Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 31 Page ID #:16572
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
`PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT
`REPORT OF DR. NATHANIEL
`POLISH
`
`Date: April 18, 2024
`Time: 8:30 am
`Courtroom: 9D
`
`Judge: Honorable George H. Wu
`
`
`
`
`George C. Lombardi (pro hac vice)
`glombardi@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone:(312) 558-5600
`Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
`
`E. Danielle T. Williams (pro hac vice)
`dwilliams@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`300 South Tryon Street, 16th Floor
`Charlotte, NC 28202
`Telephone:(704) 350-7700
`Facsimile: (704) 350-7800
`
`
`Dustin J. Edwards (pro hac vice)
`dedwards@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capitol St., Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002-2925
`Telephone:(713) 651-2600
`Facsimile: (713) 651-2700
`
`Diana Hughes Leiden (SBN: 267606)
`dhleiden@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 S. Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone:(213) 615-1700
`Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`NANTWORKS, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company, and NANT
`HOLDINGS IP, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`AMERICA
`OF
`BANK
`a
`Delaware
`CORPORATION,
`BANK
`OF
`corporation,
`and
`AMERICA, N.A., a national banking
`association,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`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 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 2 of 31 Page ID #:16573
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 3
`A.
`Bank of America’s invalidity contentions describe its obviousness
`theories in detail; Dr. Polish merely elaborates on those theories. ............ 3
`1.
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing aspects
`of Rhoads and QBIC. ....................................................................... 5
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing aspects
`of Cooltown and QBIC. ................................................................... 6
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing aspects
`of Mault, Sizer, and QBIC. .............................................................. 7
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing aspects
`of Sizer, QBIC, and Krouse. ............................................................ 8
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing aspects
`
`of Ogasawara and QBIC. ................................................................. 9
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing aspects
`of Harris, QBIC, and Krouse. ........................................................ 10
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing aspects
`of Cooltown, QBIC, and Krouse. .................................................. 10
`Bank of America’s invalidity contentions describe its Section 101
`theories in detail, and Dr. Polish merely elaborates on those theories. ... 11
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................... 12
`IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 13
`A.
`Bank of America’s invalidity contentions explain the obviousness
`theories on which Dr. Polish elaborates—more than the SPR require. ... 13
`1.
`Bank of America’s invalidity contentions disclose the theories that
`a POSITA would have been motivated to combine references with
`
`portable-device functionalities with references with image-
`processing functionalities to render all the Asserted Claims invalid.
` ........................................................................................................ 13
`Dr. Polish only elaborates on the theories discussed above. ......... 15
`Plaintiffs’ motion mischaracterizes the law and Bank of America’s
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`
`-i-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`invalidity contentions. .................................................................... 16
`a.
`Plaintiffs’ arguments rest on faulty legal premises. ............ 16
`b.
`Plaintiffs mischaracterize Bank of America’s invalidity
`contentions. .......................................................................... 19
`Bank of America’s invalidity contentions disclose the ineligibility
`grounds on which Dr. Polish elaborates. ................................................. 21
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 23
`
`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 3 of 31 Page ID #:16574
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 4 of 31 Page ID #:16575
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014)........................................................................................ 2, 11
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CoolIT Sys. Inc.,
`2022 WL 21306657 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2022) .................................................... 19
`Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd, v. Asetek Danmark A/S,
`2018 WL 4945316 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2018) .................................................... 20
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`2015 U.S. Dist. WL 757575 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2015) ............................... 13, 17
`Kandypens, Inc. v. Puff Corp.,
`2020 WL 11629210 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2020) ................................................ 19
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)............................................................................................ 17
`Nichia Corp. v. Feit Elec. Co., Inc.,
`2022 WL 4613591 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2022) .................................................... 19
`Okyn Holdings, Inc. v. Hori U.S.A., Inc.,
`2022 WL 2189527 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022) .................................... 13, 16, 17, 18
`Pavo Sols. Llc v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`2019 WL 8138163 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2019) ............................................. 13, 16
`Polaris PowerLED Technologies v. Vizio, Inc,
`(C.D. Cal. May 14, 2020). .................................................................................. 24
`Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc.,
`82 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ........................................................................... 17
`
`Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`2017 WL 235049 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017) ....................................................... 19
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`
`-iii-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................. 11, 12
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 5 of 31 Page ID #:16576
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`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 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 6 of 31 Page ID #:16577
`
`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
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Bank of America’s invalidity contentions need only provide reasonable notice of
`Bank of America’s invalidity theories, and Dr. Nathaniel Polish’s opinions must only
`refrain from substituting new theories for the theories disclosed in the invalidity
`contentions. Dkt. 296-2 (Final Invalidity Contentions or “ICs”); Dkt. 296-3 (the “Polish
`Report”).
`Here, Bank of America’s ICs provided the requisite reasonable notice of its
`theories that the obviousness combinations disclosed for each Asserted Patent1
`render all the Asserted Claims2 of such patents invalid. Bank of America’s ICs
`explain in detail overarching theories why a person of skill in the art would be
`motivated to combine image-processing techniques from some prior art with
`image processing techniques from other prior art and portable-device functionality
`from other prior art. Dkt. 296-2 at 29–47. Bank of America also included a table,
`like the one below, for each Asserted Patent, that lists a group of five obviousness
`combinations:
`
`1 The Asserted Patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,881,529 (the “’529 patent”), 7,899,252
`(the “’252 patent”), 8,478,036 (the “’036 patent”), 9,031,278 (the “’278 patent”), and
`9,324,004 (the “’004 patent”).
`2 The Asserted Claims are claims 1, 4, and 20 of the ’529 patent; claims 18, 26-27, 29,
`and 31 of the ’252 patent; claim 1 of the ’036 patent; claims 1 and 3-5 of the ’278 patent;
`and claims 1, 6, and 18 of the ’004 patent.
` -1-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 7 of 31 Page ID #:16578
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. 296-2 at 45; see also id. at 46–47. Plaintiffs have had since September 8, 2023, to
`analyze the aforementioned theories and the small group of obviousness combinations
`those theories support. Plaintiffs cannot credibly claim they could not tell from the ICs
`how Bank of America intended to use the disclosed theories and combinations. Nor
`can they credibly claim to have been surprised by Dr. Polish’s obviousness opinions or
`that Dr. Polish substituted new obviousness theories for those in the ICs. Dr. Polish
`opines only on the disclosed obviousness combinations and only applies the theories
`the ICs disclose.
`Bank of America’s contentions also provide specific reasons why all the Asserted
`Claims are patent-ineligible under Alice.3 The ICs explain that “the claims merely recite
`ubiquitous, and well-known, computer technology, such as a computer, network,
`mobile device, camera, optical sensor, server, database, etc. that are generically and
`functionally claimed.” Id. at 48. Dr. Polish only elaborates on these theories and
`
`provides no additional bases for ineligibility.
`Plaintiffs’ motion lacks merit because it mischaracterizes the ICs and relies on
`inapposite cases. Plaintiffs’ motion neglects the legal standard in favor of incorrect
`assertions about Judge Guilford’s Standing Patent Rules (the “SPR”).4 And Plaintiffs
`cite to no authority supporting their assertions about the SPR, have provided no case in
`which any court has found obviousness or ineligibility contentions like Bank of
`America’s to be insufficient, and have provided no case in which any court has stricken
`opinions similar to Dr. Polish’s. Plaintiffs also disregard the substance of the ICs while
`highlighting out-of-context statements from them. The applicable rules and the case
`law foreclose Plaintiffs’ positions.
`Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ motion turns the local patent rules on their head. The rules
`
`are supposed to prevent gamesmanship and late shifting of theories. But Plaintiffs have
`
`3 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`4 The Court adopted Judge Guilford’s SPRs regarding patent cases for this action. Dkt.
`91.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`-2-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 8 of 31 Page ID #:16579
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not pointed to any theory that has shifted or confused them—much less one that has
`prejudiced them. And Plaintiffs waited until fact discovery closed to set up the
`complaints in their motion with a December 20, 2023, interrogatory response. See Dkt.
`304-1 at 19; Dkt. 302-8 at 84–998, 124–25. They also served a rebuttal report that
`responds (albeit incorrectly) to the opinions about which Plaintiffs complain.
`Nonetheless, Plaintiffs ask the Court to strike all Dr. Polish’s obviousness and
`ineligibility opinions. Plaintiffs’ laying behind the log to seek dispositive relief on
`entire categories of invalidity theories—theories about which Plaintiffs have long
`known and to which they have substantively responded—is gamesmanship that Bank
`of America respectfully asks this Court to reject by denying the motion in full.
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Bank of America’s invalidity contentions describe its obviousness
`theories in detail; Dr. Polish merely elaborates on those theories.
`The ICs state, “[T]he Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid based
`
`on obviousness.” Dkt. 296-2 at 24:9–47:22. The Asserted Patents purport to disclose
`using mobile-device cameras to capture images and querying databases to recognize
`and provide information about objects in such images. Dkt. 296-3 ¶¶ 81–88, 89–96,
`97–104, 105–12, 113–18. And the Asserted Patents admit that “‘traditional methods
`for linking objects to digital information,’ [] include ‘applying a barcode, radio or
`optical transceiver or transmitter, or some other means of identification to the object, or
`modifying the data or object so as to encode detectable information in it.’ [’529 patent]
`at 2:13–18,” and “‘detect[ing] and decod[ing] symbols, such as barcodes or text, in the
`input image’ could be ‘accomplished via algorithms, software, and/or hardware
`components’ that were ‘commercially available’ . . . ’004 patent, 14:49–54; ’252 patent,
`13:56–61; ’036 patent, 14:35–40; ’897 patent 14:54–59; ’278 patent, 14:54–59.” Dkt.
`
`296-2 at 27:7–18.
`Next, the ICs explain how elected combinations of prior art, including those Dr.
`Polish discusses, render all the Asserted Claims invalid. Id. at 24:9–10, 29:8–10, 29:16–
`
`
`-3-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 9 of 31 Page ID #:16580
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18, 33:26–34:1, 37:3–7, 41:20–42:3, 43:6–26, 44:12–45:9, 45:10–47:15. The ICs
`disclose five obviousness combinations for each Asserted Patent. Dkt. 296-2 at 45–47.
`Dr. Polish discusses only seven of the those combinations and only with respect to the
`patents for which the ICs disclosed them. Dkt. 296-3, ¶¶ 289–1064.
`The ICs also disclose overarching theories why the combinations render the
`Asserted Claims invalid. See Dkt. 296-2 at 29:16–18. Per the ICs, “the Asserted Claims
`simply combine elements well known in the art and yield no more than one skilled in
`the art would expect from such a combination.” Id. at 29:8–10. The ICs explain,
`moreover, that
`[e]ach of the prior art references show that known image processing
`techniques were used in portable computing devices . . . and could be
`substituted with other image processing techniques according to known
`methods to yield predictable results . . . that it was common and known to
`substitute one image processing technique in portable computing devices
`for another image processing technique to . . . improve the functionality of
`
`portable computer devices [by] . . . utilizing different image processing
`techniques to identify objects under different circumstances and to retrieve
`information about the object.
`Id. at 30:3–13 (emphasis added). And after discussing seven of the eight references Dr.
`Polish discusses, the ICs explain that a “POSITA would have known to use the portable
`computer devices described above with each of the different image processing
`techniques discussed above” and that a “POSITA would have recognized that the
`portable computer devices would be improved through the use of different image
`processing and matching techniques so that objects could more easily be imaged and
`detected.” Id. at 36:20–26. A “POSITA would have also known to use any and all
`methods/components disclosed in the references described above, such as a portable
`device with a camera, database, server, and display to arrive at the invention of the
`
`Asserted Claims.” Id. at 37:3–7. The ICs continue, with respect to, for example,
`Cooltown (the eighth reference Dr. Polish discusses), “[A] multitude of companies sold
`products that utilized symbol and object recognition as described by the Asserted
`
`
`-4-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patents. For example, a number of companies introduced portable computing devices
`that utilized image processing to identify objects and symbols, such as . . . HP
`Cooltown.” Id. at 37:17–21.
`Bank of America situates each of the combinations Dr. Polish discusses within
`the above theories, and Dr. Polish does no more than elaborate on those same theories.
`As discussed below, the ICs contend for each combination, and Dr. Polish opines, that
`the image-processing and portable-device aspects in each combination provide
`motivation to combine the references to teach every Asserted Claim.
`1.
`
`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 10 of 31 Page ID
`
`#:16581
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing
`aspects of Rhoads and QBIC.
`The ICs explain that Rhoads “discloses a cell phone equipped with a 2D optical
`sensor enabling a variety of applications,” including object identification. Dkt. 296-2,
`30:26–31:8. The QBIC system discloses,
`
`methods for database population with images . . . and features of those
`images, extracting features . . . for both unput and stored images . . . ,
`querying the database using extracted features of an input image . . . ,
`matching extracted features of the input image with features of the images
`stored in a database, and returning information associated with the image.
`Id. at 38:21–39:3. The QBIC system can integrate with portable cameras. Id. at 39:3–
`5. The ICs further state that “the combination of known image processing techniques,
`such as QBIC, . . . to those portable computing devices would have been a simple
`substitution or addition . . . to obtain predictable results [and] improve similar devices
`in the same way.” Id. at 39:20–40:3; see also id. at 39:14–16 (explaining that portable
`computing devices, like the DigiMarcMediaBridge that Rhoads describes, utilized
`image-processing techniques to identify objects and symbols).5 Bank of America
`
`discloses the Rhoads-QBIC combination for the ’529, ’252, and ’036 patents. The ICs
`provide claim charts that explain the precise teachings in each Rhoads and QBIC that
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`5 Ex. 1, Rhoads, Cover, 6:14–17.
`
`
`-5-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 11 of 31 Page ID
`
`#:16582
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing
`aspects of Cooltown and QBIC.
`
`Cooltown discloses the use of portable devices with sensors or cameras to
`identify objects in the “consumer entertainment context.” Dkt. 296-2 at 38:3–5, 38:14–
`16. Referring to disclosed portable-device-related art like Cooltown, the ICs state,
`“[T]he combination of known image processing techniques, such as QBIC, . . . to those
`portable computing devices would have been a simple substitution or addition of one
`known element to . . . improve similar devices.” Id. at 39:14–40:3. The ICs disclose
`Cooltown and QBIC as a combination that renders invalid all Asserted Claims of the
`’529, ’252, and ’036 patents. The ICs provides claim charts that state the precise
`teachings in each of Cooltown and QBIC that disclose each Asserted Claim limitation
`in these patents. Dkt. 296-2 at 20–22.
`Dr. Polish elaborates on the foregoing theories for the same three patents.
`
`Regarding the ’529 patent, Dr. Polish says the “Cooltown System expands QBIC
`System’s capabilities to mobile devices” and that “QBIC System’s image processing
`and matching techniques would predictably enhance Cooltown’s system.” Dkt. 296-3,
`
`
`
`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
`
`disclose each Asserted Claim limitation of those patents. Dkt. 296-2 at 20–22.
`Regarding these three patents, Dr. Polish only elaborates on the foregoing
`theories. Regarding the ’529 patent, Dr. Polish states that a “POSITA would have been
`motivated to combine QBIC . . . with Rhoads to expand the systems’ capabilities”
`because QBIC’s “image processing and matching techniques would predictably
`enhance Rhoads’s system” and because “the combination would also expand QBIC
`System’s capabilities by allowing it to work with mobile devices.” Dkt. 196-3, ¶ 292.
`Dr. Polish explains how Rhoads’ and QBIC’s image-processing and portable-device
`features, and the combination of those features, teach all Asserted Claims in the ’529
`patent. Id. ¶¶ 289–379. Dr. Polish does the same for the ’252 and ’036 patents. Id. §§
`XI.A.1–XI.A.3, XI.B.1, XI.E.1.
`2.
`
`
`-6-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 12 of 31 Page ID
`
`#:16583
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing
`aspects of Mault, Sizer, and QBIC.
`Mault “discloses a portable computing device which can take pictures of food,
`food packaging, or barcodes and generate relevant information.” Dkt. 296-2 at 31:9–
`11. Sizer “discloses a capture device that scans and captures transaction data from
`marks contained on an object.” Id. at 31:18–19. The ICs state, “It would have been
`obvious to improve prior art systems or devices like . . . Sizer . . . with prior art like . . .
`
`Mault, which use[s] image processing techniques to determine various visual
`characteristics of an object.” Id. at 33:20–23. The contentions also propose the
`combining of portable-computing devices (like those in Sizer and Mault) with systems
`that practices image-processing techniques, like QBIC, and the combining of image
`processing techniques from different prior art references, like Mault’s and QBIC’s
`image-processing features. Id. at 30:3–13, 31:9–17, 32:17–23, 35:16–18, 36:20–37:16,
`38:17–39:5 39:18–25, 39:14–40:3,40:13–18, 40:21–22. The ICs disclose the Mault-
`Sizer-QBIC combination for the ’004 patent and provide claim charts stating the precise
`teachings in each of Mault, Sizer, and QBIC that disclose each Asserted Claim
`limitation this patent. Dkt. 296-2 at 20-22.
`Dr. Polish elaborates on the Mault-Sizer-QBIC theory for all Asserted Claims of
`
`the ’004 patent. Dr. Polish states regarding Claim 1, “A POSITA would have been
`motivated to combine Sizer and Mault with QBIC System because QBIC System
`supplements details on how to use the image features, including database population,
`
`
`
`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
`
`¶¶ 381, 384. Dr. Polish then explains how the image-processing and portable-device
`aspects of Cooltown and QBIC teach every Asserted Claim in the ’529 patent. Id.
`§§ XI.A.4–XI.A.5. Dr. Polish incorporates the foregoing analysis into his obviousness
`analysis for the ’252 and ’036 patents and concludes that the combination renders all
`Asserted Claims in those patents invalid too. Id. ¶¶ 502, 1011; §§ XI.B.2, XI.E.6–
`XI.E.10.
`
`3.
`
`
`-7-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 13 of 31 Page ID
`
`#:16584
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing
`aspects of Sizer, QBIC, and Krouse.
`Krouse “discloses a system for generating data from an image of a check with an
`optical scanner for scanning a check for a financial transaction” and “[r]ecognition
`characteristics . . . generated from the scanned image and [] compared to respective sets
`of reference recognition characteristics of other transaction documents.” Dkt. 296-2 at
`34:22–26. The ICs continue, “[a] POSITA would have known to use the portable
`
`computer devices described above with each of the different image processing
`techniques described above.” Id. at 36:20–21. Sizer discloses one such device, and
`QBIC and Krouse disclose image-processing features. Id. at 31:18–25, 35:16–18. The
`ICs continue that “the substitution of one known image processing technique for
`another”—like the image-processing techniques in QBIC and Krouse—“would have
`been used to obtain predictable results and a known way to improve similar devices.”
`Id. at 37:10–12. The ICs disclose the Krouse-Sizer-QBIC combination for the ’004 and
`’278 patents. Id. at 46:27, 47:11. Bank of America provides and provide claim charts
`stating the precise teachings in each of Sizer, QBIC, and Krouse that disclose each
`Asserted Claims limitation of those patents. Dkt. 296-2 at 20–22, 46:27, 48:11.
`Dr. Polish elaborates on the above Krouse-Sizer-QBIC combination for claim 18
`
`of the ’004 patent and all Asserted Claims in the ’278 patent. Dkt. 296-3, §§ XI.C.4,
`XI.D.5–XI.D.8. Regarding the ’004 patent, Dr. Polish states, “[a] POSITA would have
`understood . . . that QBIC System’s image processing and matching techniques would
`
`
`
`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
`
`feature extraction, and image query based on database matching of features”—that is,
`“image processing and matching techniques.” Dkt. 296-3 ¶¶ 561, 564–65. And “[t]he
`combination would expand QBIC System’s capabilities by allowing it to work with
`mobile devices.” Id. ¶ 562. Dr. Polish also explains how the image-processing and
`portable-device features of Mault, Sizer, and QBIC teach every Asserted Claim in the
`’004 patent. Id. at § XI.C.1–XI.C.3.
`4.
`
`
`-8-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 310 Filed 03/28/24 Page 14 of 31 Page ID
`
`#:16585
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing
`aspects of Ogasawara and QBIC.
`Ogasawara discloses “an electronic shopping system for conducting transactions
`on a wireless videophone” that can analyze information in captured images and transmit
`results to a user. Dkt. 296-2 at 30:14–25. The ICs state also that “the combination of
`
`known image processing techniques, such as QBIC . . . to those portable computing
`devices would have been a simple substitution or addition . . . to obtain predictable
`results.” Id. at 39:20–40:3. The ICs discloses the Ogasawara-QBIC combination for
`the ’278 patent and provide claim charts stating the precise teachings in each of
`Ogasawara and QBIC that disclose the Asserted Claims in the ’278 patent. Dkt. 296-2
`at 20-22.
`Dr. Polish elaborates on the Ogasawara-QBIC theory for all Asserted Claims in
`the ’278 patent. Dr. Polish states regarding claim 1 that “[a] POSITA would have
`understood . . . that QBIC System’s image processing and matching techniques would
`predictably enhance Ogasawara’s system” and that “[t]he combination would also
`expand QBIC System’s capabilities by allowing it to work with mobile devices.” Dkt.
`
`296-3, ¶ 693. Dr. Polish then explains how the image-processing and portable-device
`features of Ogasawara and QBIC teach all Asserted Claims of the ’278 patent. Id.
`§§ XI.D.1–XI.D.4.
`
`
`
`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
`
`predictably enhance Sizer and Krouse[]”; that “[t]he combination would also expand
`QBIC System’s capabilities by allowing it to work with mobile devices;” and that “[t]his
`combination would also expand QBIC System’s capabilities because Sizer explains a
`method of connecting image recognition to a transaction and the provision of banking
`details.” Id. ¶ 666. Dr. Polish then explains how the image-processing and portable-
`device features of the Krouse-Sizer-QBIC combination teach Claim 18. Id. § XI.C.4.
`Dr. Polish conducts the same analysis for the Asserted Claims in the ’278 patent. Id.
`§§ XI.D.5–XI.D.8.
`5.
`
`
`-9-
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORT OF DR.
`NATHANIEL POLISH
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`6.
`
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing
`aspects of Cooltown, QBIC, and Krouse.
`
`
`
`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
`
`The ICs describe the portable-device and image-processing
`aspects of Harris, QBIC, and Krouse.
`Harris discloses “a portable computing device for scanning codes to retrieve
`information about an object.” Dkt. 296-2 at 31:26–27. The ICs disclose Harris as
`exemplary portable-device art and QBIC and Krouse as exemplary image-processing
`art. Id. at 31:26–27, 34:22–35:2, 35:16–18, 38:17–39:5. Moreover, “[a] POSITA would
`have known to use the portable computer devices described above with each of the
`different image processing techniques discussed above because doing so would merely
`be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in
`the same way.” Id. at 36:20–23. The ICs disclose the Harris-Krouse-QBIC
`combination for the ’278 patent and provide claim charts stating the precise teachings
`in each of Harris, QBIC, an