Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 293 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.10522 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`JACOB ANDERSON (Bar No. 265768)
`jacob.anderson@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
`Telephone: 650.833.2000
`Facsimile: 650.833.2001
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLE INC.
`
`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)
`
`PLAINTIFF APPLE INC.’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`REGARDING DEFENDANT
`WI-LAN, INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`APPLE’S AMENDED INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`Dept: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`
`WEST\280567503.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S SUPP. BR. RE: WI-LAN’S MTN. TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 293 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.10523 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s February 13, 2018 order (Dkt. No. 290), Plaintiff
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) submits this supplemental brief regarding Defendant Wi-
`
`LAN, Inc.’s (“Wi-LAN”) motion to strike Apple’s amended invalidity contentions.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Even if the recently revised Patent Local Rule 3.6(b)(2) were applied
`
`retroactively, Apple’s amendments to its invalidity contentions were necessitated
`
`by the Court’s Claim Construction ruling, as demonstrated below.
`
`A. Apple’s Further Citations To The Chuah Prior Art Reference And
`Its Combination With Sau (’145, ’723, ’761 and ’020 Patents).
`
`Apple disclosed both the Chuah and Sau prior art references and provided
`
`claim charts for the Chuah prior art reference in its original invalidity contentions.
`
`In its amended invalidity contentions, Apple provided further citations to Chuah
`
`and Chuah combined with Sau. Apple’s further citations to Chuah and its
`
`combination with Sau were necessitated by the Court’s claim constructions.
`
`The Court’s construction of the “subscriber” terms differed from Apple’s
`
`proposed construction by allowing the subscriber station/unit to be a “module”
`
`rather than limiting it to customer premises equipment, and the Court’s construction
`
`of the “connections” terms differed from Apple’s proposed construction by
`
`allowing connections to things other than user devices. Dkt. No. 203 at 5-8. The
`
`Court’s constructions resulted in Chuah disclosing these claim terms in ways that it
`
`had not under Apple’s proposed constructions. For example, Chuah’s “remote
`
`node” by itself, without attached user devices, now discloses the “subscriber”
`
`terms. Thus, Apple added further citations to its Chuah claim charts to show how
`
`Chuah further discloses these claim terms and related limitations, as required by
`
`Patent L.R. 3.3(c) (requiring “identifying where specifically in each alleged item of
`
`prior art each element of each asserted claim is found”).1
`
`
`1 Almost every limitation of the Bandwidth Patents includes one of the “subscriber”
`terms.
`
`-1-
`WEST\280567503.1
`APPLE’S SUPP. BR. RE: WI-LAN’S MTN. TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 293 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.10524 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`Also, the Court’s construction of “queue(s)” differed from Apple’s proposed
`
`construction by not including the requirement that each queue be “associated with a
`
`unique QoS.” Dkt. No. 203 at 8-9. The Court’s construction made each of Sau’s
`
`disclosed queues a “queue” of the asserted claims where previously Sau’s “deadline
`
`queue” would have not been a “queue” under Apple’s proposed construction
`
`because it is not associated with a unique QoS. Thus, Apple amended its invalidity
`
`contentions to identify how this combination of prior art now discloses the “queue”
`
`limitations, as required by Patent L.R. 3.3(b) and (c).
`
`B. Apple’s Additions Of Background Prior Art.
`
`In its amended invalidity contentions, Apple added certain references to its
`
`cover pleading to show, for example, the state of the prior art. These additions
`
`were necessitated by the Court’s claim constructions. The Court’s constructions of
`
`the “subscriber” terms and the “connections” terms expanded the scope of relevant
`
`prior art by rejecting Apple’s position that the claims require three devices. Dkt.
`
`No. 203 at 5-8. The additional background art shows that different prior art
`
`inventors had already solved, in two-device systems, the purported problems
`
`addressed by the asserted patents. Although the Patent Local Rules do not require
`
`disclosing background art in invalidity contentions, Apple did so as a courtesy to
`
`Wi-LAN, and the inclusion of the new background references was necessary to
`
`show the state of the relevant art in light of the Court’s claim constructions.
`
`C. Apple’s Further Citations To The Klayman And Ericsson Prior
`Art References And The Combination Of Ericsson With The
`Ericsson IP Traffic Prior Art Reference (’757 Patent).
`
`Apple disclosed the Klayman and Ericsson prior art references and included
`
`claim charts for these references in its original invalidity contentions. Apple’s
`
`original claim chart for the Ericsson reference also included excerpts from the
`
`Ericsson “IP Traffic” prior art reference. In its amended invalidity contentions,
`
`Apple provided further citations to the Klayman, Ericsson and Ericsson IP Traffic
`
`-2-
`
`APPLE’S SUPP. BR. RE: WI-LAN’S MTN. TO STRIKE
`WEST\280567503.1
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 293 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.10525 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`references, as well as Ericsson combined with Ericsson IP Traffic. Apple’s further
`
`citations were necessitated by the Court’s claim constructions.
`
`The Court’s construction of the “subscriber station” term differed from
`
`Apple’s proposed construction by allowing the subscriber station to be a “module”
`
`rather than limiting it to customer premises equipment, and by allowing
`
`“connections” to things other than user devices. Dkt. No. 203 at 5-7. The Court’s
`
`constructions resulted in Klayman, Ericsson, and Ericsson IP Traffic disclosing
`
`these claim terms in ways that they had not under Apple’s proposed constructions.
`
`For example, Ericsson’s “mobile station” by itself, without attached user devices,
`
`10
`
`now discloses the “subscriber” terms. Similarly, Klayman’s “secondary station”
`
`11
`
`and Ericsson IP Traffic’s “mobile station,” by themselves, without attached user
`
`12
`
`devices now disclose these limitations. Thus, Apple added further citations to its
`
`13
`
`Klayman and Ericsson claim charts to show how Klayman, Ericsson and Ericsson
`
`14
`
`IP Traffic further disclose these claim terms and related limitations.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`D. Apple’s Further Citations To The Doshi, Calvignac And GSM
`Prior Art References And The Combination Of Doshi With The
`Calvignac Prior Art Reference (’040 Patent).
`
`Apple disclosed the GSM, Doshi and Calvignac prior art references and
`
`included claim charts for each of these references in its original invalidity
`
`contentions. In its amended invalidity contentions, Apple provided further citations
`
`to each of these references and the combination of Doshi and Calvignac. Apple’s
`
`further citations were necessitated by the Court’s claim constructions.
`
`The Court’s construction of “packing subheader” differed from Apple’s
`
`proposed construction by allowing the packing subheader to be located anywhere in
`
`the PDU, rather than being located only in the PDU payload. Dkt. No. 203 at 9.
`
`The Court’s constructions resulted in GSM, Doshi and Calvignac disclosing these
`
`claim terms in ways that they had not under Apple’s proposed constructions. For
`
`example, components of Doshi’s “ADAPT VL PDU” header now disclose the
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`WEST\280567503.1
`
`
`
`-3-
`APPLE’S SUPP. BR. RE: WI-LAN’S MTN. TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 293 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.10526 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`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
`
`claimed packing subheader, because the packing subheader was no longer required
`
`to reside in the PDU payload. Similarly, components of Calvignac’s “cell header”
`
`or GSM’s “RLC PDU header” now disclose the packing subheader. Thus, Apple
`
`added further citations to its GSM, Doshi and Calvignac charts to show how these
`
`references and the combination of Doshi and Calvignac disclose these claim terms
`
`and related limitations, as required by Patent L.R. 3.3(c).
`
`E. Apple’s Additional Claim Chart For The UMTS Prior Art
`Reference (’040 Patent).
`
`Apple’s new claim chart for the UMTS prior art reference was necessitated
`
`by the Court’s claim construction order. As discussed above, the Court’s
`
`construction of “packing subheader” was broader than the construction proposed by
`
`Apple. Dkt. No. 203 at 9. Following the claim construction order, Apple
`
`conducted additional prior art searching and analysis to identify prior art that
`
`disclosed a “packing subheader” under the Court’s broader construction.
`
`As a result of this further prior art searching and analysis, Apple identified
`
`the UMTS reference, which discloses a “packing subheader” under the Court’s
`
`construction, but not under Apple’s construction. Specifically, UMTS discloses an
`
`“RLC PDU” comprising a header and a payload, where packing subheader(s) may
`
`be located in the RLC PDU header (as opposed to the payload). Thus, Apple added
`
`a new claim chart to show how this reference anticipates and/or renders obvious the
`
`asserted claims, as contemplated by Patent Local Rule 3.6(b).2
`
`/////
`
`/////
`
`
`2 Notably, courts have routinely found good cause to amend invalidity contentions
`adding new prior art references when the court issues a construction different from
`that proposed by a party and the newly discovered prior art references satisfy the
`court’s claim construction but not the one advanced by the party. See, e.g., Network
`Prot. Sci., LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., No. C 12-01106 WHA, 2013 WL 1949051 at *2-4
`(N.D. Cal. May 9, 2013); Positive Tech., Inc. v. Sony Elec., Inc., No. C 11-2226 SI,
`2013 WL 322556 at *2-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2013).
`
`-4-
`
`APPLE’S SUPP. BR. RE: WI-LAN’S MTN. TO STRIKE
`WEST\280567503.1
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 293 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.10527 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`F. Apple’s Additional Claim Chart For The Carvalho Prior Art
`Reference (’040 Patent).
`
`Apple’s identification of the Carvalho prior art reference resulted from the
`
`additional prior art searching Apple conducted following the Court’s claim
`
`construction order. As discussed above, following the Court’s claim construction,
`
`Apple conducted additional prior art searching to identify prior art disclosing a
`
`“packing subheader” under the Court’s broader construction. Apple’s additional
`
`prior art searching uncovered the UMTS reference (discussed above) as well as the
`
`Carvalho reference. Although Carvalho discloses a “packing subheader” even
`
`under the construction Apple had proposed (because the packing subheader resides
`
`in the payload of Carvalho’s “FlexMux PDU”), Apple had not previously found the
`
`Carvalho reference, despite diligent searching. See Dkt. No. 266 at 8-10.
`
`Nonetheless, the Carvalho reference is highly material because it anticipates and/or
`
`renders obvious each asserted claim of the ’040 patent. Id. at 10-11. Thus, Apple
`
`included a claim chart for Carvalho, newly discovered in prior art searching
`
`conducted as a result of the Court’s claim construction order.
`
`G. Apple’s Claim Charts For Its Section 112 Defenses.
`
`As detailed in Apple’s opposition brief, Apple’s amendments to its Section
`
`112 defenses were necessitated by the Court’s claim construction. Dkt. No. 266 at
`
`6-7. Moving contentions from the cover pleading (in the original contentions) to
`
`claim charts (in the amended contentions) is not a basis for striking them.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons and those in Apple’s opposition, Wi-LAN’s
`
`motion to strike should be denied, even if the Court retroactively applies the revised
`
`Local Rule.
`
`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\280567503.1
`
`
`
`-5-
`APPLE’S SUPP. BR. RE: WI-LAN’S MTN. TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 293 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.10528 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`Dated: February 20, 2018
`
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`By /s/ Sean C. Cunningham
`JOHN ALLCOCK
`SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM
`ERIN GIBSON
`ROBERT BUERGI
`ROBERT WILLIAMS
`TIFFANY MILLER
`JACOB ANDERSON
`AMY WALTERS
`
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
`MCCLOY LLP
`Mark C. Scarsi
`Ashlee N. Lin
`Christopher J. Gaspar
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`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\280567503.1
`
`
`
`-6-
`APPLE’S SUPP. BR. RE: WI-LAN’S MTN. TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 293 Filed 02/20/18 PageID.10529 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 20, 2018, I electronically transmitted the
`
`attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and
`
`transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants.
`
`
`
` /s/ Sean C. Cunningham
`Sean C. Cunningham
`
`
`
`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\280567503.1
`
`
`
`-7-
`APPLE’S SUPP. BR. RE: WI-LAN’S MTN. TO STRIKE
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`