Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 1 of 79 Page ID
`#:13586
`
`EXHIBIT F
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 2 of 79 Page ID
`#:13587
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`James R. Asperger (Bar No. 83188)
`jimasperger@quinnemanuel.com
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
`Telephone: (213) 4433000
`Facsimile: (213) 4433100
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Todd M. Briggs (Bar No. 209282)
`toddbriggs@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Eric Huang (pro hac vice)
`erichuang@quinnemanuel.com
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`NANTWORKS, LLC and NANT HOLDINGS IP, LLC
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`NANTWORKS, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company, and NANT
`HOLDINGS IP, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`BANK OF AMERICA
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`corporation, and BANK OF
`AMERICA, N.A., a national banking
`association,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND
`SUPPLEMENTAL
`OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS
`BANK OF AMERICA
`CORPORATION AND BANK
`OF AMERICA, N.A.’S THIRD
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`(NOS. 10–25)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 3 of 79 Page ID
`#:13588
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
` Deposition testimony of Dora Gruner and all exhibits marked and used
`therein;
` Deposition testimony of Patrick Soon-Shiong and all exhibits marked
`and used therein.
`NantWorks’ investigation of this matter is ongoing, and its response to this
`
`Interrogatory will be supplemented as additional information becomes known to it,
`
`including through Defendants’ supplementation of its responses to NantWorks’
`
`outstanding discovery requests and through depositions that have not yet occurred.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
`
`Identify all factual and legal bases for NantWorks’s contention that the
`
`Asserted Claims are not anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18 (Sep. 13, 2021):
`
`NantWorks incorporates each of its General Objections by reference.
`
`NantWorks further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that: (i) it is vague and
`
`ambiguous; (ii) it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and duplicative of other
`
`discovery including other Interrogatories; (iii) it seeks information that is not relevant;
`
`(iv) it is compound and consists of multiple interrogatories; (v) it seeks information
`
`in a format or at a level of detail other than that which is ordinarily kept and
`
`maintained by NantWorks in its regular course of business; (vi) it is premature
`
`because it seeks information and contentions that will be the subject of expert
`
`discovery, which has not occurred yet; (vii) it seeks information subject to attorney-
`
`client privilege, attorney work product immunity, or other privilege or immunity
`
`against disclosure.
`
`Based on its investigation to date and subject to and without waiving its
`
`objections, NantWorks responds as follows:
`
`This Interrogatory is both overbroad and premature. According to the schedule
`
`
`
`the parties agreed to in this case, NantWorks will still need to further reduce its
`
`-45-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 4 of 79 Page ID
`#:13589
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`Asserted Claims and Defendants will still need to further reduce their asserted prior
`
`art. This Interrogatory is overbroad and premature at least until after said reductions
`
`take place. Furthermore, this Interrogatory is premature in that it requests information
`
`that will be provided in expert discovery. NantWorks will provide expert report(s)
`
`containing information responsive or relevant to this Interrogatory and its position on
`
`the lack of anticipation or obviousness as relevant to the Asserted Claims at the
`
`appropriate time and in accordance with applicable rules and the Case Schedule set in
`
`this case.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18 (Dec. 20,
`
`2023):
`
`Subject to and without waiving any Objections to Definitions and Instructions,
`
`General Objections, or specific objections in its prior responses, NantWorks
`
`supplements its response to this Interrogatory as follows based on its investigation to
`
`date:
`
`NantWorks also objects to Bank of America’s attempt to use this interrogatory
`
`to shift its burden regarding proof of invalidity. Bank of America has the burden of
`
`proving that the patents-in-suit are invalid. This never shifts. See SFA Systems, LLC
`
`v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al, LLC, No. 6:11-cv-052-LED (E.D. Tex. April 11, 2013) (“It
`
`is premature to compel NantWorks to provide a substantive response to Interrogatory
`
`No. 6. Defendant bears the burden of proving that the patents-in-suit are invalid for
`
`failure to meet the written description requirement. Therefore, after Bank of America
`
`has met its initial burden through its expert report, NantWorks may rebut Bank of
`
`America’s position, but not vice versa.”) (cleaned up); Tech Licensing Corp. v.
`
`Videotek Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.
`
`Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2243 (2011) (“[T]he burden of proving invalidity [is]
`
`on the attacker. That burden is constant and never changes.”).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-46-
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 5 of 79 Page ID
`#:13590
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`Subject to, and without waiving, the foregoing Specific and General
`
`Objections, NantWorks states that under 35 U.S.C. § 282, all the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents are presumed to be valid, including with respect to the requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102, 103, and 112. See 35 U.S.C. § 282(a) and (b)(3)(A). This
`
`presumption of validity is also fully supported by the presumption of administrative
`
`correctness, as the Asserted Patents were all duly issued by the United States Patent
`
`& Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and the USPTO would not have issued the Asserted
`
`Patents if they failed to comply with the requirements of any of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, and 112. Moreover, under 35 U.S.C. § 282, Defendants bear the burden of
`
`establishing (by clear and convincing evidence) any invalidity, including invalidity
`
`for failure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 282(a) and (b)(3)(A). As the Supreme Court recently noted: Under the Patent
`
`Act, and the case law before its passage, a patent is presumed valid. That presumption
`
`takes away any need for a plaintiff to prove his patent is valid to bring a claim. Commil
`
`USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1929 (2015) (internal citations and
`
`quotation marks omitted). Thus, NantWorks is not required to prove validity, which
`
`this Interrogatory appears to seek.
`
`Further, NantWorks’s position is that all issued claims of the Asserted Patents
`
`are valid and are in full compliance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102,
`
`103, and 112. To the extent that Bank of America asserts a specific invalidity
`
`challenge in its final invalidity contentions, NantWorks will provide a rebuttal to such
`
`a challenge during the expert phase of this litigation.
`I.
`PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`NantWorks objects to the identification of the IBM QBIC and HP Cooltown
`
`related prior art in Bank of America’s Final Election of Prior Art and in Bank of
`
`America’s final invalidity contentions of September 8, 2023.
`A.
`IBM QBIC Related Prior Art
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-47-
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 6 of 79 Page ID
`#:13591
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`In its January 28, 2022 Final Election of Prior Art, Bank of America identifies
`
`a number of grounds based on QBIC (as system art) in combination with other art.
`
`Based on its Final Invalidity Contentions served on September 8, 2023, however,
`
`Bank of America Bank of America improperly and vaguely attempts to define QBIC
`
`as more than the QBIC Demo at IBM 0000747 (“QBIC Demo”), vaguely including
`
`seven other IBM paper publications, a deposition transcript, and even material that
`
`was not included in the limitation by limitation charts. See, e.g., Bank of America’s
`
`Final Invalidity Contentions Exhibit A-23, at 1, served on September 8, 2023.
`
`NantWorks disagrees with that definition of QBIC as system prior art, and objects to
`
`it. To be clear, despite Bank of America’s attempt to conflate ambiguously the QBIC
`
`Demo with other papers and separate systems, Bank of America the “QBIC System”
`
`is the QBIC Demo produced at IBM 0000747, and nothing more.
`
`In Bank of America’s Final Invalidity Contention charts for QBIC, Bank of
`
`America cites a number of publications that purportedly relate to IBM QBIC: The
`
`QBIC Project: Querying Images by Content Using Color, Texture, and Shape (IBM
`
`0002390–404), Query by Image and Video Content: The QBIC System (IBM
`
`0000893–902),
`
`Image, Audio, and Video Extenders Administration and
`
`Programming (IBM 000001–617), OS/2 2.1 Ultimedia Tools (IBM 0001550–1805),
`
`IBM Ultimedia Video I/O Adapter (IBM 0002217–221), Managing Enterprise
`
`Information Portal (IBM 000777–880), Ultimedia Manager: Query by Image Content
`
`and its Applications (IBM 0002432–237), (collectively “IBM Papers”). See, e.g.,
`
`Bank of America’s Final Invalidity Contentions Exhibit A-23, served on September
`
`8, 2023. NantWorks objects to Bank of America’s attempt to define QBIC as the
`
`QBIC System with the IBM Papers. These contentions, rather than identifying a
`
`system reference, conflate disparate IBM Papers with the QBIC Demo. Bank of
`
`America has not provided any rationale for defining the system as the QBIC Demo
`
`with IBM Papers, and/or why all these disparate papers can be combined together to
`
`
`
`describe a single system.
`-48-
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 7 of 79 Page ID
`#:13592
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`In its September 2023 Final Invalidity Contention charts, Bank of America also
`
`improperly expands the definition to include separate software applications
`
`purportedly used by the Art History Department at U.C. Davis and the Fine Arts
`
`Museum of San Francisco, IBM’s Ultimedia Manager, the DB2 series of products
`
`such as the Image Extender in DB2 Universal Database, and the Enterprise
`
`Information Portal (collectively “Uncharted Material”). These additional software
`
`applications were not charted by Bank of America in its Invalidiy Contentions and no
`
`showing has been made in Invalidity Contentions as to how these uncharted
`
`applications relate to, let alone constitute the purported prior art QBIC System. See,
`
`e.g., Bank of America’s Final Invalidity Contentions Exhibit A-23 at 1, served on
`
`September 8, 2023. NantWorks objects to any definition of the QBIC System that
`
`would include the QBIC Demo with IBM Papers and Uncharted Material for all the
`
`reasons provided above, and because Bank of America never included/disclosed any
`
`of these applications in the limitation by limitation in the invalidity charts, and
`
`because none of these applications have even been produced in this case. Any attempt
`
`by Bank of America to allege the QBIC Demo with IBM Papers and Uncharted
`
`Material as one prior art system would be entirely improper. Given that Bank of
`
`America has not even provided invalidity charts for any QBIC prior art system that
`
`would include the QBIC System with IBM Papers and Uncharted Material,
`
`NantWorks has not responded in detail to that broad definition, but NantWorks
`
`reserves the right to provide additional information to rebut any invalidity argument
`
`Bank of America may make in the future based on the QBIC System with IBM Papers
`
`and Uncharted Material.
`
`The IBM QBIC System is a demo system that accepted an input image and
`
`analyzed the pixels of the image to look for matches to known known images that had
`
`the same or similar color, shape and texture. It could not analyze or identify objects
`
`within an image or portions of an image. QBIC stands for “Query By Image Content.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-49-
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 8 of 79 Page ID
`#:13593
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`The QBIC System was a system to search images by utilizing a lookup database of
`
`known images.
`
`As part of IBM’s production in this case, IBM produced a complete working
`
`demonstration version of the QBIC System at IBM 0000747. According to demo and
`
`accompanying produced information, the QBIC System was made available in
`
`September 1998. Based on the testimony of IBM’s witness, the QBIC System was
`
`never offered for sale as a stand-alone product but was only provided as a demo.
`
`The QBIC System is a software program that runs on Windows 95, Windows
`
`98, or Windows NT. As such, it was built to run on desktop computers. The QBIC
`
`System was not meant to run on any mobile device, nor did it even contemplate
`
`running on a mobile device. The QBIC System could only process as an input an
`
`entire image and did not have any ability to break down an image into any smaller,
`
`more relevant, parts. Thus, the QBIC System did not perform any analysis for objects
`
`or perform any objection recognition, but instead only analyzed entire images as a
`
`whole. The QBIC System operated via three basic logical steps, database population,
`
`feature calculation, and image query. The database population step was just loading
`
`images into the QBIC System. IBM had to do that populating from commercial
`
`sources, and the demo uses images of paintings. The feature calculation step involved
`
`computing features for every image in the database. The only features the QBIC
`
`System extracted and could analyze from images were color, shape, and texture. The
`
`image query step involved searching the database of extracted features for matches to
`
`the reference image (image being searched). Matches could only be made to images
`
`in the image database. No matches could be made to unknown images not in the
`
`image database already. Because the QBIC System did not have any integrated
`
`camera or ability to receive images directly from a camera, the image used as the
`
`reference image (image being searched) had to already be in the demo itself. The
`
`only action the QBIC System took after the image query was to display match results,
`
`
`
`and the QBIC System would not take any further actions after the results were
`
`-50-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 9 of 79 Page ID
`#:13594
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`returned. These match results were not matches to the objects in the image, but rather
`
`matches based on only were color, shape, and texture of the entire image. It was the
`
`user that would have to review the results and decide if an actual match was made and
`
`what action to take. The QBIC System did not do any separate validation to ensure
`
`that the returned match results were, in fact, matches.
`
`Because the QBIC System only extracted and analyzed images based on color,
`
`shape, and texture, its “matching” was very rudimentary. The QBIC System did not
`
`perform any object recognition, it did not determine the identity of a known image or
`
`video, and it could not determine the identity of an unknown image or video. It did
`
`not even have the ability to match specific features/objects in two different images
`
`even if both images contained the exact same feature/object. For example, say there
`
`were two images of the Mona Lisa painting. The first image would be of the Mona
`
`Lisa centered in the image with the frame and wall on which the Mona Lisa is hung
`
`in the image. This first image would be the one in the QBIC System database to be
`
`searched. The second image of the Mona Lisa would be the reference image (image
`
`being searched). It would also have the Mona Lisa centered in the image with the
`
`frame and wall on which the Mona Lisa is hung in the image, but it would be from
`
`slightly further back so the frame of the protective glass case cover the Mona Lisa
`
`would also be in the frame along with some of the hardwood floor below the painting.
`
`Even though both images were generally of the Mona Lisa, the QBIC System would
`
`be unable to match the reference image of the Mona Lisa to the image stored database
`
`because the color, shape, and texture of the two images would be too different given
`
`that they were taken from slightly different distances from the Mona Lisa. This would
`
`be true even though both images were of the Mona Lisa from the same angle. For the
`
`same reasons, the QBIC System would not match a reference image of a red car to a
`
`database image of a black car, even though both were images of cars, because of the
`
`color difference. Additionally, because the QBIC System did not perform any
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-51-
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 10 of 79 Page ID
`#:13595
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`OCR/text recognition, there could be no matching or recognition based on text using
`
`the QBIC System.
`
`With the QBIC System being so rudimentary and limited, there are many
`
`claimed features in the Asserted Claims that the QBIC System simply does not
`
`disclose. In fact, there are many claimed features in the Asserted Claims that even
`
`the QBIC System and IBM Papers together do not disclose. For example, the QBIC
`
`System was never meant to be run on a cell phone, the QBIC System was never meant
`
`to be run on a PDA, the QBIC System was never meant to be run on any mobile
`
`device, the QBIC System did not do any text decoding and/or reading, the QBIC
`
`System did not do any form of symbolic recognition, the QBIC System did not
`
`determine what symbolic information was contained in an image, the QBIC System
`
`could not analyze a video stream itself, the QBIC System did not conduct any kind of
`
`monetary transaction, the QBIC System did not interact with any bank accounts,
`
`banks, or banking systems, the QBIC System itself did not have an optical sensor, the
`
`QBIC System itself did not have a camera, the QBIC System did not compress an
`
`image during operation, the QBIC System did not convert a queried image into
`
`grayscale, the QBIC System never performed any contrast enhancement, noise
`
`removal, or de-blurring on a queried image, the QBIC System did not allow a user to
`
`identify any portion of the image to be queried, and the QBIC System returned
`
`potential matches to the user, but it was the user who ultimately had to select the
`
`appropriate match from the returned list. In addition, there is also no disclosure within
`
`the QBIC System with IBM Papers of these claimed features as well. Thus, even if
`
`the QBIC System is improperly defined as the QBIC System with IBM Papers, it
`
`would still not disclose these claimed features in the Asserted Claims.
`
`
`B. HP’s CoolTown
`
`In its January 28, 2022 Final Election of Prior Art, Bank of America identifies
`
`
`
`a number of grounds based on Cooltown (as system art) in combination with other
`
`-52-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 11 of 79 Page ID
`#:13596
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`art. Based on its Final Invalidity Contentions served on September 8, 2023, however,
`
`Bank of America improperly and vaguely attempts to define the system by citing
`
`random documents without identifying clearly what the purported prior art system is,
`
`let alone what it does and proving it is prior art. NantWorks disagrees that the HP’s
`
`Cooltown is system art as identified by Bank of America.Bank of America’s of
`
`CoolTown as defined by Bank of America in its September 8, 2023 Invalidity
`
`Contentions and corresponding C-31, E-31, F-31, G-31 exhibits.
`
`NantWorks further objects to Bank of America’s classification of CoolTown
`
`as “prior art.” Bank of America contends that “HP CoolTown System appears to have
`
`been made in the United States by HP by at least 2000. Tim Kindberg, John Barton,
`
`Jeff Morgan, Gene Becker, Debbie Caswell, Philippe Debaty, Gita Gopal, Marcos
`
`Frid, Venky Krishnan, Howard Morris, John Schettino, and Bill Serra appear to have
`
`been involved in the design and making the HP CoolTown System.” Invalidity
`
`Contentions at 11. Bank of America further asserts that “[o]n information and belief,
`
`HP was using CoolTown and made it available to the public in the United States by
`
`releasing the website on the Internet (and accessible to U.S. users) by at least March
`
`2000, making the software available on the HP website by March 2000, and making
`
`available on the Internet (and accessible to U.S. users) the open source code, which
`
`reflects the functionality of CoolTown by at least March 2000.” Id. However, as
`
`support for these assertions, Bank of America simply points to a series of
`
`unauthenticated general press releases from third parties that fail to establish that the
`
`“CoolTown” system is prior art. More specifically, the press releases do not mention
`
`specific features or functionality, nor do they establish when this alleged product was
`
`first used or publicly made available. Indeed, the press releases make clear that
`
`CoolTown was a prototype to be released in the future. Bank of America provides no
`
`evidence or testimony from any of the alleged inventors or HP for CoolTown to
`
`substantiate its assertion that it qualifies as prior art. Bank of America failed to meet
`
`
`
`its burden to establish CoolTown as prior art. Furthermore, , CoolTown is a web-
`
`-53-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 12 of 79 Page ID
`#:13597
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`based idea that purportedly would connect real world objects with the web through
`
`the use of proximity beacons and wireless transceivers. Indeed, the major point behind
`
`“CoolTown” was printer sharing technology. HP0049. According to HP, CoolTown
`
`was actually designed to be a bridge between the device and the web, to allow wireless
`
`communication with different devices. Id. For example, using CoolTown, a visitor of
`
`a museum was provided a PDA that could receive communications from a beacon to
`
`communicate with a transceiver under an artifact for information about the sculpture.
`
`HP000052. This was the mundane technology that CoolTown was premised upon,
`
`which differs significantly from the claimed inventions of the asserted patents.
`II. THE PRIOR ART DOES NOT ANTICIPATE
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 282, a patent properly issued by the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office is presumed valid, and “a defendant seeking to overcome this
`
`presumption must persuade the factfinder of its invalidity defense by clear and
`
`convincing evidence.” Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 97 (2011); see
`
`also Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(“Because of this presumption, an alleged infringer who raises invalidity as an
`
`affirmative defense has the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove invalidity by clear
`
`and convincing evidence, as well as the initial burden of going forward with evidence
`
`to support its invalidity allegation.”). Thus, it is Bank of America’s burden to
`
`overcome the presumption of validity of the asserted patents.
`
`Indeed, to establish invalidity as anticipated by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
`
`a challenger must establish that a single prior art reference provides an enabling
`
`disclosure of all elements of the challenged claim.
`A.
`’036 Patent
`
`1.
`
`Rhoads
`
`Bank of America. ’s Chart C-03 fails to provide a disclosure by Rhoads of, for
`
`example, claim 1’s requirement of a database that stores “targets of different types
`
`
`
`and recognition parameters associated with the known targets.” Rather, Rhoads
`
`-54-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 13 of 79 Page ID
`#:13598
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`merely discloses a database that maps “Bedoop data” with a “Universal Identifier.”
`
`Rhoads, 23:33-54. Bedoop data is not a recognition parameter associated with a
`
`known target, rather it is data that is “stenographically encoded (e.g., digitally
`
`watermarked)” into an image, not a recognition parameter derived from an image.
`
`Rhoads, 7:32-33. For similar reasons, Bank of America’s Chart C-03 also fails to
`
`disclose claim 1’s requirement of “recognizes the target as a known target from the
`
`target database based on comparing parameters derived from the digital representation
`
`to recognition parameters associated with the known targets.”
`2. Mault
`
`. Bank of America’s Chart C-04 fails to disclose, for example, claim 1’s
`
`requirement of a database that stores “targets of different types and recognition
`
`parameters associated with the known targets.” Rather, Mault merely discloses a
`
`remote database using the images and data entered. Mault ¶¶ 16-18. Bank of America
`
`also fails to disclose claim 1’s requirement of “an identification platform.” Bank of
`
`America’s Chart C-04 also fails to disclose claim 1’s requirement of “recogniz[ing]
`
`the target…based on comparing parameters derived from the digital representation to
`
`recognition parameters associated with the known targets.” Rather, Mault merely
`
`discloses recognizing food labels by, in general, “using optical character recognition,
`
`image analysis, image recognition, or neutral network techniques.”
`3.
`Sizer
`
`Bank of America’s Chart C-05 fails to disclose, for example, claim 1’s
`
`requirement of database that stores “targets of different types and recognition
`
`parameters associated with the known targets” or “an identification platform coupled
`
`with the target database.” Rather, Sizer merely discloses receiving encoded data
`
`transmitted in a video or audio signal or contained such as a barcode. Sizer, 6:18-38,
`
`10:45-49. Bank of America also fails to disclose claim 1’s requirement of
`
`“communicat[ing] with a mobile device capable of acquiring a digital representation
`
`
`
`of a scene containing at least a portion of a target” or “recogniz[ing] as a known target
`
`-55-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 14 of 79 Page ID
`#:13599
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`from the target database based on comparing parameters derived from the digital
`
`representation to recognition parameters associated with the known targets.” Rather,
`
`Sizer only discloses capturing encoded non-perceptible data in the video or audio
`
`portion of a signal. Sizer 6:41-62. Thus, in Sizer, no digital representation of a scene
`
`containing at least a portion of the target is acquired and no such digital representation
`
`is sent from the mobile device. Sizer further fails to disclose “a content service
`
`coupled with the identification platform” or “sends the content information to at least
`
`one of the identification platform and the mobile device” as required in claim 1.
`
`Rather, Sizer discloses originating a call to an interactive service platform to
`
`effectuate a transaction. Sizer, 6:18-38; 10:45-49 12:41-43. Sizer also fails to
`
`disclose “obtain[ing] content information related to the known target” as required by
`
`claim 1. As discussed, Sizer merely discloses receiving encoded digital data
`
`transmitted in a video or audio signal or contained in a barcode; therefore, Sizer does
`
`not disclose any “known target,” not to mention obtaining content information related
`
`to such a “known target.”
`4.
`Harris
`
` Bank of America’s Chart C-06 fails to disclose, for example, claim 1’s
`
`requirement of “a target database storing known targets of different types and
`
`recognition parameters associated with the known targets” or “an identification
`
`platform coupled with the target database.” Rather, Harris merely discloses retrieving
`
`information from a server based on an address encoded in the barcode. Bank of
`
`America also fails to disclose claim 1’s requirement of “communicat[ing] with a
`
`mobile device capable of acquiring a digital representation of a scene containing at
`
`least a portion of a target” or “receiv[ing] the digital representation from the mobile
`
`device.” Rather, the mobile device in Harris decodes barcode information into a cue
`
`or address and does not communicate a digital representation of a scene or a portion
`
`of a scene. Harris, Fig. 4, 2:3-19, 4:15-30. Thus, in Harris, no digital representation
`
`
`
`of a scene containing at least a portion of the target is acquired and no such digital
`
`-56-
`Case No. 2:20-cv-7872-GW-PVC
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 302-8 Filed 03/12/24 Page 15 of 79 Page ID
`#:13600
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY
`
`representation is sent from the mobile device. Similarly, Bank of America fails to
`
`disclose “recogn[ing] the target as a known target from the target database based on
`
`comparing parameters derived from the digital representation to recognition
`
`parameters associated with the known targets” as required in claim 1 because, as
`
`discussed, no such digital representation is acquired and no such target data