Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-02245-JD
`
`PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`JUDGE: Hon. James Donato
`
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`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 TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Literal Infringement ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents ..................................................................... 1
`
`FIRSTFACE’S PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS .................................................................... 1
`
`A. Direct Infringement ........................................................................................................................ 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`
`Indirect Infringement ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`
`C. Damages for Patent Infringement .................................................................................................. 2
`
`APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEFENSES .......................................................................... 4
`
`A. Non-Infringement .......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`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.
`
`Invalidity ........................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`1. Written Description .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`2.
`
`3. Anticipation.............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`4. Obviousness ............................................................................................................................. 7
`
`C. Ensnarement of Prior Art ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`D. Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents ................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Enablement .............................................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`i
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cases
`
`Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
` 745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Allen Eng’g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc.,
` 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,
` 987 F.3d 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi,
` Case 21-757, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2058 (U.S. May 18, 2023) ..................................................................... 5
`
`Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
` 254 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.,
` 700 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
` 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
` 40 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc.,
` 157 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp.,
` 150 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
` 154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,
` 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
` 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................................. 8, 9
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc.,
` 267 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. L.A. Biomed. Res. Inst.,
` 849 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
` 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
` 700 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.,
` 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inv. v. SEB S.A.,
` 563 U.S. 754 (2011) .................................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
` 355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
` 83 U.S. 1 (1966) ........................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co.,
` 339 U.S. 605 (1950) .................................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp.,
` 492 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
` 676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`In re Omeprazole Patent Litig.,
` 536 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Wands,
` 858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC,
` 783 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Intendis GmbH v. Glenmark Pharms., Inc.,
` 822 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite Pictures, Inc.,
` 274 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................................. 3, 8
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
` 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
` 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................................. 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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`MBO Labs. Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
` 602 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc.,
` 755 F.3d 899 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
` 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) .............................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp.,
` 875 F.3d 651 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Radio Steel & Mfg. Co. v. MTD Prods., Inc.,
` 731 F.2d 840 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj,
` 841 F.3d 954 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
` 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Riles v. Shell Expl. & Prod. Co.,
` 298 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co.,
` 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc.,
` 531 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Schoell v. Regal Marine Indus., Inc.,
` 247 F.3d 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.,
` 637 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`Thaler v. Vidal,
` 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.,
` 617 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Trebro Mfg. v. FireFly Equip., LLC,
` 748 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................................. 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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd.,
` 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
` 935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
` 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Voda v. Cordis Corp.,
` 536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................. 2
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
` 520 U.S. 17 (1997) ................................................................................................................................ 2, 8
`
`z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 507 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Rules, Statutes, and Other Authorities
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ..................................................................................................................................... 4, 5, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g) .................................................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..................................................................................................................................... 4, 7, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ........................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ......................................................................................................................................... 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ........................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ........................................................................................................................................ 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ............................................................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`v
`
`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 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Standing Order for Civil Trials Before Judge James Donato, Plaintiff Firstface
`Co., Ltd. (“Firstface”) submits the following Trial Brief.
`FIRSTFACE’S PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
`I.
`A.
`Direct Infringement
`Firstface alleges that Apple directly infringes, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents,
`claims 11-14 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373 (the “’373 patent”) and claims 10, 12-13, and 15-17 of
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419 (the “’419 patent), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).1 “Patent infringement
`requires that every element and limitation in a correctly construed claim is embodied in the accused
`system either literally or, if embodied by an equivalent, in compliance with the rules of equivalency ….”
`Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp., 492 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “[T]he infringement analysis requires
`a factual comparison of the claimed invention to the accused device [or method], which is done by the
`fact finder.” Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1467 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). “Patent
`infringement, whether literal or by equivalence, is an issue of fact, which the patentee must prove by a
`preponderance of the evidence.” Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1269, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`Literal Infringement
`1.
`Firstface contends that Apple literally infringes the asserted claims. “To prove literal
`infringement, the patentee must show that the accused [method] contains every limitation in the asserted
`claims.” Cybor, 138 F.3d at 1467. “Literal infringement of a claim exists when each of the claim
`limitations ‘reads on,’ or in other words is found in, the accused device [or method].” Allen Eng’g Corp.
`v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents
`2.
`Firstface also contends the asserted claims are satisfied under the doctrine of equivalents.
`“Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires that the accused product contain each limitation
`of the claim or its equivalent.” Riles v. Shell Expl. & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`Under the doctrine of equivalents, “a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express
`
`
`
`
` Claims 11-14 and 18 of the ’373 patent and claims 10, 12-13, and 15-17 of the ’419 patent are referred to
`herein as the “asserted claims.”
`PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is ‘equivalence’ between the
`elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention.” Warner-
`Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997). A finding of equivalence is a
`factual determination. Radio Steel & Mfg. Co. v. MTD Prods., Inc., 731 F.2d 840, 847 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
`The Federal Circuit has articulated several tests for proving infringement under the doctrine of
`equivalents. See Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008). One way to prove
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is to show that any difference between the claimed
`invention and the accused product or method is insubstantial. Id. Another way to prove infringement
`under the doctrine of equivalents is to show that an element in an accused product or method “performs
`substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result.” Id.
`(quoting Schoell v. Regal Marine Indus., Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1209-10 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
`Indirect Infringement
`B.
`Firstface also alleges that Apple is liable for inducing direct infringement of the asserted claims
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). “To prove inducement of infringement, the patentee must ‘show that the
`accused inducer took an affirmative act to encourage infringement with the knowledge that the induced
`acts constitute patent infringement.’” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC, 783 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(quoting Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc., 755 F.3d 899, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “[I]nducement can be
`found where there is ‘[e]vidence of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement,’ which can in
`turn be found in ‘advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use.’” Vanda
`Pharms. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
`“The inducement knowledge requirement may be satisfied by a showing of actual knowledge or willful
`blindness.” Info-Hold, 783 F.3d at 1372. A finding of willful blindness requires two elements: (1) the
`defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists, and (2) the
`defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact. Global-Tech Appliances, Inv. v. SEB
`S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 769 (2011).
`Damages for Patent Infringement
`C.
`Firstface is owed a reasonably royalty for Apple’s infringements. See 35 U.S.C. § 284 (“Upon
`finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the
`
`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 TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the
`infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court”). “The amount of a prevailing party’s
`damages is a finding of fact on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
`evidence.” Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp., 875 F.3d 651, 660 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit
`endorses “the conceptual framework of a hypothetical negotiation between the patentee and the infringer
`as a means for determining a reasonably royalty.” Interactive Pictures Corp. v. Infinite Pictures, Inc., 274
`F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir.
`2014).
`“[T]he hypothetical negotiation framework … seeks to discern the value of the patented
`technology to the parties in the marketplace when infringement began.” LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta
`Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 76 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d
`1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “A comprehensive (but unprioritized and often overlapping) list of relevant
`factors for a reasonable royalty calculation appears in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood
`Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).” ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 869
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). Where, as here, methods used by consumers are at issue, the reasonably royalty “ought
`to be correlated, in some respect, to the extent the infringing method is used by consumers” “because this
`is what the parties to the hypothetical negotiation would have considered.” Lucent, 580 F.3d at 1334.
`“[E]xpert testimony opining on reasonably royalty rate must ‘carefully tie proof of damages to the
`claimed invention’s footprint in the market place.’” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292,
`1317 (Fed Cir. 2011) (citing ResQNet, 594 F.3d at 869). “[W]hat an infringer would prefer to pay is not
`the test for damages.” Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also
`Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nor are licensing rates
`related to technologies that are only loosely or vaguely comparable to those claimed by the patents-in-
`suit. See LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 79. The party proffering a license bears the burden of establishing it
`is sufficiently comparable to support a proposed damages award. Lucent, 580 F.3d at 1329. When relying
`on allegedly comparable licenses, the proponent “must account for differences in the technologies and
`economic circumstances of the contracting parties.” Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d
`1197, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[A]lleging a loose or vague comparability between different technologies
`
`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 TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`3
`
`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 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`or licenses does not suffice.” LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 79.
`APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS AND DEFENSES
`II.
`A.
`Non-Infringement
`Apple alleges it does not infringe the asserted claims on the basis that its devices do not perform
`each step of the claims, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The applicable legal standards
`for infringement are set forth in Section I(A), above.
`Invalidity
`B.
`Apple also alleges that the asserted claims are invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102,
`103, and 112. A patent is presumed valid, and an accused infringer must prove any invalidity theory by
`clear and convincing evidence. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011)
`Written Description2
`1.
`Apple contends that the asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description. Determining
`whether a patent satisfies the written description standard is a question of fact. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli
`Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the standard, the patent
`specification must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor]
`invented what is claimed.” Id. (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir.
`1991)). Put differently, the patent’s disclosure must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that
`the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. The specification does
`not have to use a claim term verbatim to provide sufficient disclosure for that term. See id. at 1352
`(holding that the specification need not “recite the claimed invention in haec verba”). “[T]he level of
`detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of
`the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.” Id. at 1351.
`Enablement
`2.
`Apple raised an enablement defense for the first time after the close of discovery and service of
`expert reports. Firstface contends that Apple should be barred from raising enablement. This issue is
`argued in Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial summary Judgment (ECF 236), Apple’s Opposition to Firstface’s
`
`
`2 Apple’s written description defense is argued in Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgement (ECF 221),
`Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 255), and
`Apple’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 269).
`PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL BRIEF
`4
`
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF 257), and Firstface’s Reply in Support of Motion for Partial
`Summary Judgment (ECF 264).
`“Whether a claim satisfies the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is a question of law …
`based on underlying factual findings ….” Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2021),
`aff’d, Case 21-757, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2058, (U.S. May 18, 2023). “To prove that a claim is invalid for
`lack of enablement, a challenger must show by clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would not be able to practice the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’” Id.
`(quoting Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 745 F.3d 1180, 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). “Enablement is
`not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation” to practice the claimed invention; rather, lack
`of enablement requires clear and convincing evidence that “undue experimentation” is required to
`practice the claimed invention. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 736-37 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Amgen, 2023
`U.S. LEXIS 2058, at *27-28.
`“Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but
`rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations.” Id. “Those factual
`considerations, which have come to be known as the ‘Wands factors,’ are: (1) the quantity of
`experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence
`of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of
`those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.”
`Amgen, 987 F.3d at 1084. “[A]fter the challenger has put forward evidence that some experimentation is
`needed to practice the patented claim, the [Wands factors] provide the factual considerations that a court
`may consider when determining whether the amount of that experimentation is either ‘undue’ or
`sufficiently routine such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be expected to carry it out. Id. at 1084-
`85.
`
`Anticipation
`3.
`Apple contends that the asserted claims are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. “A claim
`is anticipated only where ‘each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single
`prior art reference.’” ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp., 700 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(quoting Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); Eli Lilly &
`
`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 TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 280 Filed 06/08/23 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`Co. v. L.A. Biomed. Res. Inst., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“To anticipate a claim, a prior art
`reference must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently.”).
`“Anticipation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” ArcelorMittal, 700 F.3d at 1322.
`Apple asserts that the asserted claims are anticipated by what it refers to as the “Apple Fingerprint
`Prototype,” which it alleges is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(g). Section 102(g) requires the
`accused infringer to prove that “the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not
`abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it.” The party challenging a patent’s validity has two ways to
`substantiate invalidity under § 102(g): (1) the alleged inventor reduced the invention to practice first or
`(2) the alleged inventor was the first party to conceive of the invention and then exercised reasonable
`diligence in reducing that invention to practice. See Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 700 F.3d 1300, 1304
`(Fed. Cir. 2012).
`“A reduction to practice can be either a constructive reduction to practice, which occurs when a
`patent application is filed, or an actual reduction to practice.” Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327
`(Fed. Cir. 1998). To demonstrate reduction to practice, a party must prove that the alleged inventor (1)
`“constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations” and (2) “determined that
`the invention would work for its intended purpose.” In re Omeprazole Patent Litig. v. Apotex Corp., 536
`F.3d 1361, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007)).
`Conception is defined as the point in time when the inventor formed in his or her mind “a definite
`and permanent idea of the complete operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice,”
`which idea is “so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to
`reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” Burroughs Wellcome
`Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1994); REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil Oyj,
`841 F.3d 954, 962 (Fed. Cir