Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10070 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`JOHN ALLCOCK (Bar No. 98895)
`john.allcock@dlapiper.com
`SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM (Bar No. 174931)
`sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
`ERIN GIBSON (Bar No. 229305)
`erin.gibson@dlapiper.com
`ROBERT WILLIAMS (Bar No. 246990)
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`TIFFANY MILLER (Bar No. 246987)
`tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, California 92101-4297
`Tel: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`
`ROBERT BUERGI (Bar No. 242910)
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`AMY WALTERS (Bar No. 286022)
`amy.walters@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
`Tel: 650.833.2000
`Fax: 650.833.2001
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`MARK C. SCARSI (Bar No.
`183926)
`mscarsi@milbank.com
`ASHLEE N. LIN (Bar No.
`275267)
`anlin@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
`MCCLOY LLP
`2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 424.386.4000
`Fax: 213.629.5063
`
`CHRISTOPHER J. GASPAR
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`cgaspar@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY
`& MCCLOY LLP
`28 Liberty Street
`New York, NY 10005
`Tel: 212.530.5000
`Fax: 212.822.5019
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WI-LAN, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`AND RELATED
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`(lead case);
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM
`(consolidated)
`
`APPLE INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO AMEND APPLE’S
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Date: March 9, 2018
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`Dept.: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10071 Page 2 of 18
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`A. Wi-LAN Misrepresented To The Patent Office The Chain Of
`Priority For The ’723, ’020 and ’761 Patents. ...................................... 2
`B. Wi-LAN Continued Its Misrepresentations In Discovery In This
`Case. ...................................................................................................... 3
`C. Apple Recently Discovered Wi-LAN’s Misrepresentations And
`The Wi-LAN Prior Art. ......................................................................... 4
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 5
`IV. APPLE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO AMEND ITS INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS TO ADD THE WI-LAN PRIOR ART. ............................. 6
`A. Good Cause Exists For Apple’s Amendment Because The Wi-
`LAN Prior Art Is Highly Material To Invalidity. ................................. 6
`B. Good Cause Exists For Apple’s Amendment Because Wi-LAN
`Misrepresented The Chain Of Priority For These Three Patents. ........ 7
`1.
`Apple Did Not Discover The Broken Chain Of Priority
`Until Late January 2018. ............................................................ 7
`2. Wi-LAN Did Not Identify The Wi-LAN Prior Art Under
`Patent L.R. 3.2(A) Or In Response To Interrogatory No.
`6, And Did Not Identify The Correct Priority Dates Under
`Patent L.R. 3.1(F). ...................................................................... 9
`C. Wi-LAN Will Not Be Unduly Prejudiced By Apple’s
`Amendment To Identify The Wi-LAN Prior Art................................ 10
`D. Apple Was Diligent In Seeking This Amendment To Add The
`Wi-LAN Prior Art. .............................................................................. 12
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 13
`
`V.
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10072 Page 3 of 18
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`
`CASES
`
`02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Prod., Inc.,
`No. 04-cv-03526 SI, 2008 WL 2168379 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2008) .................... 6
`
`Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Props. Ltd.,
`No. 5-cv-00877, 2010 WL 3618687 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2010) .......................... 5
`
`Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 3-cv-1431, 2006 WL 1329997 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006) ............................. 6
`
`Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 12-CV-03587, 2014 WL 491745 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014) ......................... 12
`
`Golden Hour Data Sys., Inc. v. Health Servs. Integration, Inc.,
`No. 6-cv-7477, 2008 WL 2622794 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2008) .......................... 5, 11
`
`Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-00876-RS (JSC), 2016 WL 2855260 (N.D. Cal.
`May 13, 2016) ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................. 8
`
`Network Prot. Scis., LLC v. Fortinet, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-01106, 2013 WL 1949051 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2013) ......................... 12
`
`Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-06467, 2014 WL 4760362 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2014) ........................ 5
`
`Theranos, Inc. v. Fuisz Pharma LLC,
`No. 5:11-cv-5236, 2013 WL 5487356 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013) .......................... 5
`
`Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc.,
`No. C05-01550, 2007 WL 1454259 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2007) ........................... 6
`-ii-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10073 Page 4 of 18
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg., LLC,
`No. 10-cv-0541, 2013 WL 5674834 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2013) ............................ 6
`
`Page
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .............................................................................................. 4, 5, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`L.R. 3.1(f) ..................................................................................................... 4, 7, 9, 10
`
`L.R. 3.2 ....................................................................................................................... 9
`
`L.R. 3.2(a) .......................................................................................................... passim
`
`L.R. 3.6(b)(3) .............................................................................................................. 5
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10074 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Wi-LAN misrepresented the priority dates for three of its six asserted patents
`
`to the Patent Office and to Apple, and Wi-LAN failed to disclose evidence of sales
`
`of its own prior art products before the correct priority dates, as required by Patent
`
`L.R. 3.2(a). Apple recently discovered Wi-LAN’s misrepresentations and learned
`
`that Wi-LAN made those misrepresentations for a reason: Using the correct
`
`priority dates, Wi-LAN’s own product indisputably anticipates and invalidates
`
`those three patents. To remedy Wi-LAN’s misrepresentations, Apple seeks leave to
`
`amend its invalidity contentions to add Wi-LAN’s own invalidating prior art:
`
`(1) the “Fiberless” product released in late 1999, and (2) its predecessor company’s
`
`proposal to an IEEE working group in the year 2000.
`
`Good cause exists for Apple to amend its invalidity contentions to add the
`
`Fiberless product and the IEEE submission. Wi-LAN already contends that its
`
`Fiberless product practices many of the asserted claims, so summary judgment of
`
`invalidity is warranted if the Court agrees with Apple that the ’723, ’020 and ’761
`
`patents are not entitled to the 1999 priority dates Wi-LAN wrongly claimed. And
`
`Wi-LAN is not prejudiced by this amendment because: (1) Apple is seeking to add
`
`Wi-LAN’s own product and its predecessor’s IEEE submission—information
`
`uniquely within Wi-LAN’s possession; (2) Wi-LAN misrepresented the priority
`
`dates of these patents in the first place; and (3) Wi-LAN contends its Fiberless
`
`product practices many of the asserted claims, so Wi-LAN already has mapped its
`
`prior art product to the asserted claims.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`Throughout this case, Wi-LAN has contended that three of its patents1 are
`
`entitled to claim priority back to May 1999. This is wrong, as Apple first informed
`
`Wi-LAN on January 24, 2018. In 2011, Wi-LAN misrepresented to the Patent
`
`
`1 The patents at issue are United States Patent Nos. 8,462,723 (“the ’723 patent”),
`8,615,020 (“the ’020 patent”) and 8,462,761 (“the ’761 patent”).
`
`-1-
`
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`WEST\280459366.1
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10075 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`Office that three of the asserted patents were based on “continuation” applications
`
`when they were not. In truth, these patents are entitled to claim priority no earlier
`
`than December 2000 (for the ’020 and ’761 patents) and May 2001 (for the ’723
`
`patent), which Apple first discovered in conjunction with preparing for expert
`
`discovery. Because the chain of priority for these three patents is broken, Wi-
`
`LAN’s own 1999 Fiberless product and its predecessor’s 2000 submission to the
`
`IEEE are anticipatory prior art.
`
`A. Wi-LAN Misrepresented To The Patent Office The Chain Of
`Priority For The ’723, ’020 and ’761 Patents.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`The story begins on May 21, 1999, when Wi-LAN’s predecessor, Ensemble
`
`11
`
`Communications, Inc. (“Ensemble”), filed Application No. 09/316,518 (“the ’518
`
`12
`
`application”), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,625,068 (“the ’068 patent”). Two
`
`13
`
`years later (on May 16, 2001), Ensemble filed Application No. 09/859,561 (“the
`
`14
`
`’561 application”), which was a child application of the ’518 application, and which
`
`15
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,956,834 (“the ’834 patent”).
`
`16
`
`In August 2002, Ensemble did an unusual thing—it “cancelled” and
`
`17
`
`“deleted” the specification of the ’518 application in the Patent Office and replaced
`
`18
`
`it with a totally different specification. Ex. A, ’518 File History Excerpts at 6.2 As
`
`19
`
`Ensemble explained, “[a] marked-up copy of the original specification indicating
`
`20
`
`that it has been deleted in its entirety is submitted herewith.” Id. (“Applicant is
`
`21
`
`submitting herewith a copy of the original specification with the entire text stricken
`
`22
`
`through to signify the canceling of all text of that specification.”).
`
`23
`
`In December 2002, the Patent Office did what Wi-LAN asked—it deleted
`
`24
`
`and cancelled the original specification and accepted the substitute specification.
`
`25
`
`Ex. A, ’518 File History Excerpts at 2. As far as the Patent Office was concerned,
`
`26
`
`/////
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`2 All exhibits identified herein are attached to the Declaration of Roberti Buergi,
`submitted herewith.
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`-2-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10076 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`that original specification ceased to exist on that date. And as a matter of law, the
`
`Patent Office’s decision to accept the new specification broke the chain of priority.
`
`Between 2005 and 2009 (after purchasing the portfolio from Ensemble), Wi-
`
`LAN filed several more patent applications, each a child of the previous
`
`application. E.g., ’723 patent at cover. In 2011, Wi-LAN finally filed the three
`
`applications that issued as the ’723, ’020 and ’761 patents. Id. However, in each of
`
`these patent applications, Wi-LAN misrepresented to the Patent Office that the
`
`ancestor ’834 patent (and its ’561 application) were “continuations” of the ancestor
`
`’068 patent. This was not and is not true. Because Ensemble had years ago
`
`10
`
`replaced the specification of ’581 application, the ’834 patent and its ’561
`
`11
`
`application are not “continuations” of the ’068 patent because they add substantial
`
`12
`
`new matter beyond the ’068 patent’s disclosure. The 2011 applications, in turn, are
`
`13
`
`not entitled to claim priority back to May 1999.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`B. Wi-LAN Continued Its Misrepresentations In Discovery In This
`Case.
`
`Wi-LAN failed to comply with Patent L.R. 3.2(a), which requires that a
`
`17
`
`patent holder must produce documents “sufficient to evidence each discussion with,
`
`18
`
`disclosure to, or other manner of providing to a third party, or sale of or offer to
`
`19
`
`sell, the claimed invention prior to the date of application for the patent in suit.”
`
`20
`
`Despite the Fiberless product being sold before the “date of application” for these
`
`21
`
`three patents, Wi-LAN did not “identify production numbers” of any such
`
`22
`
`documents in accordance with Patent L.R. 3.2(a). Wi-LAN was fully aware of its
`
`23
`
`Fiberless product and its relevance, because Wi-LAN contended in discovery that
`
`24
`
`the Fiberless product practices 36 asserted claims. Ex. B at 7. To make that
`
`25
`
`contention, Wi-LAN must have mapped the Fiberless product to the asserted
`
`26
`
`claims. Indeed, on February 6, 2018, the Court granted Apple’s motion to compel
`
`27
`
`Wi-LAN’s complete contentions as to why the Fiberless product practices the
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`/////
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`-3-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10077 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`asserted claims. See Dkt. No. 279. Wi-LAN must disclose its complete
`
`contentions by February 16, 2018. Id.
`
`Wi-LAN also failed to comply with Patent L.R. 3.1(f), which requires “[f]or
`
`any patent that claims priority to an earlier application, the priority date to which
`
`each asserted claim allegedly is entitled.” Rather than identifying the correct
`
`priority dates for the three patents, Wi-LAN misrepresented that (1) “U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/859,561 (now U.S. Patent No. 6,956,834), filed on May 16,
`
`2001, [] is a continuation of, and claims priority to, U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/316,518 (now U.S. Patent No. 6,925,068), filed on May 21, 1999,” and (2) that
`
`10
`
`“all asserted claims” are “are entitled to at least the priority date of May 21, 1999.”
`
`11
`
`Ex. R at 17-19.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`C. Apple Recently Discovered Wi-LAN’s Misrepresentations And
`The Wi-LAN Prior Art.
`
`In late January 2018, in the course of preparing for expert discovery, Apple
`
`15
`
`discovered Wi-LAN’s misrepresentations to the Patent Office. Apple discovered
`
`16
`
`that (1) Ensemble had substituted in a new specification in 2002, breaking the chain
`
`17
`
`of priority for the ’723, ’020 and ’761 patents, and (2) the proper priority date for
`
`18
`
`these patents was no earlier than December 2000 for the ’020 and ’761 patents and
`
`19
`
`no earlier than May 2001 for the ’723 patent. Apple’s discoveries had the effect of
`
`20
`
`transforming additional evidence into invalidating prior art—namely:
`
`21
`
`(1) seven news articles and one installation guide related to Wi-LAN’s
`
`22
`
`Fiberless product, which collectively demonstrate that the product was on sale and
`
`23
`
`in public use between October 1999 and April 2000—making the Fiberless product
`
`24
`
`prior art to the ’723, ’020 and ’761 patents under § 102(b) (Exs. C-J);
`
`25
`
`(2) an April 2000 proposal from Ensemble to an IEEE working group that
`
`26
`
`discloses, almost verbatim, ten of the 13 figures in the ’723 patent (the “IEEE
`
`27
`
`Proposal”)—making the IEEE Proposal prior art to the ’723 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`§ 102(b) (Ex. K).
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`-4-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10078 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Collectively, these new prior art references are referred to below as the
`
`“Wi-LAN Prior Art.” Based on Wi-LAN’s contention that the Fiberless product
`
`practices 28 of the 29 asserted claims of these three patents (Ex. B at 7), those
`
`claims are invalid under § 102(b) as a matter of law. Apple therefore seeks leave to
`
`amend its invalidity contentions to add the Wi-LAN Prior Art. Apple’s proposed
`
`amendments to its invalidity contentions accompany this motion as Exhibits T
`
`and U.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under Patent L.R. 3.6(b)(3), a party may amend its invalidity contentions
`
`10
`
`“upon a timely motion showing good cause,” absent undue prejudice. “Good
`
`11
`
`cause” requires a showing that “the party seeking leave to amend acted with
`
`12
`
`diligence in promptly moving to amend when new evidence is revealed.” 02 Micro
`
`13
`
`Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
`
`14
`
`2006). The good cause requirement does not require perfect diligence. Synopsys
`
`15
`
`Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., No. 12-cv-06467, 2014 WL 4760362, at *2 (N.D.
`
`16
`
`Cal. Sept. 24, 2014). The “recent discovery of material, prior art despite earlier
`
`17
`
`diligent search supports a finding of good cause.” Theranos, Inc. v. Fuisz Pharma
`
`18
`
`LLC, No. 5:11-cv-5236, 2013 WL 5487356, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013).
`
`19
`
`Once the moving party shows that it was diligent in amending its
`
`20
`
`contentions, the court considers whether the non-moving party “would suffer
`
`21
`
`prejudice if the motion to amend were granted.” Acer, Inc. v. Tech. Props. Ltd.,
`
`22
`
`No. 5-cv-00877, 2010 WL 3618687, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2010). “The rules
`
`23
`
`thus seek to balance the right to develop new information in discovery with the
`
`24
`
`need for certainty as to the legal theories.” Golden Hour Data Sys., Inc. v. Health
`
`25
`
`Servs. Integration, Inc., No. 6-cv-7477, 2008 WL 2622794, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 2,
`
`26
`
`2008) (citing 02 Micro, 467 F.3d at 1365).
`
`27
`
`/////
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`/////
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`-5-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10079 Page 10 of
`
` 18
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`IV. APPLE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO AMEND ITS INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS TO ADD THE WI-LAN PRIOR ART.
`
`A. Good Cause Exists For Apple’s Amendment Because The Wi-LAN
`Prior Art Is Highly Material To Invalidity.
`
`The Wi-LAN Prior Art is highly material to invalidity—even dispositive for
`
`many claims—if the Court agrees with Apple that the ’723, ’020 and ’761 patents
`
`are not entitled to their claimed May 1999 priority dates. Courts in this District are
`
`more inclined to allow amendments to invalidity contentions where the new prior
`
`art references are “material to the patents in suit.” Zest IP Holdings, LLC v.
`
`Implant Direct Mfg., LLC, No. 10-cv-0541, 2013 WL 5674834, at *11 (S.D. Cal.
`
`Oct. 16, 2013); see also Yodlee, Inc. v. CashEdge, Inc., No. C05-01550, 2007 WL
`
`1454259, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2007) (allowing amendment where newly
`
`discovered prior art was “highly material to the merits of the case”). Courts also
`
`allow such amendments based on the importance of deciding patent invalidity
`
`issues on the merits. Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Prod., Inc., No.
`
`04-cv-03526, 2008 WL 2168379, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2008); see also
`
`Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. 3-cv-1431, 2006 WL
`
`1329997, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2006).
`
`Here, the Wi-LAN Prior Art is highly material to the invalidity of the ’723,
`
`’020 and ’761 patents. Wi-LAN contends that its own Fiberless product practices
`
`28 of the 29 asserted claims of those patents. Ex. B at 7. Therefore, as a matter of
`
`law, if the Fiberless product constitutes 102(b) prior art, it invalidates those 28
`
`claims. And the IEEE Proposal discloses nearly verbatim ten of 13 figures from the
`
`’723 patent, so it is anticipatory prior art to that patent as well. Ex. K. The Wi-
`
`LAN Prior Art therefore is dispositive of three out of six of the asserted patents—
`
`the very essence of materiality.
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`-6-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10080 Page 11 of
`
` 18
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`B. Good Cause Exists For Apple’s Amendment Because Wi-LAN
`Misrepresented The Chain Of Priority For These Three Patents.
`
`Good cause also exists because Wi-LAN’s own conduct prevented Apple
`
`from identifying the Wi-LAN Prior Art sooner. Specifically: (1) in 2011, Wi-LAN
`
`misrepresented to the Patent Office the chain of priority for the ’723, ’020 and ’761
`
`patents; and (2) during this case, Wi-LAN failed to disclose the Wi-LAN Prior Art
`
`under Patent L.R. 3.2(a) and in response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 6, and failed
`
`to disclose the correct priority dates under Patent L.R. 3.1(f). Because Apple relied
`
`to its detriment on Wi-LAN’s misrepresentations to the Patent Office, its
`
`disclosures under Patent L.R. 3.1(f) and 3.2(a), and its response to Apple’s
`
`Interrogatory No. 6, Apple was unable to identify the Wi-LAN Prior Art as
`
`§ 102(b) art sooner.
`
`1.
`
`Apple Did Not Discover The Broken Chain Of Priority Until
`Late January 2018.
`
`As demonstrated above, in 2011, Wi-LAN misrepresented to the Patent
`
`Office that the ’561 application (and the ’834 patent that issued from it) was a
`
`“continuation” of the ’068 patent. See ’723 patent at 1:12-15 (“U.S. patent
`
`application Ser. No. 09/589,561 … is a continuation of … U.S. Pat. No.
`
`6,925,068”); ’020 patent at 1:18-20 (same); ’761 patent at 1:17-20 (same). Wi-
`
`LAN also misrepresented this link in the Application Data Sheets for each patent,
`
`as the following excerpt demonstrates:
`
`
`
`Exs. L, M, N (emphasis added). Wi-LAN’s misrepresentation now appears on the
`
`cover of the ’723, ’020 and ’761 patents.
`
`Contrary to what Wi-LAN told the Patent Office, the ’834 patent is not a
`
`“continuation” of the ’068 patent, because the ’834 specification adds significant
`
`new matter beyond the disclosure of the ’068 patent. For example, 12 of the 13
`
`-7-
`
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`WEST\280459366.1
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10081 Page 12 of
`
` 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`figures in the ’834 patent (Figures 2-13) are not disclosed in the ’068 patent, and
`
`the “Detailed Description of the Invention” section of the ’834 patent also is very
`
`different from the detailed description of the ’068 patent. Compare Exs. O, P.
`
`Therefore, neither the ’561 application nor the ’834 patent is a continuation of the
`
`’068 patent. On the contrary, the ’834 patent (and the ’561 application) is a
`
`continuation-in-part of the ’068 patent. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, Inc.,
`
`746 F.3d 1371, 1375 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]o be called a ‘continuation’ of a
`
`prior patent, a patent must … have the same disclosure as the prior patent.”)
`
`This distinction makes a huge difference here. The chain of priority for the
`
`10
`
`’723, ’020 and ’761 patents was broken in December 2002, meaning those patents
`
`11
`
`are not entitled to claim priority to May 1999. For a patent claim to be entitled to
`
`12
`
`the benefit of an earlier application’s filing date, the earlier application’s
`
`13
`
`specification must provide written description support for that claim. Lockwood v.
`
`14
`
`Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“In order to gain the
`
`15
`
`benefit of the filing date of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each
`
`16
`
`application in the chain leading back to the earlier application must comply with the
`
`17
`
`written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112”). Here, the ’518 application
`
`18
`
`(from which the ’068 patent issued) does not provide written description support for
`
`19
`
`the asserted claims of the ’723, ’020, or ’761 patents. For example, claim 1 of the
`
`20
`
`’020 patent recites a “poll-me bit,” but the ’518 application does not disclose a poll-
`
`21
`
`me bit. See Ex. Q.3 Similarly, claims 1 and 6 of the ’723 patent recite receiving a
`
`22
`
`bandwidth request opportunity and transmitting a bandwidth request within that
`
`23
`
`amount of UL bandwidth, but the ’518 application does not disclose such
`
`24
`
`functionality. See id. Likewise, claim 1 of the ’761 patent recites a “quality of
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`service parameter,” but the ’518 application does not disclose a “quality of service”
`
`3 Since December 2002, the specification of the ’518 application has been the
`specification the examiner accepted, not the application’s original specification that
`Ensemble “deleted” and “cancelled” in 2002. This is confirmed by the ’068 patent,
`which issued from the ’518 application and which contains only the December
`2002 “new” specification. Ex. P.
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`-8-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10082 Page 13 of
`
` 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`or a “QoS.” See id. Thus, the ’020 and ’761 patents have an effective filing date no
`
`earlier than December 22, 2000 (the next earliest filing date on the cover of the
`
`patents), and the ’723 patent has an effective filing date no earlier than May 16,
`
`2001 (the next earliest filing date on the cover of that patent).
`
`Wi-LAN’s misrepresentations of the link between the ’834 patent (and the
`
`’561 application) and the ’068 patent as a “continuation” in the family tree of the
`
`’723, ’020 and ’761 patents prevented Apple from identifying the Wi-LAN Prior
`
`Art as invalidating prior art, because Apple (like the Patent Office) accepted Wi-
`
`LAN’s misrepresentations that the ’561 application was a “continuation” of the
`
`10
`
`’068 patent when it was not. In the course of preparing for expert discovery, Apple
`
`11
`
`determined that Wi-LAN’s claim of priority was false, making the Wi-LAN Prior
`
`12
`
`Art highly material to invalidity.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`2. Wi-LAN Did Not Identify The Wi-LAN Prior Art Under
`Patent L.R. 3.2(A) Or In Response To Interrogatory No. 6,
`And Did Not Identify The Correct Priority Dates Under
`Patent L.R. 3.1(F).
`
`Wi-LAN also failed to identify the Wi-LAN Prior Art under Patent L.R.
`
`17
`
`3.2(a) or in response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 6. Patent L.R. 3.2(a) required
`
`18
`
`Wi-LAN to identify “[d]ocuments … sufficient to evidence each discussion with,
`
`19
`
`disclosure to, or other manner of providing to a third party, or sale of or offer to
`
`20
`
`sell, the claimed invention prior to the date of application for the patent in suit.”
`
`21
`
`Wi-LAN was also required to “identify by production number” any such
`
`22
`
`documents. Patent L.R. 3.2. In response to Patent L.R. 3.2(a), Wi-LAN stated that
`
`23
`
`it had not located any such documents. Ex. R at 31. But Wi-LAN should have
`
`24
`
`identified the eight documents demonstrating that Wi-LAN’s Fiberless product was
`
`25
`
`on sale and in public use between October 1999 and April 2000—more than one
`
`26
`
`year before the earliest filing dates of the ’723, ’020 and ’761 patents. Wi-LAN
`
`27
`
`also failed to disclose these documents in response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 6,
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`/////
`
`
`WEST\280459366.1
`
`
`
`-9-
`MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 287-1 Filed 02/08/18 PageID.10083 Page 14 of
`
` 18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`which asked Wi-LAN to identify for each asserted patent, “all prior art known or
`
`believed by you to be relevant to the subject matter of the patent.” Ex. S.
`
`In addition, Wi-LAN misrepresented the priority dates for the three patents in
`
`response to Patent L.R. 3.1(f). Wi-LAN was required to disclose “[f]or any patent
`
`that claims priority to an earlier application, the priority date to which each asserted
`
`claim allegedly is entitled.” Rather than identifying the correct dates of December
`
`22, 2000 (for the ’020 and ’761 patents) and May 16, 2001 (for the ’723 patent),
`
`Wi-LAN represented that “[a]ll asserted claims” of those patents “are entitled to at
`
`least the priority date of May 21, 1999.” Ex. R at 17, 18, 19. Wi-LAN’s Patent
`
`10
`
`L.R. 3.1(f) contentions also repeat the same misrepresentations of priority made to
`
`11
`
`the Patent Office in 2011. Id. (“U.S. Patent Application No. 09/859,561 (now U.S.
`
`12
`
`Patent No. 6,956,834), filed on May 16, 2001, which is a continuation of, and
`
`13
`
`claims priority to, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/316,518 (now U.S. Patent No.
`
`14
`
`6,925,068), filed on May 21, 1999.”).
`
`15
`
`Wi-LAN cannot be permitted to turn its violations of Patent L.R. 3.2(a) and
`
`16
`
`3.1(f) and its failure to properly respond to Apple’s interrogatory into a windfall by
`
`17
`
`avoiding summary judgment of invalidity based on the Wi-LAN Prior Art.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`C. Wi-LAN Will Not Be Unduly Prejudiced By Apple’s Amendment
`To Identify The Wi-LAN Prior Art.
`
`For several reasons, Wi-LAN will not be unduly prejudiced by Apple’s
`
`21
`
`addition of the Wi-LAN Prior Art in its invalidity contentions.
`
`22
`
`First, the Wi-LAN Prior Art is a collection of Wi-LAN documents that it
`
`23
`
`produced in this case and have been in its possession for many years. In fact, Wi-
`
`24
`
`LAN has already analyzed the Fiberless product with respect to the ’723, ’020 and
`
`25
`
`’761 patents, and concluded that the product practiced 28 of the 29 asserted claims
`
`26
`
`of those patents. Wi-LAN does not need any fact discovery about