Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 48 PageID #: 45516
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC F/K/A
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO ARENDI’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert W. Unikel
`Michelle Marek Figueiredo
`John Cotiguala
`Matt Lind
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 449-6000
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Tel: (212) 318-6000
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Motorola Mobility
`LLC f/k/a Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Google
`Inc.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 48 PageID #: 45517
`
`Ariell Bratton
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Tel: (858) 458-3000
`
`Ginger Anders
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500E
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel: (202) 220-1100
`
`Dated: April 8, 2021
`7158181
`
`Public Version Dated: April 15, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 48 PageID #: 45518
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ............................................................... 1
`II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 1
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................... 3
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ........... 7
`V. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 7
`A.
`IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply ......................................................................................... 7
`1. Legal Standards Governing IPR Estoppel ................................................................... 8
`2. Arendi Waived IPR Estoppel ...................................................................................... 9
`3. None of Defendants’ Invalidity Grounds Is Subject to IPR Estoppel ....................... 11
`a. The challenged prior art systems could not have been raised during the
`IPR proceedings and thus are excluded from IPR estoppel .................................. 12
`b. The Miller, Luciw, LiveDoc, and Drop Zones Publications are not estopped
`because the PTAB denied institution of IPR based on these publications ........... 23
`c. The other challenged prior art references are not subject to IPR estoppel ........... 25
`d. Arendi’s supporting evidence is improper and demonstrates the
`existence of a material fact dispute ....................................................................... 27
`B. Arendi’s Assertion That The Apple Data Detectors, LiveDoc, Selection
`Recognition Agent and Eudora Systems “Did Not Exist” Fails .................................... 28
`1. The Apple Data Detectors System ............................................................................ 32
`2. The LiveDoc System ................................................................................................. 36
`3. The Selection Recognition Agent System ................................................................. 37
`4. Eudora........................................................................................................................ 37
`C. The Laptops Showing Apple Data Detectors and LiveDoc Are Competent
`Evidence......................................................................................................................... 38
`D. Defendants’ Other Challenged Affirmative Defenses ................................................... 39
`1. Section 286 may limit damages ................................................................................. 39
`2. Section 288 limitation on damages............................................................................ 40
`3. Equitable estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands ......................................................... 40
`4. Motorola’s laches defense ......................................................................................... 40
`VI. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 40
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 45519
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 45519
`
`ii
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 48 PageID #: 45520
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Arendi S.à.r.l. v. Apple,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................4
`
`Cadence Pharma., Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC,
`C.A. No. 11-733-LPS, 2013 WL 11083853 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2013) .....................................30
`
`Cal Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`No. 16-3714-GW, 2019 WL 8192255 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2019) ......................................13, 26
`
`ClearLamp, LLC v. LKQ Corp.,
`No. 12 C 2533, 2016 WL 4734389 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2016) .................................................14
`
`CliniComp Int’l, Inc. v. Athenahealth, Inc.,
`No. A-18-CV-00425-LY, 2020 WL 7011768 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2020) ..............................12
`
`Eddy v. Virgin Islands Water and Power Auth.,
`256 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2001).......................................................................................................9
`
`In re Epstein,
`32 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................................................................................29, 32
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`C.A. No. 10-593-GMS, 2013 WL 5302560 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2013) .....................................34
`
`f’real Foods, LLC v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 16-41-CFC, 2019 WL 1558486 (D. Del. Apr. 10, 2019) ...........................................9
`
`Good Tech. Corp. v. Mobileiron, Inc.,
`2015 WL 4197554 (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2015) ....................................................................29, 30
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ...............................................................................................................23, 30
`
`HP v. MPHJ Tech. Inv., LLC,
`817 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................23
`
`INVISTA N. Am. S.àr.l. v. M&G USA Corp.,
`C.A. No. 11-1007-SLR-CJB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88633 (D. Del. June 25,
`2013) ..........................................................................................................................................9
`
`Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharm.,
`No. 17-07639, 2018 WL 1470594 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2018) ...................................................11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 6 of 48 PageID #: 45521
`
`Lab. Skin Care, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 06-601-JJF, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72853 (D. Del. Aug. 17, 2009) .........................9
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Mayes v. City of Hammond, Indiana,
`No. 2:03-CV-379-PRC, 2006 WL 2054377 (N.D. Ind. July 21, 2006) ...................................11
`
`Medline, Industries, Inc. v C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`No. 17C7216, 2020 WL 5512132 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 14, 2020) ...........................................21, 30
`
`Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Aptiv Servs. US LLC,
`C.A. No. 17-1194-JDW, 2020 WL 4335519 (D. Del. July 28, 2020) .....................8, 23, 25, 26
`
`Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc.,
`271 F. Supp. 3d 990 (E.D. Wis. 2017) .....................................................................8, 14, 25, 26
`
`Natale v. Camden Cty. Corr. Facility,
`318 F.3d 575 (3d Cir. 2003).......................................................................................................7
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................31
`
`Nextec Applications v. Brookwood Cos., Inc.,
`703 F.Supp.2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)........................................................................................32
`
`Open Text S.A. v. BOX, Inc.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16901 (N.D. Cal. Feb 11, 2015) .......................................................33
`
`Pavo Solutions LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`Case No. 8:14-cv-01352-JLS-KES, 2020 WL 1049911 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18,
`2020) ..........................................................................................................................................8
`
`Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................23
`
`Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Ubisoft Entertainment SA,
`C.A. No. 13-335-LPS-CJB, 2019 WL 410432 (D. Del. Feb. 1, 2019) ..............................24, 25
`
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods.,
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .......................................................................................................23, 24
`
`SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 954 (2017) ...............................................................................................7, 11, 33, 40
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 7 of 48 PageID #: 45522
`
`Scripps Clinic & Rsch. Found. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................31
`
`Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc.,
`817 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................23
`
`SPEX Techs. Inc v. Kingston Tech. Corp.,
`Case No. SACV 16-01790 JVS, 2020 WL 4342254 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2020) .....9, 13, 26, 27
`
`Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Dart Indus., Inc.,
`726 F.2d 724 (Fed. Cir. 1984)............................................................................................28, 29
`
`Wasica Finance GmbH v. Schrader Int’l., Inc.,
`432 F. Supp. 3d 448 (D. Del. 2020) ...............................................................................9, 12, 13
`
`Western Plastics, Inc. v. DuBose Strapping, Inc.,
`334 F. Supp. 3d 744 (E.D. N. Car. 2018) ..................................................................................9
`
`Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC,
`683 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................31
`
`Statutes & Rules
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 286...................................................................................................................................39, 40
`§ 288.........................................................................................................................................40
`§ 311(b) ................................................................................................................................8, 12
`§ 315(e) ......................................................................................................................................2
`§ 315(e)(1) ...............................................................................................................................23
`§ 315(e)(2) ...............................................................................................................8, 12, 21, 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
`R. 26 ...................................................................................................................................11, 28
`R. 26(a)(2) ................................................................................................................................28
`R. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................................7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings (Apr. 26, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/patents-
`application-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/trials/guidance-impact-sas-
`aia-trial .....................................................................................................................................24
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 8 of 48 PageID #: 45523
`
`Defendants Google LLC (“Google”) and Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”)
`
`respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff Arendi S.à.r.l.’s (“Arendi”) Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment (D.I. 281).1
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`Arendi alleges that Defendants infringe claims 1, 8, 23, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843
`
`(the “’843 Patent”). Fact discovery closed on December 13, 2019, and expert discovery closed on
`
`January 22, 2021. D.I. 174, 210. On March 5, 2021, Arendi filed this motion for partial summary
`
`judgment.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`After years of litigation and months after discovery closed, Arendi seeks to turn back the
`
`clock and, for the first time, challenge Defendants’ right to present their invalidity defenses as to
`
`the asserted ’843 Patent. Arendi’s time to raise this challenge has long since passed, and its
`
`arguments fail on the merits. Arendi has not carried its summary judgment burden to show that
`
`Defendants are estopped from relying on the challenged prior art, individually or in combination,
`
`or that, as a factual matter, certain prior art systems somehow “did not exist.”
`
`In June 2019, after the parties’ brief discussion of IPR estoppel as to five specific prior art
`
`references – Pandit, Miller, Luciw, and the LiveDoc and Drop Zones publications – Arendi stopped
`
`pressing any IPR estoppel issues in this case.2 For the next year-and-a-half of active litigation,
`
`through fact and expert discovery, Arendi never mentioned IPR estoppel, let alone asserted that
`
`any reference or invalidity ground was somehow barred by it. When Defendants pursued extensive
`
`discovery relating to specific prior art systems (e.g., CyberDesk, Apple Data Detectors, LiveDoc,
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all docket citations are to the Google matter.
`2 At no time during the parties’ 2019 discussions, or at any other time during the nine-year
`pendency of these cases prior to this motion, did Arendi ever suggest that any specific references
`advanced in Defendants’ invalidity contentions and expert reports other than Pandit, Miller, Luciw,
`the LiveDoc Publication, and the Drop Zones Publication were potentially subject to IPR estoppel.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 9 of 48 PageID #: 45524
`
`and Newton) – including developer depositions, document subpoenas, and product inspections –
`
`Arendi said nothing about IPR estoppel, let alone asserted that any references or invalidity grounds
`
`were somehow barred from consideration. When Defendants’ expert provided reports opining on
`
`the same references and grounds, Arendi again said nothing about IPR estoppel. And, in the months
`
`before, during, and after invalidity expert depositions and the expert discovery cut-off date, Arendi
`
`never raised IPR estoppel in any way.
`
`Now, after discovery has long-since closed and the parties have invested years developing
`
`invalidity issues for trial, Arendi ambushes Defendants with a motion for summary judgment
`
`asserting essentially that the bulk of their invalidity case is somehow barred by IPR estoppel.
`
`Arendi has waived these arguments. Arendi led Defendants to believe that IPR estoppel was not
`
`an issue in the case by dropping the IPR estoppel issues it raised in June 2019 and not raising any
`
`others, only to now try at the last possible moment (with no change in circumstances) to upend the
`
`fundamental bases on which the parties have been litigating the ’843 Patent’s validity, and to
`
`prevent a jury from weighing invalidity. This gamesmanship should not be allowed.
`
`Arendi’s IPR estoppel and prior-art-nonexistence arguments also plainly fail on their
`
`merits. As explained in detail by Defendants’ expert, Dr. Edward Fox, each asserted prior art
`
`system is independent and not cumulative of any publication or group of publications, and can be
`
`fully understood and explained only by piecing together multiple sources of proof (i.e., developer
`
`testimony, development documents, multiple publications, use of physical devices, and/or
`
`demonstration videos). And any invalidity ground that depends on or includes system art, like the
`
`grounds advanced by Defendants, could not have been presented in an IPR and, thus, is not subject
`
`to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). To the extent that Arendi disagrees and contends that
`
`the prior art systems somehow are cumulative of specific publications, or that the systems “did not
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 10 of 48 PageID #: 45525
`
`exist” at all, these arguments raise material factual disputes that cannot be resolved by summary
`
`judgment. Accordingly, Arendi’s improper motion should be denied.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Arendi filed patent infringement actions against Motorola on November 29, 2012, and
`
`against Google on May 22, 2013, asserting certain claims of the ’843 Patent and other patents.3
`
`On December 2, 2013, Google, Motorola, and Apple Inc. (“Apple”) petitioned for inter partes
`
`review of the ’843 Patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The petition raised
`
`four invalidity grounds based on printed prior art: (1) obviousness in view of articles by James R.
`
`Miller and Thomas Bonura entitled “From Documents to Objects: An Overview of LiveDoc” (the
`
`“LiveDoc Publication”) and “Drop Zones: An Extension to LiveDoc” (the “Drop Zones
`
`Publication”); (2) obviousness in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (“Miller”); (3) obviousness
`
`in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,644,735 (“Luciw”); and (4) obviousness in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,859,636 (“Pandit”). (Ex. 1.) On January 17, 2014, Defendants served their initial joint invalidity
`
`contentions in these litigations, in which they asserted various patents, publications, and systems
`
`as prior art. (Ex. 2.) Among the asserted prior art systems were CyberDesk, Apple Data Detectors,
`
`LiveDoc, Newton, Word 97, and Outlook 97. (Id. at 12-15.) Arendi made no complaint about
`
`Defendants’ invalidity contentions. On February 27, 2014, the Court stayed these cases pending
`
`the outcome of the IPRs. (See D.I. 35 (ordered on Feb. 27, 2014).)
`
`On June 11, 2014, the PTAB issued a decision instituting IPR of the asserted claims of the
`
`’843 Patent based solely on obviousness in view of Pandit, and denied institution of the three other
`
`petitioned-for invalidity grounds (obviousness in view of Miller alone, Luciw alone, or the
`
`LiveDoc and Drop Zones Publications). (Ex. 3.) On June 9, 2015, the PTAB issued a final written
`
`3 Following the Court’s decision that Arendi’s other asserted patents are invalid as directed toward
`unpatentable subject matter, D.I. 201, the ’843 Patent is the sole remaining patent in these cases,
`and Arendi currently asserts only claims 1, 8, 23, and 30 of the ’843 Patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 11 of 48 PageID #: 45526
`
`decision, finding the claims of the ’843 Patent unpatentable for obviousness over Pandit in light
`
`of common sense. (Id. at 10, 15.) Arendi appealed, and on August 10, 2016, the Federal Circuit
`
`reversed the PTAB’s decision, finding the PTAB’s reliance on common sense, by itself, to
`
`establish the obviousness of the ’843 Patent insufficiently supported. Arendi S.à.r.l. v. Apple, 832
`
`F.3d 1355, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Following resolution of the IPRs relating to other Arendi
`
`patents, these cases resumed in October 2018.
`
`On December 21, 2018, Arendi filed an amended complaint against Google, adding claims
`
`8 and 30 of the ’843 Patent to its infringement allegations. On March 27, 2019, Defendants served
`
`their amended joint invalidity contentions, which again asserted various prior art systems –
`
`including the CyberDesk, Apple Data Detectors, LiveDoc, Newton, Word 97, Outlook 97, Eudora,
`
`and Selection Recognition Agent systems – and cited extensive evidence establishing the existence
`
`and features of these systems. (Ex. 4 at 13-19.)
`
`On April 29, 2019, Arendi’s counsel sent an email to Defendants’ counsel, stating that
`
`“Defendants face certain estoppel issues arising from the IPR . . . but appear to have asserted prior
`
`art from the IPRs regardless,” and requesting that the parties “meet and confer . . . about
`
`Defendants’ invalidity contentions.” (Ex. 5.) The parties met and conferred on May 6, 2019. On
`
`May 29, 2019, Arendi’s counsel sent Defendants’ counsel an email summarizing its views on IPR
`
`estoppel – specifically, that IPR estoppel precluded Defendants from asserting the five patents and
`
`publications that Defendants had included in their IPR petition: “Pandit, Miller, Luciw, LiveDoc
`
`[Publication] and DropZones [Publication].” (Ex. 6.) Arendi’s counsel did not claim that any other
`
`asserted prior art was subject to IPR estoppel. (See id.)
`
`Defendants’ counsel responded by email on June 7, 2019, explaining that Defendants were
`
`“not presently asserting any invalidity grounds based solely on the Pandit Patent, the Miller Patent,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 12 of 48 PageID #: 45527
`
`the Luciw Patent, the LiveDoc Publication and/or the Drop Zones Publication . . . rather any
`
`invalidity grounds presently asserted by [Defendants] are based on references (or combinations of
`
`references) that reasonably could not have been raised in the IPR proceedings, including especially
`
`references and combinations that involve and require consideration of the features of prior art
`
`products, practices and/or systems.” (Ex. 7.) Because Defendants were relying on combinations
`
`including prior art systems, Defendants’ counsel advised that “there is no ‘issue of estoppel’ with
`
`regard to any of the grounds of invalidity presently asserted by [Defendants].” (Id.) The parties
`
`again briefly discussed the IPR estoppel issue by phone later that month, during which Defendants
`
`confirmed their reliance on the disclosed system art and again explained their view that IPR
`
`estoppel did not apply. (Decl. of R. Unikel, ¶ 9.) Arendi did not move to strike any portion of
`
`Defendants’ invalidity contentions or otherwise continue to press IPR estoppel. (Id., ¶ 10.) In fact,
`
`after the last telephone discussion in June 2019, Arendi did not mention or even allude to IPR
`
`estoppel again until it filed the present motion on March 5, 2021. Id.4
`
`In the year and a half following the parties June 2019 discussions, the parties engaged in
`
`extensive discovery related to the parties’ various positions – in particular, Defendants conducted
`
`substantial discovery regarding the prior art systems they had disclosed in their invalidity
`
`contentions. For example, Defendants served subpoenas on third parties Apple Inc. and the
`
`4 In late May 2019, before the parties began their substantive discussions about IPR estoppel,
`Arendi had proposed inserting a reference to those anticipated discussions into an Interim Status
`Report to the Court. To avoid inflating the status report with the host of issues that the parties were
`discussing at the time, Defendants’ counsel requested that Arendi remove this reference, and
`“[agreed] that the absence of the estoppel paragraph from the status report will not be used as the
`basis of any argument of waiver or prejudice.” (Ex. 17, May 29, 2019 Email from R. Unikel.)
`Arendi agreed to remove the reference and the parties then substantively discussed the IPR
`estoppel issue for the five identified prior art references, ultimately resulting in Arendi dropping
`that issue. Defendants are not relying on the absence of the estoppel paragraph from the May 2019
`Interim Status Report as a basis for its current waiver argument. Instead, Defendants rely on
`Arendi’s actions (and failures to act) following the parties’ discussion in June 2019.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 13 of 48 PageID #: 45528
`
`Georgia Institute of Technology for materials (including working physical samples) related to the
`
`Apple Data Detectors, Newton, Drop Zones, Eudora, and CyberDesk Systems. Defendants also
`
`deposed third-party witnesses responsible for developing those systems, including (1) Dr. Anind
`
`Dey (one of CyberDesk’s creators); (2)
`
`, and (3)
`
`
`
`. Though Arendi was
`
`aware of and actively participated in this discovery, it never raised any objection that the asserted
`
`prior art systems being explored were in any way precluded by IPR estoppel. (Decl. of R. Unikel,
`
`¶ 10.) Fact discovery closed on December 13, 2019.
`
`On August 7, 2020, Defendants served the report of their invalidity expert, Dr. Fox. (Ex.
`
`8.) This report, and its attached charts, detailed Dr. Fox’s invalidity opinions, including his theories
`
`based on eight prior art systems: CyberDesk, Apple Data Detectors, LiveDoc, Newton, Eudora,
`
`Word 97, Outlook 97, and Selection Recognition Agent. (See id.) Arendi registered no objection
`
`to Dr. Fox’s report and made no mention of IPR estoppel after reviewing Dr. Fox’s opinions. (Decl.
`
`of R. Unikel, ¶ 10.) On October 4, 2020, Arendi served the rebuttal expert report of its validity
`
`expert, Dr. Earl Sacerdoti, which disputed that the asserted claims of the ’843 Patent are invalid,
`
`but made no mention of IPR estoppel. (Ex. 9.) Defendants served Dr. Fox’s reply expert report on
`
`December 4, 2020, which further detailed his invalidity theories. (Ex. 10.) Once again, Arendi
`
`raised no objection of any kind to Dr. Fox’s reports during this time, and certainly raised no issue
`
`based on IPR estoppel. (Decl. of R. Unikel, ¶ 10.) On January 15, 2021, Arendi deposed Dr. Fox.
`
`During this deposition, Arendi did not raise IPR estoppel or suggest that any of the prior art systems
`
`that Dr. Fox analyzed and relied upon barred from consideration for any reason. (See generally,
`
`e.g., Ex. 11, Fox Dep. Tr.) Expert discovery closed on January 22, 2021.
`
`Arendi’s motion for partial summary judgment, filed on March 5, 2021, was the first time
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 14 of 48 PageID #: 45529
`
`since June 2019 that Arendi had mentioned IPR estoppel, and the first time ever that Arendi
`
`suggested that any prior art beyond Pandit, Miller, Luciw, the LiveDoc Publication, and the Drop
`
`Zones Publication (i.e., printed prior art) was somehow subject to IPR estoppel. This motion also
`
`included Arendi’s first assertion ever that certain prior art systems somehow “did not exist” and
`
`thus could not be relied on by Defendants. (See Arendi’s MSJ Opening Brief (“Mot.”), D.I. 282.)
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant 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. Pro. 56(a). “A factual dispute is material if it bears on an essential element of the plaintiff’s
`
`claim, and is genuine if a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party.” Natale v.
`
`Camden Cty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575, 580 (3d Cir. 2003). The moving party has the burden
`
`of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd.
`
`v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-86 (1986). The non-moving parties have all reasonable
`
`inferences drawn in their favor, and the Court “may not make credibility determinations or weigh
`
`the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A. IPR Estoppel Does Not Apply
`Arendi’s IPR estoppel defense to invalidity fails both procedurally and on the merits. At
`
`the outset, Arendi has waived IPR estoppel given its failure effectively to assert IPR estoppel
`
`against any asserted prior art, especially the prior art systems that it now challenges. Substantively,
`
`none of Defendants’ invalidity grounds meet the requirements for application of IPR estoppel.
`
`First, each of the challenged prior art systems – CyberDesk, Newton, Eudora, Microsoft Word 97,
`
`Microsoft Outlook 97, and Selection Recognition Agent – is not cumulative of its associated
`
`publications or patents, and could not have been presented during the ’843 Patent IPR. Defendants’
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 15 of 48 PageID #: 45530
`
`invalidity grounds based on these systems therefore could not have been raised during the ’843
`
`Patent IPR and are not subject to IPR estoppel. Second, IPR estoppel does not apply to grounds on
`
`which the PTAB declined to institute review – i.e., the Miller, Luciw, LiveDoc Publication, and
`
`Drop Zones Publication references. Third, all of the remaining challenged prior art patents and
`
`publications are presented only as part of obviousness combinations with systems that could not
`
`have been presented during the IPR, and therefore the combinations themselves are not estopped.
`
`Lastly, Arendi’s arguments, at most, raise genuine factual issues about the scope and content of
`
`the asserted prior art that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. See, e.g., Pavo Solutions LLC
`
`v. Kingston Tech. Co., Case No. 8:14-cv-01352-JLS-KES, 2020 WL 1049911, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Feb. 18, 2020) (“[M]uch of [patentee’s] IPR estoppel motion necessitates factually-intensive
`
`inquiries, and this Court declines to engage in those inquiries at this stage.”).
`
`1. Legal Standards Governing IPR Estoppel
`IPR estoppel precludes a former IPR petitioner from arguing in litigation that an asserted
`
`patent claim “is invalid on any ground that the [former petitioner] raised or reasonably could have
`
`raised during the IPR.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Prior art products and systems cannot be raised
`
`during IPR proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (limiting IPR grounds to “patents or printed
`
`publications”). Thus, any invalidity “ground” that includes a non-estopped prior art product or
`
`system could not have been raised during the IPR and is not subject to IPR estoppel. See Microchip
`
`Tech. Inc. v. Aptiv Servs. US LLC, C.A. No. 17-1194-JDW, 2020 WL 4335519, at *4 (D. Del. July
`
`28, 2020) (“nothing estops [a party] from raising invalidity arguments based on a combination of
`
`written and physical references”); Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. Snap-On Inc., 271 F. Supp. 3d
`
`990, 1030 (E.D. Wis. 2017) (“if some of the instituted references are now being combined with
`
`references that are physical specimens, not printed publications or patents—those combinations
`
`are not barred”). A limited exception may apply for a product or system that is “materially
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 361 Filed 04/15/21 Page 16 of 48 PageID #: 45531
`
`identical” to a prior art publication, so that the resulting invalidity ground could have been raised
`
`during the prior IPR via the identical publication. Wasica Finance GmbH v. Schrader Int’l., Inc.,
`
`432 F. Supp. 3d 448, 455 (D. Del. 2020). However, “the reliance on some printed publications in
`
`an overall collection of documents being used to describe a system invalidity theory should not
`
`lead to estoppel of the overall system invalidity theory itself.” SPEX Techs. Inc v. Kingston Tech.
`
`Corp., Case No. SACV 16-01790 JVS (AGRx), 2020 WL 4342254 (C.D. Cal. June