Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21935 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`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-2235-DMS-BLM
`(lead case);
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM
`(consolidated)
`
`APPLE INC.’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`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\282289188
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21936 Page 2 of 23
`
`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
`
`
`I.
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Page
`APPLE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ...................... 1
`A. Wi-LAN Cannot Establish Direct Infringement of the Asserted
`Patents. .................................................................................................. 2
`B. Wi-LAN Cannot Establish Induced Infringement of the Asserted
`Patents. .................................................................................................. 3
`C. Wi-LAN Cannot Establish Willful Infringement of the Asserted
`Patents. .................................................................................................. 4
`II. WI-LAN’S INFLATED DAMAGES CLAIM IS CONTRARY TO
`THE LAW AND FACTS. ............................................................................... 5
`III. OWNERSHIP OF THE ’757 PATENT .......................................................... 5
`IV. FORESEEABLE EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES. ............ 6
`A. Wi-LAN Does Not Need a Rebuttal Case at Trial................................ 6
`B. Apple’s Pending Objection to the Untimely Declaration of Dr.
`Madisetti. ............................................................................................... 6
`Impact of Summary Judgment Motion Order. ...................................... 7
`1.
`Apple’s “User” and “Allocation” Defenses. .............................. 7
`2.
`Apple’s Defense Based on Multiple Alleged Direct
`Infringers. .................................................................................... 7
`3. Wi-LAN’s “Capable of Infringing” Theory. .............................. 8
`Impact of Wi-LAN’s Election of Claims. ........................................... 10
`1.
`Admissibility of Background Regarding Asserted Patents
`and Claimed Inventions. ........................................................... 10
`The Testimony of Wi-LAN’s “Patent Office” Expert Is
`Irrelevant with Invalidity Out of the Case. ............................... 11
`Apple Should Be Permitted to Reference Wi-LAN’s
`Decision to Drop Four Asserted Patents. ................................. 11
`Impact of Daubert Motion Order. ....................................................... 11
`1.
`Objection to Wi-LAN’s Anticipated Damages
`Presentation. .............................................................................. 11
`Dr. Madisetti Should Not Be Permitted to Offer a
`“Benchmark” Opinion Articulated for the First Time in
`Wi-LAN’s Daubert Opposition Brief. ...................................... 14
`Professor Prince and Mr. Kennedy Should Not Be
`Permitted to Offer the Apportionment Theory Articulated
`for the First Time in Wi-LAN’s Daubert Opposition
`Brief. ......................................................................................... 14
`Dr. Madisetti’s Opinions Regarding Apple’s Alleged
`Intent/Knowledge/Willfulness. ................................................. 15
`Apple’s Objection to Untimely Produced and Identified
`Documents on Wi-LAN’s Exhibit List. .............................................. 15
`-i-
`
`F.
`
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21937 Page 3 of 23
`
`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
`(continued)
`
`
`
`G. Apple’s Objection to Combined Documents on Wi-LAN’s
`Exhibit List. ......................................................................................... 16
`H. Maintenance of Prior Objections and Positions. ................................. 17
`
`Page
`
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21938 Page 4 of 23
`
`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
`
`ACCO Brands, Inc., v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co., Ltd.,
`501 F.3d 1307 (2007) ............................................................................................ 2
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Sols., Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-0189, 2014 WL 12577148 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014) ........................... 9
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 4
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 9
`
`Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 9
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd.,
`No. 09-cv-290, 2012 WL 5463669 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2012) ......................... 4, 11
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
`135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) .......................................................................................... 3
`
`Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Org. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................... 12
`
`DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Comput. Corp.,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................. 13
`
`Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................. 2
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................... 3, 13
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
`620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Garretson v. Clark,
`111 U.S. 120 (1884) ...................................................................................... 12, 13
`
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21939 Page 5 of 23
`
`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)
`
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2012) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`Page
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`2014 WL 1494247 (S.D. Apr. 16, 2014) ............................................................. 12
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`870 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 3
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................... 12
`
`MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects, S.A.,
`429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 2
`
`Muniauction Inc. v. Thomson Corp.,
`532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................. 3
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`Case Nos. 2016-2691, 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir. July 3, 2018), available
`at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-
`orders/16-2691.Opinion.7-3-2018.pdf ................................................................ 13
`
`Slot Speaker Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-01161-HSG, 2017 WL 4354999 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29,
`2017) .................................................................................................................. 4, 7
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`640 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.R.I. 2009), aff’d in relevant part, 632 F.3d
`1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................... 1, 2, 10
`
`Wisconsin Alumni Research Found. v. Apple, Inc.,
`261 F. Supp. 3d 900 (W.D. Wis. 2017) ................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21940 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`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
`
`Apple submits this trial brief to summarize its theories of the case and what it
`
`expects the evidence to show. Primarily, Apple expects the evidence to show that
`
`(1) Apple does not directly, indirectly, or willfully infringe the asserted patents;
`
`(2) Wi-LAN’s damages claim is inflated and unsupported; and (3) Wi-LAN does
`
`not own the ’757 patent by assignment. Apple also addresses foreseeable
`
`evidentiary and procedural issues.
`
`I.
`
`APPLE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`Wi-LAN asserts six claims from two patents against the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus,
`
`iPhone 6s and 6s Plus, iPhone SE, and iPhone 7 and 7 Plus (together, “the accused
`
`iPhones”).1 In a prior lawsuit in this Court, Wi-LAN asserted U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,311,040 (“the ’040 patent”) and 8,315,640 (“the ’640 patent”) against earlier
`
`versions of the iPhone, among other products. See Case No. 13-cv-00798-DMS-
`
`BLM (“the -798 Case”). The ’640 patent is related to the asserted ’145 patent, and
`
`its disclosure is the same in all material respects. In the -798 Case, the Court found
`
`Apple did not infringe, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Here, Wi-LAN is still
`
`stretching its patents, and Apple still does not infringe.
`
`The asserted patents resulted from purported advances that Ensemble
`
`Communications, Inc. proposed during the development of the WiMAX standard in
`
`the late 1990s and early 2000s. See Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d
`
`1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In a typical wireless network, each user device
`
`connects directly to and requests bandwidth from a base station. Id. The asserted
`
`patents, however, describe a modification to this typical network where an
`
`“intermediary node” resides between a base station and the user devices. Id. At the
`
`time of the claimed inventions, the claimed intermediary node was a separate
`
`physical device from the claimed “user” devices.
`
`/////
`
`1 The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,457,145 (“the ’145 patent”) and
`8,537,757 (“the ’757 patent”) (together “the asserted patents”).
`
`-1-
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21941 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`In the -798 Case, the Court ruled that (1) the claimed intermediary node is
`
`responsible for allocating bandwidth “across its user connections,” and (2) the
`
`claimed user connections are between the intermediary device “and its users.” -798
`
`Case, ECF No. 98 at 4-5, 9.
`
`The Court then granted summary judgment of noninfringement. -798 Case,
`
`ECF No. 278. There, as here, Wi-LAN took the position that the intermediary node
`
`was the baseband processor inside the iPhone, while the “user devices” purportedly
`
`mapped onto the iPhone’s application processor. Wi-LAN, 830 F.3d at 1378. The
`
`issues therefore “center[ed] on the question whether [Apple’s] different network
`
`10
`
`architecture nonetheless makes use of the inventions claimed in the patents.” Id.
`
`11
`
`This Court and the Federal Circuit answered that question “no.” Id. at 1379. The
`
`12
`
`Federal Circuit, in affirming the Court’s summary judgment ruling, held the ’640
`
`13
`
`patent “unambiguously describes an allocation scheme where the base station has
`
`14
`
`sole responsibility for allocating bandwidth between itself and the intermediary
`
`15
`
`nodes, and an intermediary node has sole responsibility for allocating bandwidth
`
`16
`
`between itself and its users.” Wi-LAN, 830 F.3d at 1388. In this case, Wi-LAN still
`
`17
`
`is trying to read the claim limitations on components of a single device.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`A. Wi-LAN Cannot Establish Direct Infringement of the Asserted
`Patents.
`
`The evidence will show that Apple does not directly infringe any claim of the
`
`21
`
`asserted patents. To establish infringement, Wi-LAN must prove by a
`
`22
`
`preponderance of the evidence that Apple made, used, sold, offered for sale within,
`
`23
`
`or imported into the United States a product that meets all of the requirements of an
`
`24
`
`asserted claim. MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects, S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1352-53
`
`25
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). “To prove direct infringement, a patentee must either point to
`
`26
`
`specific instances of direct infringement or show that the accused device necessarily
`
`27
`
`infringes the patent in suit.” ACCO Brands, Inc., v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co., Ltd., 501
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`F.3d 1307, 1313 (2007) (citing Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp., 363
`
`-2-
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21942 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`F.3d 1263, 1275-76 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For system claims where the accused system
`
`consists of multiple components owned by different entities, “a person must control
`
`(even if indirectly) and benefit from each claimed component” of the allegedly
`
`patented system. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 870 F.3d
`
`1320, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“to use a claimed system, what must be ‘used’ is each
`
`element”). Absent proof of control and benefit, there is no infringement. Id.
`
`Apple does not directly infringe any claim of the asserted patents for at least
`
`the reasons stated in Apple’s summary judgment motion and at the pretrial
`
`conference, for the reasons stated in the expert reports of Dr. Michael Buehrer and
`
`10
`
`Dr. Thomas Fuja, and as will be explained by Apple’s fact witnesses at trial. Dkt.
`
`11
`
`Nos. 330, 375.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`B. Wi-LAN Cannot Establish Induced Infringement of the Asserted
`Patents.
`
`The evidence will show that Apple does not induce infringement of any
`
`15
`
`claim of the asserted patents. To establish inducement, Wi-LAN must prove by a
`
`16
`
`preponderance of the evidence: (1) that a third party carried out acts that directly
`
`17
`
`infringe the asserted patent; (2) that Apple took action during the time the asserted
`
`18
`
`patent was in force intending to cause the infringing acts by the third party; and
`
`19
`
`(3) that Apple was aware of the asserted patent and knew that the acts, if taken,
`
`20
`
`would constitute infringement of that patent. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., 135
`
`21
`
`S. Ct. 1920, 1927-28 (2015); Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U.S.
`
`22
`
`754, 765-70 (2012); Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., 773 F.3d 1201, 1219 (Fed.
`
`23
`
`Cir. 2014); Muniauction Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir.
`
`24
`
`2008). To establish active inducement of infringement, it is not sufficient that the
`
`25
`
`alleged direct infringer itself directly infringes the claim. Id. Nor is it sufficient
`
`26
`
`that Apple was aware of the acts by the alleged direct infringer that allegedly
`
`27
`
`constitute the direct infringement. Id.
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`/////
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21943 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`At a minimum, Apple does not induce infringement of any claim of the
`
`asserted patents because Wi-LAN cannot establish any acts of direct infringement.
`
`In addition, Wi-LAN cannot establish the knowledge and intent elements based on
`
`Apple’s good faith belief that it does not infringe any claim of the asserted patents,
`
`including as indicated by Wi-LAN dropping all allegations against every Apple
`
`product initially accused of infringement.
`
`C. Wi-LAN Cannot Establish Willful Infringement of the Asserted
`Patents.
`
`The evidence will show that Apple does not willfully infringe the asserted
`
`10
`
`patents. To prove Apple has willfully infringed the asserted patents, Wi-LAN must
`
`11
`
`demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Apple’s alleged infringement
`
`12
`
`was especially worthy of punishment, such as where the alleged infringement was
`
`13
`
`“malicious, deliberate, consciously wrongful, or done in bad faith.” Halo Elecs.,
`
`14
`
`Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1933-34 (2016); Arctic Cat Inc. v.
`
`15
`
`Bombardier Rec. Prods., 876 F.3d 1350, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A court should
`
`16
`
`take into account an accused infringer’s good faith belief in its defenses to
`
`17
`
`infringement, even if not ultimately successful. Wisconsin Alumni Research
`
`18
`
`Found. v. Apple, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 3d 900, 918 (W.D. Wis. 2017).
`
`19
`
`Here, Wi-LAN dropped all original infringement allegations against every
`
`20
`
`Apple product initially accused of infringement, and dropped four of the six
`
`21
`
`asserted patents from the case. “[E]vidence of dropped or changed claims or
`
`22
`
`products shows the reasonableness of [defendant’s] infringement ‘defenses.’”
`
`23
`
`Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Grp., Ltd., No. 09-cv-290, 2012 WL
`
`24
`
`5463669, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2012). Notably, the fact that an accused infringer
`
`25
`
`continues to make, use, sell, or offer for sale the accused products after receiving
`
`26
`
`notice of the asserted patents is not enough for willful infringement. Slot Speaker
`
`27
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-CV-01161-HSG, 2017 WL 4354999, at *2 (N.D.
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`Cal. Sept. 29, 2017).
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21944 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`At a minimum, Apple does not willfully infringe any claim of the asserted
`
`patents because Wi-LAN cannot show that Apple infringes the asserted patents. In
`
`addition, Apple does not willfully infringe the asserted patents at least for the
`
`reasons stated in Apple’s summary judgment motion and at the pretrial conference.
`
`Dkt. Nos. 330, 375.
`
`II. WI-LAN’S INFLATED DAMAGES CLAIM IS CONTRARY TO THE
`LAW AND FACTS.
`
`Wi-LAN’s
`
` damages claim is inflated and legally and factually
`
`unsupported at least for the reasons stated in Apple’s Motion to Exclude Certain
`
`10
`
`Opinions of Madisetti, Kennedy and Prince, for the reasons stated in the expert
`
`11
`
`reports of Lance Gunderson, Dr. Buehrer, Dr. Fuja and Mark Lanning, and as
`
`12
`
`Apple’s fact witnesses will explain at trial. Dkt. Nos. 333, 373. The evidence—
`
`13
`
`including the parties’ properly adjusted license agreements,
`
`
`
`14
`
`, the invention’s limited
`
`15
`
`footprint in the market place, the relative value of the accused functionality
`
`16
`
`compared to unaccused features and functionality, and the existence of
`
`17
`
`noninfringing alternatives—establishes that the parties’ hypothetical negotiation
`
`18
`
`would have resulted in a one-time lump sum payment of
`
` for a license
`
`19
`
`to the two asserted patents. In Section IV.E.1 below, Apple further addresses its
`
`20
`
`objections to Wi-LAN’s anticipated damages presentation at trial.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`III. OWNERSHIP OF THE ’757 PATENT
`
`Wi-LAN cannot prove it owns the ’757 patent by assignment. Wi-LAN
`
`23
`
`lacks any admissible evidence that four of the named inventors assigned their rights
`
`24
`
`to the ’757 patent to Wi-LAN.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
` And Wi-LAN did not identify any of the
`
`inventors as witnesses and did not obtain their testimony during discovery.
`
`-5-
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21945 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Therefore, in the very least,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. FORESEEABLE EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES.
`
`Apple has included below its understanding of the foreseeable evidentiary
`
`and procedural issues based on the parties’ briefing, correspondence and pretrial
`
`disclosures. The list below does not separately address all of the parties’ pending
`
`motions in limine and motions to strike, which also identify evidentiary disputes.
`
`A. Wi-LAN Does Not Need a Rebuttal Case at Trial
`
`10
`
`The evidentiary record at trial should conclude after Apple presents its
`
`11
`
`evidence in response to Wi-LAN’s evidence. This is consistent with the parties’
`
`12
`
`currently proposed jury instructions regarding the outline of trial, which state:
`
`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
`
`The plaintiff will then present evidence, and counsel for
`the defendant may cross-examine. Then the defendant
`may present evidence, and counsel for the plaintiff may
`cross-examine.
`
`After the evidence has been presented, I will instruct you
`on the law that applies to the case and the attorneys will
`make closing arguments.
`
`Apple is not raising invalidity or any other affirmative defenses, so Wi-LAN
`
`has nothing to rebut after Apple presents its evidence. Apple therefore respectfully
`
`requests that the Court preclude any attempt by Wi-LAN to offer a rebuttal case.
`
`B. Apple’s Pending Objection to the Untimely Declaration of Dr.
`Madisetti.
`
`Apple respectfully requests a ruling on its Objections to Evidence (Dkt. No.
`
`380) related to the Declaration of Dr. Madisetti that Wi-LAN submitted in
`
`Opposition to Apple’s Summary Judgment Motion (Dkt. No. 358), which raises
`
`new infringement theories that do not appear in any of Dr. Madisetti’s three expert
`
`reports. The grounds for Apple’s objections to the Madisetti Declaration are set
`
`forth in its Objections to Evidence. To the extent Wi-LAN incorrectly claims that
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21946 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`the Madisetti Declaration does not set forth any new opinions (and it does), a ruling
`
`sustaining Apple’s objection to the Madisetti Declaration would have no impact on
`
`the scope of Dr. Madisetti’s testimony at trial. Therefore, there is no reason for the
`
`Court not to grant Apple’s Objections to the submission of untimely disclosures in
`
`the Madisetti Declaration.
`
`C.
`
`Impact of Summary Judgment Motion Order.
`
`The parties may have different understandings of the impact of the Court’s
`
`order denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 401. Apple has
`
`articulated below its understanding of the order.
`
`1.
`
`Apple’s “User” and “Allocation” Defenses.
`
`The Court’s Order described this dispute as one of claim construction, but the
`
`12
`
`Court did not modify its construction of “subscriber unit/station,” which requires
`
`13
`
`the subscriber unit to “allocate bandwidth across its user connections.” Dkt. No.
`
`14
`
`401 at 7 (emphasis added). The Court also did not change its construction of
`
`15
`
`“connections,” which requires “connections between the subscriber unit and its
`
`16
`
`users.” Dkt. No. 203 at 5-8 (emphasis added). To the extent the Court found the
`
`17
`
`“claims themselves describe allocation of bandwidth to ‘connections,’ not ‘users’”
`
`18
`
`(id.), the remaining asserted claims only use the term “connections” as part of the
`
`19
`
`unaltered construction of “subscriber unit/station.” The evidence will show that the
`
`20
`
`accused iPhones do not contain a “subscriber unit” that allocates bandwidth “across
`
`21
`
`its user connections,” where those connections are between the subscriber unit and
`
`22
`
`its users.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`2.
`
`Apple’s Defense Based on Multiple Alleged Direct
`Infringers.
`
`Wi-LAN’s description of its infringement theory during the parties’ summary
`
`26
`
`judgment briefing misrepresented what Wi-LAN needs to prove in order to
`
`27
`
`establish liability. The evidence will show that the accused iPhones, as sold, do not
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`contain a “subscriber unit/station” that “allocates the bandwidth across its user
`
`-7-
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21947 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`connections” or the claimed queues.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Importantly, Wi-LAN did not move for summary judgment on this issue, and
`
`the Court did not grant summary judgment of direct infringement in Wi-LAN’s
`
`favor. Instead, the Court denied Apple’s motion for summary judgment of no
`
`divided infringement. Dkt. No. 401 at 8.
`
`3. Wi-LAN’s “Capable of Infringing” Theory.
`
`10
`
`The Court stated that, under Wi-LAN’s theory of the case as presented in its
`
`11
`
`summary judgment briefing, “placement of a VoLTE call is not required for a
`
`12
`
`finding of infringement.” Dkt. No. 401 at 8. But Wi-LAN has misrepresented its
`
`13
`
`theory and the key facts underpinning it, including its expert’s precise theory of
`
`14
`
`infringement. While “placement” of a call may not be required,
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Circuit law.
`
` is required under both Wi-LAN’s theory and Federal
`
`17
`
`The law is clear that “[u]nless the claim language only requires the capacity
`
`18
`
`to perform a particular claim element ... it is not enough to simply show that
`
`19
`
`product is capable of infringement; the patent owner must show evidence of
`
`20
`
`specific instances of direct infringement.” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d
`
`21
`
`1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In this case, only one limitation in one asserted claim
`
`22
`
`recites capacity-to-perform language, as discussed below. And every claim
`
`23
`
`requires Wi-LAN to prove “specific instances of direct infringement.” Specifically,
`
`24
`
`every asserted claim requires a subscriber station, which the Court has defined as a
`
`25
`
`“module that receives UL [uplink] bandwidth from a base station, and allocates the
`
`26
`
`bandwidth across its user connections.” The only connections across which Wi-
`
`27
`
`LAN’s expert alleges such allocation takes place are
`
`
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
` Dkt. No. 360-2 (Madisetti Report) at ¶ 115, 164. Thus, the
`-8-
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21948 Page 14 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`law of direct infringement requires Wi-LAN to prove the accused iPhones actually
`
`.
`
`The other claims asserted by Wi-LAN contain an even more specific
`
`requirement, which is one or more “configured to” limitations. See ’145 patent
`
`claims 9, 10; ’757 patent claims 1, 9. “[C]onfigured to” has a narrow meaning,
`
`which requires that the product actually be configured to perform the specific task,
`
`as opposed to including a structure that could be capable of performing the task.
`
`See Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012); Ameranth, Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Sols., Inc., No. 11-cv-0189, 2014 WL
`
`10
`
`12577148, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014) (“Federal Circuit law strongly suggests
`
`11
`
`that ‘configured to’ is narrower than mere capability.”). The construction of
`
`12
`
`“subscriber unit/station” and the plain language of the claims require a specific
`
`13
`
`configuration, not mere capability of infringement—i.e., for purposes of direct
`
`14
`
`infringement, the recited claim limitations must actually be present in the iPhone as
`
`15
`
`sold by Apple.
`
`16
`
`Only one asserted claim limitation (the “media access control” limitation of
`
`17
`
`claim 26 of the ’145 patent) recites “capable of.” However, the claim also recites
`
`18
`
`limitations that must be proven to exist according to the principles articulated
`
`19
`
`above. The first limitations of that claim (“subscriber unit” and “plurality of
`
`20
`
`queues”) do not recite “capable of.” Therefore, evidence of how an accused
`
`21
`
`product “should” or “might” work is insufficient to find direct infringement—
`
`22
`
`instead, Wi-LAN must show specific instances of direct infringement. Fujitsu Ltd.
`
`23
`
`v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Ball Aerosol and Specialty
`
`24
`
`Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 994-95 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The
`
`25
`
`Court’s Order does not displace this legal requirement for a finding of direct
`
`26
`
`infringement.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`The evidence will show that the accused
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\282289188
`
`
`
`
` do not exist in the accused
`
`-9-
`
`APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`3:14-CV-2235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 440 Filed 07/18/18 PageID.21949 Page 15 of 23
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`iPhones as sold, and cannot be created
`
`
`
`
`
` Therefore, Wi-LAN cannot show that a sale of the accused
`
`iPhones is a specific instance of direct infringement.
`
`D.
`
`Impact of Wi-LAN’s Election of Claims.
`
`Wi-LAN withdrew all asserted claims for four of the asserted patents,
`
`including all claims with pending invalidity challenges. Apple expects the
`
`following evidentiary issues to arise out of that decision.
`
`1.
`
`Admissibility of Background Regarding Asserted Patents
`and Claimed Inventions.
`
`Based on Wi-LAN’s motions in limine, Wi-LAN has the view that only Wi-
`
`12
`
`LAN and its witnesses are permitted to offer evidence and argument about (1) the
`
`13
`
`background and state of the art of the claimed inventions, and (2) the alleged
`
`14
`
`inventiveness of the asserted patents. For example, Wi-LAN intends to call one