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 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`ARTURO J. GONZALEZ (CA SBN 121490)
`agonzalez@mofo.com
`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
`
`BITA RAHEBI (CA SBN 209351)
`brahebi@mofo.com
`ALEX S. YAP (CA SBN 241400)
`ayap@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
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-02245-JD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S TRIAL
`BRIEF
`
`Trial Date: July 10, 2023
`Courtroom: 11
`
`Defendant.
`
`Hon. James Donato
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`

`

`Page
`CASE BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1
`PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT
`MOTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2
`REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENSES ................................................. 3
`A.
`Apple Does Not Directly Infringe the Asserted Claims ......................................... 3
`1.
`Apple Does Not Literally “Provid[e] . . . a Power Button for
`Pressing to Turn On/Off the Terminal” ...................................................... 3
`Apple Does Not “Provid[e] . . . a Power Button for Pressing to Turn
`On/Off the Terminal” Under the Doctrine of Equivalents .......................... 4
`The Accused Products Do Not Perform the Fingerprint
`Authentication Feature “Without Additional User Input” or in
`Response to “One-Time Pressing” .............................................................. 5
`The Accused Products with a Solid-State Home Button Do Not
`Perform Additional Limitations of the ’373 Patent Asserted Claims ......... 6
`Firstface Cannot Prove Induced Infringement ........................................................ 6
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid ............................................................................ 6
`1.
`Apple’s Own Prior Invention Anticipates the Asserted Claims ................. 6
`2.
`Prior Art Renders Obvious the Asserted Claims......................................... 7
`3.
`The Asserted Claims Lack Sufficient Written Description......................... 7
`4.
`The Asserted Claims Are Not Enabled ....................................................... 9
`Firstface Overstates Any Damages ......................................................................... 9
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 15
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`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
`
`APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`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 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 3 of 15
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al.,
`598 U.S. __, 143 S. Ct. 1243 (2023) ......................................................................................... 9
`
`Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
`254 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co.,
`2021 WL 4156323 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2021) ........................................................................... 8
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ............................................................................. 7, 8
`
`Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med. Inc.,
`576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Cirba Inc. et al. v. VMware, Inc.,
`C.A. 1:19-cv-742-GBW (Apr. 18, 2023), Dkt. No. 1724 ....................................................... 10
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`Droplets, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-03733, 2022 WL 2670163 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2022) ........................................... 10
`
`Franks Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, Inc.,
`389 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 3
`
`G. David Jang, M.D. v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
`872 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Packet Intel. LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc.,
`965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte Chem. Co.,
`304 F.3d 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc.,
`734 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Tokyo Ohka Kogyo, Ltd. v. Fujifilm Elec. Materials USA, Inc.,
`PGR2022-00010, Paper 28 ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Virtnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Wands,
`858 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................... 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ....................................................................................................................... 2, 7, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) .......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g) .......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ............................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`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 INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`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 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Standing Order for Civil Trial Before James Donato, Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`respectfully submits this Trial Brief, specifying each cause of action and defense remaining to be
`
`tried along with the applicable legal standard.
`
`I.
`
`CASE BACKGROUND
`
`Apple is the world’s leading innovator of personal computing products. It introduced the
`
`first multi-touch smartphone, iPhone, to widespread acclaim in 2007. Apple has continued to
`
`add groundbreaking features to iPhone with each subsequent generation. And this case relates to
`
`one of those features, Touch ID, which Apple brought first to iPhone 5s in September 2013.
`
`Touch ID allows a user to unlock certain iPhones (and iPads) by pressing the Home button with
`
`their finger. Apple began developing Touch ID in 2009. Its engineers worked alongside those
`
`from AuthenTec, a cutting-edge fingerprint sensor company, to develop a fingerprint sensor
`
`invention that would eventually become Touch ID in iPhone 5s. Apple acquired AuthenTec in
`
`2012, before Apple released iPhone 5s.
`
`Firstface is a non-practicing entity from Korea. Firstface asserts U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`9,633,373 (the “’373 patent”) and 9,779,419 (the “’419 patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”)
`
`against Apple. Both claim priority to an October 2011 Korean application and U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 14/538,880. Both relate to activating a mobile terminal’s display and performing
`
`a function (e.g., fingerprint authentication) “with one-time user input.” Firstface has no current
`
`employees other than its three co-CEOs. Its sole business is monetizing its patent portfolio with
`
`litigation funding support. It has never attempted to develop or release a product that practices
`
`the Asserted Patents.
`
`Firstface asserts that Apple directly infringes claims 11-14 and 18 of the ’373 patent and
`
`claims 10, 12, 13, and 15-17 of the ’419 patent by using certain features of the accused iPhone
`
`and iPad products (the “Accused Products”)—namely, by using Touch ID and Siri (the accused
`
`processes). These claims are all method claims. Firstface also asserts that Apple actively induces
`
`its customers’ infringement of the same claims when those customers use the accused features.
`
`Firstface no longer alleges contributory infringement or pre-suit damages for induced
`
`infringement. It has not asserted willful infringement.
`
`APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`Apple defends against Firstface’s claims for relief by asserting that it does not infringe,
`
`directly or indirectly, any asserted claim. Apple also contends that the asserted claims are: (1)
`
`invalid as anticipated; (2) rendered obvious by the prior art; and (3) invalid for failure to meet the
`
`written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Apple also asks that the
`
`Court declare that it does not infringe and that the Asserted Patents are invalid.
`
`II. PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS
`
`The parties’ pending motions for summary judgment and Apple’s pending Daubert
`
`motions may resolve or narrow the issues for trial. Apple sought summary judgment on the
`
`grounds that: (1) the Asserted Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written
`
`description; (2) Apple does not infringe the asserted claims because it does not “provid[e] . . . a
`
`power button for pressing to turn on/off the terminal,” or perform the fingerprint authentication
`
`feature “without additional user input” or in response to “one-time pressing”; (3) Firstface cannot
`
`prove induced infringement ; and (4) Firstface cannot prove contributory infringement because it
`
`failed to disclose expert evidence to support its allegations. (Dkt. Nos. 221, 256-10, 269.)
`
`Firstface has since waived its contributory infringement claims (Dkt. No. 256-10 at 24) and its
`
`claim for “pre-suit damages for induced infringement” (id. at 22).
`
`Firstface moved for partial summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) the Accused
`
`Products meet the “power button for pressing to turn on/off the terminal” limitation of the
`
`asserted claims; (2) there is no triable issue of fact for certain of Apple’s invalidity theories;
`
`(3) Apple has no evidence supporting its defenses that the asserted claims are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101 or for indefiniteness; and (4) Apple has no evidence supporting its defense that the
`
`asserted claims are not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112. (Dkt. Nos. 245-5, 257, 264.)
`
`Apple also moved to exclude evidence from Firstface’s experts: Nigel A. Jones’s opinions
`
`on the source code for the accused Apple products (Dkt. Nos. 217, 253, 270); certain of Kevin C.
`
`Almeroth’s opinions (Dkt. Nos. 219, 251, 268); Scott Savage’s conjoint analysis opinions (Dkt.
`
`Nos. 212, 250, 266); and Jim Bergman damages opinions (Dkt. Nos. 215, 254, 267). Firstface did
`
`not move to exclude any opinions from Apple’s experts.
`
`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 INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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
`
`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`III. REMAINING CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENSES
`
`The remaining causes of action and defenses are described below. The parties address
`
`many of these issues in their pending motions for summary judgment and in Apple’s pending
`
`Daubert motions. The issues for trial depend on the outcome of those motions.
`
`A.
`
`Apple Does Not Directly Infringe the Asserted Claims
`
`To prevail on direct infringement, Firstface must prove by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that Apple practices one or more claims of the patent literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). “Literal infringement requires that each and every limitation set forth in a claim
`
`appear in an accused [process].” Franks Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l,
`
`Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The essential inquiry under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents is whether an accused process “contain[s] elements identical or equivalent to each
`
`claimed element of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`
`520 U.S. 17, 40 (1997).
`
`1.
`
`Apple Does Not Literally “Provid[e] . . . a Power Button for Pressing to
`Turn On/Off the Terminal”
`
`All the asserted claims require “providing a power button for pressing to turn on/off the
`
`terminal.” (See ’373 patent, cl. 11; ’419 patent, cl. 10.) Firstface alleges that the “top,” “side,” or
`
`sleep/wake” buttons in the accused iPhone and iPad products are the claimed “power button.”
`
`(Dkt. No. 221-13, Ex. 12, Ex. B to Supp. 2d Am. Infr. Conts. At 12; Dkt. No. 221-14, Ex. C to
`
`Supp. 2d Am. Infr. Conts. At 12; Dkt. No. 221-7, Ex. 6, Almeroth Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 136, 333.) But
`
`“pressing” any of these buttons does not turn “off” the products. Instead, a user also must take an
`
`additional step to “slide to power off” an accused device:
`
`
`Firstface nonetheless contends that Apple literally infringes this limitation because
`
`APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`“pressing the power button, either alone or in combination with something else, starts the process
`
`of turning the device off.” (Id., Ex. 6 ¶¶ 145, 343 (emphasis added).) But the claims recite that
`
`the “power button” is “for pressing to turn on/off the terminal”—not that the power button
`
`“starts” a chain of events that eventually turns the device off or is “one step” of a multi-step
`
`process. (See ’373 patent, cl. 11 (emphasis added); ’419 patent, cl. 10 (emphasis added).)
`
`Firstface also argued, for the first time in Dr. Almeroth’s opening report, that the asserted
`
`claims “merely require ‘a power button for pressing to turn’ on or off the terminal.” (Id., Ex. 6 ¶¶
`
`143, 341 (emphasis added).) To support this new theory, Dr. Almeroth posits a new claim
`
`construction opinion that “[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.” (Id.) Firstface’s new
`
`theory should be stricken because it was never disclosed in Firstface’s infringement contentions,
`
`which alleged instead that the Accused Products have “a power button configured to turn the
`
`terminal on and off by pressing,” and was not raised during claim construction. In any event, the
`
`theory fails on the merits because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction.
`
`2.
`
`Apple Does Not “Provid[e] . . . a Power Button for Pressing to Turn
`On/Off the Terminal” Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Firstface alleges, in the alternative, that the “power button” limitation is met by
`
`equivalents because providing a slider to power off is insubstantially different from providing the
`
`claimed power button. (Dkt. No. 221-13, Ex. 12 at 14-15; Dkt. No. 221-14, Ex. 13 at 14-15; Dkt.
`
`No. 221-7, Ex. 6 ¶¶ 146, 147, 344, 345.)
`
`This theory must fail not only because it would ensnare the prior art, but also because
`
`Firstface has no evidence to support it. “A doctrine of equivalents theory cannot be asserted if it
`
`will encompass or ‘ensnare’ the prior art.” See G. David Jang, M.D. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 872 F.3d
`
`1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming vacated equivalents finding, where patentee failed to
`
`prove that theory would not ensnare the prior art). To determine if an equivalents theory ensnares
`
`the prior art, courts first “construct a hypothetical claim that literally covers the accused device,”
`
`and then assess the prior art to “determine whether the patentee has carried its burden of
`
`persuading the court that the hypothetical claim is patentable over the prior art.” Id. at 1285.
`
`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 INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`Apple asserted an ensnarement defense in its Answer (Dkt. No. 78 at 5) and identified
`
`anticipating art in its invalidity contentions (Dkt. No. 132 at 2-5). Firstface thus bears the burden
`
`of proposing a hypothetical claim covering its equivalents allegations and then establishing that
`
`the hypothetical claim is patentable over the prior art. See Jang, 872 F.3d at 1285. But Firstface
`
`has never identified such a hypothetical claim and thus cannot meet its burden at trial. See id. at
`
`1287 (affirming vacatur of infringement verdict, where plaintiff “failed to submit a proper
`
`hypothetical claim for consideration” and “was unable to meet his burden of proving that his
`
`doctrine of equivalents theory did not ensnare the prior art”).
`
`Regardless, Firstface’s equivalents theory fails on the merits because the accused
`
`processes of powering off the Accused Products are substantially different from simply pressing
`
`the claimed power button: powering off the Accused Products requires two discrete actions
`
`(pressing and sliding), instead of one action (pressing).
`
`3.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Perform the Fingerprint Authentication
`Feature “Without Additional User Input” or in Response to “One-
`Time Pressing”
`
`All the asserted claims require performing fingerprint authentication “without additional
`
`user input” or in response to “one-time pressing.” The only asserted independent claim of the
`
`’419 patent (claim 10) requires “performing a fingerprint authentication function using fingerprint
`
`recognition without additional user input” and in response to “one-time pressing” such that the
`
`“one-time pressing while the terminal being in the inactive state initiates the fingerprint
`
`authentication function.” (Emphasis added.) The only asserted independent claim of the ’373
`
`patent (claim 11) requires that “in response to the one-time pressing of the activation button, the
`
`first function [i.e., fingerprint authentication] is performed in addition to changing to the active
`
`state for displaying the lock screen.” (Emphasis added.) The accused processes do not meet
`
`these limitations because fingerprint authentication in the Accused Products, regardless of
`
`whether the product has a mechanical or solid-state Home button, requires the pressing of the
`
`Home button and an additional input in the form of detecting human flesh; pressing the Home
`
`button with an object besides a finger (e.g., a stylus) will not initiate fingerprint authentication.
`
`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 INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The Accused Products with a Solid-State Home Button Do Not
`Perform Additional Limitations of the ’373 Patent Asserted Claims
`
`Using the Accused Products with a solid-state Home button (instead of a mechanical
`
`Home button) cannot satisfy several additional limitations of the ’373 patent asserted claims:
`
`performing a first or second function “without additional user input other than the one-time
`
`pressing,” initiating that first or second function “subsequent to changing to the active state and
`
`displaying the lock screen in response to the one-time pressing of the activation button,” and
`
`performing the second function “when the one-time pressing is for a long time longer than a
`
`reference time period.” ’373 patent, claim 11. Indeed, to perform either the alleged “first
`
`function” (fingerprint authentication) or the alleged second function (Siri), a solid-state device
`
`must first detect an additional input indicating the presence of an actual finger. Thus, no user of
`
`the solid-state products can perform the first and second functions “without additional user input
`
`other than the one-time pressing,” “initiated . . . in response to the one-time pressing,” or
`
`“performed when the one-time pressing is for” a certain time period.
`
`B.
`
`Firstface Cannot Prove Induced Infringement
`
`For induced infringement, Firstface must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`Apple intentionally took action that actually induced direct infringement by another (in this case,
`
`its customers), knew of the asserted patents, and knew that “the induced acts constitute patent
`
`infringement.” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639 (2015); 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(b); see also N.D. Cal. Model Patent Jury Instructions § 3.7.
`
`These claims fail for the same reasons as its direct infringement claims, and also because
`
`Firstface cannot show that Apple satisfies the requirements for induced infringement. In addition,
`
`Firstface does not dispute that Apple lacked pre-suit knowledge of the patents and represented
`
`that it is not pursing pre-suit damages for induced infringement. (Dkt. No. 256-10 at 22).
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Invalid
`
`1.
`
`Apple’s Own Prior Invention Anticipates the Asserted Claims
`
`A patent claim is invalid under § 102(g) if the accused infringer proves by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that “either that it reduced its invention to practice first or that it conceived
`
`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 INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 11 of 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
`
`of the invention first and was diligent in reducing it to practice,” and did not abandon, suppress,
`
`or conceal it. Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 774 F.3d 968, 974–75
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014); Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co., 254 F.3d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Apple’s fingerprint sensor project has all of the accused features of the Accused Products. Apple
`
`did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it, and began developing it with AuthenTec before
`
`Firstface’s earliest patent application and diligently reduced it to practice thereafter.
`
`2.
`
`Prior Art Renders Obvious the Asserted Claims
`
`“Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences
`
`between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the
`
`subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but
`
`unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances
`
`surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18
`
`(1966).) Applying this standard, the asserted claims are rendered obvious by one of the iPhone
`
`3GS and iPhone 4, Apple fingerprint sensor project, and Motorola Atrix 4G, in combination with
`
`one or more of the AuthenTec AES850, AES3400, AES3500 fingerprint sensors, Japan Patent
`
`Application Publication 2004-077990 to Kodama (“Kodama”), U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2009/0083850 A1 Fadell (“Fadell”), U.S. Patent No. 8,311,514 to
`
`Bandyopadhyay et al. (“Bandyopadhyay”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,124,300 to Lemke (“Lemke”).
`
`3.
`
`The Asserted Claims Lack Sufficient Written Description
`
`As explained above, every asserted claim requires a single user input that both presses an
`
`activation button and performs fingerprint authentication “without additional user input” other
`
`than the one-time pressing. The asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because they
`
`lack sufficient written description support from their shared specification for this limitation.
`
`To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must “reasonably
`
`convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession” of the claimed invention as of
`
`the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 12 of 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
`
`(en banc). A disclosure that “merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the
`
`requirement.” Id. at 1352 (citation omitted). For negative claim limitations like the “without
`
`additional user input” limitation here, the written description requirement may be met if the
`
`“specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant element.” Novartis Pharms. Corp. v.
`
`Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (internal citation omitted).
`
`Silence, however, is not disclosure. See id. at 1017 (silence about a negative claim limitation “is
`
`a useful and important clue and may often be dispositive”).
`
`As the Federal Circuit noted, the Asserted Patents’ shared specification does not describe
`
`pressing an activation button and performing a fingerprint authentication function “without
`
`additional user input” other than the one-time pressing. See Apple Inc. v. Firstface Co., 2021 WL
`
`4156323, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2021) (appeal of related IPR proceedings) (“Firstface’s
`
`response cites only a bare listing of authentication methods without identifying an example in
`
`which pressing a button both activates a display and authenticates a user’s fingerprint.”).
`
`Firstface added the “without additional user input” limitation to its claims only after Apple
`
`released Touch ID. (See Dkt. No. 221 at 8-9.) Drafting claims to cover accused products may
`
`support a finding of invalidity for lack of written description. See, e.g., PIN/NIP, Inc. v. Platte
`
`Chem. Co., 304 F.3d 1235, 1238-39, 1247-48 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding claims invalid for lack of
`
`written description in part based on evidence that the patentee had amended its claims to cover its
`
`competitor’s method); Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc., 734 F.3d 1332, 1340-41 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013) (“While broadening claims during prosecution to capture a competitor’s products is
`
`not improper, the written description must support the broadened claims.”). Indeed, Firstface’s
`
`own expert concedes that “the specification does not explicitly state that fingerprint
`
`authentication is performed without additional user input.” (Dkt. No. 221-8, Ex. 7, Almeroth
`
`Reb. Expert Rpt. ¶ 1154); see also Tokyo Ohka Kogyo, Ltd. v. Fujifilm Elec. Materials USA, Inc.,
`
`PGR2022-00010, Paper 28 at 11-14 (claimed “cleaning composition” that omits certain
`
`components found invalid for lack of written description where the specification does not show
`
`the inventor possessed a cleaning composition without those components).
`
`Every asserted claim also requires that the one-time pressing not only perform fingerprint
`
`APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`CASE NO. 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 288 Filed 06/08/23 Page 13 of 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
`
`authentication without additional user input, but also “chang[e] the terminal from the inactive
`
`state to an active state in which the touch screen display is turned on.” As the specification does
`
`not disclose performing fingerprint authentication “without additional user input,” it also does not
`
`disclose simultaneously turning on the display in response to that one-time pressing.
`
`4.
`
`The Asserted Claims Are Not Enabled
`
`The asserted claims are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of enablement because
`
`their shared specification fails to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the
`
`claimed fingerprint authentication feature. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
`
`(To be enabling, a specification must “teach those in the art to make and use the invention
`
`without undue experimentation.”). “[T]he specification must enable the full scope of the
`
`invention as defined by its claims. The more one claims, the more one must enable.” Amgen Inc.
`
`et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. __ , 143 S. Ct. 1243, 1254 (2023). Notably, Firstface’s expert,
`
`Dr. Almeroth, testified at deposition that implementing a fingerprint sensor as in the claimed
`
`invention would have been an “insurmountable” task requiring a “fair amount of
`
`experimentation.” (Dkt. No. 257-3, Ex. B at 150:14-17; 153:4-7; 154:18-19.)
`
`D.
`
`Firstface Overstates Any Damages
`
`Firstface’s damages demand of $270.9M is excessive and divorced from the facts.
`
`Firstface offered to sell its portfolio of patent assets for $2-3M, including the parent application of
`
`the Asserted Patents. Firstface’s damages expert ignores market realities and provides an inflated
`
`damages number. (See Dkt. Nos. 215-3, Exs. 1-2.) The Court should exclude his testimony for
`
`the reasons set forth in Apple’s Daubert motion (Dkt. Nos. 215, 267):
`
` Mr. Bergman makes no attempt to tie damages for indirect infringement to the actual use of
`
`the claimed methods by Apple’s customers, instead using as his royalty base 100% of Apple’s
`
`unit sales of the accused products. Cardiac Pacemakers, I