Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 207 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 8371
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Case No.: 19-1410-MN
`
`
`
`)))))))))))
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF VB ASSETS, LLC’S RESPONSE TO AMAZON’S
`STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTIONS FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`
`Ian R. Liston (Bar No. 5507)
`Jennifer A. Ward (Bar No. 6476)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 304-7600
`iliston@wsgr.com
`jward@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff VB Assets, LLC
`
`Dated: March 3, 2023
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James C. Yoon, admitted pro hac vice
`Ryan Smith, admitted pro hac vice
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`
`Erik J. Carlson, admitted pro hac vice
`Jamie Y. Otto, admitted pro hac vice
`Ryan S. Benyamin, admitted pro hac vice
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`ecarlson@wsgr.com
`rbenyamin@wsgr.com
`jotto@wsgr.com
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`FILED MARCH 10, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 207 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 8372
`
`I.
`
`RESPONSE TO AMAZON’S STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING ITS
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish only testified that, based on his review of the ’703 patent, “the
`
`presumption is that the person of ordinary skill would understand you make the purchase
`
`transaction with all the information you have.” D.I. 190-1, Ex. 16 (Polish Tr. (Day 2)) at 370:9-
`
`21.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish only testified that he did not provide an opinion that the
`
`asserted patents have a solution to disambiguate between billions of possible products to figure
`
`out specifically what product a user refers to in his invalidity report. Polish Tr. (Day 2) at 331:6-
`
`20.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed to the extent that the MIT Galaxy System is being relied upon as a prior
`
`art to the ’097 patent, since Amazon has not submitted admissible or sufficient evidence of its prior
`
`art status.
`
`12.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish explains that the claims of the ’097 patent describe an
`
`enhancement to prior art voice systems by allowing a computer system to understand a pronoun in
`
`the context of preceding advertisement without finding that pronoun ambiguous; this means that
`
`the system understands when it is providing an advertisement as well as understand the products
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 207 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 8373
`
`and/or services to which the advertisement relates. D.I. 188-1, Ex. 4 (’097 patent) at 8:9-18; see
`
`id. at Claims 1, 4, 8, 15, 20, and 23; D.I. 190-1, Ex. 10 (Polish Reb.) at ¶¶ 827-830.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish only testified that the ’681 patent does not disclose steps or an
`
`algorithm describing the process of selecting the relevant pieces from the accumulated short-term
`
`and long-term knowledge to identify context. He did not testify that the ’681 patent does not
`
`provide “any detail” on selecting the relevant pieces from the accumulated short-term or long-term
`
`knowledge to identify context. D.I. 190-1, Ex. 16 (Polish Tr. (Day 2)) at 391:5-19, 379:14-380:4,
`
`382:4-20.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSE TO AMAZON’S STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING ITS
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Johnson’s opinions are based on data from a limited time period about
`
`the purported percentage of Alexa shopping users and shopping dialogs. D.I. 190-1, Ex. 11 (Polish
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 207 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 8374
`
`Rep.) ¶ 78.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed. In his expert report on infringement, Dr. Polish provided screenshots of
`
`examples of interactions for ’681 patent element 1.a. D.I. 190-1, Ex. 9 (Polish Op.) at 53-54. Dr.
`
`Polish also relied on Amazon’s confidential development documents, testimony of its corporate
`
`representatives, and the source code analysis of Mr. Peck to show that Alexa interprets every
`
`received utterance as having
`
` Id. ¶¶ 146-
`
`149 (citing, e.g., AMZ_VB_00044736 at 34). He relied on the same types of information to show
`
`that the remaining claim elements are satisfied. Polish Op. ¶¶ 151-182.
`
`16.
`
`Disputed. The ’681 patent requires “generating a response to the utterance, wherein
`
`the conversational speech engine grammatically or syntactically adapts the response based on the
`
`intended meaning established within the identified context” (Claim 1); “generate a response to the
`
`utterance, wherein the conversational speech engine grammatically or syntactically adapts the
`
`response based on the intended meaning established within the identified context” (Claim 13);
`
`“generate a grammatically or syntactically adapted response to the utterance based on the intended
`
`meaning established within the identified context” (Claim 25). D.I. 188-1, Ex. 1 (’681 patent).
`
`17.
`
`Disputed. Other Alexa components or functionality may also be involved in
`
`generating responses to utterances. Polish Op. ¶¶ 111-113, 180-182, 444.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed. The claims recite “determin[ing] whether the pronoun refers to one or
`
`more of the product or service or a provider of the product or service.” ’097 patent at Claims 1 and
`
`23.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 207 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 8375
`
`20.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish opined that Alexa “determines whether the pronoun refers to
`
`one or more of the product or service or a provider of the product or service.” Polish Op. ¶¶ 139,
`
`700-715; Polish Rep. ¶¶ 64, 83, 94, 97-101; Ex.1 T (AMZ_VB_00085657) at 657; D.I. 190-1, Ex.
`
`15 (Polish Tr.) at 186:3-4; 187:11-14; 187:24-25; 155:22-156:11, 156:23-158:21; D.I. 190-1, Ex.
`
`12 (Peck Op.) ¶¶ 98-136; Ex. S (Peck Rep.) ¶ 68.
`
`21.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish opined that Alexa “determines whether the pronoun refers to
`
`one or more of the product or service or a provider of the product or service.” Polish Op. ¶¶ 139,
`
`700-715; Polish Rep. ¶¶ 64, 83, 94, 97-101; Ex. T (AMZ_VB_00085657) at -85657; Polish Tr. at
`
`186:3-4; 187:11-14; 187:24-25; 155:22-156:11, 156:23-158:21; Peck Op. ¶¶ 98-136; Peck Rep. ¶
`
`68.
`
`22.
`
`Disputed. Claims 1 and 27 of the ’176 patent require “mapping[/map] a stream of
`
`phonemes contained in the natural language utterance to one or more syllables that are
`
`phonemically represented in an acoustic grammar.” D.I. 188-1, Ex. 3 (’176 patent). The Court
`
`construed “acoustic grammar” to mean “grammar of phonotactic rules of the English language that
`
`maps phonemes to syllables.” D.I. 90 at 1-2.
`
`23.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish opined that Alexa “map[s] a stream of phonemes contained in
`
`the natural language utterance to one or more syllables that are phonemically represented in an
`
`acoustic grammar.” Polish Op. ¶¶ 62-78, 423-431; Polish Rep. ¶¶ 55-56; D.I. 190-1, Polish Tr. at
`
`9:12-10:13, 11:15-12:14; D.I. 190-1, Ex. 17 (Peck Tr.) at 41:18-42:1, 42:16-43:9; 45:9-25, 47:19-
`
`48:2; 79:14-80:8.
`
`24.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish opined that the
`
` “map[s] a stream of
`
`1 “Ex.”, when not used in connection with a D.I. number, shall mean exhibits to the Declaration
`of Ian R. Liston submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Responses to Amazon’s Motion for Summary
`Judgment of Invalidity and Non-Infringement, and Motion to Exclude Unreliable Testimony of
`Damages Expert Brett Reed.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 207 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 8376
`
`phonemes contained in the natural language utterance to one or more syllables that are
`
`phonemically represented in an acoustic grammar.” Polish Op. ¶¶ 423-424, 429-431; Polish Rep.
`
`¶¶ 55-56; Polish Tr. at 9:12-10:13, 11:15-12:14; Peck Tr. at 41:18-42:1, 42:16-43:9; 45:9-25,
`
`47:19-48:2; 79:14-80:8.
`
`25.
`
`Disputed. Claim 14 of the ’176 patent requires “determining that the conversational
`
`language processor incorrectly interpreted the words or phrases in response to an adaptive
`
`misrecognition engine detecting a predetermined event, wherein the conversational language
`
`processor reinterprets the words or phrases in response to the predetermined event.” ’176 patent.
`
`Claim 40 requires “an adaptive misrecognition engine configured to determine that the
`
`conversational language incorrectly interpreted the words or phrases in response to detecting a
`
`predetermined event, wherein the conversational language processor reinterprets the words or
`
`phrases in response to the predetermined event.” ’176 patent.
`
`26.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish opined that
`
`Polish also opined that
`
`
`
`
`
` Polish Op. ¶ 461. Dr.
`
`
`
`
`
` Polish Op. ¶ 461(citing D.I. 191-1, Ex. 19
`
`(Vanee Tr.) at 109:25-110:16; AMZ_VB_00044736 at 34).
`
`27.
`
`Disputed. Claim 15 requires: “receive a user input comprising a natural language
`
`utterance”; “determine a context based at least on the one or more words or phrases”; “identify,
`
`without further user input after the receipt of the user input, a product or service to be purchased
`
`on behalf of a user based at least on the determined context”; among other limitations. D.I. 188-1,
`
`Ex. 5 (’703 patent). Claim 25 requires: “receive a user input comprising a natural language
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 207 Filed 03/10/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 8377
`
`utterance”; “determine, without further user input after the receipt of the user input, a context based
`
`at least on the one or more words or phrases”; “identify, without further user input after the receipt
`
`of the user input, the product or service to be purchased on behalf of the user based at least on the
`
`determined context” among other limitations. ’703 patent. Claim 30 requires: “receive a user input
`
`comprising a natural language utterance”; “identify, without further user input after the receipt of
`
`the user input, a context based at least on the one or more words or phrases”; “determine, without
`
`further user input identifying a product or service after the receipt of the user input, a first product
`
`or service to be purchased on behalf of a user based at least on the determined context”; among
`
`other limitations. ’703 patent. Claim 33 requires: “receiving, by the computer system, a user input
`
`comprising a natural language utterance”; “determining, by the computer system, a context based
`
`at least on the one or more words or phrases”; “identifying, by the computer system, without further
`
`user input after the receipt of the user input, a product or service to be purchased on behalf of a
`
`user based at least on the determined context”; among other limitations. ’703 patent.
`
`28.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Polish identifies different utterances for different claims. Polish Op.
`
`¶¶ 259-260, 326-327, 361-362, 383-384. Dr. Polish also opined that Alexa meets the limitations
`
`related to determining or identifying context. Polish Op. ¶¶ 265-268, 333-335; 368-369, 390-391.
`
`29.
`
`Disputed. Literal infringement “requires that each and every limitation set forth in
`
`a claim appear in an accused product. LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp., 837 F.3d 1316, 1325 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016); SunTiger, Inc. v. Sci. Rsch. Funding Grp., 189 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“It is
`
`fundamental that one cannot avoid infringement merely by adding elements if each element recited
`
`in the claims is found in the accused device.”); Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423
`
`F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 811
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999). Dr. Polish opined that Alexa meets the limitations related to identifying a product.
`
`Polish Op. ¶¶ 269-274, 336-340, 370-371, 392-393.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 207 Filed 03/10/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8378
`
`Dated: March 3, 2023
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`
`James C. Yoon, admitted pro hac vice
`Ryan Smith, admitted pro hac vice
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`
`/s/ Ian R. Liston
`Ian R. Liston (Bar No. 5507)
`Jennifer A. Ward (Bar No. 6476)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 304-7600
`iliston@wsgr.com
`jward@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff VB Assets, LLC
`
`Erik J. Carlson, admitted pro hac vice
`Jamie Y. Otto, admitted pro hac vice
`Ryan S. Benyamin, admitted pro hac vice
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`ecarlson@wsgr.com
`rbenyamin@wsgr.com
`jotto@wsgr.com
`
`-7-
`
`