Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 34
`
`BITA RAHEBI (CA SBN 209351)
`brahebi@mofo.com
`NICHOLAS R. FUNG (CA SBN 312400)
`nfung@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90017-3543
`Telephone:
`(213) 892-5200
`Facsimile:
`(213) 892-5454
`
`RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
`rhung@mofo.com
`SHAELYN K. DAWSON (CA SBN 288278)
`shaelyndawson@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, California 94105-2482
`Telephone:
`(415) 268-7000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 268-7522
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-02245-JD
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.’S 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`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 CONTENTS
`
`D. 
`E. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Apple ....................................................................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`This Lawsuit ............................................................................................................ 2 
`C. 
`The Inter Partes Review Proceedings .................................................................... 3 
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS DO NOT MEET THE “ON/OFF” LIMITATION. .......... 3 
`A. 
`Firstface’s New “On or Off” Infringement Theory Should Be Stricken. ............... 3 
`B. 
`The Plain Meaning of the “On/Off” Claim Limitation Means On and Off. ........... 4 
`C. 
`The Specification and Extrinsic Evidence Confirm that “On/Off” Means
`On and Off. ............................................................................................................. 5 
`Claim Differentiation Does Not Support Firstface’s Construction. ........................ 6 
`Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Is Appropriate. ...................................... 7 
`1. 
`The Accused Products Do Not Satisfy The “On/Off” Limitation............... 7 
`2. 
`Apple Is Not Judicially Estopped as to the “On/Off” Limitation. .............. 8 
`a. 
`Apple Did Not Make Inconsistent Statements During IPR. ........... 9 
`b. 
`Apple Did Not Persuade the PTAB to Adopt a Position
`Regarding the “On/Off” Limitation. ............................................. 10 
`It Is Apple, Not Firstface, That Would Be Prejudiced. ................. 10 
`c. 
`FIRSTFACE’S MOTION REGARDING THE ATRIX 4G SHOULD BE
`DENIED ............................................................................................................................ 10 
`Firstface’s Motion Should Be Denied Because It Does Not Address
`A. 
`Apple’s Atrix 4G Obviousness Combinations, Yet Seeks Judgment On
`Them. .................................................................................................................... 11 
`Apple’s Invalidity Position Is that Atrix 4G Alone or in
`1. 
`Combination With Other Art Renders Invalidates the Asserted
`Claims. ...................................................................................................... 11 
`Firstface Fails To Address Apple’s Obviousness Combinations. ............. 12 
`2. 
`The On-Sale Bar Does Not Require Performing the Claimed Method Steps. ...... 13 
`B. 
`Factual Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment as to the Atrix 4G Alone. .......... 14 
`C. 
`THE APPLE FINGERPRINT PROTOTYPE IS PRIOR ART ........................................ 15 
`A. 
`Apple’s Employees Conceived the Apple Fingerprint Prototype. ........................ 15 
`B. 
`One Need Not Show Conception of Elements Already Reduced to Practice. ...... 17 
`C. 
`Apple Presented Evidence of Actual and Constructive Reduction to
`Practice. ................................................................................................................. 18 
`Apple Presented Ample Evidence of Diligence. ................................................... 19 
`D. 
`IPR ESTOPPEL DOES NOT BAR RELIANCE ON THE IPHONE 3GS AND 4.......... 20 
`IPR Estoppel at Most Bars System Art that Is Duplicative of
`1. 
`Printed Publications. ................................................................................. 20 
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`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 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`2. 
`Firstface Bears the Burden of Proving IPR Estoppel. ............................... 21 
`Firstface Improperly Attempts To Shift Its Burden to Apple. .................. 21 
`3. 
`Firstface’s Does Not Meet Its Burden of Proving IPR Estoppel. ............. 23 
`4. 
`FIRSTFACE’S OWN EXPERT OPENED THE DOOR FOR APPLE’S
`ENABLEMENT DEFENSE ............................................................................................. 25 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25 
`
`
`
`VII. 
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-1012, 2017 WL 1383271 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2017) ............................................... 9
`
`Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC,
`474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................................. 6, 7
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`No. 21-1001, 2021 WL 4156323 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2021) .................................................... 7
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`No. IPR2019-00614, Paper 2 .................................................................................................. 23
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`Nos. IPR2019-00613, Paper 27 ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`Nos. IPR2019-00614, Paper 27 ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-CV-01846, 2012 WL 3155574 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012)..................................... 14, 15
`
`Baker Hughes, Inc. v. Davis-Lynch, Inc.,
`31 F. App’x 650 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................... 11
`
`BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co.,
`955 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co.,
`685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Bourg v. Aetna Inc.,
`628 F. App’x 489 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-5928, 2022 WL 2784467 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2022) ............................................. 23
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. Gopro, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-4738, 2020 WL 109063 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2020) ............................................ 21, 24
`
`DMF, Inc. v. AMP Plus, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-7090, 2021 WL 6499980 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2021) ............................................... 21
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`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 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc.,
`267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 15, 17
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-72, 2019 WL 6174936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2019) .................................................. 4
`
`Fox Grp., Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`855 F.3d 1356, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017), aff’d 139 S. Ct. 628 (2019) ....................................... 15
`
`Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.,
`921 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 25
`
`Kannuu PTY Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`15 F.4th 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`In re Koninklijke Philips Pat. Litig.,
`No. 18-cv-01885, 2020 WL 7392868 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020) ....................................... 5, 21
`
`Kruse Tech. Partnership v. DMAX, Ltd.,
`No. 09-cv-458, 2010 WL 11507591 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2010),
`on reconsideration, 2010 WL 11519252 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2010) ....................................... 5
`
`Luke v. Family Care & Urgent Med. Clinics,
`246 F. App’x 421 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................... 23
`
`MBO Labs. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`602 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 16
`
`Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Aptiv Servs. US LLC,
`No. 17-cv-1194, 2020 WL 4335519 (D. Del. July 28, 2020) ........................................... 21, 24
`
`Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc.,
`336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`Mull v. Motion Picture Indus. Health Plan,
`No. CV 12-06693, 2014 WL 1514812 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) ............................................ 10
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A.,
`No. 17-cv-8509, 2020 WL 10486482 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2020) ...................................... 21, 22
`
`Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. v. Applied Vision, Ltd.,
`No. 96-cv-4689, 1996 WL 53631 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 1996) .................................................... 5
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Plexxikon, Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-04405, 2020 WL 1820733 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020) ............................................. 4
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Technology, Inc.,
`383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Robotic Vision Sys., Inc. v. View Eng’g, Inc.,
`112 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-3260, 2018 WL 2287671 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2018) ............................................... 9
`
`Star Envirotech, Inc. v. Redline Detection, LLC,
`No. 12-cv-1861, 2015 WL 4744394 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) .............................................. 21
`
`STX, LLC v. Brine, Inc.,
`211 F.3d 588 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Thaler v. Vidal,
`43 F.4th 1207, 1211-13 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................ 16
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.,
`No. 04-cv-2123, 2008 WL 2037732 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2008) ............................................. 25
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-05601, 2015 WL 5834064 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2015) ............................................... 8
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,
`734 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................... 16
`
`Upsher-Smith Lab’ys, Inc. v. Pamlab, L.L.C.,
`412 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................. 25
`
`Willis Elec. Co. v. Polygroup Macau Ltd. (BVI),
`No. 15-cv-3443, 2023 WL 112733 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2023) ................................................... 20
`
`World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp.,
`769 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`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 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc.,
`440 F.Supp.3d 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................... 6
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) .................................................................................................................... 20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 703 ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 8 of 34
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419
`
`“’373 patent”
`
`“’419 patent”
`
`Claims 11-14 and 18 of the ’373 patent and
`claims 10-13 and 15-17 of the ’419 patent
`
`“Asserted Claims”
`
`Firstface’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims &
`Infringement Contentions, dated Sept. 20,
`2018
`
`Firstface’s Amended Disclosure of Asserted
`Claims & Infringement Contentions, dated
`July 30, 2019
`
`“IC”
`
`“AIC”
`
`Firstface’s Second Amended Disclosure of
`Asserted Claims & Infringement Contentions,
`dated Dec. 10, 2021
`
`“SAIC”
`
`Firstface’s Supplemental Second Amended
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims &
`Infringement Contentions, dated March 4,
`2022
`
`“SSAIC”
`
`Invalidity Contentions
`
`Declaration of Steve Hotelling in Support of
`Apple’s Opposition to Firstface’s Summary
`Judgment Motion
`
`Declaration of Dale Setlak in Support of
`Apple’s Opposition to Firstface’s Summary
`Judgment Motion
`
`Declaration of Nicholas Fung in Support of
`Apple’s Opposition to Firstface’s Summary
`Judgment Motion
`
`“IVCs”
`
`“Hotelling Decl.”
`
`“Setlak Decl.”
`
`“Fung Opp. Decl.”
`
`“Final Written Decision”
`
`“FWD”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Each ground of Firstface’s summary judgment motion fails. The Court should deny its
`motion as to the “On/Off” limitation. The asserted claims require a “power button for pressing to
`turn on/off the terminal,” but the accused products undisputedly use an on-screen slider to power
`off the devices. Firstface now posits that “On/Off” really means “on or off.” But it never
`proposed that construction previously, and its new approach contradicts its infringement
`contentions. Its new construction also is wrong and unsupported by the relevant evidence.
`Firstface’s arguments regarding the Motorola Atrix 4G device, too, should be rejected.
`The crux of its motion is that the Atrix 4G did not disclose fingerprint authentication “without
`additional user input.” But Apple’s related invalidity theories also encompass obviousness,
`rendering summary judgment on all seventeen grounds improper. Even as to the Atrix 4G alone,
`Firstface’s positions are wrong. Motorola’s engineer and Apple’s expert have explained why the
`Atrix 4G discloses or renders obvious all limitations, and any factual disputes about their
`testimony preclude summary judgment. Firstface also misapplies the legal standard. The law
`requires only that the prior art product substantially embody the claimed inventions.
`Firstface also seeks to dispose of Apple’s invalidity theories involving its Fingerprint
`Prototype, which contemplated use of a single button to activate the display and perform
`fingerprint authentication. But its challenges as to whether the evidence (including photographs
`and testimony) proves Apple’s prior invention merely reinforce that factual disputes exist.
`Summary judgment on IPR estoppel also would be improper. Firstface, which bears the
`burden of proving estoppel, has not shown that Apple’s IPR printed publication art disclosed all
`relevant functionality in the iPhone 3GS and 4 devices.
`Finally, Apple should be permitted to pursue an enablement defense. Firstface’s own
`expert testified that developing the claimed invention would have been an “insurmountable” task
`requiring a “fair amount of experimentation.” That testimony alone defeats summary judgment.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`Apple
`Apple introduced the first multi-touch smartphone, the iPhone, to widespread acclaim in
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`2007. (Cockburn Op. Rpt. (Ex. A) ¶ 106.)1 Apple began developing the accused feature, Touch
`ID, in 2009. (Id. at ¶¶ 154, 155.) Its engineers worked alongside those from AuthenTec, a
`cutting-edge fingerprint sensor company, to develop a “Fingerprint Prototype” that would
`eventually become Touch ID in the iPhone 5s. (Hotelling Dep. Tr. (Ex. D), 32:6-19.)
`In 2009, Apple also released the iPhone 3GS. (Cockburn Op. Rpt. (Ex. A) ¶¶ 158, 184.)
`The 3GS had a Home button that performed functions, depending on how long it was pressed.
`(Id. at ¶ 194.) A short press would invoke password authentication, and a long press would
`invoke Voice Control. (See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 108, 156, 186-188, 286, 287, 860.)
`
`B.
`This Lawsuit
`In April 2018, Firstface sued Apple for infringing the ’373 and ’419 patents based on its
`sale of Touch ID-enabled products. All claims require a “power button for pressing to turn on/off
`the terminal” (the “‘On/Off’ limitation”) and an “activation button.” Firstface alleges that the
`accused products’ “top,” “side,” or “sleep/wake” button corresponds to the “power button.” (See,
`e.g., Ex. B to SSAIC (Ex. R) at 12.) Firstface alleges that the accused products’ “Home” button
`corresponds to the “activation button.” (IC at 2-3 n.2 (D.I. 221-29).)
`In its September 2018 infringement contentions, Firstface contended that the accused
`products satisfy the “On/Off” limitation because “[they] ha[ve] a power button configured to turn
`the terminal on and off by pressing.” (See, e.g., Ex. B to IC (Ex. L) at 58-59 (emphasis added).)
`Firstface amended its contentions in July 2019 to accuse more devices. (AIC at 2-3 n.2 (D.I. 221-
`30).) Firstface then amended its contentions again in December 2021 and March 2022 to accuse
`more products and add source code citations. (See, e.g., Ex. C to SAIC (Ex. Q) at 1 n.1; Ex. C to
`SSAIC (Ex. S) at 43.) With each amendment, Firstface left unchanged its allegations regarding
`the “On/Off” limitation. (D.I. 221-20) at 8-9; D.I. 221-14 at 9-10.)
`Firstface moved to strike various invalidity grounds, including Apple’s Fingerprint
`Prototype, the iPhone 3GS, and iPhone 4. The Court denied Firstface’s motion. (D.I. 139.)
`The Court issued its claim construction order in June 2022. (D.I. 137.) Firstface then
`
`
`1 Unless noted, all exhibit are to the Fung Opposition Declaration.
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`moved to amend its infringement contentions allegedly in response to that order, but the Court
`denied Firstface’s motion in August 2022. (D.I. 160.) Fact discovery closed in August 2022.
`The parties served expert reports in September and November 2022. (D.I. 108.)
`
`C.
`The Inter Partes Review Proceedings
` On July 31, 2020, the PTAB agreed with Apple, concluding that claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 10
`of the ’373 patent and claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9 of the ’419 patent were unpatentable. (D.I. 106 at
`2.) The PTAB declined to hold the ’373 patent claims 11-14 and 18 or ’419 patent claims 10-13
`and 15-17 unpatentable. (Id.) The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions. (Id.)
`
`III. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS DO NOT MEET THE “ON/OFF” LIMITATION.
`A.
`Firstface’s New “On or Off” Infringement Theory Should Be Stricken.
`Between April 2018 and August 2022, Firstface consistently alleged that the accused
`products satisfy the “On/Off” limitation because they have “a power button configured to turn the
`terminal on and off by pressing.” (Ex. B to IC (Ex. L) at 58-59 (emphasis added).) Every one of
`its infringement contentions made this allegation. (See id.; Ex. C to IC (Ex. M) at 48; Ex. B to
`AIC (Ex. N) at 61; Ex. C to AIC (Ex. O) at 52; Ex. B to SAIC (Ex. P) at 8; Ex. C to SAIC (Ex. Q)
`at 8; Ex. B to SSAIC (Ex. R) at 9; Ex. C to SSAIC (Ex. S) at 9).) Firstface did not identify the
`“On/Off” limitation for construction during the 2019 Markman proceedings. (D.I. 61.) This is
`because, consistent with its infringement contentions, Firstface understood that the claimed power
`button must turn the devices on and off.
`In its March 2019 Markman brief, Apple expressly noted that the claimed “‘ON/OFF’
`button . . . is intended to turn the terminal off from the on state and is also intended to turn it on
`from the off state.” (D.I. 69 at 5). On reply, Firstface acknowledged Apple’s position but did not
`challenge it.2 (D.I. 76 at 4 (referring to Apple’s argument that, “because the ‘ON/OFF button’
`must turn the device on and off, it must be a mechanical button”).)
`The claim construction order reflects the parties’ mutual understanding. In explaining that
`the “activation” and “On/Off” buttons are distinct, the Court noted that “[t]he ON/OFF button is
`
`
`2 Firstface’s claim not to have known of Apple’s interpretation before 2022 is false. (Mot. at 13.)
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`described as a button that can be used to completely turn on and off the mobile communication
`terminal or switch it to the inactive state.” (D.I. 137 at 7 (emphasis added).)
`Firstface’s interpretation of the “On/Off” limitation remained unchanged until mid-2022,
`when it asked Apple to identify its non-infringement positions. In its interrogatory responses,
`Apple explained that the alleged “power button” in its products does not, in fact, turn the terminal
`on and off when pressed. (Apple’s Resp. to Interrog. 14 (D.I. 245-6) at 4, 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 22-24.)
`Rather, to power off, the device requires an additional action of swiping an on-screen slider. (Id.)
`Newly recognizing that its infringement theory would fail, Firstface sought to change its
`theory—and underlying construction—in the middle of expert discovery. In his September 2022
`report, Firstface’s expert Kevin Almeroth alleged that the Asserted Claims “merely require ‘a
`power button for pressing to turn’ on or off the terminal.” (Almeroth Op. Rpt. (D.I. 221-7) ¶ 143
`(emphasis added); see also id. ¶ 341 (stating “[t]he use of a ‘/’ indicates to a person of skill in the
`art that the claims merely require ‘a power button for pressing to turn’ on or off the terminal.”).)
`It is far too late, however, for Firstface to change its infringement contentions and claim
`construction now. The Court should strike this theory and related expert testimony.3 Finjan, Inc.
`v. Cisco Sys. Inc., No. 17-cv-72, 2019 WL 6174936, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2019) (“[A] party
`may not use an expert report to introduce new infringement theories or new infringing
`instrumentalities not disclosed in the parties’ infringement contentions.”); see also Plexxikon, Inc.
`v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 17-cv-04405, 2020 WL 1820733, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020)
`(patent local rules “are designed to require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in
`the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed”). The Court should
`reject Firstface’s untimely infringement theory and construction and deny its summary judgment
`motion, just as the Court denied Firstface’s prior motion to belatedly amend its contentions.
`
`B.
` The Plain Meaning of the “On/Off” Claim Limitation Means On and Off.
`Even assuming that Firstface could change its infringement contentions and press a new
`construction belatedly through its expert’s report, Firstface is wrong that the “On/Off” limitation
`
`
`3 Objection: Apple objects to this argument and evidence as not raised in Firstface’s infringement
`contentions and claim construction briefing. (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 703; L.R. 7-3, 56-2.)
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 13 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`requires only turning on or off the terminal. (Mot. at 14.) The claim language refers to a singular
`“power button for pressing to turn on/off the terminal.” (’373 patent, cl. 11;’419 patent, cl.10.)
`Firstface’s contention that the Court must give the “On/Off” limitation the “full range of
`its ordinary meaning” misses the mark. (Mot. at 14.) Firstface mistakenly assumes that the
`“ordinary meaning” encompasses a button that turns the device on, but not off. As its own
`infringement contentions and claim construction briefs make clear, however, the ordinary
`meaning of the “On/Off” limitation requires a button that does both. (See Ex. B to IC (Ex. L) at
`59 (accusing “power button configured to turn the terminal on and off by pressing”); D.I. 76 at 4
`(not disagreeing with Apple that “the ‘ON/OFF button’ must turn the device on and off”).)
`Although Firstface suggests that precedent requires that the forward slash in “On/Off”
`means “or,” the case law is not so definitive. For example, in Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. v.
`Applied Vision, Ltd., the court construed “linear/planar” to mean that, “[t]o the extent a device is
`planar, it must also be linear to infringe.” No. 96-cv-4689, 1996 WL 53631, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan.
`19, 1996). And in Kruse Tech. Partnership v. DMAX, Ltd., Judge Selna construed “fuel/air
`mixture” to require “fuel and air.” No. 09–cv-458, 2010 WL 11507591, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. July
`14, 2010), on reconsideration, 2010 WL 11519252 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2010).
`Neither Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012), nor
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013), supports Firstface’s
`position that the “On/Off” limitation only requires a button that turns the device on. In Thorner,
`the Federal Circuit merely noted that a claim’s “ordinary meaning” must be “read in the context
`of the specification and prosecution history,” consistent with Philips. 669 F.3d at 1365. And in
`3M, the court observed that “limitations discussed in the specification may not be read into the
`claims.” 725 F.3d at 1321. Here, the ordinary meaning of the “On/Off” limitation requires a
`button that turns the device on and off. As explained below, the specification is fully in accord.
`
`C.
`
`The Specification and Extrinsic Evidence Confirm that “On/Off” Means On
`and Off.
`A claim must be construed in light of the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). A court need not construe a limitation broadly where
`
`APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO FIRSTFACE’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 257 Filed 01/31/23 Page 14 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`neither the claim language nor specification supports that reading. See, e.g., X One, Inc. v. Uber
`Techs., Inc., 440 F.Supp.3d 1019, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (specification “always highly relevant”).
`The specification nowhere identifies a “power button” that only turns on the device. (Cockburn
`Reb. Rpt. (D.I. 221-5) ¶¶ 93, 94, 192, 193.) Instead, it refers to an “ON/OFF button” to turn off
`the device completely, if pressed for a long time. (Id.; ’373 patent, 4:11-21.)
`The specification’s use of the phrases “wired/wireless” and “his/her” do not demonstrate
`that “On/Off” means “on or off.” Those phrases merely confirm that the meaning of the forward
`slash is context-specific. For example, the specification refers to a “digital device [that]
`include[es] wired/wireless communication functions or other functions.” (’373 patent at 3:11-17
`(emphasis added).) The repeated reference to “functions” (plural) suggests that the inventors
`intended to refer to wired and wireless communication functions. Likewise, that “his/her” means
`“his or her” does not inform whether “On/Off” means “on and off”—particularly as Firstface
`itself has consistently recognized that the “On/Off” limitation requires both. (E.g., D.I. 221-15.)
`As Apple’s expert Andy Cockburn also explains, “On/Off” means “on and off.”
`(Cockburn Reb. Rpt. (D.I. 221-5) ¶¶ 192, 193.) Dr. Almeroth’s newly-proffered opinions do not
`rebut this understanding. (D.I. No. 221; D.I. 221-7 ¶¶ 143, 341.)
`
`D.
`Claim Differentiation Does Not Support Firstface’s Construction.
`The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a “presumption” that distinct claims have
`different scopes. World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp., 769 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir.
`2014). “To the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a
`claim superfluous, the doctrine of claim dif