Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21968 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`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 Plaintiff,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN DIEGO
`
`
`
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`No. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM;
`(Lead Case No. 3:14-cv-2235-
`DMS-BLM)
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`WI-LAN INC.’S RESPONSE
`TO NEWLY RAISED ISSUES
`IN APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`[ECF No. 433]
`
`Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Trial Date: July 23, 2018
`Time: 9:00 A.M.
`
`
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21969 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. OWNERSHIP OF THE ’757 PATENT .......................................................... 1
`
`III. RESPONSES TO APPLE’S NEW REQUESTS FOR RELIEF ..................... 3
`
`A. Wi-LAN is Entitled to Present a Rebuttal Case at Trial. ...................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Madisetti Declaration is Proper. .................................................... 3
`
`Recent Additions to Wi-LAN’s Exhibits Are Proper. .......................... 4
`
`Compilation Documents On Wi-LAN’s Exhibit List Are
`
`Proper. .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`IV. RESPONSES TO APPLE’S REITERATED SUMMARY
`
`JUDGMENT ARGUMENTS .................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Multiple Alleged Direct Infringers ........................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`14 14 14
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“Capable of Infringing” Theory ............................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`An Apparatus Claim Need Not Be “Used” For
`
`Infringement ................................................................................ 7
`
`Apple’s Proposed “Capable Of” Standard Is Wrong as a
`
`Matter of Law .............................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-i-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21970 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ameranth Inc. v. Genesis Gaming Sols,
`No. 11-cv-0189, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014) ................................................ 11
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 10
`
`Barrett v. Negrete,
`No. 02-CV-2210-L (CAB), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27970 (S.D.
`Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`Bd. of Trs. of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular
`Sys.,
`583 F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`Carucel Invs. v. Novatel Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-118-H-KSC, 2017 WL 1394068 (S.D. Cal. March 2,
`2017) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`DDB Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.,
`517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 2
`
`DR Sys. v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`08-CV-669-H (BLM), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104080 (S.D. Cal.
`Nov. 9, 2009) ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Fantasy Sports Properties, Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc.,
`287 F.3d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................ 6, 7
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing, Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 6, 7
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-ii-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21971 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
`620 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................. 5, 9, 10
`
`Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc.,
`6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ................................................................................ 10
`
`Karoun Dairies, Inc. v. Karlacti, Inc.,
`No. 08cv1521 AJB (WVG), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92723 (S.D.
`Cal. July 8, 2014) .................................................................................................. 1
`
`Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,
`841 F.2d 918 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................ 1
`
`Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods.,
`320 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Paragon Sols, LLC v. Timex Corp.,
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Radware, Ltd. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`Nos. C-13-02021-RMW, C-13-02024-RMW, 2014 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 55913 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2014) .............................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver Peak Sys.,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102589 (D. Del. July 23, 2013) ...................................... 8
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 14-1330-RGA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135560 (D. Del. Aug.
`24, 2017) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 11
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-iii-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21972 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,975,952 .......................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-iv-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21973 Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`
`
`2 2
`
`
`
`3 3
`
`
`
`4 4
`
`
`
`5 5
`
`
`
`6 6
`
`
`
`7 7
`
`
`
`8 8
`
`
`
`9 9
`
`
`
`10 10
`
`
`
`11 11
`
`
`
`12 12
`
`
`
`13 13
`
`
`
`14 14
`
`
`
`15 15
`
`
`
`16 16
`
`
`
`17 17
`
`
`
`18 18
`
`
`
`19 19
`
`
`
`20 20
`
`
`
`21 21
`
`
`
`22 22
`
`
`
`23 23
`
`
`
`24 24
`
`
`
`25 25
`
`
`
`26 26
`
`
`
`27 27
`
`
`
`28 28
`
`Plaintiff Wi-LAN Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) respectfully submits this response to
`
`Apple’s Trial Brief.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Wi-LAN was surprised by many of the issues raised in Apple’s Trial Brief,
`
`ECF No. 433. Many issues had not been mentioned by Apple in the parties’
`
`pretrial meet-and-confer, and certain issues and requests for relief were raised for
`
`the very first time in Apple’s Trial Brief. As a result, Wi-LAN was unable to
`
`address these issues in its own Trial Brief and herein responds to these eleventh-
`
`hour arguments. As explained below, Apple’s positions are untimely and
`
`meritless.
`
`
`
`II. OWNERSHIP OF THE ’757 PATENT
`
`Until Apple filed its Trial Brief earlier this week, Apple never informed Wi-
`
`LAN of its new and novel theory that Wi-LAN does not own the ’757 Patent.
`
`Most notably, Apple did not include this theory in the Proposed Joint Pretrial
`
`Order submitted just weeks ago. Nor did Apple include this theory in its response
`
`to Wi-LAN’s Interrogatory No. 4, which requested “all factual and legal bases” for
`
`Apple’s contentions that claims of the Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable.
`
`Patent ownership is an affirmative defense to infringement. Bd. of Trs. of
`
`the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., 583 F.3d 832, 840 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009). By failing to raise this affirmative defense in the pretrial order, and by
`
`failing to provide Wi-LAN with an opportunity for discovery on this issue, Apple
`
`has waived this argument. See Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,
`
`841 F.2d 918, 924 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A pretrial order has the effect of amending the
`
`pleadings [and] controls the subsequent course of action in the litigation); Karoun
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-1-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21974 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`Dairies, Inc. v. Karlacti, Inc., No. 08cv1521 AJB (WVG), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`92723, at *12-14 (S.D. Cal. July 8, 2014) (finding delay in raising defense until the
`
`eleventh our “inexcusable”); Barrett v. Negrete, No. 02-CV-2210-L (CAB), 2009
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27970, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) (“Issues not presented in
`
`the adopted pretrial order are deemed to have been waived by defendants”). Even
`
`assuming Apple’s affirmative defense had not been waived, Wi-LAN is entitled to
`
`an opportunity to respond to any alleged defects in ownership. Mentor H/S, Inc. v.
`
`Med. Device All., Inc., 240 F.3d 1016, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Where the record contains clear confirmation of assignment, and the
`
`defendants have offered no evidence or argument to rebut this evidence of patent
`
`ownership, “there is no basis for questioning the plaintiffs’ standing.” Pandrol
`
`USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., 320 F.3d 1354, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). During
`
`discovery many months ago Wi-LAN produced dozens of assignment documents
`
`(PX-013, PX-068), including an assignment document (or employment agreement
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`assigning the patents) signed by every inventor of the ’757 Patent. (PX-013 at 16-
`
`19, PX-122). Wi-LAN has produced still further relevant documentation in
`
`support of its ownership of the ’757 Patent, but had no opportunity to include the
`
`documentation on its exhibit list because it did not think this issue would be raised
`
`at trial. Wi-LAN’s evidence is clear, and Apple has offered only the conclusory
`
`argument that unspecified documents are “incomplete or not fully executed.”
`
`Apple Trial Brief, ECF No. 433, at 5.
`
`In fact, Apple has “no right to a jury trial on the issue of standing.” DDB
`
`Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 517 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). Even if the Court were to hear Apple’s arguments on this eleventh-hour
`
`ownership issue, doing so at a jury trial just one week after Apple first raised the
`
`argument would be the wrong time to do so.
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21975 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`III. RESPONSES TO APPLE’S NEW REQUESTS FOR RELIEF
`
`A. Wi-LAN is Entitled to Present a Rebuttal Case at Trial.
`
`In its trial brief, Apple asks the Court to preclude any attempt by Wi-LAN to
`
`offer a rebuttal case. Wi-LAN is entitled to rebut Apple’s evidence. In its case-in-
`
`chief, Apple will likely present non-infringement and damages theories. And if the
`
`Court denies Wi-LAN’s motion in limine #1 (seeking to exclude irrelevant
`
`infromation about WiMAX), will also make arguments regarding WiMAX. Wi-
`
`LAN is entitled to present evidence to rebut Apple’s case as it relates to these
`
`issues.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Madisetti Declaration is Proper.
`
`Apple uses its Trial Brief to request a ruling on Dr. Madisetti’s declaration
`
`from Wi-LAN’s summary judgment briefing, suggesting that portions of Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s declaration offer “new” opinions. Wi-LAN respectfully disagrees.
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`Dr. Madisetti’s declaration is fully consistent with the opinions Dr. Madisetti
`
`provided in his expert report and at deposition. Dr. Madisetti’s declaration
`
`responded to Apple’s motion for summary judgment to correct a number of
`
`inaccurate statements Apple made about his infringement opinions. For example,
`
`Apple incorrectly argued that Dr. Madisetti admitted certain claimed functionality
`
`was not present on the accused iPhones as sold. Wi-LAN’s opposition corrected
`
`Apple’s statements by citing to Dr. Madisetti’s report, his deposition testimony,
`
`Apple documents, as well as Dr. Madisetti’s declaration. See, e.g., ECF No. 358
`
`(Wi-LAN Opp’n) at 11, n. 6; 12, n. 8; 14.
`
`Moreover, Apple’s summary judgment motion was largely based on new
`
`theories that Apple raised for the first time on summary judgment, and Wi-LAN
`
`was entitled to respond to those theories. For example, Apple presented an
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21976 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`indefiniteness argument not raised in its expert reports. (ECF No. 330 at 7.) Apple
`
`also presented a new non-infringement theory that bandwidth must be allocated to
`
`individual iPhone apps (as opposed to connections), which Apple did not raise in
`
`its expert reports or its interrogatory responses setting forth Apple’s non-
`
`infringement theories. (ECF No. 330 at 5-8). Even if Apple could show Dr.
`
`Madisetti presented any new theory, which it does not, Apple’s objection should be
`
`denied in light of Apple’s new arguments as well as the public policy reasons
`
`favoring deciding matters on the merits. DR Sys. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 08-CV-
`
`669-H (BLM), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104080, at *37-40 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2009)
`
`(denying motion to strike declaration submitted with summary judgment briefing
`
`alleged to contain “entirely new opinions” and stating “public policy reasons weigh
`
`in favor of deciding the matter on the merits”).
`
`
`
`C. Recent Additions to Wi-LAN’s Exhibits Are Proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`Apple objects to “untimely produced” documents on Wi-LAN’s exhibit list,
`
`but neglects to mention the fact that Apple itself added three exhibits to the exhibit
`
`list literally minutes before the deadline on July 16. Most of the documents Apple
`
`objects to are publicly available documents Wi-LAN intends to use for cross-
`
`examination. Wi-LAN was not obligated to produce these exhibits at all to use
`
`them for cross-examination at trial, but produced them as a courtesy to Apple. As
`
`far as Wi-LAN knows, Apple has not produced any documents it intends to use on
`
`cross-examination.
`
`
`
`D. Compilation Documents On Wi-LAN’s Exhibit List Are Proper.
`
`Apple objects to the fact that some of the documents on Wi-LAN’s exhibit
`
`list are compilations of multiple documents. Apple cites no authority disallowing
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21977 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`the inclusion of document compilations on an exhibit list. Furthermore, it is
`
`unreasonable for Apple to complain that a small portion of Wi-LAN’s 677 exhibits
`
`are lengthy, when Apple itself has proposed an exhibit list of over 1,100
`
`documents, nearly twice as long as WiLAN’s list, seeking to hide the actually
`
`documents that Apple intends to use at trial.
`
`
`
`IV. RESPONSES TO APPLE’S REITERATED SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`ARGUMENTS
`
`A. Multiple Alleged Direct Infringers
`
`Wi-LAN will show that Apple’s iPhones themselves meet each and every
`
`claim limitation, and does not contend that different iPhone components are owned
`
`by different entities. These issues have already been addressed in Wi-LAN’s
`
`summary judgment opposition briefing and rejected by the Court. ECF No. 358 at
`
`6-9; ECF No. 401 at 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`
`
`B.
`
`“Capable of Infringing” Theory
`
`Apple again reargues its incorrect theories from summary judgment
`
`regarding “capability” language in its trial brief. Wi-LAN expects Apple will
`
`make non-infringement argument to the jury inconsistent with Federal Circuit law
`
`on the standard for direct infringement of an apparatus claim. Apple’s jury
`
`instructions seek to convert Wi-LAN’s apparatus claims into method claims,
`
`arguing that “it is not enough to simply show that [a] product is capable of
`
`infringement; the patent owner must show evidence of specific instances of direct
`
`infringement,” which Apple grounds in Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321,
`
`1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010). But Fujitsu addressed a method claim, as Apple
`
`acknowledged when it made this same erroneous argument on summary judgment,
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21978 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`and is irrelevant to the apparatus claims at issue here. (ECF No. 375 at 8.) Wi-
`
`LAN believes the Court already validated Wi-LAN’s jury instruction on summary
`
`judgment when the Court found “under Wi-LAN’s theory of the case, placement of
`
`a VoLTE call is not required for a finding of infringement.” (ECF No. 401 at 8.)
`
`The correct standard for an apparatus claim, as set forth in Wi-LAN’s
`
`proposed jury instructions and discussed at length in Wi-LAN’s summary
`
`judgment opposition briefing (ECF No. 358 at 10-14), is that software code
`
`infringes it if is written to enable a user to utilize the infringing function without
`
`having to modify the code. Fantasy Sports Properties, Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc.,
`
`287 F.3d 1108, 1118-19 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[I]n order to infringe the ’603 patent,
`
`the code underlying an accused fantasy football game must be written in such a
`
`way as to enable a user of that software to utilize the function of awarding
`
`bonus points for unusual plays such as out-of-position scoring, without having to
`
`modify that code.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing, Corp., 626 F.3d 1197,
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`1204 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In addition, “an accused product may be found to infringe it
`
`if is reasonably capable of satisfying the claim limitation even though it may also
`
`be capable of non-infringing modes of operation.” Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys.,
`
`773 F.3d 1201, 1215-16 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`The Court should not risk the jury finding non-infringement based on
`
`Apple’s prejudicial and erroneous direct infringement standard. The Court should
`
`adopt Wi-LAN’s proposed jury instruction and preclude any argument from Apple
`
`at trial that Wi-LAN must show “specific instances” of the iPhone’s use in order to
`
`prove direct infringement of Wi-LAN’s apparatus claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21979 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`1.
`
`An Apparatus Claim Need Not Be “Used” For Infringement
`
`An apparatus claim is infringed when an accused device is made, used, sold,
`
`offered for sale, or imported—the device never needs to be operated or turned on
`
`for there to be infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). An apparatus claim does not
`
`import a method or use requirement. Paragon Sols, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d
`
`1075, 1090-91 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that it was improper to import a use
`
`requirement
`
`into an apparatus claim
`
`through claim construction because
`
`“[a]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”). An
`
`apparatus claim is infringed by the sale of a product whether or not the software
`
`inside a product is ever actually used, “in the same way that an automobile engine
`
`for propulsion exists in a car even when the car is turned off.” Finjan, 626 F.3d at
`
`1205.
`
`All of Wi-LAN’s asserted claims are apparatus claims directed to a
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`
`
`“subscriber unit” or “subscriber station” with certain additional elements. Here,
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`infringement of the asserted apparatus claims requires a showing that the Apple
`
`iPhones, as sold, have the capability required by the claims in the software. In
`
`Fantasy Sports, for example, the Federal Circuit rejected the argument that
`
`infringement occurs only after a user provides specific inputs to the software to put
`
`the software in a specific arrangement. Fantasy Sports, 287 F.3d 1108, 1118-19.
`
`Likewise, in Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 794-95 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit found a “rasterization circuit coupled to the
`
`processor that rasterizes” data in a certain way was present in the software product
`
`as sold even though the product could not function without receiving activations
`
`from the Microsoft Windows operating system.1
`
`
`1 The claim language at issue in Silicon Graphics (i.e.., a “rasterization circuit …
`that rasterizes”) is similar to the Court’s construction of “subscriber unit” in the
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21980 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple focuses on the claim language “configured to” which exists
`
`only in two asserted claims (claim 9 of the ’145 patent and claim 1 of the ’757
`
`patent) but these claims also do not require a showing of “specific instances” of
`
`use for infringement as Apple suggests.2 Apple’s own authority, Aspex Eyewear,
`
`Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) confirms that
`
`in the context of computer software claims, “configured to” is satisfied if the
`
`software is “designed to” perform a function, even if the user must enable, activate
`
`or set up that functionality (such as click a box). Riverbed Tech., Inc. v. Silver
`
`Peak Sys., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102589, *3-4 (D. Del. July 23, 2013) (finding
`
`“configured to” means “designed to “ in light of Aspex for a software claim and
`
`finding an accused software product is “still configured to perform that function”
`
`even if a user must “click[] a box, to enable the function.”); see also Sonos, Inc. v.
`
`D&M Holdings, Inc., No. 14-1330-RGA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135560, *2 (D.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`Del. Aug. 24, 2017) (for a claim where software was “configured to” perform
`
`certain elements, accused product need not actually be set up and configured for
`
`infringement to occur); Carucel Invs. v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., No. 16-cv-118-H-
`
`KSC, 2017 WL 1394068, *4 (S.D. Cal. March 2, 2017) (claim to an apparatus
`
`“configured to” move in vehicles was satisfied because there was evidence the
`
`apparatus was “designed to” move in vehicles); Radware, Ltd. v. A10 Networks,
`
`Inc., Nos. C-13-02021-RMW, C-13-02024-RMW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55913,
`
`*40-41 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2014) (the claim language “network controller …
`
`configured to” perform a function (translate an IP address) required only that the
`
`network controller is “programmed to” perform the function as sold, even if “user-
`
`
`asserted claims, which is a “module that receives UL bandwidth from a base
`station, and allocates the bandwidth across its user connections.”
`2 Asserted claims 26-27 of the ’145 patent recite the language “capable of,” not
`“configured to.” ’145 patent, Col. 34:19.
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21981 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`intervention to select settings and operating parameters” are needed before the
`
`function can be activated and carried out).
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Apple’s Proposed “Capable Of” Standard Is Wrong as a
`
`Matter of Law
`
`Apple’s proposed additions to the jury instruction misstate the law and are
`
`not supported by any authority. Apple’s Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d
`
`1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2010), is irrelevant because Apple’s quoted language dealt
`
`with a method claim, not an apparatus claim. Id. at 1326. U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,975,952 at issue in Fujitsu claimed a method for transmitting data messages in a
`
`communications network. Id. Specifically, the only independent claim described a
`
`method for segmenting and transmitting a message (claim 1 is shown below). Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`
`
`
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-9-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21982 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1 1
`
`
`
`
`
`2 2 2
`
`
`
`
`
`3 3 3
`
`
`
`
`
`4 4 4
`
`
`
`
`
`5 5 5
`
`
`
`
`
`6 6 6
`
`
`
`
`
`7 7 7
`
`
`
`
`
`8 8 8
`
`
`
`
`
`9 9 9
`
`
`
`
`
`10 10 10
`
`
`
`
`
`11 11 11
`
`
`
`
`
`12 12 12
`
`
`
`
`
`13 13 13
`
`
`
`
`
`14 14 14
`
`In Fujitsu, the Federal Circuit held that there was no evidence of direct
`
`infringement of the method claim. Fujitsu, 620 F. 3d at 1329. “[A] method claim
`
`is not directly infringed by the sale of an apparatus even though it is capable of
`
`performing only the patented method. The sale of the apparatus is not a sale of the
`
`method.” Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 774-75 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Rather, “a method or process claim is directly infringed only when the process is
`
`performed.” Id. at 773. In Fujitsu, the parties disputed the extent to which
`
`customers activated and used the infringing functionality and thereby directly
`
`infringed by practicing the method claim. Fujitsu, 620 F. 3d at 1328. The plaintiff
`
`argued that because the accused product necessarily infringes when used, instances
`
`of direct infringement should be presumed. Id. However, the Federal Circuit
`
`found that the only evidence showed that the products were capable of infringing
`
`and did not provide evidence of direct infringement of the method claim. Id. at
`
`1329. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit distinguished cases involving apparatus
`
`
`
`
`
`15 15 15
`
`
`
`
`
`16 16 16
`
`
`
`
`
`17 17 17
`
`
`
`
`
`18 18 18
`
`
`
`
`
`19 19 19
`
`
`
`
`
`20 20 20
`
`
`
`
`
`21 21 21
`
`
`
`
`
`22 22 22
`
`
`
`
`
`23 23 23
`
`
`
`
`
`24 24 24
`
`
`
`
`
`25 25 25
`
`
`
`
`
`26 26 26
`
`
`
`
`
`27 27 27
`
`
`
`
`
`28 28 28
`
`claims that “only required that the infringing product be capable of infringing.” Id.
`
`(citing Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
`
`Thus, Fujitsu is irrelevant here where Wi-LAN only asserts apparatus claims.
`
`Apple’s Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc.,
`
`555 F.3d 984, 994-95 (Fed. Cir. 2009), is irrelevant because it did not involve
`
`software but instead dealt with a “candle tin” requiring a specific physical
`
`arrangement where there was no evidence the “candle tin” was ever in that
`
`arrangement. Id. at 995. The Federal Circuit distinguished cases involving
`
`software. Id. at 994 (citing Fantasy Sports Props., Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc., 287
`
`F.3d 1108, 1117-18 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, Ball Aerosol is irrelevant here where
`
`Wi-LAN’s apparatus claims are directed to software functionality.
`
`WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO APPLE’S TRIAL BRIEF
`
`-10-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 444 Filed 07/19/18 PageID.21983 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1