Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`Edward R. Nelson III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Texas Bar No. 00797142
`Christopher G. Granaghan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Texas Bar No. 24078585
`ed@nelbum.com
`chris@nelbum.com
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY P.C.
`3131 West Seventh Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`Facsimile: (817) 377-3485
`
`Timothy E. Grochocinski (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Illinois Bar No. 6295055
`Charles Austin Ginnings (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`New York Bar No. 4986691
`tim@nelbum.com
`austin@nelbum.com
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY P.C.
`15020 S. Ravinia Avenue, Suite 29
`Orland Park, Illinois 60462
`Telephone: (708) 675-1974
`
`Ryan E. Hatch
`California Bar No. 235577
`ryan@hatchlaw.com
`HATCH LAW PC
`13323 Washington Blvd., Suite 302
`Los Angeles, CA 90066
`Telephone: (310) 279-5076
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-02245-JD
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES
`
`DATE: March 30, 2023
`TIME: 10:00 a.m.
`PLACE: Courtroom 11
`JUDGE: Hon. James Donato
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`3
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary Judgment Regarding Power Button Element ......................................................1
`
`Summary Judgment Regarding Apple Invalidity Positions .................................................2
`
`Summary Judgment Regarding Abandoned Defenses .........................................................3
`
`7
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................3
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Firstface and the Inventions .................................................................................................3
`
`Firstface’s Complaint and the Accused Products ................................................................4
`
`Apple’s IPR Petitions ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Apple’s Post-Stay Efforts to Rebuild an Invalidity Case.....................................................7
`
`Apple’s Abandonment of Invalidity Theories ...................................................................11
`
`13
`
`III.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................11
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Summary Judgment ...........................................................................................................11
`
`Infringement .......................................................................................................................11
`
`Presumption of Validity .....................................................................................................11
`
`Prior Art Under Section 102(g)(2) .....................................................................................12
`
`18
`
`IV.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS MEET THE POWER BUTTON LIMITATIONS.......................13
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Apple’s Argument Presents a Claim Construction Issue Ripe for Resolution. .................13
`
`The Claims Only Require That the Power Button Turn On or Off the Terminal. .............14
`
`The Power Button of Each Accused Product Turns On the Device. .................................15
`
`Summary Judgment Is Appropriate Regardless of the Court’s Construction. ...................16
`
`i.
`
`Apple is judicially estopped from arguing that the Accused Products do not
`
`include “a power button for pressing to turn on/off the terminal.” ........................16
`
`ii.
`
`The Accused Products’ Power Button Turns On and Off the Terminal. ...............18
`
`26
`
`V.
`
`APPLE’S ARTIX 4G INVALIDITY THEORIES FAIL AS A MATTER OF LAW. .................18
`
`27
`
`VI.
`
`THE APPLE FINGERPRINT PROTOTYPE IS NOT PRIOR ART. ...........................................20
`
`28
`
`VII. APPLE’S IPHONE 3GS AND 4 INVALIDITY THEORIES ARE BARRED BY ESTOPPEL..23
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO.: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 3 of 33
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`VIII. SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER AS TO § 101 AND INDEFINITENESS.......................24
`
`2
`
`IX. APPLE’S ENABLEMENT DEFENSES ARE INADEQUATE AS A MATTER OF LAW. ......24
`
`3
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 4 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................................... 14
`
`Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011)....................................................................................................... 11
`
`Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc.,
`808 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................................... 11
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................................................................................................ 11
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`No. 2021-1001, 2021 WL 4156323 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2021) ........................................................ 7
`
`Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................................... 25
`
`Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharms, Inc.,
`483 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................................... 18
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`No. C 09-05386 JCS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012) .................................. 15
`
`BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co.,
`955 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2020)......................................................................................................... 19
`
`Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co.,
`685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................................ 16
`
`Bracco Diagnostics v. Maia Pharms.,
`839 F. App’x 479 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2020) ................................................................................... 15
`
`Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.,
`40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994)......................................................................................................... 12
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc.,
`157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................................................... 12
`
`Celgene Corp. v. Peter,
`931 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019)......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-CV-04738-WHO, 2020 WL 109063 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020) ........................................ 23
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
`154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................................................... 13
`
`Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.,
`438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................................... 14
`
`Dawson v. Dawson,
`710 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................................... 12
`
`DMF, Inc. v. AMP Plus, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-CV-07090-CAS (GJSx), 2021 WL 6499980 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2021)........................... 23
`
`Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................................... 16
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)......................................................................................................... 12
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................................................... 13
`
`Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.,
`802 F.2d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1986)....................................................................................................... 25
`
`Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................................... 12
`
`Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc.,
`582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................................... 14
`
`Kruse Tech. P’ship v. Dmax Ltd.,
`No. SAVC 09-00458-JVS (JWJx), 2010 WL 11519252 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2010) ..................... 17
`
`MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`602 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010 ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC,
`692 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................................... 19
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Science, Inc.,
`261 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................................... 12
`
`Negotiated Data Sols., LLC v. Dell Inc.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 949 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ............................................................................................ 15
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`v
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) ........................................................................................................................ 16
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-01095, 2017 WL 897172 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2017) ................................................... 15
`
`Poly-Am., L.P. v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc.,
`383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`Quanta Comput., Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`553 U.S. 617 (2008) ........................................................................................................................ 19
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001)....................................................................................................... 14
`
`Singh v. Brake,
`317 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................................... 12
`
`Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC,
`No. SACV 12-01861 JGB (DFMx), 2015 WL 4744394 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) ................. 23, 24
`
`Thaler v. Vidal,
`43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................... 20
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................................... 14
`
`University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Wissenschaften E.V.,
`734 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................................... 20
`
`Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd.,
`392 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................................... 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................................. 3, 11, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) ............................................................................................................................. 2, 12
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................................. 3, 11, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) .............................................................................................................................. 3, 7, 24
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`vi
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`
`2
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`3
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 30, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`
`4
`
`matter may be heard in Courtroom 11 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`5
`
`California, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Plaintiff Firstface Co.,
`
`6
`
`Ltd. (“Firstface”) will present for hearing and ruling Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
`
`7
`
`seeking an Order: (1) holding as a matter of law that the Accused Products practice the limitation “a
`
`8
`
`power button for pressing to turn on/off the terminal” in claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373 and
`
`9
`
`claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419; and (2) granting summary judgment (a) as to Apple’s invalidity
`
`10
`
`theories relating to the Motorola Atrix 4G based on Apple’s failure to demonstrate that the alleged use
`
`11
`
`of the device is prior art, (b) as to the alleged “Apple Fingerprint Prototype” for Apple’s failure to
`
`12
`
`identify any alleged inventors and failure to demonstrate conception or reduction to practice of every
`
`13
`
`element of the Asserted Claims, (c) as to Apple’s invalidity theories relating to the iPhone 3GS and
`
`14
`
`iPhone 4 devices based on IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e), and (d) as to Apple’s § 101,
`
`15
`
`indefiniteness, and enablement defenses because Apple has no evidence for those defenses.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Firstface respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order: (1) holding as a matter of law that the
`
`18
`
`Accused Products practice the limitation “a power button for pressing to turn on/off the terminal” in
`
`19
`
`claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373 and claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419; and (2) granting
`
`20
`
`summary judgment (a) as to Apple’s invalidity theories relating to the Motorola Atrix 4G based on
`
`21
`
`Apple’s failure to demonstrate that the alleged use of the device is prior art, (b) as to the alleged “Apple
`
`22
`
`Fingerprint Prototype” for Apple’s failure to identify any alleged inventors and failure to demonstrate
`
`23
`
`conception or reduction to practice of every element of the Asserted Claims, (c) as to Apple’s invalidity
`
`24
`
`theories relating to the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 devices based on IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`25
`
`315(e), and (d) as to Apple’s § 101, indefiniteness, and enablement defenses because Apple has no
`
`26
`
`evidence for those defenses.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`vii
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`3
`
`4
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment Regarding Power Button Element
`
`Firstface respectfully requests that the Court grant partial summary judgment that the Accused
`
`5
`
`Products each meet the element, “a power button for pressing to turn on/off the terminal,” of the asserted
`
`6
`
`claims (“the power button limitations”). Each of the Accused Products is either an iPhone or iPad device
`
`7
`
`and has a button that Apple refers to interchangeably as the “sleep/wake button,” the “side button,” or
`
`8
`
`the “top button.”1 It is undisputed that a press of this button while the device is off will turn on the
`
`9
`
`device. Thus, summary judgment that the Accused Products meet the “a power button for pressing to
`
`10
`
`turn on/off the terminal” element is warranted.
`
`11
`
`Apple contends that the Accused Products do not meet the power button limitations because the
`
`12
`
`power button does not turn off the device but, instead, requires a user to not only press and hold the
`
`13
`
`power button, but also slide a graphical slider on the touch screen to confirm that the user wants to
`
`14
`
`power off the device. In other words, Apple believes that the asserted claims require that the power
`
`15
`
`button must both turn on and turn off the device.
`
`16
`
`Apple is wrong for at least two independent reasons. First, the term “a power button for pressing
`
`17
`
`to turn on/off the terminal” does not require that the button both turn on and turn off the terminal. The
`
`18
`
`slash between “on” and “off” means “or,” and the Court should construe it as such. Under that
`
`19
`
`construction, it is undisputed that the Accused Products meet the subject claim elements. Second, the
`
`20
`
`Accused Products satisfy the power button limitations even if the claims require that the power button
`
`21
`
`turn off the terminal. Apple is judicially estopped from arguing (as it does) that the Accused Products’
`
`22
`
`power button is outside the scope of the claims because it persuaded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`23
`
`that an iPhone button with identical functionality (including an identical slider) met the power button
`
`24
`
`limitations. And even if Apple is not estopped, the undisputed evidence shows that the Accused
`
`25
`
`Products’ power button turns on and off the device. The claims do not preclude an input in addition to a
`
`26
`
`press of the power button to turn off the device. Thus, the Accused Products’ “power button” is a
`
`27
`
`“power button for pressing to turn . . . off the terminal.”
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1 For simplicity, this Motion will refer to each of these buttons as a “power button.”
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`
`CASE NO.: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment Regarding Apple Invalidity Positions
`
`Firstface also requests that the Court grant summary judgment as to certain of Apple’s invalidity
`
`3
`
`theories. Apple has asserted invalidity theories based on, inter alia, four alleged prior art devices—
`
`4
`
`specifically, the Motorola Atrix 4G, something Apple refers to as the “Apple Fingerprint Prototype,” the
`
`5
`
`iPhone 3GS, and the iPhone 4. Each of Apple’s theories has flaws which warrant summary judgment.
`
`6
`
`With respect to the Motorola Atrix 4G, Apple relies upon its expert’s use of that device in a
`
`7
`
`manner nowhere instructed in any documents. It is black-letter law that when a defendant alleges
`
`8
`
`invalidity of a method claim based on an uninstructed use of a product, it must demonstrate that the
`
`9
`
`product was used in that manner before the patent owner’s invention date. Apple has no such evidence.
`
`10
`
`With respect to the Apple Fingerprint Prototype (which, as discussed below, is apparently not a
`
`11
`
`“prototype” but an amalgamation of high-level documents about an idea and a 4+ year development
`
`12
`
`project), Apple must demonstrate that “the invention was made in this country by another inventor” in
`
`13
`
`order to qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2). Apple has not
`
`14
`
`identified the “another inventor.” Instead, its theory is that “Apple” and/or “AuthenTec” (a company
`
`15
`
`Apple acquired) conceived of the idea of placing a fingerprint sensor into the “Home button” of an
`
`16
`
`iPhone, and, after several years of development work (evidenced only through concept documents and
`
`17
`
`presentations), Apple filed a patent application related to that work and later released the iPhone 5S.
`
`18
`
`This theory has four separate but related problems, any one of which is sufficient to grant
`
`19
`
`summary judgment. First, it is black-letter law that a company cannot be an inventor. Without any
`
`20
`
`evidence as to who invented the asserted claims, Apple cannot sustain an invalidity claim under §
`
`21
`
`102(g)(2). Second, Apple cannot demonstrate conception of every claim element, both because Apple
`
`22
`
`cannot identify who conceived of each element (the hallmark of inventorship) and because Apple cannot
`
`23
`
`demonstrate conception of every claim element through the concept document upon which Apple and its
`
`24
`
`expert rely. Third, Apple cannot demonstrate reduction to practice of every claim element, either
`
`25
`
`through the patent application or through the document upon which Apple and its expert rely (or through
`
`26
`
`the iPhone 5S). And fourth, Apple has made no effort to demonstrate that it exercised reasonable
`
`27
`
`diligence from Firstface’s foreign priority date to any of its purported reductions to practice.
`
`With respect to the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4, Apple is estopped from relying on those devices.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`2
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`In its IPR petitions, Apple relied upon a user guide for iOS 3.1. Apple’s petitions were unsuccessful as
`
`2
`
`to the asserted claims, and under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e), Apple cannot now rely on prior art that it raised or
`
`3
`
`reasonably could have raised in its IPR petitions. Apple is attempting to skirt estoppel by asserting the
`
`4
`
`iPhone 3GS and 4 devices as references instead of the iOS user guide. However, the features of those
`
`5
`
`devices that Apple relies upon are the very same as those discussed in the user guides and relied upon by
`
`6
`
`Apple in its IPR petitions. Apple’s technical expert admits as much throughout his report. Case law
`
`7
`
`offers two tests for deciding whether IPR estoppel applies to product references, and both tests are met
`
`8
`
`here. Indeed, Apple has left Firstface’s technical expert’s opinions that demonstrate why statutory
`
`9
`
`estoppel should apply unrebutted.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`C.
`
`Summary Judgment Regarding Abandoned Defenses
`
`Finally, Apple’s Answer in this case includes defenses that Apple has either expressly abandoned
`
`12
`
`or has failed to provide any basis for sustaining. Apple alleged defenses under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
`
`13
`
`indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, both of which Apple has explicitly confirmed it abandoned. Apple
`
`14
`
`also alleged lack of enablement under § 112, but did not include any such theory in its contentions or
`
`15
`
`expert reports, leaving Apple no basis upon which to maintain the defense.
`
`16
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`17
`
`18
`
`A.
`
`Firstface and the Inventions
`
`Before the formation of Firstface, the inventors of the asserted patents (Mr. Jung and Mr. Bae)
`
`19
`
`were collaborating to launch the South Korean division of a luxury fashion line (Porsche Design). Ex.
`
`20
`
`43 (Jung Dep. Tr.), 18:16-19:15, 34:14-35:14. In late-summer 2011, while in a coffee shop near his
`
`21
`
`home, Mr. Jung had a revelation. Id., 36:15-38:16. He observed patrons around him using their mobile
`
`22
`
`phones and noticed they were having to press a variety of buttons, and navigate through various user
`
`23
`
`interfaces, to access oft-used features. Id. He concluded there was a need for improvements to how
`
`24
`
`users interact with their devices that would allow them access to commonly-used features with greater
`
`25
`
`ease; for instance when activating the device screen. Id. Thus, Mr. Jung set to work with Mr. Bae, and
`
`26
`
`together they conceived of a variety of implementations, such as tying features to a simple press of a
`
`27
`
`button already used to turn on the display. The device could, for instance, activate the home screen and
`
`28
`
`authenticate a user with a single press. Id., 36:15-38:16, 55:18-57:23; see also Ex. 4 at <10>-<13>,
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`3
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`<18>. Also, the device could allow access to other features (e.g., a hands-free function) when the button
`
`2
`
`was pressed for a longer time. Ex. 43 (Jung Dep. Tr.), 18:16-19:15, 34:14-35:14; Ex. 4 at <16>. Mr.
`
`3
`
`Jung and Mr. Bae realized that this multi-function use of a home button offered improvements over
`
`4
`
`other designs, such as Motorola’s Atrix 4G, which required users to perform two separate operations to
`
`5
`
`authenticate a user—i.e., first pressing a button to turn on the device’s display, and a second action
`
`6
`
`(swiping a finger across a fingerprint sensor) to unlock the device. Ex. 43 (Jung Dep. Tr.), 18:16-19:15,
`
`7
`
`34:14-35:14; Ex. 4 at <2>, <3>, <10>-<18>.
`
`8
`
`In October 2011, Mr. Jung and Mr. Bae filed their Korean patent application, reducing their
`
`9
`
`inventions to practice. See Ex. 4. They filed a corresponding U.S. application (which claims priority to
`
`10
`
`the 2011 Korean application) in August 2012. See Ex. 1. The patents-in-suit are continuation
`
`11
`
`applications that also claim priority to the 2011 Korean application. See Exs. 2, 3.
`
`12
`
`After Mr. Jung and Mr. Bae filed their Korean and U.S. applications, and reduced their
`
`13
`
`inventions to practice, Apple introduced the iPhone 5S in September 2013. The 5S allowed a user to turn
`
`14
`
`on the phone display and authenticate with a single press. Ex. 44. Since Apple’s introduction of the 5S,
`
`15
`
`Apple has always offered a mobile device with its iconic Home button programmed to practice the
`
`16
`
`Firstface inventions. Indeed, Apple continues to sell infringing products, including the iPhone SE and
`
`17
`
`iPads. See https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/; https://www.apple.com/ipad-10.2.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`B.
`
`Firstface’s Complaint and the Accused Products
`
`Firstface filed its Complaint in this case on April 13, 2018, alleging that Apple infringes the ’557
`
`20
`
`patent, the ’373 patent, and the ’419 patent. ECF 1. After an unsuccessful motion to dismiss (see ECF
`
`21
`
`71), Apple filed its Answer, in which it alleged (both via defenses and counterclaims) non-infringement
`
`22
`
`and invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. ECF 78, pp. 4-7.
`
`23
`
`Firstface accuses Apple of directly and indirectly infringing claims 11-14 and 18 of the ’373
`
`24
`
`patent and claims 10, 12-13, and 15-17 of the’419 patent. ECF 1 at 4-9. Claim 11 of the ’373 patent and
`
`25
`
`claim 10 of the ’419 patent are independent method claims. The remaining claims of the ’373 patent
`
`26
`
`depend from claim 11 of the ’373 patent, and the remaining claims of the ’419 patent depend from claim
`
`27
`
`10 of the ’419 patent. Firstface contends that Apple and end users of Apple products directly infringe
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`4
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`these method claims via use of certain Apple iPhone and iPad devices (the “Accused Products”).2 Id.
`
`The asserted independent claims each require “providing a mobile computing terminal which
`
`3
`
`comprises . . . a power button for pressing to turn on/off the terminal.” Ex. 2 at cl. 11; Ex. 3 at cl. 10.
`
`4
`
`Firstface contends that the button Apple refers to as the “side button,” “sleep/wake button,” or “top
`
`5
`
`button” satisfies the power button limitations. This button is located on the side or top of the device. For
`
`6
`
`example, as shown in the image below, the iPhone 8’s “side button” is on the side of the device.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Ex. 19.3 Regardless of its name or location, the power button works the same way. The iOS 15 user
`
`16
`
`guide (the most recent iOS version at issue) is representative of how all Accused Products work:
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`2 The “Accused Products” are listed in Ex. 36 at 2, except two products withdrawn at ECF 138 at 6.
`
`3 The button is referred to as the “side button” in some Accused Products (see Exs. 15, 20), as the
`“sleep/wake button” in other Accused Products (see Exs. 7, 11-14, 16-18, 57-59), and as the “top button”
`in yet others (see Exs. 8-10). The number of exhibits cited herein is necessary in light of the number of
`Accused Products. Apple has thus far not stipulated to one or more representative Accused Products.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`5
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 236 Filed 01/06/23 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Ex. 29.4 As the user guide shows, to turn on the device, a user must simply “[p]ress and hold” the power
`
`14
`
`button “until the Apple logo appears.” Id. To turn off the device, a user must “[p]ress and hold” the
`
`15
`
`power button, “then drag the slider” that appears on screen. Id.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`C.
`
`Apple’s IPR Petitions
`
`On January 23, 2019, Apple filed IPRs against the patents-in-suit. See Exs. 37, 38. Notably, in
`
`18
`
`IPR proceedings, Apple’s burden of proof is lower than it is before this Court. Celgene Corp. v. Peter,
`
`19
`
`931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“IPRs use a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof rather
`
`20
`
`than the district court's clear and convincing evidence burden of proof.”). In each petition, Apple argued
`
`21
`
`that the claims were invalid based on combinations of references. Each combination included the User
`
`22
`
`Guide for version 3.1 of the iOS operating system (the “iOS 3.1 User Guide”). Ex. 37 at 7; Ex. 38 at 7.
`
`23
`
`The functionality of the Accused Products is identical to functionality that Apple argued satisfies
`
`24
`
`the power button limitations in its IPR petitions. Apple’s discussion in its petitions focused on claim 1 of
`
`25
`
`those patents (and for other claims, referred back to that discussion). Claim 1 of each patent requires “a
`
`26
`
`power button configured to turn on and off the terminal by pressing.” Ex. 2 at claim 1; Ex. 3 at claim 1
`
`27
`
`(emphasis added). Apple argued that the iOS 3.1 User Guide discloses this limitation as follows:
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`4 The user manuals for other versions of iOS and iPadOS are similar. See Exs. 7, 21-28, 30-35.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`6
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Doc