`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`FLYPSI, INC., (D/B/A FLYP),
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:22-cv-00031-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF FLYPSI, INC.’S NOTICE
`OF SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`Flyp’s Notice of Supplemental Claim Construction Evidence asserts that the testimony of
`
`Google’s venue fact witness,
`
`, is evidence that the claim terms “primary telephone
`
`number” and “secondary telephone number” are not indefinite to persons of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Dkt. 59. This assertion is incorrect for two reasons.
`
`First, the cited testimony does not undermine Google’s position. The fact that a single
`
`individual, Mr.
`
`, has a personal understanding of “primary” and “secondary” telephone
`
`numbers in a context divorced from the asserted patent claims does not mean that a POSITA would
`
`be reasonably certain of the terms’ meanings as used in the patents. Dkt. 52 at 3–4. Mr.
`
`’s
`
`understanding (which is anything but “clear,” Dkt. 59) does nothing to “resolve the ambiguity” in
`
`the patents’ intrinsic record. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335, 1342
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015). And it is indisputable that the intrinsic record, not disconnected witness
`
`testimony, must provide “objective boundaries for those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC
`
`v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1372–74 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Second, Flyp omits that Mr.
`
` had not, and has not, reviewed the asserted patents or
`
`asserted claims in which the terms “primary telephone number” and “secondary telephone
`
`number” appear.1 Dkt. 59, Ex. A at 65:8–11 (“
`
`
`
`”); see also id.
`
`at 65:22–66:20. Mr.
`
`’s testimony is thus irrelevant to the Court’s claim construction analysis
`
`because it was not given in the context of the asserted patents. See Panasonic Corp. v. Magna Int’l
`
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00319-ADA, 2022 WL 625089, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2022). Mr.
`
`’s
`
`
`’s understanding of the
`1 None of Flyp’s 30(b)(6) deposition topics related in any way to Mr.
`disputed claim terms, as Flyp’s deposition was limited only to those topics relevant to Google’s
`motion to transfer.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/27/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`testimony cannot save the disputed terms from their fundamental indefiniteness as used in the
`
`asserted patent claims.
`
`DATED: October 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Elizabeth Brann (Pro Hac Vice)
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Joshua Yin (Pro Hac Vice)
`joshuayin@paulhastings.com
`David M. Fox (Pro Hac Vice)
`davidfox@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/27/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`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 20th day of October, 2022, 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
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
