Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15062 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 398-4760
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`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
`
`
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM (Lead
`Case); Consolidated with 3:14-cv-01507-
`DMS-BLM
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT WI-LAN INC.’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT REGARDING APPLE
`INC.’S ETSI AND CERTAIN
`VALIDITY DEFENSES
`
`Department: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`Hearing Date: June 1, 2018
`Hearing Time: 1:30 pm
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`_________________________________
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant..
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15063 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. APPLE’S ETSI IPR POLICY DEFENSE ............................................................. 1
`
`I. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`A. The ETSI IPR Policy .......................................................................................... 4
`
`B. Ensemble’s ETSI Membership ......................................................................... 5
`
`C. Wi-LAN’s ETSI Membership ........................................................................... 6
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................. 6
`
`A. Summary Judgment ........................................................................................... 6
`
`B. Affirmative Defenses .......................................................................................... 6
`
`III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 8
`
`A. Apple Produced No Evidence Ensemble or Wi-LAN Violated the ETSI IPR
`
`Policy ............................................................................................................................. 8
`
`i. Apple Produced No Evidence Ensemble Violated the ETSI IPR Policy ...... 8
`
`ii. No evidence exists that Wi-LAN violated the ETSI IPR Policy ................. 9
`
`iii. Apple’s Evidence of Wi-LAN’s Belief in Essentiality after November 2007
`
`is Irrelevant ............................................................................................................. 10
`
`iv. Apple’s evidence of Mr. Stanwood’s LTE participation after he left
`
`Ensemble is irrelevant ........................................................................................... 11
`
`B. Apple’s Estoppel Defenses also Fail because Apple Cannot Show it Relied
`
`on Wi-LAN’s Conduct .............................................................................................. 12
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 12
`
`2.
`
` APPLE’S INVALIDITY DEFENSES ................................................................. 12
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15064 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`I. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................... 14
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................... 15
`
`III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF VALIDITY OF CLAIMS 9 AND 26 OF THE
`
`’145 PATENT AND CLAIM 1 OF THE ’020 PATENT IS APPROPRIATE ........ 15
`
`A. Claim 9 Of The ’145 Patent (Periodic Bandwidth Request Invention) ...... 15
`
`B. Claim 26 Of The ’145 Patent (Multi-Queue Allocation Invention) ............. 17
`
`i. Non-Anticipation ................................................................................................ 18
`
`ii. Non-Obviousness ............................................................................................ 18
`
`B. Claim 1 Of The ’020 (Bandwidth-On-Demand Invention) .......................... 19
`
`i. Non-Anticipation ................................................................................................ 19
`
`ii. Non-Obviousness ............................................................................................ 20
`
`IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-ANTICIPATION AND NON-
`
`OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIM 1 OF THE ’757 PATENT IS APPROPRIATE ....... 20
`
`A. Non-Anticipation ........................................................................................... 21
`
`B. Non-Obviousness ........................................................................................... 21
`
`V. SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF VALIDITY OF CLAIM 1 OF THE ’040
`
`PATENT IS APPROPRIATE ...................................................................................... 22
`
`A. Doshi .................................................................................................................. 22
`
`B. GSM 4.60 ........................................................................................................... 23
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-ii-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15065 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... passim
`
`Berg v. Kincheloe,
`794 F.2d 457 (9th Cir. 1986) ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Bettcher, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 16
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`DSS Tech. v. Apple,
`855 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... passim
`
`Glaxo v. Novopharm,
`52 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................. 16, 17
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v Rambus Inc.,
`441 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ................................................................. 7, 11
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 7
`
`K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs.,
`751 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... passim
`
`Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-00876-RS, 2014 WL 12700984 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) ......................... 6
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`No. 2:07-ML-1816-C-RGK, 2010 WL 8759119 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3,
`2010) ............................................................................................................................ 7
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`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 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15066 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ................................................................................................. 6, 9
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i,
`564 U.S. 2242 (2011) ................................................................................................. 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`35 U.S.C. §103(a) ........................................................................................................... 15
`
`35 U.S.C. §282 ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).......................................................................................................... 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)........................................................................................................ 14
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ........................................................................................... 2
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-iv-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15067 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Wi-LAN Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) respectfully files this Memorandum in Support of its
`
`Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on (1) Apple’s ETSI IPR Policy defense, and (2)
`
`Certain of Apple’s Invalidity Defenses. This memorandum is separated into two
`
`sections, the first addressing Apple’s ETSI IPR Policy defense and the second
`
`addressing Apple’s Invalidity Defenses.
`
`1. APPLE’S ETSI IPR POLICY DEFENSE
`
`Apple’s affirmative defenses of implied waiver, express waiver, equitable
`
`estoppel, and promissory estoppel fail as a matter of law because Apple cannot produce
`
`any evidence that Wi-LAN or Ensemble violated the European Telecommunications
`
`Standards Institute IPR Policy (“ETSI IPR Policy”). ETSI is a standard setting
`
`organization that develops and releases telecommunication standards, including LTE,
`
`the wireless standard used by Apple’s iPhones. ETSI has an Intellectual Property
`
`Rights (“IPR”) Policy that requires ETSI members, and only ETSI members, to notify
`
`ETSI if they believe any patents or patent applications are essential to an ETSI
`
`standard. To prove a violation of the ETSI IPR Policy, Apple must show that Wi-LAN
`
`or Ensemble (the predecessor-in-interest to the Ensemble IPR) believed the Ensemble
`
`IPR1 might be essential to LTE while they were ETSI members.
`
`Apple fails to show that Wi-LAN or Ensemble believed the Ensemble IPR was
`
`essential to LTE while they were ETSI members. The relevant undisputed facts are:
`
` May 2004: Ensemble sold the Ensemble IPR to Wi-LAN.
`
` November 2-3, 2004: ETSI held the first LTE meeting. Neither Ensemble
`
`nor Wi-LAN attended and the Ensemble IPR was not discussed at the
`
`meeting.
`
` November 27-28, 2004: Ensemble’s ETSI membership ends.
`
`
`1 The “Ensemble IPR” refers to the patents and patent applications that Wi-LAN
`purchased from Ensemble in May 2004 that would eventually issue as the patents-in-
`suit.
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`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 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15068 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
` November 2004 – November 2007: No evidence Wi-LAN participated in
`
`or was aware of the technology used by LTE.
`
` November 2007: Wi-LAN’s ETSI membership ends.
`
`Apple’s own expert, Dr. Michael Walker, admits that he cannot conclude that Wi-LAN
`
`believed the Ensemble IPR was essential before its ETSI membership ended:2
`
`Q. Based on the evidence you cited in your report, can you personally
`conclude that Wi-LAN believed that the Ensemble IPR was potentially
`essential on or before November 28, 2007?
`
`A. Based on what’s written [in my report], no.
`
`Ex. D, Deposition Transcript of Michael Walker (“Walker Depo. Tr.”) at 64:10-18.3
`
`Dr. Walker made a similar admission for Ensemble. Id. at 56:10-15.
`
`Troublingly, Apple pursued these defenses with full knowledge that Dr. Walker
`
`believed Apple’s evidence was insufficient. In his expert report, Dr. Walker assumed,
`
`at request of Apple’s counsel, that Wi-LAN and Ensemble believed the Ensemble IPR
`
`was essential while ETSI members. Dr. Walker testified in his deposition that Apple’s
`
`counsel asked him to make this assumption after he reviewed the evidence and
`
`concluded that he was unable to determine when Wi-LAN and Ensemble allegedly
`
`formed a belief the Ensemble IPR was essential:
`
`Q. Were you asked to make this assumption at the outset of your analysis or
`was it after you had analyzed the evidence?
`
`A. It was after I had done some analysis myself. But I couldn’t conclude on
`a date.
`
`Ex. D (Walker Depo. Tr.) at 43:10-16. Dr. Walker testified that he and Apple’s
`
`attorneys decided to make the assumption in his expert report precisely because he
`
`could not conclude on the evidence that Wi-LAN violated the policy:
`
`
`2 Wi-LAN also seeks to exclude Mr. Walker’s report and related testimony for failing to
`satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which was filed concurrently
`hereto.
`3 All exhibits are attached hereto to the Declaration of Kevin Schubert.
`-2-
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15069 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
` Q. So based on the evidence you’ve cited in your report, can you
`personally conclude that Wi-LAN believed the Ensemble IPR was
`potentially essential in November 2004?
`
`A. Not on the evidence, no. Which is why I go back to we had to fix a date.
`
`
`Id. at 60:15-24 (emphasis added).
`
`Unable to prove Wi-LAN or Ensemble violated the ETSI IPR Policy, Apple
`
`argues that Mr. Stanwood, a former Ensemble employee, violated the ETSI IPR Policy
`
`years after he left Ensemble. But Mr. Stanwood had no power to bind the Ensemble
`
`IPR or render it unenforceable after Ensemble transferred it to Wi-LAN. Even if he
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`did, Apple produced no evidence that Mr. Stanwood believed the Ensemble IPR was
`
`11
`
`essential to LTE while bound by the ETSI IPR Policy.
`
`12
`
`Finally, even if Apple could prove a violation of the ETSI IPR Policy, its
`
`13
`
`defenses still fail because Apple cannot show it relied on Wi-LAN’s or Ensemble’s
`
`14
`
`choice not to declare the Ensemble IPR essential. Apple could have shown reliance by
`
`15
`
`deciding to use the accused functionality in its products with the belief that Wi-LAN
`
`16
`
`would not enforce its patent rights. But here, Apple decided to add the infringing
`
`17
`
`functionality to its iPhones after it learned that Wi-LAN intended to enforce its patent
`
`18
`
`rights. Wi-LAN previously sued Apple for infringement of the same ’040 Patent at
`
`19
`
`issue in this lawsuit. Apple argued in that earlier case, and the Court agreed, that
`
`20
`
`Apple’s iPhones did not infringe Wi-LAN’s patents because Wi-LAN’s patents
`
`21
`
`required multiple user connections and Apple’s iPhones used only one. Sometime
`
`22
`
`thereafter, Apple decided to add a second connection to its iPhones and begin willfully
`
`23
`
`infringing Wi-LAN’s patents, which led to this lawsuit. See Ex. Y, ¶¶ 115–117, 515–
`
`24
`
`518. Apple knew Wi-LAN intended to pursue its patent rights when it decided to use
`
`25
`
`the infringing functionality. Apple cannot credibly argue that it relied on Wi-LAN’s
`
`26
`
`conduct in this lawsuit, when it failed to argue reliance on Wi-LAN’s conduct in the
`
`27
`
`previous lawsuit—especially where at least one of the same patents (i.e. Ensemble IPR)
`
`28
`
`is asserted in both cases.
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15070 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Wi-LAN and the Court should not have to waste more resources on Apple’s
`
`baseless defenses. Apple has failed to present any evidence supporting this defense,
`
`and thus summary judgment is appropriate.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ETSI IPR Policy
`
`ETSI is a standard setting organization that produces telecommunications
`
`standards that enable interoperability between devices using the standard. See Ex. A,
`
`Expert Report of Claude Royer (“Royer Report”) ¶ 34. For each standard ETSI
`
`produces, ETSI holds standardization meetings at which ETSI members propose and
`
`10
`
`vote on technologies for inclusion in that standard. ETSI produces two separate
`
`11
`
`standards relevant to this motion: the ETSI LTE and the ETSI BRAN (also known as
`
`12
`
`ETSI HiperMan) standards. As explained by Apple’s expert, the LTE and BRAN
`
`13
`
`standards are unrelated. Ex. B, Expert Report of Michael Walker (“Walker Report”),
`
`14
`
`¶¶ 81, 100.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`ETSI has an IPR Policy that requires each member to inform ETSI of IPR it
`
`believes is essential to one of the ETSI standards:
`
`4.1 Subject to Clause 4.2 below, each MEMBER shall use its reasonable
`endeavours, in particular during the development of a STANDARD or
`TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION where it participates, to inform
`ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs in a timely fashion. In particular, a
`MEMBER submitting a technical proposal for a STANDARD or
`TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall, on a bona fide basis, draw the
`attention of ETSI to any of that MEMBER’s IPR which might be
`ESSENTIAL if that proposal is adopted.
`
`
`
`Ex. C (ETSI IPR Policy) at ¶ 4.1 (emphasis added). Critically, the ETSI IPR Policy
`
`applies only to ETSI member companies, not to individuals. Ex. D (Walker Depo. Tr.)
`
`at 50:6-7 (noting the ETSI IPR “obligations are not on individuals but on
`
`organizations”). The ETSI IPR Policy does not require a company to disclose IPR it
`
`believes is essential to practicing a particular standard after the company’s ETSI
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15071 Page 10 of
` 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`membership ends. Ex. E, Expert Report of Dr. Bertram Huber (“Huber Report”) ¶ 108;
`
`Ex. D (Walker Depo. Tr.) at 61:18-21. While ETSI members must disclose IPR they
`
`believe is essential, clause 4.2 clarifies that members have no obligation to conduct IPR
`
`searches.
`
`The ETSI IPR Policy provides that “ESSENTIAL” means it is impossible on
`
`technical grounds to practice the standard without infringing the IPR:
`[A]s applied to IPR means that it is not possible on technical (but not
`commercial) grounds, taking into account normal technical practice and the
`state of the art generally available at the time of standardization, to make,
`sell, lease, otherwise dispose of, repair, use or operate EQUIPMENT or
`METHODS which comply with a STANDARD without infringing that IPR.
`
`Id. at ¶ 15(6) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ensemble’s ETSI Membership
`
`Ensemble was an ETSI member from November 1998 to November 30, 2004.
`
`See Ex. F (ETSI/GA44(04)09R1; ETSI/GA44(04)42 rev. 1).4 Ensemble, led in part by
`
`named inventor on the patents-in-suit, Mr. Ken Stanwood, developed a wireless
`
`broadband product and contributed its technology for inclusion in two wireless
`
`broadband standards: (1) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”)
`
`802.16, which later became known as Wi-MAX, and (2) ETSI BRAN. Ensemble
`
`notified IEEE and ETSI that it had IPR essential to those standards. Ex. A (Royer
`
`Report) ¶¶ 66-67; Ex. I (Sept. 26, 2003 Ensemble IPR Declaration). Ensemble never
`
`attended an LTE meeting or made an LTE contribution. Id.; Ex. E (Huber Report) ¶ 91.
`
`Apple has not shown that Ensemble had any knowledge of LTE while an ETSI
`
`member.
`
`
`4 In November 2001, Ensemble US transferred its ETSI membership to its subsidiary
`Ensemble UK. See Ex. G (ETSI/GA38(01)09 Rev.2 at 7). This transfer in
`membership, however, does not affect whether Ensemble breached the ETSI IPR
`Policy. See id.; Ex. E (Huber Report) ¶ 86, fn. 70.
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15072 Page 11 of
` 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`In May 2004, Ensemble sold the Ensemble IPR to Wi-LAN. Id.; Ex. K (Patent
`
`Purchase Agreement). The patents-in-suit are continuations and divisionals of the IPR
`
`Wi-LAN acquired from Ensemble.
`C. Wi-LAN’s ETSI Membership
`
`Wi-LAN was an ETSI member from November 2000 to November 28, 2007.
`
`Ex. L (ETSI/GA36(00)16 Rev.3; ETSI/GA36(00)22). Like Ensemble, Wi-LAN
`
`participated in the development of and declared patents essential to the ETSI BRAN
`
`standard. Id.; Ex. M (Wi-LAN ETSI BRAN IPR Declarations). Wi-LAN never
`
`attended an LTE meeting or made an LTE contribution while an ETSI member. Ex. E
`
`(Huber Report) ¶ 91. Apple has not shown that Wi-LAN had any knowledge of LTE
`
`while an ETSI member.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`The Court should grant summary judgment if Wi-LAN “shows that there is no
`
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
`
`matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Wi-LAN carries the initial burden of
`
`demonstrating that summary judgment is proper and may satisfy its burden by
`
`“submit[ting] affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving
`
`party's claim” or “affirmatively demonstrat[ing] that there is no evidence in the record
`
`to support a judgment for the nonmoving party.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
`
`317, 331-332 (1986). The burden then shifts to Apple to show that summary judgment
`
`is not appropriate. Id. at 324. To avoid summary judgment, Apple cannot rest solely on
`
`conclusory allegations. Berg v. Kincheloe, 794 F.2d 457, 459 (9th Cir. 1986). It must
`
`designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. More than a
`
`“metaphysical doubt” is required to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
`
`B. Affirmative Defenses
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15073 Page 12 of
` 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Apple must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Wi-LAN or Ensemble
`
`violated the ETSI IPR Policy.
`
`Express and Implied Waiver: A defense of “waiver requires a showing of
`
`intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” Karl Storz Endoscopy-
`
`Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 14-cv-00876-RS, 2014 WL 12700984, at *4 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Oct. 3, 2014) (internal citations omitted). “To support a finding of implied waiver in
`
`the standard setting organization context, the accused must show by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that ‘[the patentee’s] conduct was so inconsistent with an intent to
`
`enforce its rights as to induce a reasonable belief that such right has been
`
`10
`
`relinquished.’” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed.
`
`11
`
`Cir. 2011). To show Wi-LAN’s conduct was “inconsistent with an intent to enforce,”
`
`12
`
`Apple must prove that “(1) the patentee had a duty of disclosure to the standard setting
`
`13
`
`organization, and (2) the patentee breached that duty.” Id. (citing Qualcomm, 548 F.3d
`
`14
`
`at 1011-12.)
`
`15
`
`Equitable Estoppel: “[T]here are three elements to equitable estoppel: a) the
`
`16
`
`patentee, through misleading conduct, leads the alleged infringer to reasonably infer
`
`17
`
`that the patentee does not intend to enforce its patent against the alleged infringer; b)
`
`18
`
`the alleged infringer relies on that conduct; and c) due to its reliance, the alleged
`
`19
`
`infringer will be materially prejudiced if the patentee is allowed to proceed with its
`
`20
`
`claim.” In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., No. 2:07-ML-1816-C-
`
`21
`
`RGK, 2010 WL 8759119, at *14 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2010). In Hynix, the Federal
`
`22
`
`Circuit explained that the defendant must prove the two elements of implied waiver to
`
`23
`
`prove equitable estoppel, “because without a disclosure duty, [defendant] could not
`
`24
`
`‘reasonably infer’ that [patentee] did not intend to enforce its patents against it, and
`
`25
`
`without a breach of that duty, [patentee]’s nondisclosure could not be ‘misleading
`
`26
`
`conduct.’” 645 F.3d at 1348.
`
`27
`
`Promissory Estoppel: “The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are (1) a
`
`28
`
`promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15074 Page 13 of
` 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`promise is made; (3) the reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the
`
`party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.” Hynix Semiconductor Inc.
`
`v Rambus Inc., 441 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (citations omitted). As is
`
`the case for equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel requires Apple to show Wi-LAN or
`
`Ensemble breached the ETSI IPR Policy. Without that, Apple cannot show that it relied
`
`on Wi-LAN’s or Ensemble’s broken promise.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`All four of Apple’s affirmative defenses fail because Apple failed to produce any
`
`evidence that Ensemble or Wi-LAN believed the Ensemble IPR was essential while
`
`ETSI members, and (2) Apple relied on Wi-LAN’s or Ensemble’s conduct.
`
`A. Apple Produced No Evidence Ensemble or Wi-LAN Violated the ETSI
`IPR Policy
`
`i. Apple Produced No Evidence Ensemble Violated the ETSI IPR
`Policy
`
`Apple cannot show Ensemble violated the ETSI IPR Policy because it produced
`
`15
`
`no evidence Ensemble formed a belief the Ensemble IPR was essential to LTE while
`
`16
`
`Ensemble was an ETSI member. Ensemble’s ETSI membership ended in November
`
`17
`
`2004, the same month ETSI held the first LTE standardization meeting. Ensemble did
`
`18
`
`not attend that first LTE meeting and Apple produced no evidence Ensemble was even
`
`19
`
`aware of the meeting. Dr. Walker does not dispute Mr. Royer’s finding that the
`
`20
`
`technology of the Ensemble IPR was not discussed at that first LTE meeting. Ex. J,
`
`21
`
`Rebuttal Report of Claude Royer (“Royer Rebuttal”) ¶ 31; see also Ex. D (Walker
`
`22
`
`Depo. Tr.) at 55:4-9. Thus, Apple has not produced evidence that Ensemble would
`
`23
`
`have reason to believe the Ensemble IPR might be essential to LTE in November 2004.
`
`24
`
`Apple’s expert, Dr. Walker, assumed for purposes of his expert report that
`
`25
`
`Ensemble formed a belief the Ensemble IPR was essential in November 2004, but
`
`26
`
`admitted in his deposition that he could not personally conclude Ensemble actually
`
`27
`
`formed this belief:
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15075 Page 14 of
` 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Q. Can you conclude based on the evidence in your report that Mr.
`Stanwood believed the Ensemble IPR was potentially essential in November
`2004?
`
`A. No, I cannot personally conclude. That’s why I took instructions to use
`as a starting gate.
`Ex. D (Walker Depo) at 56:10-16.
`
`In sum, Apple has produced no evidence that Ensemble violated the ETSI IPR
`
`Policy.
`
`ii.
`
`No evidence exists that Wi-LAN violated the ETSI IPR Policy
`
`Apple cannot show Wi-LAN violated the ETSI IPR Policy because it produced
`
`no evidence Wi-LAN formed a belief the Ensemble IPR was essential to LTE while
`
`Wi-LAN was an ETSI member. Wi-LAN’s ETSI membership ended in November
`
`2007. Apple produced no evidence that Wi-LAN attended a single LTE meeting or
`
`made a single contribution to LTE during its ETSI membership. Apple produced no
`
`evidence that any Wi-LAN employee was aware of what technologies were considered
`
`for or adopted into the LTE standard. The only evidence Apple cites to support its
`
`argument that Wi-LAN believed the Ensemble IPR was essential before November
`
`2007 is (1) Wi-LAN’s contributions to two standards unrelated to LTE, ETSI BRAN
`
`and IEEE 802.16, and (2) a 2006 Wi-LAN press release having nothing to do with LTE.
`
`First, Apple speculates that because Wi-LAN participated in the ETSI BRAN and
`
`WiMAX standards, it must have known the details of the ETSI LTE standard. Apple
`
`does not offer evidence supporting this attorney argument and, in fact, Apple’s
`
`argument is contradicted by its own experts. Apple’s ETSI expert Dr. Walker testified
`
`that LTE and BRAN are “unrelated” and that LTE does not “reference or build on the
`
`BRAN specifications.” Apple’s WiMAX expert, Mr. Jim Tocher, testified that it is not
`
`reasonable to assume that a person with knowledge of WiMAX would know the
`
`technical details of LTE. Ex. N (Tocher Depo. Tr.) at 60:13-15. Apple’s vague
`
`assertion that Wi-LAN might know the details of LTE because of its participation in
`
`two unrelated standards is not enough to overcome summary judgment. More than a
`
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`-9-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 321-1 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.15076 Page 15 of
` 31
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`“metaphysical doubt” is required to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
`
`Second, Apple alleges that a 2006 Wi-LAN press release evidences Wi-LAN’s
`
`belief at that time that the Ensemble IPR was essential to LTE, but this press release
`
`never mentions LTE or the Ensemble IPR. In his expert report, Dr. Walker cites Wi-
`
`LAN’s statement that “FMA and Wi-LAN are founding and board members of the
`
`WiMAX Forum™ and active participants in the IEEE and ETSI standards bodies” (Ex.
`
`B (Walker Report) ¶ 101), but the next sentence shows that this statement was not
`
`referencing the ETSI LTE standard, but rather the ETSI HiperMAN standard: “FMA
`
`10
`
`and Wi-LAN have been leaders in generating industry-wide acceptance of the IEEE
`
`11
`
`802.16 and ETSI HiperMAN wireless MAN standards, which are the basis of successful
`
`12
`
`WiMAX deployments.” Ex. O, Mar. 20, 2006 Wi-LAN Press Release (emphasis
`
`13
`
`added). This cannot be enough to show that Wi-LAN held a belief that the Ensemble
`
`14
`
`IPR was essential to LTE at that time.
`
`15
`
`Apple’s expert Dr. Walker found this evidence unconvincing. Dr. Walker
`
`16
`
`assumed for purposes of his expert report that Wi-LAN formed a belief the Ensemble
`
`17
`
`IPR was essential in November 2004, but admitted in his deposition that he could not
`
`18
`
`personally conclude Wi-LAN formed this belief at any time during its ETSI
`
`19
`
`membership:
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`Q. Based on the evidence you cited in your report, can you personally
`conclu