. The Court granted Google’s
`
`motion to dismiss, agreeing that Flyp’s inferential leaps were “a stretch too far.” See Dkt. 48 at 8.
`
`Discovery confirmed that Flyp’s allegations are unsupported. For example, Flyp claims that
`
`was a Google LLC (“Google”) employee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` But the evidence shows
`
`that
`
`
`
`
`
`. And
`
`
`
`was an employee of Google Ventures, not Defendant Google, at the time.
`
` had not been
`
`a Google employee for over four years as of November 2015. Thus, there is no evidence that
`
`
`
`provided any information about Flyp to anyone at Google. Flyp asks the Court to permit a
`
`jury to infer from theory and conjecture that willful infringement occurred, but theory and
`
`conjecture cannot avoid summary judgment.
`
`II.
`
`THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REGARDING
`GOOGLE’S LACK OF PRE-SUIT KNOWLEDGE
`A.
`
`Flyp Does Not Dispute the Material Facts
`
`Although Flyp now asserts five patents against Google, only one application was pending
`
`at the time of the November 2015 meeting. See Dkt. 48 at 9. Mr. Rinfret never identified that patent
`
`application to
`
`. See Dkt. 143-3 at 284:2–11. No one at Google Ventures was aware of
`
`the patent application. Dkt. 143-4 at 70:23–71:8.
`
`was not an employee of Google LLC
`
`at the time of the meeting (Dkt. 103 ¶¶ 20–21), and there is no evidence that anyone at Google
`
`LLC, the defendant in this case, was ever made aware of the patent application. It is undisputed
`
`that there was never a conversation between Mr. Rinfret and anyone at Google about Flyp. But
`
`even knowledge of Flyp’s patent application would have been insufficient to demonstrate
`
`knowledge of the later patents (see Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2019 WL
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 5 of 10
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 5 of 10
`
`7905455, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019)), though the record shows thatREnever obtained
`such knowledge.mr and Google’s lack ofknowledgeofthe patents-in-suit filed well
`
`after the November 2015 meeting is beyond dispute. Facing these facts, Flyp muddles the issues
`
`with various off-topic arguments. Each is factually incorrect.
`
`1.
`
`There Is No Evidence That
`
`Flyp seguesht
`ee. But Flyp took extensive discovery, including deposing fF and
`
`uncovered no evidence supporting that claim. In reality,Pe
`x. 10; Dkt. 177-1 at 44:13-24; Dkt. 177-7 at 255:19-256:6. There
`was no mention of a patent application or any evidencethatP| waspreviously aware of
`any patent application. /d. Flyp implies thatP| coordinated withBEbefore the
`November2015 meeting, but the exchange showsPEever mentioned Google Voice, and
`eee
`eeee
`PO Dkt. 177-1 at 54:4—55:15. And,at the time ofthe exchange,
`IE. Dit. 108 at 11; Ex. 11. Thereis
`no evidence that gathered information from Flyp for use on Google Voice.
`2.
`Flyp’s Claims ThatGE1ransmitted Information to Defendant
`Google Are Baseless
`
`Flyp tries to infer fromcommunications withi after the meeting with
`Flyp that BEcansnitted information to Google. Opp. at 2. ButGEorked at
`Google Ventures, which is separate from Google, along withii Td.
`Flyp misleadingly claimsot
`ES2p00's
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`Mr. Rinfret. Dkt. 177-1 at 33:15–21; Ex. 11. There is no evidence that
`
`provided any
`
` years before the 2015 meeting between
`
` and
`
`comments to Google Voice after the Flyp meeting.
`
`Flyp insinuates that
`
`contributed Flyp information to Google Voice patents.
`
`Dkt. 177-2), six years before the 2015 meeting, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Dkt. 177-1 at 29:1–13.
`
`3.
`
`The Presence of Flyp Patents in the Google Patents Online Database
`Does Not Establish Knowledge by Those Working on Google Voice
`
`Given the lack of evidence showing that Google knew of the Flyp patents or applications,
`
`Flyp suggests that the Court and the jury can infer such knowledge because the Flyp patents are in
`
`the public “Google Patents” database. Opp. at 5–6. This theory deserves no credence.
`
`Flyp asserts that because Google cannot “guarantee” full coverage of patents on Google
`
`Patents, Google must analyze every single patent on the website. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 12 at 37. Google Patents shows more than 120 million total
`
`entries (Dkt. 177-13), including over 100,000 results just for granted patents published between
`
`the publication date of the first Flyp patent application and the
`
`/Rinfret meeting. Ex. 13. It
`
`is unreasonable to assume that Google Patents employees analyzed every one of them and shared
`
`information with the relevant team. Flyp needs more than such conjecture. See WBIP, LLC v.
`
`Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Xiros, Ltd. v. Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc., No. W-21-CV-00681-ADA, 2022 WL 3592449
`
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022) does not support Flyp. There, as here, plaintiff inadequately pleaded
`
`knowledge, even though they alleged a related entity had knowledge of the patents. Id. at *3. Flyp
`
`also cites SimpliVity Corp. v. Springpath, Inc., No. 4:15-13345-TSH, 2016 WL 5388951 (D. Mass.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`July 15, 2016), which addressed a motion to dismiss. Id. at *9. Here, summary judgment is
`
`appropriate because discovery yielded no evidence of Google’s knowledge.
`
`B.
`
`Flyp Presents No Facts That Google Was Willfully Blind
`
`Flyp asserts that willful blindness should be inferred because Google is a sophisticated
`
`entity able to track patents and applications. The Court rejected the same argument when ruling on
`
`Google’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 48 at 7–8. A party need not monitor every patent application to
`
`which it has been exposed. Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Inc., No. 2:15-cv-1274-
`
`JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4778699, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016). Even in the face of the Court’s
`
`grant of Google’s motion to dismiss, Flyp still has no evidence of any Google policies or actions
`
`to avoid learning of the asserted patents (because none existed). Dkt. 48 at 8.
`
`C.
`
`Flyp Presents No Facts That Justify Imputing Google Ventures’ Knowledge
`to Google
`
`Flyp’s Opposition still “provide[s] nothing regarding the relationship between Google
`
`Ventures and Google, or how said knowledge could be imputed from
`
`to Google.” Dkt.
`
`48 at 10. Flyp concedes that Google and Google Ventures are separate (Opp. at 7), and there is no
`
`evidence of any flow of relevant information between Google Ventures and Google. See Section
`
`III.A.1–2. Flyp implies that
`
` Opp. at 7. But
`
`
`
` Dkt. 177-1 at 13:9–22. Flyp implies that
`
` and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`were involved in Google Voice and Google Ventures during the relevant periods. Opp. at 8. But
`
` and
`
` were no longer affiliated with Google or Google Ventures in November
`
`2015. Dkt. 108 at 6, 11.
`
` became a Google employee in
`
`
`
` Dkt. 103 ¶¶ 21 n.3, 33, 47, 61, 78; also Dkt. 108 at 11–12; Dkt. 143-
`
`6 ¶¶ 80–81, 86–87, 116. Flyp also calls
`
`a “Google Voice inventor” (Opp. at 8), even
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`though
`
`. Dkt. 177-1 at 29:1–13. And, Flyp’s assertions that (i)
`
`individuals who worked at YouTube later worked at Google Ventures and (ii) Google Ventures
`
`portfolio companies have access to Google engineers and expertise (Opp. at 7–8), are irrelevant to
`
`the willfulness inquiry. There is no evidence that
`
`shared any information about Flyp
`
`with anyone at Google.
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Group. Ltd., No. 6:20-CV-00967-ADA, 2022 WL 2705269 (W.D.
`
`Tex. July 12, 2022), is inapposite. There, plaintiff described how the defendant infringed its patents
`
`and argued that it could not distinguish related corporate entities absent discovery. Id. at *5–6. But
`
`Flyp still presents no facts supporting imputation of knowledge at summary judgment.
`
`III. THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT REGARDING THE
`LACK OF DELIBERATE OR INTENTIONAL INFRINGEMENT OR
`EGREGIOUS BEHAVIOR
`
`Flyp presents no evidence of deliberate or intentional infringement. Bayer Healthcare LLC
`
`v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 987–88 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Flyp merely repeats the same story refuted
`
`above. Flyp does not address the facts that (i) Google Voice was available before the priority dates
`
`of the patents, (ii) Flyp delayed disclosure of infringement contentions, and (iii) Flyp’s
`
`infringement claim focuses on
`
`.
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 769, 777 (W.D. Tex. 2022), does not help Flyp. There,
`
`the Court found the plaintiff’s allegations of pre-suit willful infringement deficient and “reed-thin,”
`
`noting “[m]ere knowledge of the asserted patents is not enough.” Id. The same is true here, and
`
`the deficiencies are fatal because Flyp has taken full fact discovery and still has no evidence to
`
`support its accusations. Flyp certainly cannot show that
`
` conduct was “characteristic
`
`of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 93, 103–04 (2016).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should grant summary judgment of no pre- or post-suit willful infringement.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`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
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 220 Filed 12/12/23 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`