Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 163 PageID #: 3190
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 163 Page|D #: 3190
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`REDACTED IN ITS
`
`REDACTED IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`
`ENTIRETY
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 163 PageID #: 3191
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 163 Page|D #: 3191
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Assignment Search: 6701344
`Page 1 of 2
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 163 PageID #: 3192
`Case 1:15—Cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 Of 163 Page|D #: 3192
`
`0
`
`3 Results for 6701344
`
`Reel/Frame
`6
`
`Execution Date
`
`6
`
`Owner (Assignee)
`6
`
`Patent
`6
`
`35310-1
`
`Feb 27, 2015
`
`HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`6829634
`
`SECURITY INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`Assignor: ACCELERATION BAY INC.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`ADAM C. REHMIPOLSINELLI PC
`2501 N. HARWOOD
`
`First of 7 Assigned Properties
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`SUITE 1900
`
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`
`0
`
`35099-365
`
`Dec 10, 2014
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`6829634
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`Assignor: THE BOEING COMPANY
`
`http://assignmentuspto.goV/
`
`11/2/2015
`
`AB-AB 002185
`
`

`
`Assignment Search: 6701344
`Page 2 of 2
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 163 PageID #: 3193
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 4 of 163 Page|D #: 3193
`
`Correspondent:
`
`First of 7 Assigned Properties
`
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL
`LLP
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`
`0
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`11262-983
`
`Oct 26, 2000
`
`BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`6701344
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`Assignor: HOLT, FRED B. BOURASSA, VIRGIL E.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`MAURICE J. PIRIO
`
`PATENT-SEA
`P.O. BOX 1247
`
`Assigned Property
`
`Patent 6701344 (Mar 2, 2004)
`DISTRIBUTED GAME ENVIRONMENT
`
`0
`
`http://assignmentuspto.goV/
`
`11/2/2015
`
`AB-AB 002186
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 5 of 163 PageID #: 3194
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 5 of 163 Page|D #: 3194
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`

`
`Assignment Search: 6714966
`Page 1 of 2
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 6 of 163 PageID #: 3195
`Case 1:15—Cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 6 Of 163 Page|D #: 3195
`
`6
`
`3 Results for 6714966
`
`Reel/Frame
`6
`
`Execution Date
`
`6
`
`Owner (Assignee)
`6
`
`Patent
`6
`
`35310-1
`
`Feb 27, 2015
`
`HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`6829634
`
`SECURITY INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assigneez HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`ASSignOr: ACCELERATION BAY INC.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`ADAM C. REHMIPOLSINELLI PC
`2501 N. HARWOOD
`
`First of 7 Assigned Properties
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`SUITE 1900
`
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`
`6
`
`35099-365
`
`Dec 10, 2014
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`6829634
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assigneez ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`ASSignOr: THE BOEING COMPANY
`
`http://assignmentuspto.goV/
`
`11/2/2015
`
`AB-AB 002187
`
`

`
`Assignment Search: 6714966
`Page 2 of 2
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 7 of 163 PageID #: 3196
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 7 of 163 PageID #: 3196
`
`Correspondent:
`
`First of 7 Assigned Properties
`
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL
`LLP
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`
`0
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`11262-766
`
`Oct 26, 2000
`
`BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`6714966
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`Assignor: HOLT, FRED B. BOURASSA, VIRGIL E.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`MAURICE J. PIRIO
`
`PO BOX 1247
`
`SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
`
`Assigned Property
`
`Patent 6714966 (Mar 30, 2004)
`INFORMATION DELIVERY SERVICE
`
`0
`
`http://assignmentuspto.goV/
`
`11/2/2015
`
`AB-AB 002188
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 8 of 163 PageID #: 3197
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 8 of 163 Page|D #: 3197
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 9 of 163 PageID #: 3198
`11/2/2015 Case 1:15—cv—O0311—RGA Document l”8?“If1"e“F$‘I@EI‘=0§F2‘?>/16 Page 9 of 163 PageID #: 3198
`
`0
`
`3 Results for 6732147
`
`Ree|IFrame
`0
`
`Execution Date
`0
`
`Owner (Assignee)
`0
`
`Patent
`0
`
`35310-1
`
`Feb 27, 2015
`
`HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`6829634
`
`SECURITY INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`Assignor: ACCELERATION BAY INC.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`ADAM C. REHMIPOLSINELLI PC
`2501 N. HARWOOD
`
`SUITE 1900
`
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`
`First of7 Assigned Properties
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`0
`
`35099-365
`
`Dec 10, 2014
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`6829634
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`Assignor: THE BOEING COMPANY
`
`http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=6732147&sort=patAssignorEarIiestExDate%20desc%2C%20id%20desc&synonyms=faIse
`
`1/2
`
`AB-AB 002189
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 10 of 163 PageID #: 3199
`1“2’2°15Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 1G§'9mme'Ffi@tf*U33??15716 Page 10 of 163 PageID #: 3199
`Correspondent:
`Firstof7 Assigned Properties
`
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL
`LLP
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`
`0
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`11265-37
`
`Oct 26, 2000
`
`BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`6732147
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`Assignori HOLT, FRED B. BOURASSA, VIRGIL E.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`MAURICE J. PIRIO
`
`PATENT-SEA
`P.O. BOX 1247
`
`Assigned Property
`
`Patent 6732147 (May 4,2004)
`LEAVING A BROADCAST CHANNEL
`
`0
`
`http://assignm ent.uspto.gov/#/search?q=6732147&sort= patAssignorEarIiestExDate%20desc%2C%20id%20desc&synonyms=faIse
`
`2/2
`
`AB-AB 002190
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 11 of 163 PageID #: 3200
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 11 of 163 Page|D #: 3200
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 12 of 163 PageID #: 3201
`“’2’2°15Case 1:15—cv—00311—RGA Document 10*9'9mme'FFI@tfI033¥2‘S716 Page 12 of 163 PageID #: 3201
`
`0
`
`3 Results for 6920497
`
`Ree|IFrame
`0
`
`Execution Date
`0
`
`Owner (Assignee)
`0
`
`Patent
`0
`
`35310-1
`
`Feb 27, 2015
`
`HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`6829634
`
`SECURITY INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`Assignor: ACCELERATION BAY INC.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`ADAM C. REHMIPOLSINELLI PC
`2501 N. HARWOOD
`
`SUITE 1900
`
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`
`First of7 Assigned Properties
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`0
`
`35099-365
`
`Dec 10, 2014
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`6829634
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`Assignor: THE BOEING COMPANY
`
`http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=6920497&sort=patAssignorEarIiestExDate%20desc%2C%20id%20desc&synonyms=faIse
`
`1/2
`
`AB-AB 002195
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 13 of 163 PageID #: 3202
`1“2’2°15Case 1:15—cv—00311—RGA Document 10§'9mme'FFI@tf*I333¥2‘S716 Page 13 of 163 PageID #: 3202
`Correspondent:
`Firstof7 Assigned Properties
`
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL
`LLP
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`
`0
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`11252-783
`
`Oct 26, 2000
`
`BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`6920497
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`Assignori HOLT, FRED B. BOURASSA, VIRGIL E.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`MAURICE J. PIRIO
`
`PATENT-SEA
`P.O. BOX 1247
`
`Assigned Property
`
`Patent 6920497 (Jul 19, 2005)
`CONTACTING A BROADCAST CHANNEL
`
`0
`
`http://assignm ent.uspto.gov/#/search?q=6920497&sort= patAssignorEarIiestExDate%20desc%2C%20id%20desc&synonyms=faIse
`
`2/2
`
`AB-AB 002196
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 14 of 163 PageID #: 3203
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 14 of 163 Page|D #: 3203
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 15 of 163 PageID #: 3204
`‘“2’2°‘5Case 1:15—cv—00311—RGA Document 10*9'9E"e'FFI@tfI03372‘39/16 Page 15 of 163 PageID #: 3204
`
`0
`
`3 Results for 6910069
`
`Ree|IFrame
`0
`
`Execution Date
`0
`
`Owner (Assignee)
`0
`
`Patent
`0
`
`35310-1
`
`Feb 27, 2015
`
`HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`6829634
`
`SECURITY INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`Assignor: ACCELERATION BAY INC.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`ADAM C. REHMIPOLSINELLI PC
`2501 N. HARWOOD
`
`SUITE 1900
`
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`
`First of7 Assigned Properties
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`0
`
`35099-365
`
`Dec 10, 2014
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`6829634
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`Assignor: THE BOEING COMPANY
`
`http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=6910069&sort=patAssignorEarIiestExDate%20desc%2C%20id%20desc&synonyms=faIse
`
`1/2
`
`AB-AB 002193
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 16 of 163 PageID #: 3205
`1“2’2°15Case 1:15—cv—00311—RGA Document 10§'9mme'FFI@tf*I33372‘39/16 Page 16 of 163 PageID #: 3205
`Correspondent:
`Firstof7 Assigned Properties
`
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL
`LLP
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`
`0
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`11254-975
`
`Oct 26, 2000
`
`BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`6910069
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`Assignori HOLT, FRED B. BOURASSA, VIRGIL E.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`MAURICE J. PIRIO
`
`PATENT-SEA
`P.O. BOX 1247
`
`Assigned Property
`
`Patent 6910069 (Jun 21, 2005)
`JOINING A BROADCAST CHANNEL
`
`0
`
`http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?q=6910069&sort=patAssignorEarIiestExDate%20desc%2C%20id%20desc&synonyms=faIse
`
`2/2
`
`AB-AB 002194
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 17 of 163 PageID #: 3206
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 17 of 163 Page|D #: 3206
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 18 of 163 PageID #: 3207
`3/17/201€Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 19w“m‘e"F~‘1¢eeI‘=(§’3IP2*5<§32®34Page 18 of 163 PageID #: 3207
`
`3 Results for Patent: 6829634
`
`ReelIFrame
`
`Execution Date
`
`Owner (Assignee)
`
`Patent
`
`35310-1
`
`Feb 27, 2015
`
`HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`6829634
`
`SECURITY INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: HAMILTON CAPITAL XII LLC
`
`Assignori ACCELERATION BAY INC.
`
`Correspondent:
`
`ADAM C. REHMIPOLSINELLI PC
`2501 N. HARWOOD
`
`First of7 Assigned Properties
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`SUITE 1900
`
`DALLAS, TX 75201
`
`35099-365
`
`Dec 10, 2014
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`6829634
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: ACCELERATION BAY, LLC
`
`Assignorz THE BOEING COMPANY
`
`http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?adv= patN um %3A6829634&sort= patAssignorEarIiestExDate%20desc%2C%20id%20desc&synonyms=faIse
`
`1/2
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 19 of 163 PageID #: 3208
`3/17/201€Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 19w“m‘e"F~‘1¢efeI‘=(§’3tP2*5§32®34Page 19 of 163 Page|D #: 3208
`First of 7 Assigned Properties
`Correspondent:
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`1177 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`11264-987
`
`Oct 26, 2000
`
`BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`6829634
`
`ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS).
`
`Assignee: BOEING COMPANY, THE
`
`Assignor: HOLT, FRED B. BOURASSA, VIRGIL E.
`
`Correspondent:
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`MAURICE J. PIRIO
`
`PATENT-SEA
`
`P.O. BOX 1247
`
`Assigned Property
`
`Patent 6829634 (Dec 7, 2004)
`BROADCASTING NETWORK
`
`http://assignment.uspto.gov/#/search?adv= patN um %3A6829634&sort= patAssignorEar|iestExDate%20desc%2C%20id%20desc&synonyms=fa|se
`
`2/2
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 20 of 163 PageID #: 3209
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 20 of 163 Page|D #: 3209
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`EXHIBIT 8
`
`REDACTED IN ITS
`
`REDACTED IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`
`ENTIRETY
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 21 of 163 PageID #: 3210
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 21 of 163 Page|D #: 3210
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 22 of 163 PageID #: 3211
`
`
`
`
`
`EMC CORPORATION,
`EMC INTERNATIONAL COMPANY and
`EMC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
`INTERNATIONAL,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`C.A. No. 13-1985 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PURE STORAGE, INC.,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY BRIEF
`REGARDING EMC CORPORATION’S STANDING
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`rsmith@mnat.com
`jtigan@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs EMC Corporation,
`EMC International Company and EMC
`Information Systems International
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Josh A. Krevitt
`Paul E. Torchia
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`(212) 351-2490
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 23 of 163 PageID #: 3212
`
`
`
`
`Stuart M. Rosenberg
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`(650) 849-5389
`
`Chris R. Ottenweller
`Matthew H. Poppe
`Jesse Y. Cheng
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 614-7400
`
`Alyssa M. Caridis
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 629-2020
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`Columbia Center
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 339-8400
`
`Paul T. Dacier
`Krishnendu Gupta
`William R. Clark
`Thomas A. Brown
`EMC CORPORATION
`176 South Street
`Hopkinton, MA 01748
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 24 of 163 PageID #: 3213
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`EMC Corp.’s Title and Right to Sue Confer Standing ........................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Agreements Preserve EMC Corp.’s Legal Title and Right to Sue ...... 2
`
`EMC Corp.’s Right to Sue Is Not Illusory .................................................. 4
`
`The Reorganization Plan Cannot Rewrite the Agreements ........................ 7
`
`B.
`
`Other Rights, Beyond Title and the Right to Sue, Also Confer Standing .............. 8
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 25 of 163 PageID #: 3214
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Diamedix Corp.,
`47 F.3d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1995)....................................................................................................8
`
`Alfred E. Mann Found. for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp.,
`604 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................1, 2
`
`Astra USA, Inc. v. Bildman,
`455 Mass. 116 (2009) ................................................................................................................8
`
`Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc.,
`583 F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009), aff’d, 563 U.S. 776 (2011) .......................................................7
`
`Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Comm’n,
`655 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................8
`
`E8 Pharm. LLC v. Affymetrix, Inc.,
`680 F. Supp. 2d 292 (D. Mass. 2010) ........................................................................................5
`
`Mass. Insurers Insolvency Fund v. Premier Ins. Co. of Mass.,
`439 Mass. 318 (2003) ..............................................................................................................10
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Technology, Inc.,
`383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................6
`
`Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co.,
`222 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................8
`
`Propat Int’l Corp. v. Rpost, Inc.,
`473 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................5
`
`S. Union Co. v. Dep’t of Pub. Utilities,
`458 Mass. 812 (2011) ................................................................................................................7
`
`Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc.,
`211 F. 3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2000).....................................................................................2, 4, 6, 7
`
`Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia SPA,
`944 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991)....................................................................................................8
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 26 of 163 PageID #: 3215
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Document(s)
`
`Br.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief Regarding EMC Corporation’s Standing, filed
`February 16, 2016 (D.I. 390)
`
`DDH Assignment
`to EMC
`
`“Intellectual Property Assignment” between Data Domain Holding, Inc.
`and EMC Corporation, produced at Bates numbers EMC-PS0002742
`through EMC-PS0002744 (D.I. 391, Ex. H)
`
`DDH License to
`EIC
`
`“License and Assignment Agreement” between Data Domain Holding, Inc.
`and EMC International Company, produced at Bates numbers EMC-
`PS0005489 through EMC-PS0005501(D.I. 391, Ex. F)
`
`Opp.
`
`Pure Storage’s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief Regarding
`EMC Corporation’s Standing, filed February 19, 2016 (D.I. 403)
`
`Plan of
`Reorganization
`
`“Agreement and Plan of Reorganization,” Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 305,
`produced at Bates numbers EMC-PS0002674 through EMC-PS0002695
`(D.I. 391, Ex. L)
`
`Rosenberg Decl.
`
`Declaration of Stuart Rosenberg in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opening Brief
`Regarding EMC Corporation’s Standing, filed February 16, 2016 (D.I.
`391)
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 27 of 163 PageID #: 3216
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Two core facts are beyond dispute and dispositive. EMC Corporation (“EMC Corp.”)
`
`has title to the ’015 and ’464 “dedupe” patents, and it has the right to sue for infringement. That
`
`ends the inquiry. A patentee with legal title and the right to sue has standing in federal court.
`
`Alfred E. Mann Found. for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010). Even if more than title and the right to sue were required, EMC Corp. has additional
`
`
`
`
`
`substantial rights.
`
`Together, EMC’s rights easily satisfy the Federal Circuit’s threshold for standing.
`
`Because the law and the relevant contracts support Plaintiffs (“EMC”), Pure has no
`
`choice but to seek to rewrite the contracts through arcane legal arguments. For example, while
`
`Pure agrees that EMC Corp. has the right to sue, it invents a reading of the contracts under which
`
`
`
` According to Pure, this was accomplished in a way that, much to the
`
`surprise of the EMC parties, is revocable as a matter of agency law. The express language of the
`
`contracts belies these contentions. The Court should not adopt Pure ’s unnatural and fanciful
`
`reading of the agreements. Likewise, Pure argues that the economic “value” of the license to
`
`EIC deprives EMC Corp. of standing. But standing is a matter of legal rights, not the economic
`
`value of licenses, as even Pure’s own authorities show. EMC therefore respectfully asks the
`
`Court to hold that EMC Corp. has standing to sue for infringement of the dedupe patents.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`EMC Corp.’s Title and Right to Sue Confer Standing
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that a patent owner who maintains legal title and the right to
`
`sue has standing. Alfred E. Mann, 604 F.3d at 1363. Pure’s observation that the title holder in
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 28 of 163 PageID #: 3217
`
`
`
`Alfred E. Mann had a limited and secondary right to sue only proves EMC’s point: EMC Corp.’s
`
`much more significant right to sue, along with its title, demonstrates that EMC Corp. has
`
`standing. Indeed, the cases following Mann have held that a title holder’s right to sue can only
`
`be disregarded if it is “illusory.” See, e.g., Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F. 3d 1245, 1251
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000). Pure cannot demonstrate that EMC Corp.’s right to sue is illusory, and
`
`accordingly attempts to rewrite the two relevant agreements, both by ignoring their provisions
`
`and by invoking other irrelevant agreements. Once those unsupported efforts are rejected, there
`
`can be no dispute that EMC has standing.
`
`1.
`
`The Agreements Preserve EMC Corp.’s Legal Title and Right to Sue
`
`The two relevant agreements plainly evidence, on their face, EMC Corp.’s title and right
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to sue. In the first agreement, a
`
`In the second agreement,
`
`substantial than the “secondary right to sue” held sufficient to confer standing in Alfred E. Mann.
`
` A primary right to sue is a right even more
`
`Therefore EMC Corp. has standing.
`
`Because the plain language of these contracts resolves the issue, Pure has attempted to
`
`rewrite them. Pure does so, for example, in a prominent graphic in its brief, which omits critical
`
`details about the rights that were addressed in the agreements. EMC corrects that graphic below:
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 29 of 163 PageID #: 3218
`
`Pure’s graphic is inaccurate in numerous respects. First, the arrow labeled with the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`number 1 in Pure’s diagram
`
`
`
`Second, Pure’s diagram claims incorrectly that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 30 of 163 PageID #: 3219
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` EMC Corp. thus has the right to sue.
`
`Third, Pure claims incorrectly that
`
`But Pure misreads the contracts.
`
`Under a proper reading of the contracts,
`
`
`
`2.
`
`EMC Corp.’s Right to Sue Is Not Illusory
`
`Next, Pure argues that EMC Corp.’s right to sue is “illusory,” relying on the Federal
`
`Circuit’s decision in Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F. 3d 1245, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2000), and
`
`on inapposite court decisions about agency law and lost profits. But none of those decisions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`apply to the facts at hand,
`
` Pure first suggests that
`
`language (Opp. (D.I. 403) at 17-18) is conclusory and unavailing. Pure’s argument
`
`
`
`. Pure’s attempt to avoid this express
`
`, is also belied by the actual
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 31 of 163 PageID #: 3220
`
`
`
`relationship between these parties. DDH was the title-holding licensor, licensing rights to EIC,
`
`not the other way around. By contrast, in the cases Pure cites the purported agents were
`
`licensees, not title-holding licensors. Propat Int’l Corp. v. Rpost, Inc., 473 F.3d 1187, 1192
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007) (delegation of right to sue by patentee to third party); E8 Pharm. LLC v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Affymetrix, Inc., 680 F. Supp. 2d 292, 298 (D. Mass. 2010) (same).
`
`Further, Pure’s case law actually undermines Pure’s position.
`
` Pure cites E8
`
`Pharmaceuticals’s emphasis on a party’s “discretion to indulge infringement by not filing suit,”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`680 F. Supp. 2d at 298.
`
` Thus, under Pure’s case law, no agency relationship was created.
`
`Even accepting Pure’s theory that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Pure cites Poly-America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Technology, Inc., 383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004), for the proposition that alignment of a subsidiary’s interest does not prevent a parent’s
`
`right to sue from being illusory. But Poly-America does not address, and has no applicability to,
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 32 of 163 PageID #: 3221
`
`
`
`standing or whether the right to sue is “illusory.” Rather, Poly-America stands for the
`
`unremarkable proposition that a patent owner can seek damages only for its own lost profits, not
`
`those of a sister company. Id. at 1311. EMC Corp.’s request for lost profits does not run afoul
`
`of Poly-America, as EMC Corp. is seeking its own lost profits. And that is a separate question
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from standing in any event.
`
`Finally, Pure asserts that EMC Corp.’s right to sue is “illusory” because
`
` But Pure is wrong.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` and
`
`EMC Corp.’s right to sue is not “illusory.”
`
`Indeed, the only case that Pure can muster for its “illusory” argument—Speedplay—
`
`concerns an entirely different and distinguishable set of facts. There, in holding that the plaintiff
`
`(a licensee) did have standing, the Federal Circuit observed that the patent owner-licensor had
`
`retained a secondary right to sue “[i]n the event that [the licensee] fails to halt an infringement
`
`. . . within three (3) months.” Speedplay, Inc, 211 F. 3d at 1251. The court remarked that the
`
`owner-licensor’s secondary right to sue did not deprive the licensee of standing, because the
`
`licensee had unfettered discretion to sub-license any accused infringer, and thus could pull the
`
`rug out from under the licensor. Id. Here, there is no parallel to Speedplay.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 33 of 163 PageID #: 3222
`
`
`
`. Pure cites no authority holding that a patent owner-licensor lacks standing merely
`
`
`
`because it has granted a limited exclusive license,
`
`
`
`3.
`
` The Reorganization Plan Cannot Rewrite the Agreements
`
`Because Pure has no support for its position in the actual license agreements at issue,
`
`Pure takes a phrase out of context from Exhibit B to the “Plan of Reorganization” referring to
`
`“all substantial rights,” and argues that it creates ambiguity in the license agreements. But under
`
`Massachusetts law, ambiguity exists only if “reasonably intelligent persons would differ as to
`
`which meaning is the proper one.” S. Union Co. v. Dep’t of Pub. Utilities, 458 Mass. 812, 820
`
`(2011) (internal citations omitted). Here, the contracts leave no reasonable dispute that EMC
`
`Corp. has title and the right to sue, and therefore has standing, as explained above.
`
`
`
`Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 583 F.3d 832, 841 (Fed. Cir. 2009), aff’d, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)
`
`. See Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(explaining the difference between a present assignment and mere agreement to assign).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 34 of 163 PageID #: 3223
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Other Rights, Beyond Title and the Right to Sue, Also Confer Standing
`
`Finally, not only does EMC Corp. have legal title and a substantial right to sue,
`
`Co. v. California Table Grape Comm’n, 655 F.3d 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (retained right to
`
`license supports standing); Abbott Labs. v. Diamedix Corp., 47 F.3d 1128, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(retained right to practice supports standing).
`
`. See Delano Farms
`
`
`
`
`1 Pure also argues that
`
`This inference, which is inaccurate, is in any event irrelevant to standing. The
`“all substantial rights” analysis does not turn on the economic value of rights; rather, it concerns
`whether a patent owner has conveyed all substantial legal rights, as Pure’s own cited cases
`demonstrate. See, e.g., Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia SPA, 944 F.2d
`870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co., 222 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
`2000). Similarly, Pure’s speculation as to the tax consequences of the Data Domain acquisition
`are irrelevant, as they do not change the language chosen by the parties in the actual contract
`provisions and do not concern standing to assert a patent. See Prima Tek II, 222 F.3d at 1379
`(explaining that a holding “in the income tax context” has “no bearing” on standing).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 35 of 163 PageID #: 3224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pure contends that EMC Corp.’s rights should be ignored because “the patents have no
`
`value in other hypothetical fields of use.” Opp. (D.I. 403) at 2. But Pure is wrong, and this
`
`litigation itself evidences the flaw in Pure’s argument.2 At best, Pure’s argument suggests that
`
`the retained rights may have been difficult to value in advance, not that the rights had no value.
`
`Indeed, the economic “value” of licensed rights may change dramatically over time as new
`
`markets open up and new businesses are created that leverage the patented technology. And in
`
`any event, the economic “value” of the rights retained by EMC Corp. is legally irrelevant to
`
`standing. See supra note 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 36 of 163 PageID #: 3225
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, Pure points to the fact that
`
` Under the
`
`plain language of the agreements, EMC Corp. possesses the extensive right to practice and
`
`license the patents in suit in other businesses, which further reinforces EMC Corp.’s standing.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, the Court should rule as a matter of law that EMC Corp. has
`
`standing to assert the dedupe patents in this litigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 37 of 163 PageID #: 3226
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`rsmith@mnat.com
`jtigan@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs EMC Corporation,
`EMC International Company and EMC
`Information Systems International
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Josh A. Krevitt
`Paul E. Torchia
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`(212) 351-2490
`
`Stuart M. Rosenberg
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`(650) 849-5389
`
`Chris R. Ottenweller
`Matthew H. Poppe
`Jesse Y. Cheng
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 614-7400
`
`Alyssa M. Caridis
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 629-2020
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 38 of 163 PageID #: 3227
`
`
`
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`Columbia Center
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 339-8400
`
`Paul T. Dacier
`Krishnendu Gupta
`William R. Clark
`Thomas A. Brown
`EMC CORPORATION
`176 South Street
`Hopkinton, MA 01748
`
`
`February 23, 2016
`9878686
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 109-1 Filed 03/25/16 Page 39 of 163 PageID #: 3228
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 26, 2016, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
`
`filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of t