Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 474-2 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 4 Page ID
`#:59539
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Case No. 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC
`NANTWORKS, LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company, and NANT
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN
`HOLDINGS IP, LLC, a Delaware limited
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
`liability company,
`STRIKE CERTAIN OPINIONS IN
`DR. SCHONFELD’S OPENING
`Plaintiffs,
`EXPERT REPORT REGARDING
`INFRINGEMENT
`Date: June 6, 2024
`Time: 8:30 am
`Courtroom: 9D
`Judge: Honorable George H. Wu
`
`vs.
`BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`a Delaware corporation, and BANK OF
`AMERICA, N.A., a national banking
`association,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PUBLIC/REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT PROPOSED TO BE FULED UNDER
`SEAL IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN OPINIONS IN DR. SCHONFELD’S OPENING EXPERT REPORT REGARDING
`INFRINGEMENT
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 474-2 Filed 05/24/24 Page 2 of 4 Page ID
`#:59540
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`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
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
`ARGUMENT........................................................................................................ 1
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their failure to disclose Dr. Schonfeld’s new
`A.
`theory that storing regular expressions in source code meets the
`“database” requirements. ............................................................................ 1
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their new theory that storing regular
`expressions in source code is equivalent to a database. ............................. 3
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their failure to disclose Dr. Schonfeld’s new
`theory that a SQL database meets the “database” requirement. ................ 5
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their failure to disclose Dr. Schonfeld’s new
`theory that broadens decomposition. ......................................................... 8
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their failure to disclose Dr. Schonfeld’s new
`theory that decomposition includes grayscale conversion, applying
`binarization to the grayscale image, and segmentation. .......................... 10
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their failure to disclose Dr. Schonfeld’s
`theory that error codes meet the claim limitations. .................................. 12
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their failure to disclose Dr. Schonfeld’s new
`theory that normalization, binarization, and OCR in MiSnap meets
`“data processing” of the ’529 Patent. ....................................................... 14
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their failure to disclose Dr. Schonfeld’s new
`theory that MiBiData meets the “produced data” of the ’529 Patent. ..... 16
`Plaintiffs cannot justify their failure to disclose Dr. Schonfeld’s new
`theory that Examiner meets “an identification platform” of the ’036
`Patent. ....................................................................................................... 17
`Dr. Schonfeld’s opinions relating to first infringement are improper. .... 19
`J.
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 23
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`-i-
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN OPINIONS IN DR. SCHONFELD’S OPENING EXPERT REPORT REGARDING
`INFRINGEMENT
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 474-2 Filed 05/24/24 Page 3 of 4 Page ID
`
`#:59541
`
`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)
`
`Cases
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys.,
`2014 WL 709865 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2014) .................................. 8, 9, 12, 13, 18
`Allvoice Devs. US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`612 F. App’x 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................. 2, 7, 9, 12, 14
`DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Sols.
`L.L.C., 671 F. Supp. 3d 1105 (S.D. Cal. 2023) ................................................ 4, 5
`Dynamic Digit. Depth Rsch. Pty Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2016 WL 7448294 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) ........................................................ 5
`Finjan v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1517920 (N.D. Cal. April 2, 2015) ...................................... 3, 4, 16, 19
`Glaukos Corp. v. Ivantis, Inc.,
`2020 WL 3124217 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2020) ..................................................... .21
`Jones v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.,
`304 F.R.D. 677 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ....................................................................... 22
`Karlin Technology, Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed.Cir.1999) ........................................................................ 15, 17
`KlausTech v. Google LLC,
`2018 WL 5109383 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018)
` ......................................................................2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 20
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2021 WL 5987101 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2021) ..................................................... 2
`MLC Intell. Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 3
`
`-ii-
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN OPINIONS IN DR. SCHONFELD’S OPENING EXPERT REPORT REGARDING
`INFRINGEMENT
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-07872-GW-PVC Document 474-2 Filed 05/24/24 Page 4 of 4 Page ID
`
`#:59542
`
`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
`
`Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`783 F. App’x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................. 1, 2
`ROY-G-BIV Corp. v. ABB, Ltd.,
`63 F. Supp. 3d 690 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ................................................................... 7
`Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,
`259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 22
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) ................................................................................ 3, 21, 22, 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ..................................................................................................... 22
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) .......................................................................... 1, 19, 21, 22, 23
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN OPINIONS IN DR. SCHONFELD’S OPENING EXPERT REPORT REGARDING
`INFRINGEMENT
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-07872-GW-PVC
`
`
`
`
`
`