Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394 Filed 10/24/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 22518
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`)
`)
`
`Defendant and
`Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff and
`Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`C.A. No. 22-305-JLH-CJB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`REDACTED
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`ROBOCAST, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`NETFLIX, INC.’S CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCABILITY DUE TO INEQUITABLE
`CONDUCT
`
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Sara M. Metzler (#6509)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER LLP
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`metzler@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim
`Plaintiff Netflix, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Tara D. Elliott (#4483)
`Rachel Weiner Cohen
`Ashley M. Fry
`Diane E. Ghrist
`Alessandra M. Schaszberger
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`(202) 637-2200
`
`Kimberly Q. Li
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 880-4500
`
`Dated: September 26, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394 Filed 10/24/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 22519
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION #3: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`OF UNENFORCABILITY DUE TO INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 08/922,063 (the “’063 application”)
`
`3.1. U.S. Patent Nos. 7,155,451 (the “’451 patent), 8,606,819 (the “’819 patent”), and
`
`8,965,932 (the “’932 patent) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) all claim priority from U.S.
`
`provisional application No. 60/025,360 filed on September 3, 1996 (the “’360 provisional”) and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 08/922,063 (the “’063 application”) filed on September 2, 1997. Ex. 1 at Cover;
`
`Ex. 2 at Cover; Ex. 3 at Cover.
`
`3.2. The ’451 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ’063 application, and the ’819 and
`
`’932 patents are continuations of the ’451 patent. The Asserted Patents all incorporate the ’360
`
`provisional and ’063 application by reference. Ex. 1 at 1:8-12; Ex. 2 at 1:6-14; Ex. 3 at 1:6-13.
`
`B.
`
`The Torres Declaration And The Accompanying Hertzig Letter
`
`3.3. During prosecution of the ’063 application, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) examiner twice rejected the sole pending claim over the prior art combination of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 5,809,247 (“Richardson”) and 5,796,952 (“Davis”). Ex. 14 at 73, 87-90. Richardson’s
`
`priority date is July 22, 1996. Ex. 56 at Cover (showing a filing date of July 22, 1996).
`
`3.4.
`
` Following the examiner’s rejections, on November 11, 1999, the named inventor
`
`Mr. Damon C. Torres submitted a declaration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.131, aimed to antedate
`
`Richardson (the “Torres Declaration”). Ex. 14 at 103-104 (Torres Declaration); id. at 98
`
`(“Applicant herewith submits a Declaration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 131 to overcome
`
`Richardson reference and has amended claim 1 to further define the invention.”); Ex. 53 (Aug. 5,
`
`1999 email from Pozner to Torres with the subject line “damon must find antedating document re
`
`Patent by aug 14.”).
`
`3.5. Mr. Torres declared to the USPTO that he “conceived in the United States the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394 Filed 10/24/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 22520
`
`invention claimed in the above-identified patent application prior to July 22, 1996,” and attached
`
`as Exhibit A “a copy of a letter that was faxed to a software consultant, Jon Hertzig, prior to the
`
`July 22, 1996 date” “illustrat[ing] the conception of this invention.” Ex. 14 at 103; id. at 106 (the
`
`“Hertzig Letter”).
`
`3.6. The Torres Declaration stated as follows:
`
`Ex. 14 at 103 (annotated).
`
`3.7. The face of the Hertzig Letter indicated that it was sent “Via fax”:
`
`Ex. 14 at 106.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394 Filed 10/24/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 22521
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394_Filed 10/24/24 Page 4 of 8 PagelD #: 22521
`
`Cc.
`
`Mr. Torres’s Admissions During Robocast’s Prior Litigation Against
`Microsoft
`
`3.8.
`
`In 2010, Robocast sued Microsoft for patent infringement of the ’451 patent in
`
`Robocast Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1055-RGA,D.I. 1.
`
`On January 31, 2013, Microsoft deposed Mr. Torresin the priorlitigation. Ex. 17.
`
`
`
`3.10. The Hertzig Letter stated “Via fax” even though it was not faxed. Ex. 14 at 106.
`
`3.11. Likewise, the Torres Declaration inaccurately stated that the Hertzig Letter “was
`
`faxed to a software consultant, Jon Hertzig, prior to the July 22, 1996 date.” Ex. 14 at 103
`
`(“Attached [as] Exhibit A, is a copy ofaletter that was faxed to a software consultant, Jon Hertzig,
`
`prior to the July 22, 1996 date.”).
`
`3.12. Mr. Steven Rizzi, Robocast’s litigation counsel, was present at the deposition of
`
`Mr. TorresPe on January 31, 2013, and thus was
`aware atleastas ofthattine
`EEshowing Mr. Rizzi as appearing at the January 31, 2013 deposition of Mr.
`
`Torres).
`
`3.13. Mr. Joseph Sofer, Robocast’s prosecution counsel,Po
`ee
`ee
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394 Filed 10/24/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 22522
`
`3.14. When Mr. Torres testified on January 31, 2013, the applications that ultimately
`
`issued as the ’819 and ’932 patents were still pending. Ex. 2 at Cover; Ex. 3 at Cover.
`
`3.15.
`
`In 2013, at least Mr. Torres as the inventor and Mr. Sofer as prosecution counsel
`
`had a duty of candor to the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56.
`
`3.16.
`
`
`
`
`
`3.17. The file histories of the ’451, ’819, and ’932 patents do not show any record of any
`
`attempt to cure by Mr. Torres, Mr. Rizzi, Mr. Sofer, or anyone else, the inaccurate statements in
`
`the Torres Declaration or Exhibit A (the Hertzig Letter) to the Patent Office that Mr. Torres never
`
`actually faxed the Hertzig Letter to Mr. Hertzig.
`
`D.
`
`The Court’s Denial Of Robocast’s Motion to Strike Microsoft’s Inequitable
`Conduct Defense
`
`3.18.
`
`In the Microsoft litigation, Microsoft asserted an affirmative defense of inequitable
`
`conduct based, in part, on the false Torres Declaration. Robocast Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-
`
`1055-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2013), D.I. 169 (redacted version).
`
`3.19. Robocast moved to strike Microsoft’s inequitable conduct defense. Robocast Inc.
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1055-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2013), D.I. 226.
`
`3.20. On July 19, 2013, the Court held a hearing on Robocast’s motion to strike. At the
`
`hearing, the following exchange occurred:
`
`THE COURT: If Mr. Torres made up this letter in 1999, that
`screams intent to deceive, doesn’t it?
`
`MR. RIZZI: I agree with that, your Honor. I mean I agree they’ve
`pled sufficiently.
`
`* * *
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394 Filed 10/24/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 22523
`
`THE COURT: [I]f Mr. Torres fabricated this letter on March 24,
`1999, wouldn’t anybody agree that the single most reasonable
`inference he did it was for the intent to deceive?
`
`MR. RIZZI: Yes, your Honor.
`
`Robocast Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1055-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2013), D.I. 251 at 30:19-
`
`23; Id. at 31:8-12. Two days later, on July 15, 2013, the Court issued an order denying Robocast’s
`
`motion to strike. Robocast Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1055-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2013),
`
`D.I. 250.
`
`E.
`
`Robocast’s Responses To Netflix’s Interrogatories Regarding Enforceability
`of the Asserted Patents
`
`3.21. During fact discovery, Netflix served Interrogatory Nos. 11, 17, and 19 on
`
`Robocast, seeking (1) Robocast’s basis for its contention that the asserted claims for each Asserted
`
`Patent are enforceable (Interrogatory No. 11); (2) Robocast’s reasons for why the court filings
`
`related to the Torres Declaration were not submitted to the USPTO (Interrogatory No. 17); and (3)
`
`Robocast’s contention relating to the creation date and whereabouts of the Hertzig Letter that
`
`accompanied the Torres Declaration (Interrogatory No. 19). Ex. 31 at 182-184, 240-243, 254-257.
`
`3.22. Robocast did not provide in its responses any explanation from Mr. Torres as to
`
`why he made false statements to the USPTO, including that he had faxed the Hertzig Letter on
`
` 1996. Ex. 31 at 182-184, 240-243, 254-257.
`
`3.23.
`
`In response to Netflix Interrogatory No. 11, Robocast stated that it is “entitled to
`
`rely upon the legal presumption that all of the asserted patent claims are valid, and enforceable,”
`
`and (on the last day of fact discovery) incorporated its responses to Netflix Interrogatory Nos. 17
`
`and 19. Ex. 31 at 182-184.
`
`3.24.
`
`In response to Netflix Interrogatory No. 17, Robocast largely responded that the
`
`documents regarding the Torres Declaration were not material, stating “[b]ecause none of the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394 Filed 10/24/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 22524
`
`material identified by Netflix was material, there was no obligation by Robocast or Mr. Sofer to
`
`disclose it.” Ex. 31 at 240-243.
`
`3.25.
`
`In response to Netflix Interrogatory No. 19, Robocast cited to Mr. Torres’s
`
`Deposition transcript
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Tara D. Elliott (#4483)
`Rachel Weiner Cohen
`Ashley M. Fry
`Diane E. Ghrist
`Alessandra M. Schaszberger
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, NW
`Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004-1304
`(202) 637-2200
`
`Kimberly Q. Li
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 880-4500
`
`
`
`Dated: September 26, 2024
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Sara M. Metzler (#6509)
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`metzler@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim
`Plaintiff Netflix, Inc.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00305-JLH Document 394 Filed 10/24/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 22525
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 26, 2024, true and correct copies of the foregoing
`
`document were caused to be served on the following counsel of record as indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Marc N. Henschke
`HenschkeLaw, PLLC
`77 Spring Road
`Concord, MA 01742
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Steven Rizzi
`Mariel Talmage
`Grant Johnson
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`1301 6th Avenue, 32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Stephen B. Brauerman
`Ronald P. Golden III
`Bayard, P.A.
`600 North King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Casey L. Shomaker
`Samuel L. Moore
`Steven Udick
`Joseph Micheli
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Ramy E. Hanna
`McKool Smith, P.C.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 700
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`