Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 43 PageID #: 8379
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`VB ASSETS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 19-1410-MN
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`PLAINTIFF VB ASSETS, LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`AMAZON’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INVALIDITY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`FILED MARCH 10, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 43 PageID #: 8380
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS .................................................................1
`
`PAGE
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Amazon’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under
`Section 101...............................................................................................................2
`
`Amazon’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement ...........................3
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Patents ................................................................................................4
`
`The Accused Products..............................................................................................6
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard .........................................................................................................9
`
`1. Summary Judgment ............................................................................................ 9
`
`2. Patent Eligibility ................................................................................................. 9
`
`3. Patent Infringement ........................................................................................... 10
`
`B.
`
`Amazon is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity.....................11
`
`1. Amazon Has Not Established that the ’681 Patent is Patent-Ineligible ............ 11
`
`2. Amazon Has Not Established that the ’703 Patent is Patent-Ineligible ............ 18
`
`3. Amazon Has Not Established that the ’097 Patent is Patent-Ineligible ............ 20
`
`C.
`
`Amazon is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
`of the ’681 Patent ...................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 43 PageID #: 8381
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`that
`an Utterance” Theory Does Not Show
`1. Amazon’s “Identify
`It Is Entitled to Summary Judgment .................................................................. 23
`
`2. Amazon’s “grammatically or syntactically adapting” theory does not show that it
`is entitled to summary judgment……………………………………………….27
`
`Amazon is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
` of the ’536 Patent ..................................................................................................28
`
`Amazon is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
`of the ’097 Patent ...................................................................................................30
`
`Amazon is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
` of the ’176 Patent ..................................................................................................33
`
`1. Amazon’s argument regarding mapping phonemes should be rejected ........... 33
`
`2. Amazon’s argument regarding “reinterpretation of a previous utterance”
`(claims 14 and 40) should also be rejected………………………………........34
`
`G.
`
`Amazon is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment of
`Non-Infringement of the ’703 Patent ................................................................... 35
`
`V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 43 PageID #: 8382
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`PAGE
`
`CASES
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................13
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ................................................................................................... passim
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .............................................................................................................9
`Automated Tracking Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`723 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................10
`Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., C.A. No. 11-1040-GMS,
`2014 WL 7206301 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2014).......................................................................11
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................10, 19
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................10, 22
`Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
`707 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................11
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................10
`EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc.,
`154 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D. Del. 2016) .....................................................................................11
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.,
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................8, 32
`Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co.,
`420 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................28
`Intell. Sci. & Tech., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`589 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................27
`Intell. Ventures I, LLC v. Canon Inc.,
`104 F. Supp. 3d 629 (D. Del. 2015) ...................................................................................11
`IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`307 F. Supp. 3d 356 (D. Del. 2018) ...................................................................................13
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 43 PageID #: 8383
`
`
`
`LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp.,
`837 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................7, 10
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .............................................................................................................10
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) .............................................................................................................9
`SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Tech., Ltd.,
`983 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..........................................................................................27
`Subh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 08-410-SLR-LPS,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108565 (D. Del. Nov. 19, 2009) ..................................................21
`SunTiger, Inc. v. Sci. Rsch. Funding Grp.,
`189 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1999)......................................................................................7, 32
`TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller Inc., No. 18-172 (MN),
`2020 WL 5016925 (D. Del. May 8, 2020) ...............................................................9, 27, 29
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)........................................................................................8, 32
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 43 PageID #: 8384
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`EXHIIBT NO. / D.I. NO. DESCRIPTION
`Ex. K
`7/23/20 Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2020-01346, Paper
`1 in Amazon.com v. VB Assets, LLC for U.S. Patent No.
`9,015,049
`7/28/20 Petition for Inter Partes Review in IPR2020-01367, Paper
`1 in Amazon.com v. VB Assets, LLC for U.S. Patent No.
`8,073,681
`Judgment, Final Written Decision in IPR2020-01367, Paper 27 re
`U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681 (“’681 FWD”)
`8/15/22 Opening Expert Report of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D.
`(“Polish Op.”)
`9/22/2022 SEALED Rebuttal Expert Report of Nathaniel Polish,
`Ph.D. (“Polish Reb.”)
`10/14/22 Reply Expert Report of Nathaniel Polish, Ph.D. (“Polish
`Rep.”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681 (“’681 patent”)
`VoiceBox-0000420 - VoiceBox-0000441
`U.S. Patent No. 9,269,097 (“’097 patent”)
`VoiceBox-0002399 – VoiceBox-0002418
`U.S. Patent No. 9,626,703 (“’703 patent”)
`VoiceBox-0002635 – VoiceBox-0002664
`SEALED Defendants’ Omnibus Opening Brief In Support of
`Motions for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and Non-
`Infringement (“OSJB”)
`Tom Freeman & Larry Baldwin, “Enhancing the VUE (Voice-
`User-Experience) Through Conversational Speech” (“VUE
`Paper”) SAE Tech. Paper Series,
`VoiceBox0006684-VoiceBox0006691
`11/23/11 VB Assets’ Supp. Resp. to Interrogatory No. 5
`H.P. Grice, “Logic and Conversation” (“Grice Paper”)
`AMZ_VB_PA_00012284 – AMZ_VB_PA_00012294
`12/8/22 Deposition Transcript of Nathaniel Polish (“Polish Tr.”)
`12/8/22 Deposition Transcript of Nathaniel Polish (“Polish Tr.”)
`12/16/22 Deposition Transcript of Nathaniel Polish Vol. 2
`(“Polish Tr. Vol. 2”)
`6/3/22 Deposition Transcript of Vinod Krishnan (“Krishnan Tr.”)
`11/3/22 Deposition Transcript of John Charles Peck, Jr. (“Peck
`Tr.”)
`5/19/22 Deposition Transcript of Rajiv Mehta (“Mehta Tr.”)
`5/27/22 Deposition Transcript of Bjorn Hoffmeister, Ph.D.
`(“Hoffmeister Tr.”)
`7/1/22 Deposition Transcript of Kelly Vanee (“Vanee Tr.”)
`v
`
`Ex. L
`
`Ex. M
`
`D.I. 190-1, Ex. 9
`
`D.I. 190-1, Ex. 10
`
`D.I. 190-1, Ex. 11
`
`D.I. 188-1, Ex. 1
`
`D.I. 188-1, Ex. 4
`
`D.I. 188-1, Ex. 5
`
`D.I. 186
`
`D.I. 191-1, Ex. 32
`
`Ex. N
`D.I. 191-1, Ex. 30
`
`D.I. 191-1, Ex. 15
`Ex.
`D.I. 191-1, Ex. 16
`
`D.I. 191-1, Ex. 20
`Ex. R
`
`Ex. Q
`D.I. 191-1, Ex. 18
`
`D.I. 191-1, Ex. 19
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 7 of 43 PageID #: 8385
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`VoiceBox brought this action to hold Amazon accountable for its infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,073,681 (the “’681 patent”), 9,626,703 (the “’703 patent”), 7,818,176 (the “’176
`
`patent”), 8,886,536 (the “’536 patent”), and 9,269,097 (the “’097 patent”), collectively, the
`
`currently “Asserted Patents.” D.I. 22 (“Amended Complaint”).1
`
`Amazon moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint (D.I. 25, the “Motion to Dismiss”),
`
`arguing that the “asserted patents claim ineligible subject matter and are invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101.” (D.I. 26 at 1). In denying the Motion to Dismiss, the Court found “that Defendants’
`
`conclusory assertions that claims are representative are not sufficient, particularly in light of
`
`Plaintiff’s response.” D.I. 57 at 6. The Court, therefore, only addressed the claims specifically
`
`raised in Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss, which were Claim 41 of the ’681 patent, Claim 30 of the
`
`’703 patent, Claim 27 of the ’176 patent, Claim 44 of the ’536 patent, and Claim 1 of the ’097
`
`patent. Id.
`
`In relevant part, the Court explained that it was denying Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss as
`
`to the ’681 patent under Step 1 of Alice: “Defendants argue[d] that claim 41 [of the ’681 patent] is
`
`directed to ‘the abstract idea of responding to a spoken request using shared information.’” D.I. 57
`
`at 10. In doing so, the Court affirmatively held that “[s]ome of the limitations are functional, but
`
`the claim is directed to making function better using short-term knowledge and long-term
`
`knowledge, improving the way speech recognition happens. That is not an abstract idea.” Id. at
`
`112.
`
`
`
`1 VoiceBox also asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,015,049 but subsequently dropped that patent.
`2 All emphases are added unless indicated otherwise.
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 8 of 43 PageID #: 8386
`
`
`
`Although the Court found that Claim 1 of the ’097 patent and Claim 30 of the ’703 patent
`
`recited abstract ideas, the Court “den[ied] Defendants’ motion as to all of the claims addressed,”
`
`finding that the existence of fact issues precluded dismissal under Alice Step 2. Id. at 16.
`
`Amazon also challenged each of VoiceBox’s then-asserted patents via inter partes review
`
`at the PTAB. Of the currently Asserted Patents, the PTAB instituted review of only the ’681 patent.
`
`Exs.3 K, L. The PTAB’s March 7, 2022 Final Written Decision (“’681 FWD”) regarding the ’681
`
`patent found no challenged claims unpatentable. Ex. M. Amazon did not appeal that decision.
`
`Amazon has now moved for summary judgment of non-infringement and has again
`
`challenged the validity of three of the Asserted Patents, the ’681 patent, the ’097 patent, and the
`
`’703 patent, seeking summary judgment that they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS
`A.
`
`Amazon’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 101
`
`1. ’681 patent – Amazon ignores the reasoning of the Court’s decision denying the Motion
`
`to Dismiss, which applies with even greater force here since the asserted claims of the ’681 patent
`
`are narrower than those which the Court found did not claim an abstract idea. D.I. 57 at 11.
`
`Therefore the Court need not proceed to analyze the ’681 patent under Step 2 of Alice. Even if the
`
`Court were to reach Step 2 of Alice, Amazon has not met its burden to show by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that the claims of the ’681 patent do not contain an inventive concept, or that
`
`there are no fact disputes concerning what was – or was not – well-understood, routine, or
`
`conventional in the art. Amazon is therefore not entitled to summary judgment.
`
`
`
`3 “Ex.” 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.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 9 of 43 PageID #: 8387
`
`
`
`2. ’097 and ’703 patents – Amazon has not met its burden to show by clear and convincing
`
`evidence that the asserted claims of the ’097 and ’703 patents lack any inventive concept, or that
`
`there are no fact disputes, including as to what was well-known, conventional, and routine in the
`
`art, that bear upon the Court’s analysis. Amazon is therefore not entitled to summary judgment
`
`that either the ’097 patent or the ’703 patent is unpatentable under Section 101.
`
`B.
`
`Amazon’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
`
`3. Amazon is not entitled to summary judgement of non-infringement of the ’681 patent.
`
`Its argument that Dr. Polish “does not identify a single utterance in Alexa that meets each
`
`requirement of the asserted claims” fails because Dr. Polish’s infringement report provided
`
`screenshots of example interactions with Alexa, Amazon’s documents, and testimony of Amazon’s
`
`corporate representatives showing that each asserted claim is met.
`
`4. Amazon’s interpretation of “grammatically or syntactically adapting” as it appears in the
`
`’681 patent is incorrect and improperly narrow, and the claims do not include a requirement that
`
`“generating a response” and “adapt[ation] must occur separately.”
`
`5. Amazon is not entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’536 patent on
`
`arguments including that Dr. Polish does not identify the required first and second utterances or
`
`explain how they are processed, or that
`
`
`
`. Dr. Polish identified features of Alexa that meet each
`
`limitation of the claims, and disagreements between experts on these points show the existence of
`
`a material dispute of fact.
`
`6. Amazon is not entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’097 patent on
`
`arguments including those based on Alexa’s interpretation of pronoun including “it.” Amazon
`
`cannot show the non-existence of a material dispute of fact given the testimony of Dr. Polish, and
`
`the tactical decision by Amazon not to produce source code for the
`3
`
`.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 10 of 43 PageID #: 8388
`
`
`
`7. Amazon is not entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’176 patent on
`
`arguments including that
`
`, that VoiceBox has not
`
`identified source code used to identify syllables, that Alexa’s
`
` or that Alexa’s
`
`
`
`
`
`. Amazon’s arguments ignore the opinions of VoiceBox’s experts, including as to
`
`Amazon’s source code and Alexa’s
`
`, which show that the limitations of each asserted
`
`claim are met.
`
`8. Amazon is not entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’703 patent on
`
`arguments including that
`
`
`
` Contrary to Amazon’s
`
`arguments, Dr. Polish does not concede these points, and the claims do not require Dr. Polish to
`
`identify a context, but rather requires only that Alexa identifies a context. Dr. Polish also opined
`
`that Alexa
`
`issue of fact.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`
`
` There is a disputed
`
`The ’681 patent is directed to a cooperative conversational model for a human-to-machine
`
`voice user interface. ’681 patent at 1:7-8. In general terms, the techniques of the ’681 patent allow
`
`a voice user interface to receive utterances with words that have different meanings in different
`
`contexts, accumulate shared knowledge, identify a context based on the shared knowledge,
`
`establish an intended meaning for the utterances within the context to disambiguate an intent that
`
`the user had in speaking a word with different meanings in different contexts, and generate
`
`responses that are grammatically or syntactically adapted. Polish Op. ¶ 35.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 11 of 43 PageID #: 8389
`
`
`
`The solution provided by the ’703 patent are systems and methods for implementing voice
`
`commerce by preparing and/or completing checkout of a product or service via a single utterance.
`
`’703 patent at 1:13-17; Polish Op. ¶ 40. The ’703 patent teaches techniques for providing voice
`
`commerce including: receiving a user input comprising a natural language utterance; obtaining
`
`words and phrases for the natural language utterance from a speech recognition engine;
`
`determining a context; identifying a product or service without further user input; identifying
`
`payment and shipping information; and completing or preparing a purchase transaction without
`
`further user input. The patent recognizes “the convenience of a purchase transaction being
`
`completed with reduced actions. …” ’703 patent at 2:35-36; Polish Op. ¶ 41.
`
`The ’176, ’536, and ’097 patents stem from a common original patent application (the
`
`application that led to the ’176 patent) and thus share a common specification and patent figures.
`
`The solutions provided by the ’176, ’536, and ’097 patents generally relate to using an automatic
`
`speech recognizer and a conversational language processor to provide voice ads to a user. Polish
`
`Op. ¶ 45.
`
`The Priority dates of the Asserted Patents are as follows:
`
`Patent
`8,073,681
`9,626,703
`7,818,176
`8,886,536
`9,269,097
`
`Earliest Effective Filing Date
`October 16, 2006
`September 16, 2014
`February 6, 2007
`February 6, 2007
`February 6, 2007
`
`
`See Ex. N (VB Assets’ 11/23/2011 Supp. Resp. to Rog No. 5) at 15. Amazon has not challenged
`
`the above-listed priority dates.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 12 of 43 PageID #: 8390
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Accused Products
`
`Alexa is a cloud-based voice service that receives utterances from users and uses an
`
`Op. ¶¶ 59-61.
`
`. Id. ¶¶ 64-73.
`
`¶¶ 74-78.
`
` Id. ¶¶ 69, 72-73, 76.
`
` Id. ¶¶ 79-80.
`
`
`
`. Polish
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id. ¶¶ 81-84, 95.
`
`
`
` Id. ¶¶ 114-130.
`
`Alexa can respond to so-called “one shot” user requests, where the user request contains
`
`all the information Alexa needs to take some action or respond. Id. ¶ 93.
`
` Id. ¶¶ 111-113.
`
` E.g., id. ¶ 172.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id. ¶¶ 101-104, 111-113.
`
`
`
` Polish Op. ¶¶ 132-135. When a user buys a
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 13 of 43 PageID #: 8391
`
`
`
`product using Alexa shopping it typically involves at least two turns because the user must first
`
`search for a product and then ask to buy it. Id. ¶¶ 132-133, 260. Alternatively, a user can add an
`
`item to a cart and checkout using Amazon’s mobile app or website. Id. ¶¶ 133, 347.
`
`In September 2011, early in the development of Alexa, Amazon met with VoiceBox’s
`
`predecessor company to evaluate VoiceBox’s technology. VoiceBox’s predecessor showed
`
`Amazon, its technology, which among other features, had integrated ASR and NLU, and presented
`
`a slide deck with a slide depicting the same basic architecture that Amazon subsequently adopted
`
`for Alexa. VoiceBox’s predecessor also discussed its patent portfolio with Amazon. Id. ¶ 58 (citing
`
`VoiceBox-0006986 at 40); Polish Reb. ¶¶ 672, 673 (citing AMZ_VB_100000991 at 993).
`
`The Amazon team that evaluated VoiceBox’s technology in 2011 were members of the
`
`same team developing Alexa, or
`
` as it was then known at Amazon, including
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48:18; 70:1-12; 73:2-8; 74:2-8; AMZ_VB_100000991; https://www.linkedin.com/in/jthimsen/;
`
`. Polish Reb. ¶ 672 (citing R. Thomas Tr. 45:11-46:6; 47:5-
`
`Polish Reb. ¶ 673 (citing AMZ_VB_100000991 at 993).
`
`In its Statement of Facts, Amazon repeatedly argues that Alexa works differently than the
`
`asserted patents. OSJB at 6-8. Amazon points to the specific way in which Alexa implements the
`
`patented technology and the use of other technology such as machine learning. But that does not
`
`avoid infringement. LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corp., 837 F.3d 1316, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (literal
`
`infringement “requires that each and every limitation set forth in a claim appear in an accused
`
`product.”); 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 14 of 43 PageID #: 8392
`
`
`
`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).
`
`In this case, VoiceBox’s technical expert, Dr. Nathaniel Polish, prepared a detailed expert
`
`report regarding infringement where he relied on various forms of evidence to show that Alexa
`
`meets the asserted claims. See generally Polish Op. He personally tested Alexa and relied on
`
`screenshots of Alexa app’s “Review Voice History” page, which show the text of user requests
`
`and how Alexa responded. Id. ¶ 141. Dr. Polish also reviewed Amazon’s internal development
`
`documents and the transcripts from depositions of Amazon’s corporate spokespeople on the
`
`technology. Id., Ex. B at 2-16. Furthermore, Dr. Polish relied on Mr. Peck’s analysis of the source
`
`code implementing Alexa. Id. ¶ 141. Mr. Peck spent more than 450 hours reviewing and analyzing
`
`Alexa source code. Peck Op. ¶ 30. While Mr. Peck did not analyze the asserted claims in his report,
`
`he did identify source code supporting Dr. Polish’s infringement opinions. The information that
`
`Dr. Polish considered allowed him to develop an understanding of the internal processing Alexa
`
`employs when responding to user requests.
`
`Amazon’s argument that Dr. Polish “does not understand how components he accuses of
`
`infringement actually operate, and admitted that his infringement theory does not consistently map
`
`all the elements of the claims” is not supported by the lengthy string cite Amazon included. OSJB
`
`at 8, n.6. As just one example, in the very first citation to Dr. Polish’s deposition that Amazon
`
`included, Dr. Polish explained “My interpretation of that claim is that that element is satisfied by
`
`elements of code that [Mr. Peck’s] finds and reports on in his report ….” D.I. 190-1, Ex. 15 (Polish
`
`Tr.) at 10:2-16; see also id. at 16:6-17:4, 15:5-8 (explaining how the Original Alexa ASR worked).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 15 of 43 PageID #: 8393
`
`
`
`Amazon’s argument is also belied by the hundreds of pages of detailed analysis in Dr. Polish’s and
`
`Mr. Peck’s reports.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`1.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`The Court may not grant summary judgment unless “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. P. 56(a); TRUSTID, Inc. v. Next Caller Inc., No. 18-172 (MN), 2020 WL 5016925, at
`
`*1 n.5 (D. Del. May 8, 2020). A factual dispute is genuine where “the evidence is such that a
`
`reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`
`477 U.S. 242, 258-59 (1986). The Court must “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`
`nonmoving party,” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000), and ask
`
`“whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.”
`
`Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
`
`2.
`
`Patent Eligibility
`
`The Supreme Court recognizes “abstract ideas” as an exception to Section 101’s broad
`
`patentability principles. To identify which claims are and are not abstract ideas, the Supreme Court
`
`has articulated a two-part test:
`
`First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
`ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before
`us?” To answer that question, we consider the elements of each claim both
`individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
`elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. We
`have described step two of this analysis as a search for an “inventive concept”—
`i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the
`patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
`concept] itself.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 16 of 43 PageID #: 8394
`
`
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (internal citations omitted).
`
`The Supreme Court has cautioned that “we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle
`
`lest it swallow all of patent law” because “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect,
`
`rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” Id. at 217 (citing Mayo
`
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)).
`
`If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, “the claims satisfy § 101 and
`
`[the Court] need not proceed to the second step.” Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs.,
`
`Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). If, however, the Court finds that the claims at issue are
`
`directed to an abstract concept, the Court must then, at step two, determine whether the patent
`
`recites an inventive concept that is something more than what is “well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional activit[ies]” previously known to the industry. Alice, 573 U.S. at 225; see also
`
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(an invention is patentable under Step Two of the Alice framework if “transform[s] the abstract
`
`idea . . . into a particular, practical application of that abstract idea.”).
`
`The Federal Circuit, addressing issues relating to Step 2 of Alice, has explained that
`
`“whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional
`
`to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact. Any fact, such as this one, that is
`
`pertinent to the invalidity conclusion must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Automated Tracking
`
`Sols., LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App’x 989, 994-95 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`3.
`
`Patent Infringement
`
`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). “To
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 17 of 43 PageID #: 8395
`
`
`
`prove infringement, the patentee must show that an accused product embodies all limitations ….”
`
`Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 707 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Infringement “is a
`
`question of fact.” Intell. Ventures I, LLC v. Canon Inc., 104 F. Supp. 3d 629, 637- 38 (D. Del.
`
`2015). “Expert testimony regarding whether an accused device falls within the scope of a court's
`
`claim construction is appropriate and raises a factual issue for the jury to resolve.” EMC Corp. v.
`
`Pure Storage, Inc., 154 F. Supp. 3d 81, 109 (D. Del. 2016). Similarly, when a court does not
`
`construe a term or orders that ordinary meaning applies, expert testimony on the understanding of
`
`a skilled artisan is appropriate to assist the jury. Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., C.A. No. 11-
`
`1040-GMS, 2014 WL 7206301, at *4 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2014).
`
`B.
`
`Amazon is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity
`1.
`
`Amazon Has Not Established that the ’681 Patent is Patent-Ineligible
`
`As discussed below, Amazon failed to establish that the ’681 patent recites an abstract idea
`
`(Alice Step One) or that the claims lack any inventive concept (Alice Step Two).
`
`a)
`
`Alice Step One: The ’681 Patent Does Not Claim an Abstract Idea.
`
`The claims of the ’681 patent do not recite an abstract idea, for reasons the Court has
`
`already considered in denying Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss, among others. As VoiceBox’s
`
`technical expert, Dr. Polish, explained in his Rebuttal Report (“Polish Reb.”), and will explain to
`
`the jury, “each of the asserted claims recites specific components that enable improved voice user
`
`interface systems.” Polish Reb. ¶ 795. Specifically, the claims of the ’681 patent disclose an
`
`Automatic Speech Recognizer (ASR) to generate a preliminary interpretation and provide that
`
`preliminary interpretation to a conversational speech engine for further processing. See generally
`
`’681 patent. The conversational speech engine then communicates with databases to generate an
`
`adaptive conversational response. Id. at 2:20-25, 2:31-38, 7:43-46, 8:9-14. The adaptive
`
`conversational response is then generated using various combinations of short-term and long-term
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01410-MN Document 208 Filed 03/10/23 Page 18 of 43 PageID #: 8396
`
`
`
`knowledge about the utterances, the user, and other salient information to determine a context for
`
`the request. As Dr. Polish explains, “[t]he invention allows a user to converse naturally with a
`
`voice user interface system instead of having to memorize specific commands spoken in response
`
`to a time-consuming series of menus.” Polish Reb. ¶ 794 (citing the ’681 patent at 2:49-54).
`
`As the Court discussed in denying the Motion to Dismiss, at Step 1 of Alice, “Defendants
`
`argue[d] that claim 41 [of the ’681 Patent] is directed to ‘the abstract idea of responding to a spoken
`
`request using shared information.’” D.I. 57 at 10. The Court