Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 1 of 45 PageID #: 17068
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC, a
`Delaware Limited Liability Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-904-RGA-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY, LLC’S
`OPENING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT BRIEF
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Acceleration Bay, LLC
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James Hannah
`Kristopher Kastens
`Michael Lee
`Christina M. Finn
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`Marcus A. Colucci
`Cristina Martinez
`Pooja P. Parekh
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 715-9100
`
`Date: May 31, 2024
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Public version dated: June 7, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 2 of 45 PageID #: 17069
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE CASE ........................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`AWS’ Transit Gateway is M-Regular and Incomplete ........................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview: Transit Gateway is Critical to AWS’ Ability to Provide
`Scalable Computer Services ....................................................................... 3
`
`Transit Gateway is M-Regular and Incomplete .......................................... 6
`
`(a)
`
` is Configured to Be M-Regular and
`Incomplete....................................................................................... 7
`
`(b)
`
`Health Layer is Configured to Be M-Regular and Incomplete ....... 9
`
`(c) Multicast is Configured to Be M-Regular and Incomplete ........... 10
`
`3.
`
`AWS Has Not Established any Genuine Factual Disputes ....................... 10
`
`B.
`
`Mr. Greene’s Deficient Invalidity Opinions Should Be Excluded and
`Summary Judgment of Validity Should Be Granted ............................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary Judgment of No Anticipation is Warranted Because Mr.
`Greene Does Not Offer Any Specific Anticipation Opinion .................... 13
`
`Mr. Greene’s Unsupported Reliance on Inherency for Every Claim
`Element Should Be Excluded as Unreliable ............................................. 15
`
`Summary Judgment of No Obviousness and Exclusion of Mr.
`Greene’s Obviousness Opinions is Warranted Because He Relies on
`Improper Hindsight ................................................................................... 17
`
`C.
`
`The Opinions of AWS’ Experts on Non-Infringing Alternatives Should Be
`Excluded and Summary Judgment Should Be Granted That There are No
`Non-Infringing Alternatives .................................................................................. 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ms. Sultanik’s Opinions on Non-Infringing Alternatives are
`Unsupported and Unreliable ..................................................................... 22
`
`Ms. Kindler’s NIA Opinion Depends on Ms. Sultanik’s Deficient
`Opinion and Lacks Any Independent Analysis ........................................ 26
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 3 of 45 PageID #: 17070
`
`D.
`
`Ms. Kindler’s Unreliable Damages Opinions Should Be Excluded ..................... 28
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ms. Kindler’s Damages Opinions Are Arbitrary and Untethered to
`the Facts of the Case ................................................................................. 28
`
`Ms. Kindler’s Damages Opinions Fail to Assume Infringement .............. 35
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 4 of 45 PageID #: 17071
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................18, 21
`
`Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`No. 6:17-cv-01685-MK, 2020 WL 5518184 (D. Or. Sept. 14, 2020), aff’d in
`part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 55 F.4th 900 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .......................................21
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. SciMed Life Sys.,
`101 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .............................................................................19, 21
`
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................19
`
`Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc.,
`No. 05-229S, 2008 WL 717741 (D.R.I. Mar. 17, 2008) ..........................................................26
`
`Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
`771 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................23
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .......................................................................................................1, 26, 28
`
`Elder v. Tanner,
`205 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Tex. 2001).............................................................................................15
`
`Endo Pharms. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc.,
`894 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................16
`
`Extang Corp. v. Truck Accessories Grp., LLC,
`No. CV 19-923 (KAJ), 2022 WL 610451 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) .........................................13
`
`Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05831-EMC, 2015 WL 6513655 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2015) ....................................3
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner,
`118 S. Ct. 512 (1997) ...............................................................................................................16
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-02885-LHK, 2014 WL 1494247 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2014) ............................25, 30
`
`Grain-Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prod. Co.,
`185 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 5 of 45 PageID #: 17072
`
`Hitkansut LLC v. United States,
`130 Fed. Cl. 353 (2017), aff’d, 721 F. App’x 992 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................19
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Lab’ys,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................21
`
`Integra Lifesciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.,
`No. CV 15-819-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 1785033 (D. Del. Apr. 4, 2018)....................................16
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................20
`
`Izumi Prods. Co. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V.,
`140 F. App’x 236 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................................................12
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.,
`15 F. Supp. 3d 499 (D. Del. 2014) .............................................................................................3
`
`Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................14, 22
`
`Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
`526 U.S. 137 (1999) .................................................................................................................26
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Comput., Inc.,
`No. 2:06-CV-348, 2011 WL 197869 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2011) .............................................23
`
`Lucent Techs. Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................35
`
`Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................28
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.,
`131 S.Ct. 2238 (2011) ..............................................................................................................13
`
`NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-01503-JHC, 2023 WL 3933877 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2023),
`reconsideration denied, No. 2:20-cv-01503-JHC, 2023 WL 4052338 (W.D.
`Wash. June 16, 2023) ...............................................................................................................27
`
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2015 WL 349197 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) ...................................30, 35
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 6 of 45 PageID #: 17073
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`875 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................23
`
`Princeton Biochems., Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.,
`411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................19
`
`Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.,
`725 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................15
`
`In re Robertson,
`169 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................16
`
`Schumer v. Lab’y Comput. Sys., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................14
`
`Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft,
`305 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................12
`
`Smart Skins LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. C15-544-MJP, 2016 WL 4148091 (W.D. Wash. July 1, 2016) ........................................23
`
`Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`709 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................2
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.,
`No. CV 13-1835-RGA, 2021 WL 2649739 (D. Del. June 28, 2021) ......................................12
`
`TQ Delta LLC v. Adtran, Inc.,
`No. CV 14-954-RGA, 2021 WL 1200595 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2021) ........................................12
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .............................................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .......................................................................................................................1, 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 7 of 45 PageID #: 17074
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE CASE
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration Bay”) filed suit against Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`
`(“AWS”) on July 6, 2022. D.I. 1. Acceleration Bay asserts that AWS infringes U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,701,344 (the “’344 Patent”), 6,714,966 (the “’966 Patent”), 6,732,147 (the “’147 Patent”),
`
`6,829,634 (the “’634 Patent”), and 6,910,069 (the “’069 Patent”) (together, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”).
`
`The Court held a claim construction hearing on October 4, 2023 and issued its claim
`
`construction order on October 25, 2023. D.I. 77, 81. Fact and expert discovery respectively closed
`
`on February 9, 2024 and May 28, 2024. D.I. 109, 129. Trial is set for September 23, 2024. D.I.
`
`14.
`
`Acceleration Bay now moves for partial summary judgment on specific infringement,
`
`validity, and damages issues and to exclude proposed opinions of AWS’ validity and damages
`
`experts under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993) and Rule 702 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Evidence. The parties conferred on Acceleration Bay’s motions to exclude
`
`and are at an impasse.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Various issues relating to infringement and validity should be resolved on summary
`
`judgment. The undisputed facts, as confirmed by the admissions of AWS’ engineers and non-
`
`infringement expert and its technical documents, establish that there is no genuine dispute that its
`
`accused Transit Gateway product satisfies the m-regular and incomplete claim limitations of the
`
`asserted claims. Partial summary judgment as to these limitations would streamline and focus the
`
`remaining dispute over infringement.
`
`Summary judgment of validity is also warranted given AWS’ failures as to the basic
`
`requirements for an invalidity defense. AWS’ invalidity expert offers no opinions based on
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 8 of 45 PageID #: 17075
`
`anticipation. With respect to obviousness, he utilized a hindsight-based methodology, prohibited
`
`by Federal Circuit precedent and failed to provide a legally sufficient motivation to combine the
`
`eight prior art references he cites. Thus, AWS has failed to come forward with a triable issue of
`
`fact as to the invalidity of any asserted claim. At a minimum, the fundamentally flawed opinions
`
`of AWS’ invalidity expert should be excluded as unreliable and based on a flawed methodology
`
`that is untethered to the legal requirements for validity.
`
`Acceleration Bay also moves to exclude as unsupported, unreliable, and unhelpful the non-
`
`infringing alternative opinions of AWS’ non-infringement expert, Ms. Nadya Sultanik, and the
`
`non-infringing alternative and damages opinions of AWS’ economic expert, Ms. Lauren Kindler.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`AWS’ Transit Gateway is M-Regular and Incomplete
`
`Partial summary judgment of infringement is warranted. While various claim limitations
`
`are disputed and will be resolved by the jury, with respect to AWS’ Transit Gateway product,
`
`“there is no genuine dispute” that it satisfies the m-regular and incomplete claim limitations. Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 56(a). Partial summary judgment is appropriate where, as is the case here, there is no
`
`genuine dispute that specific claim limitations are satisfied. Rule 56(a) provides that “summary
`
`judgment may be requested not only as to an entire case but also as to a . . . part of a claim or
`
`defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s note at 2010 amendment. The Federal Circuit
`
`has expressly affirmed the practice of granting partial summary judgment as to a specific
`
`limitation. Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]his
`
`court affirms the grant of partial summary judgment of infringement on this limitation.”).
`
`As set forth below, Acceleration Bay “demonstrat[es] the absence of a genuine issue of
`
`material fact,” relying on AWS’ source code and technical documents to prove that Transit
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 9 of 45 PageID #: 17076
`
`Gateway meets these elements. Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 15 F. Supp.
`
`3d 499, 506 (D. Del. 2014) (citations omitted).
`
`“To defeat a motion for summary judgment, [AWS as] the non-moving party must do more
`
`than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Id. (internal
`
`quotations and citations omitted). AWS must “come forward with specific facts showing that there
`
`is a genuine issue for trial” to defeat summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
`
`Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87, 585 n.10 (1986) (internal quotations, citations and emphasis
`
`omitted); Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 13-cv-05831-EMC, 2015 WL 6513655, at *2-3 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Oct. 28, 2015) (granting partial summary judgment of infringement). AWS failed to come
`
`forward with any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to these limitations. AWS’
`
`non-infringement expert, Ms. Sultanik, offers opinions that are irrelevant and contrary to the
`
`established evidence in the case regarding Transit Gateway’s operation. Thus, summary judgment
`
`as to these limitations is appropriate.
`
`1.
`
`Overview: Transit Gateway is Critical to AWS’ Ability to Provide
`Scalable Computer Services
`
`AWS offers a variety of products providing on-demand cloud computing services. AWS
`
`provides these services using a network of server farms located throughout the United States and
`
`around the world. AWS offers customers the flexibility to scale the amount of computer resources
`
`they use on an as-needed basis and frees customers from the need to manage their own hardware
`
`resources.
`
`AWS’ systems are based on the concept of “Virtual Private Clouds” (“VPCs”). Ex. 11,
`
`Medvidović Rpt. ¶¶ 98-100. VPCs are virtual networks that are dedicated to a specific customer’s
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, “Ex.” refers to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Christina M. Finn,
`filed herewith.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 10 of 45 PageID #: 17077
`
`AWS account, allowing customers to isolate their computing resources from those of other AWS
`
`customers. AWS customers with large enterprise networks can use hundreds to thousands of
`
`different servers and VPCs to configure their AWS networks. Id. ¶¶ 114, 146, 199. While VPCs
`
`are the building blocks for these large enterprise networks, the isolation of VPCs increases the
`
`complexity of enabling communications between customers’ VPCs on their own enterprise
`
`networks. Id. ¶¶ 90-91.
`
` After AWS launched its cloud services, its customers' networks grew rapidly and AWS
`
`began experiencing scaling issues. AWS needed a solution to manage its different customers,
`
`implementing thousands of VPCs all sharing the same AWS computer hardware, generally called
`
`“multitenant” architectures, that would allow customers to keep their VPCs private and isolated,
`
`while also allowing interconnecting of VPCs when a customer wanted the VPCs to be able to
`
`broadcast data to each other. Ex. 2 (“Guidance for Multi-Tenant Architectures on AWS”); see
`
`also, e.g., Ex. 3, AMZ_AB_000095858 (describing how Transit Gateway allows for separate
`
`VPCs to interconnect).
`
`To solve this problem, AWS created Transit Gateway to interconnect its customers’
`
`network components. Today, AWS depends on Transit Gateway to meet the needs of its customers
`
`to create large networks of computers. Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. ¶¶ 98-100; Ex. 4 at
`
`AMZ_AB_000124315 (the Transit Gateway can be used “to interconnect your virtual private
`
`clouds (VPCs) and on-premise networks.”). In particular, Transit Gateway allows customers to
`
`streamline their network architecture by connecting different network components. Ex. 3
`
`AMZ_AB_000095853 at 858, 860 (describing how a customer can organize their network with
`
`the Transit Gateway). Without Transit Gateway, implementing the types of complicated networks
`
`many of AWS’ customers depend on would be difficult, if not impossible, on a multitenant
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 11 of 45 PageID #: 17078
`
`architecture. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at AMZ_AB_000124306 (describing how Transit Gateway “is built
`
`for enterprise who run thousands of networks distributed in VPCs across AWS regions and on-
`
`premise networks . . . . Some of AWS’ largest customers have built their cloud backbone using
`
`[Transit Gateway] . . . . The trust customers place in [Transit Gateway] to run their often revenue
`
`generating businesses is immense . . . .”).
`
`To implement Transit Gateway on AWS’ multitenant architecture, AWS devised
`
`“Hyperplane,” a new network system within Transit Gateway that greatly increased its speed and
`
`functionality. Ex. 6, AMZ_AB_000124554 (describing the premise of the Hyperplane is to
`
`provide a highly available forwarding service). Transit Gateway relies on Hyperplane technology
`
`in order to enable AWS’ customers to better structure their networks and permit AWS to keep
`
`separate the data of its many customers. Ex. 7 (Overview of Amazon Web Services) at 1-4.
`
`Hyperplane works by
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 6 at AMZ_AB_000124557 (describing the use of the
`
`); Ex. 8 at AMZ_AB_000124590 (describing how the
`
`). AWS’
`
`AMZ_AB_000124556-57
`
`124567
`
`.
`
`
`2 Virtual machines are computers running in software.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 6 at
`
`
`
`; id. at
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 12 of 45 PageID #: 17079
`
`Hyperplane uses
`
`. See, e.g., Ex. 6 at AMZ_AB_000124554 (describing
`
`
`
`). There
`
`
`
`. Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. ¶¶ 99-
`
`are
`
`101.
`
`Hyperplane also uses
`
`AMZ_AB_000124581 (describing
`
`). Similarly, Hyperplane will also
`
`Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. ¶ 207. The Hyperplane
`
`¶ 208. The
`
`. Id.
`
`. Ex. 9 at
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id.
`
`
`
`AWS
`
` the Hyperplane technology underlying Transit Gateway,
`
`which is completely opaque AWS’ customers,
`
`
`
`. Ex. 6 at AMZ_AB_000124554 (describing how Transit Gateway, referred to as
`
`
`
`).
`
`2.
`
`Transit Gateway is M-Regular and Incomplete
`
`As set forth below, there is no genuine material dispute that Transit Gateway uses m-
`
`regular and incomplete networks for its (1)
`
`, (2) health data layer, and (3)
`
`multicasting functionalities. As construed by the Court, a “network is m-regular” means “[a] state
`
`that the network is configured to maintain, where each participant is connected to exactly m
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 13 of 45 PageID #: 17080
`
`neighbor participants.” D.I. 81 at 2. “[P]articipants” are “[c]omputers or computer processes that
`
`are connected by a network.” Id. at 3. Some, but not all, of the asserted claims, further require
`
`that the network be “incomplete,” meaning that not all participants are directly connected to each
`
`other.3
`
`(a)
`
`Incomplete
`
` is Configured to Be M-Regular and
`
`As Acceleration Bay’s technical expert, Dr. Medvidović, explained, the Hyperplane
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶¶ 272, 274. AWS’ expert, Ms. Sultanik, does not
`
`dispute this point. Ex. 10, Sultanik Rebuttal Rpt. at ¶ 318.
`
`The Hyperplane
`
`. Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶¶ 201-208. Hyperplane
`
` maintains the network as m-regular and incomplete by
`
`. Id. at ¶¶ 272, 317 (“
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`”). A
`
` Hyperplane
`
`. Id. at ¶
`
`316 (citing Ex. 6 at AMZ_AB_000124564, 556-557 (“
`
`
`
`
`
`)).
`
`As explained in Dr. Medvidović’s report, the AWS figure below demonstrates that each of
`
`the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Asserted Claims 6, 9, and 10 of the ‘147 Patent do not require the network to be incomplete.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 14 of 45 PageID #: 17081
`
`). Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶ 318 (citing Ex. 6, AMZ_AB_000124568,
`
`Fig. 8 annotated).
`
`Dr. Medvidović prepared a table identifying
`
`
`
`in Figure 8 above:
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 15 of 45 PageID #: 17082
`
`Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. ¶ 318. Thus,
`
`
`
`.
`
`(b) Health Layer is Configured to Be M-Regular and Incomplete
`
`Dr. Medvidović also established that Hyperplane
`
`. For example,
`
`. See, e.g., Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶ 208; Ex. 8 at
`
`AMZ_AB_000124590 (
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`); Ex. 6 at AMZ_AB_000124563-64 (describing
`
`the Health Layer with three tops). Hyperplane has a set number of tops
`
`
`
` Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶¶ 201-202; Ex. 11 at
`
`AMZ_AB_000124572-73 (“What TGW Autoscaling does”) (describing how, by default, each
`
`); Ex. 12, MacCarthaigh Tr. at 187:19-23 (“Each Transit Gateway
`
`
`
`AMZ_AB_000124575
`
`regularity is enforced
`
`), 202:8-203:2
`
`; Ex. 11 at
`
`. M-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`).
`
`. Ex. 11 at AMZ_AB_000124572 (describing how
`
`This
`
`.
`
`
`4 Availability Zones (or “AZs”) are subdivisions made in different data centers to isolate them
`from each other to increase the stability of the system. Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶ 86.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 16 of 45 PageID #: 17083
`
`(c) Multicast is Configured to Be M-Regular and Incomplete
`
`Multicast uses
`
`document shows a configuration in which
`
`Ex. 9 at AMZ_AB_000124580, Fig. 4 (showing
`
`
`
`. For example, an AWS multicast
`
`. See
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`); see also id. at 581 (“For every [Availability Zone],
`
` This cluster is an arbitrary but stable
`
` . . . . It gives us the horizontal scaling feature for multicast
`
`replication. As we throw
`
` the replication capacity of the fleet proportionately increases.”). Thus, Multicast is m-
`
`regular because
`
`.
`
`3.
`
`AWS Has Not Established any Genuine Factual Disputes
`
`AWS fails to come forward with any evidence to establish genuine disputes as to the fact
`
`that Transit Gateway uses m-regular and incomplete networks. In fact, AWS’ expert admits that
`
`Transit Gateway is configured
`
`, in the example she
`
`discusses,
`
`. Ex. 10, Sultanik Rebuttal Rpt. at ¶ 282 (“HyperPlane
`
`
`
`
`
`).
`
`There is also no dispute that each participant can have the same number of connections in
`
`Transit Gateway. See, e.g., Ex. 13, Sultanik Tr. at 206:13-23 (confirming that Transit Gateway
`
`Sultanik confirms that
`
`). Similarly, Ms.
`
`
`
`shown in Figure 8 of AMZ_AB_000124554-71. See id. at 69:6-14; Ex. 6 (Sultanik Ex. 4, Fig. 8).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 17 of 45 PageID #: 17084
`
`And Ms. Sultanik does not offer any opinion that the networks are complete, nor could she because
`
`. Ex. 10, Sultanik Rebuttal Rpt. at ¶¶ 334-344 (Ms.
`
`Sultanik does not include an explanation for how the networks are allegedly complete).
`
`Rather, Ms. Sultanik argues that customers can configure Transit Gateway networks. See,
`
`e.g., id. at ¶¶ 334-339 (asserting that customers configure Transit Gateway). Customer
`
`configuration, however, is irrelevant to the infringement opinion offered by Dr. Medvidović,
`
`which is not based on the aspects of Transit Gateway that are configured by customers. Instead,
`
`as explained above, Dr. Medvidović’s analysis that is the subject of this motion is based on
`
`Hyperplane functionality that AWS customers do not interact with, let alone configure. Neither
`
`AWS nor Ms. Sultanik offers any evidence to the contrary. Thus, customers’ ability to configure
`
`certain aspects of Transit Gateway has no bearing on the automatic functionality that makes
`
`Hyperplane m-regular and incomplete.
`
`Ms. Sultanik’s Rebuttal Report contains a general discussion of Transit Gateway’s
`
`Hyperplane technology and
`
`, but does not offer an explanation for how Hyperplane
`
`and the tops fail to satisfy the m-regular and incomplete limitations. See, e.g., Ex. 10, Sultanik
`
`Rebuttal Rpt. at ¶¶ 339-344. In particular, Ms. Sultanik does not make the affirmative claim that
`
`Dr. Medvidović’s explanation
`
` is incorrect. And during her
`
`deposition, Ms. Sultanik conceded that
`
`example, Ms. Sultanik agreed that
`
`AMZ_AB_000124584 at 590 (see Ex. 8), and
`
`. For
`
` shown in Figure 4 of
`
`
`
`. Ex. 13, Sultanik Tr. at 92:2-21; Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶ 142 (“For example,
`
`. See AMZ_AB_000124584 at 590 Figure
`
`4”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 18 of 45 PageID #: 17085
`
`Ms. Sultanik also fails to address, and therefore leaves unrebutted, Dr. Medvidović’s
`
`opinion regarding the Health Layer being m-regular and incomplete network. The entirety of Ms.
`
`Sultanik’s rebuttal analysis is her incorrect statement that “Dr. Medvidović describes the health
`
`layer for HyperPlane. But monitoring the health of the cell’s instances doesn’t implicate m-
`
`regularity.” Ex. 10, Sultanik Rebuttal Rpt. at ¶ 344. The bald denial of infringement cannot
`
`establish a genuine dispute of fact. Schwing GmbH v. Putzmeister Aktiengesellschaft, 305 F.3d
`
`1318, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Without further support, [an expert’s] conclusory statement is
`
`insufficient to raise a genuine evidentiary dispute for trial.”).
`
`Given Ms. Sultanik’s failure to rebut Dr. Medvidović’s infringement analysis with
`
`anything other than conclusory denials, partial summary judgment is warranted as to the m-regular
`
`and incomplete limitations. See TQ Delta, LLC v. 2Wire, Inc., No. CV 13-1835-RGA, 2021 WL
`
`2649739, at *2, *7 (D. Del. June 28, 2021) (granting summary judgement of infringement because
`
`defendants did not present “affirmative evidence” showing that the “Accused Products [do not]
`
`meet every limitation of the Asserted Claims”); see also TQ Delta LLC v. Adtran, Inc., No. CV
`
`14-954-RGA, 2021 WL 1200595, at *6 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2021) (granting Plaintiff’s summary
`
`judgement of infringement because “[t]here is no genuine dispute that the source code of the
`
`Accused Products . . . infringes the asserted claims”).
`
`B. Mr. Greene’s Deficient Invalidity Opinions Should Be Excluded and Summary
`Judgment of Validity Should Be Granted
`
`AWS’ anticipation and obviousness defenses rest entirely on the legally insufficient
`
`opinion of Mr. Joseph Greene, who fails to provide any of the analysis necessary to prove these
`
`defenses at trial. Mr. Greene relies only on improper hindsight, ipse dixit, and unsubstantiated
`
`conclusory assertions. Mr. Greene’s opinions, therefore, should be excluded as unreliable and
`
`unhelpful to the jury. See, e.g., Izumi Prods. Co. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 140 F. App’x
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 153 Filed 06/07/24 Page 19 of 45 PageID #: 17086
`
`236, 244 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming exclusion of conclusory expert testimony that was
`
`unsupported other than by the expert’s subjective belief).
`
`Because of the fundamental flaws in Mr. Greene’s opinions and the absence of any other
`
`basis to present an invalidity case, AWS cannot carry its clear and convincing burden to show
`
`invalidity. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd., 131 S.Ct. 2238, 2242-43 (2011) (party challenging patent
`
`on obviousness grounds bears a high burden of persuasion); Extang Corp. v. Truck Accessories
`
`Grp., LLC, No. CV 19-923 (KAJ), 2022 WL 610451, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) (“the party
`
`challenging validity must prove that the claims are invalid by clear and convincing evidence.”)
`
`(citation omitted). Thus, the Court should grant summary judgment that the asserted claims are
`
`valid over AWS’ unsupported invalidity defenses.
`
`1.
`
`Summary Judgment of No Anticipation is Warranted Because Mr.
`Greene Does Not Offer Any Specific Anticipation Opinion
`
`While AWS purports to assert an anticipation defense, its invalidity expert, Mr. Greene,
`
`does not offer any anticipation opinion. In particular, Mr. Greene does not opine in either of his
`
`reports that any of the eight references at issue anticipate any of the asserted claims. Mr. Greene’s
`
`reply report does not mention anticipation at all, and he only uses “anticipate” or “anticipation” in
`
`three places in his opening report: (1) in the legal standard section of his report, (2) in his summary
`
`of the file history, and (3) to make the bald claim that the asserted claims are “anticipated and/or
`
`rendered obvious by prior art references.” Ex. 14, Greene Report at ¶¶ 2a, 55, 108-114, and 139.
`
`When deposed, Mr. Greene was unable to identify any specific asserted claim that he
`
`contended was anticipated or any specific references that allegedly anticipate any of the asserted
`
`claims. Instead, when asked about anticipation, Mr. Greene consistently referred to combinations
`
`of references or portions of his report addressing obviousness. For example, when Mr. Greene
`
`was asked if the Du reference anticipates any asserted claim, he responded tha