throbber
Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 1 of 48 PageID #: 19505
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 22-904 (RGA) (SRF)
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`DEFENDANT AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO EXCLUDE
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S EXPERT OPINIONS
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jying@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amazon Web Services,
`Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Alan M. Fisch
`R. Williams Sigler
`Jeffrey M. Saltman
`Lisa N. Phillips
`Kyle K. Tsui
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 400
`Washington, DC 20015
`(202) 362-3500
`
`Ken K. Fung
`FISCH SIGLER LLP
`400 Concar Drive
`San Mateo, CA 94402
`(605) 362-8207
`
`May 31, 2024
`
`ORIGINAL FILING DATE: MAY 31, 2024
`REDACTED FILING DATE: JUNE 7, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 2 of 48 PageID #: 19506
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................2
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................................2
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................4
`A.
`Boeing Licenses the Asserted Patents to AWS Then Sells Them to AB.................4
`B.
`AB Sues AWS..........................................................................................................4
`C.
`The Accused Products..............................................................................................5
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ..............................................................................8
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................9
`A.
`The AWS-Boeing Agreement Precludes All Infringement Claims Relying on
`. ....................................................................................9
`AB’s Alleged Damages Period Contravenes the Marking Statute. .......................11
`Summary Judgment on Willfulness and Enhanced Damages is Appropriate........15
`Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement on All 16 Asserted Claims Is
`Warranted Because No Accused Products Maintain an M-Regular Network. ......19
`1.
`VPC Does Not Maintain an M-Regular Network. .....................................20
`2.
`Transit Gateway Does Not Maintain an M-Regular Network. ..................25
`3.
`AB Has Not Disclosed a Damages Theory for
` or
`Hyperplane. ................................................................................................29
`AB’s Experts’ Flawed Apportionment Approach Should be Excluded. ...............30
`1.
`Dr. Cole’s Opinion Relies on Documents Outside the Damages
`Period. ........................................................................................................30
`Dr. Cole Inconsistently Applied an Unreliable Methodology. ..................33
`2.
`Mr. Gunderson Relies on Revenue Unrelated to Infringement. ............................36
`Mr. Gunderson’s Reliance on A Jury Verdict Should Be Excluded......................39
`
`E.
`
`F.
`G.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................40
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 3 of 48 PageID #: 19507
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
` Page(s)
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D. Del. 2018) .........................................................................................40
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard,
`C.A. No. 6-453, D.I. 858 (D. Del. May 3, 2024) ...........................................................4, 39, 40
`
`Acceleration Bay v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`612 F. Supp. 3d 408 (D. Del. 2020) .........................................................................................20
`
`Acceleron, LLC v. Dell Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-4123, 2022 WL 1087683 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2022), aff’d, No.
`2022-1620, 2023 WL 4503189 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2023)........................................................16
`
`Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,
`24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994)........................................................................................12, 13, 15
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................15
`
`Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co.
`C.A. No. 20-51, 2021 WL 65071 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2021), report and
`recommendation adopted, 530 F. Supp. 3d 468, 478 (D. Del. 2021). .....................................17
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Elecs., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 15-56, 2020 WL 5409052 (D. Del. Sept. 9, 2020) ...................................................18
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-CV-04738, 2020 WL 5106845 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020) ......................................36
`
`CSIRO v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................9
`
`Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`522 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................1, 10
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .....................................................................................................1, 2, 8, 30
`
`Eastman Kodak Co. v. Agfa-Gevaert N.V.,
`560 F. Supp. 2d 227 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) ..............................................................................12, 13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 19508
`
`EF Operating Corp. v. American Buildings
`993 F.2d 1046 (3d Cir. 1993)...................................................................................................14
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enter., Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................16
`
`Epic Games, Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC,
`No. 4:19-cv-4133 (N.D. Cal.), D.I. 1 .................................................................................14, 18
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1202, 2017 WL 2190055 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ..........................................16
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014)....................................................................................29, 30, 39
`
`Extang Corp. v. Truck Accessories Grp., LLC,
`C.A. No. 19-923, 2022 WL 607868 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) ..................................................15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`387 F. Supp. 3d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...................................................................................15
`
`Flatworld Interactives LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 378 (D. Del. 2014) ...........................................................................................12
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp.,
`No. 2:14-cv-33, 2016 WL 122967 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2016) ...................................................32
`
`Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) ...................................................................................................................15
`
`Horizon Meds. LLC v. Apotex Inc.,
`C.A. No. 22-640, 2022 WL 16739909 (D. Del. Nov. 7, 2022) ...........................................1, 10
`
`In re Teleglobe Commc’ns Corp.,
`493 F.3d 345 (3d Cir. 2007).....................................................................................................14
`
`Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-660, 2013 WL 3354390 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2013) ............................................10, 11
`
`IoEngine, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.,
`607 F. Supp. 3d 464 (D. Del. 2022) .........................................................................................40
`
`IP Power Holdings Ltd. v. Westfield Outdoor, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-01878, 2020 WL 2992415 (D. Nev. June 4, 2020) ...........................................17
`
`Kaavo Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`323 F. Supp. 3d 630 (D. Del. 2018) .........................................................................................25
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 5 of 48 PageID #: 19509
`
`Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC,
`576 U.S. 446 (2015) .................................................................................................................18
`
`Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................29, 30
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C 20-08103 WHA, 2021 WL 4685306 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) .....................................17
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.,
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................12
`
`Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Laby’s, Inc.,
`271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................24
`
`NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-1503, 2023 WL 3852914 (W.D. Wash. June 6, 2023) ........................................19
`
`Podobnik v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
`409 F.3d 584 (3d Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................8
`
`Ravgen, Inc. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-9011, 2022 WL 2047613 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2022) ............................................19
`
`Refac Electronics Corp. v. A & B Beacon Business Machines Corp.
`695 F. Supp. 753 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). .........................................................................................12
`
`Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried,
`320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003).......................................................................................................8
`
`Skills Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.,
`No. 21-cv-2436, 2023 WL 8438738 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2023)................................................32
`
`SRI Int’l v. Advanced Tech. Labs.,
`127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`Transcore LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp,
`563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................10
`
`Unova Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
`No. 02-cv-3772, 2006 WL 5434534 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2006) ..............................................13
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................29
`
`Wang Labs., Inc. v. Toshiba Corp.,
`993 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1993)..................................................................................................38
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 6 of 48 PageID #: 19510
`
`Woods v. Showers,
`822 F. App’x 122 (3d Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................30
`
`Wrinkl, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 20-1345, 2021 WL 4477022 (D. Del. Sept. 30, 2021) .............................................18
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ........................................................................................................................15, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .......................................................................................................................8, 30
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 7 of 48 PageID #: 19511
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate on four different grounds. First, a patent owner “cannot
`
`transfer an interest greater than that which it possesses.”1 So, Plaintiff Acceleration Bay (“AB”)
`
`cannot enforce rights that the prior owner of the asserted patents, Boeing, lacked. But that is what
`
`AB—and Boeing, which retained
`
`—are doing. In 2010, over
`
`a decade before this lawsuit was filed, Boeing and Defendant Amazon Web Services (“AWS”)
`
`entered into an agreement providing Boeing with access to AWS products
`
`. In exchange,
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` products, and then sold the patents to AB in 2014. Here, AB now accuses those
`
`products of infringing those same patents. But Boeing’s agreement with AWS bars AB’s claims.
`
`Second, there is no evidence that AWS received pre-suit notice of infringement, as required to start
`
`the damages period under 35 U.S.C. § 287. AB’s sole pre-suit letter did not specifically assert
`
`infringement of any claim by any product, which the law requires. Thus, summary judgment
`
`precluding any pre-suit damages is warranted. Third, and for similar reasons, there is no evidence
`
`of willful or egregious conduct that could warrant enhanced damages. Fourth, like with Take Two
`
`and EA in prior AB cases, the undisputed facts here show that AWS’s products do not use the
`
`asserted patents’ distinct “m-regular” network. Rather, AWS users must manually define every
`
`network connection in the accused products, which do not default to an m-regular configuration.
`
`Summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims should thus be granted.
`
`In addition, certain of AB’s experts’ opinions on damages are unreliable and should be
`
`excluded under Daubert. Indeed, AB’s expert on technical apportionment, Eric Cole, failed to
`
`
`1 Horizon Meds. LLC v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 22-640, 2022 WL 16739909, at *4 (D. Del. Nov. 7,
`2022) (quoting Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 522 F.3d 1368, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 8 of 48 PageID #: 19512
`
`properly analyze the accused products’ features or apportion the asserted patents’ value. And AB’s
`
`damages expert, Lance Gunderson, improperly relied on a jury verdict and the overall revenue of
`
`all the accused products, rather than the revenue associated with the accused usage. Thus, the
`
`challenged AB expert opinions should be excluded under Daubert.
`
`II.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`AB accuses seven AWS products and three Amazon.com products of infringing five
`
`patents.2 This Court held a claim construction hearing in October 2023, and has issued an order
`
`construing “m-regular,” among other terms, the same as in prior AB cases involving these patents.3
`
`III.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
` Each of the following grounds for summary judgment would substantially reduce
`
`the contested issues and potential damages in this case, and one would dispose of the case entirely:
`
`(a).
`
`Boeing and AWS agreed that Boeing could use AWS’s products
`
`. When Boeing sold the asserted patents to AB,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Because these products were licensed, summary judgment of non-infringement on
`
`these products—and other products that allegedly infringe because they use VPC—is appropriate.
`
`(b).
`
`The parties agree that the potential damages period began when AB provided AWS
`
`with actual notice of alleged infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 287. AB claims that it provided such
`
`notice in a March 13, 2019 letter. But this letter mentioned only one product (CloudFront), never
`
`identified the asserted ’344 patent, and failed to state any patent-infringement claims. Summary
`
`judgment limiting damages to after the complaint’s filing is thus warranted.
`
`2 See Ex. 1 at 3.
`3 See D.I. 77.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 9 of 48 PageID #: 19513
`
`(c). No evidence shows that AWS had the necessary knowledge to willfully infringe
`
`before the complaint’s filing. Nor is there any evidence of any willful infringement or egregious
`
`conduct in the one-month period between AB’s filing of this lawsuit and the final patent’s
`
`expiration. Thus, summary judgment on willfulness and enhanced damages is appropriate.
`
`(d). All the asserted claims describe networks that are “m-regular,” which this Court
`
`construed as: “a state that the network is configured to maintain, where each participant is
`
`connected to exactly m neighbor participants.” AB cannot show that the accused VPC and Transit
`
`Gateway products satisfy the “m-regular” requirement, because uncontested facts shows that a
`
`user must manually create connections between participants in these networks. And since AB
`
`alleges that the accused products infringe only through their use of VPC or Transit Gateway,
`
`summary judgment of noninfringement on all asserted claims is warranted.
`
`2.
`
`Further, certain of AB’s expert opinions should be excluded because:
`
`(a). Mr. Gunderson relies on Dr. Cole for the apportionment percentages used in his
`
`damages analysis. But Dr. Cole used arbitrary lists of features for each accused product, and
`
`assigned each feature the same value without any underlying rationale. As this approach is
`
`unreliable under Federal Circuit law, these opinions should be excluded.
`
`(b). AB has independent infringement theories for only two products: VPC and Transit
`
`Gateway. AB alleges that the other accused products (e.g., EC2) infringe only through their use of
`
`VPC and Transit Gateway. Consistent with Judge Fallon’s denial of AB’s motion to compel EC2
`
`external financial data, AB’s infringement theories do not capture revenue associated with external
`
`customers’ (i.e., non-Amazon) usage of products like EC2. Mr. Gunderson’s opinions including
`
`such revenue in his calculations thus should be excluded.
`
`(c) Mr. Gunderson issued a second supplemental report opining that the recent AB v.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 10 of 48 PageID #: 19514
`
`Activision jury verdict supports his damages theories in this case. But verdicts are not evidence of
`
`an arms-length negotiation between the parties, as this Court held in the Activision case itself. The
`
`verdict is irrelevant, and Mr. Gunderson’s second supplemental report should be excluded.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`
`
`On July 31, 2000, aerospace manufacturer Boeing filed the applications that would later
`
`issue as the asserted patents.4 These five patents arose out of an effort at Boeing to create a system
`
`that allowed its engineers to simultaneously view 3D schematics of airplanes.5
`
`A.
`
`Boeing Licenses the Asserted Patents to AWS Then Sells Them to AB.
`
`, Boeing and AWS entered into an Enterprise Customer Agreement
`
`(“AWS-Boeing Agreement”). Among other things, this agreement gave Boeing access to AWS’s
`
`services, and
`
`
`
`the owner of all asserted patents until December 10, 2014, when it sold them to AB.7 That sale
`
`.6 Boeing was the original assignee and remained
`
`agreement provided that Boeing would receive
`
`
`
`. By
`
`December 2014 though, Boeing had used
`
`. So, Boeing did not have the
`
`right to enforce the asserted patents against those
`
`.8
`
`B.
`
`AB Sues AWS.
`
`
`
`Despite Boeing’s agreement with AWS, on March 13, 2019, AB sent Amazon.com a letter
`
`
`4 D.I. 1-1 at 2, 61, 122, 183, 242.
`5 Ex. 2 at 45:16–46:11.
`6 Ex. 3 (AWS-Boeing Agreement) at 13.
`7 Ex. 4.
`8 See id.; Ex. 5; Ex. 6; Ex. 7 at 110:22-111:10, 111:17-112:2, 112:8-14, 112:16-114:12; Ex. 8 at
`132:18–21.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 11 of 48 PageID #: 19515
`
`referencing the ’966, ’147, ’634, and ’069 patents.9 The letter mentioned CloudFront, but did not
`
`reference any other products. And the letter did not allege that CloudFront infringed, nor reference
`
`any patent claims. AWS responded that it would investigate AB’s allegations.10 AB did not reply,
`
`and on July 6, 2022, filed its complaint. By that point, two of the asserted patents had expired, two
`
`more would expire within two weeks, and the last expired 32 days after the complaint was filed,
`
`on August 7, 2022.11 Thus, the damages period ended on August 7, 2022.
`
`The Accused Products
`
`C.
`The first two AWS products that AB accuses are VPC and Transit Gateway.12 AB also
`
`accuses eight other AWS or Amazon-related products, by virtue of their reliance on VPC, or both
`
`VPC and Transit Gateway.13
`
`VPC: VPC allows users (i.e., customers) to set up a virtual network on AWS’s hardware
`
`infrastructure that is “logically isolated from other virtual networks in the AWS cloud.”14 When a
`
`user does so, the virtual network resembles a private network that a customer would build on its
`
`own premises, but uses the AWS infrastructure to allow for scalability (i.e., the addition of
`
`additional computing resources).15
`
`A user can connect multiple VPCs through a feature called VPC peering, which is a
`
`
`
`9 Ex. 9.
`10 Id.
`11 See Ex. 11 at ¶ 249.
`12 Ex. 1 at 3 (identifying first two products as: (1) VPC, “including VPC Peering, Transit VPC,
`and
`”; and (2) Transit Gateway, “including Hyperplane and Multicast”).
`13 Id. Five are accused “through use of VPC” (CloudFront, Elastic Kubernetes Service, GameLift,
`App Mesh, and Luna), and three “through use of VPC and Transit Gateway” (EC2, Prime Video,
`and Twitch). Id. Of these, Luna, Prime Video, and Twitch are not AWS products.
`14 Ex. 12 at 3. As used in AWS documents, “VPC” refers to either the “Virtual Private Cloud”
`service or a virtual network that a customer sets up using it.
`15 Id.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 12 of 48 PageID #: 19516
`
`connection between VPCs established by one VPC’s user sending a request to connect and a
`
`second VPC’s user accepting.16 Users must use a “route table” to manually create routes between
`
`VPCs for them to communicate with each other.17 And VPCs do not support transitive routing,
`
`i.e., a user cannot use a third VPC to indirectly transfer information between two VPCs. 18
`
`However, users can set up a “transit VPC” network in a hub-and-spoke configuration where a
`
`single central VPC uses an instance of EC2 (another AWS product) to route traffic to different
`
`VPCs, but customers must manually configure and maintain this routing themselves.19
`
`VPC also uses another AWS networking service called
`
`
`
`. 20 In addition to VPC,
`
` is used by many other
`
`components and services of AWS, including NAT Gateway, Network Load Balancer, and Elastic
`
`File System. 21
`
`appropriate destination.22
`
`.23 There are
`
` to route network traffic to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.24
`
` at the customer’s VPC to
`
` attached to
`
`
`
`16 Id. at 8; Ex. 13 at 1–2.
`17 Ex. 12 at 2.
`18 Ex. 14 at 4, 6.
`19 Id. at 7.
`20 E.g., Ex. 15 at 1.
`21 E.g., id.; Ex. 16.
`22 Ex. 15 at 7–8.
`23 Id. at 4.
`24 Id. at 5–6.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 13 of 48 PageID #: 19517
`
`. 25
`
` uses processes called shuffle sharding and flow
`
`hashing to determine which route to send packets on and how to spread traffic to ensure that no
`
`customer’s workload overloads the physical servers underlying other VPCs.26
`
`Transit Gateway: Launched on November 26, 2018, Transit Gateway is a virtual router
`
`used to interconnect a customer’s VPCs and on-premises networks.27 So, the purpose of a Transit
`
`Gateway is to connect VPCs. Transit Gateway instances act as hubs that direct traffic between
`
`“attachments” (VPCs and customers’ own networks). 28 Attachments connect only to Transit
`
`Gateway, not to each other, in a hub-and-spoke model.29 Like VPCs, Transit Gateway instances
`
`need users to define routes in a route table.30 The table then determines how to route packets from
`
`the source attachment to the target attachment. 31 Transit Gateway also supports multicast
`
`functionality, which allows it to send a single message to multiple recipients.32
`
`Transit Gateway uses Hyperplane as one component to route data. 33 Hyperplane is an
`
`underlying networking service that AWS also uses to power other services besides Transit
`
`Gateway, like Network Load Balancer.34 Hyperplane is made up
`
`
`
`
`
`25 Id. at 4–6.
`26 Id. at 5, 7–9.
`27 Ex. 17 at 1; Ex. 18.
`28 Ex. 17 at 6.
`29 Ex. 14 at 5 (“This hub-and-spoke model simplifies management and reduces operational costs
`because VPCs only connect to the Transit Gateway instance to gain access to the connected net-
`works.”).
`30 Ex. 17 at 6.
`31 Id.
`32 See id. at 58.
`33 Ex. 19 at 1.
`34 Ex. 20 at 53:8-54:9; Ex. 21 at 1.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 14 of 48 PageID #: 19518
`
`
`
`—to execute the
`
` used to route packets between attachments based on the routing tables.36 Because
`
`of shuffle sharding, not every
`
` has a route to every destination.37 But, through
`
` it can send the data to another
`
` that has the appropriate route.38
`
`Hyperplane also has a health layer that monitors the status of
`
`.39
`
`V.
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when
`
`“there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and the moving party “is entitled to judgment as
`
`a matter of law.” When the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof on an element at trial, but
`
`fails to supply sufficient evidence to establish that element, summary judgment must be granted in
`
`favor of the moving party.40 And the nonmoving party “must present more than just ‘bare asser-
`
`tions, conclusory allegations or suspicions’” to avoid summary judgment.41
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that expert testimony be “not only relevant, but
`
`reliable.”42 Reliable testimony “must be based on the ‘methods and procedures of science’ rather
`
`than on ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation’.”43 And the Federal Circuit has explained
`
`
`
` and
`
` use “different software, dif-
`
`35 Ex. 21 at 1–2.
`36 Id. at 10; Ex. 22 at 71:19-21 (
`ferent hardware”).
`37 Ex. 19 at 3.
`38 Ex. 21 at 4, 15–16.
`39 Id. at 17–18.
`40 See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324–25 (1986).
`41 Podobnik v. U.S. Postal Serv., 409 F.3d 584, 594 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
`42 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993).
`43 Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396, 404 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal cita-
`tions omitted).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 15 of 48 PageID #: 19519
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 15 of 48 PagelD #: 19519
`
`that “damages awarded forpatent infringement mustreflect the value attributable to the infringing
`
`features of the product, and no more.”
`
`VI.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The AWS-Boeing Agreement Precludes All Infringement Claims Relying on
`
`Boeing bargained away itsrh
`aei. 2010, four years before it sold the patents to AB. Thus, Boeing could not transfer
`
`that ightto
`
`21! infringementclaims relying on these products should be dismissed.*°
`
`inthe AWS-BocingAgreement,
`
`
`
`It’s undisputed that when it entered into the AWS-Boeing AgreementEEBoeing
`
`ownedthe asserted patents. And when Boeing sold them to AB in December2014,it had accrued
`
`ee its use ofTRas confirmed by AWS’sbilling
`
`“4 CSIRO v.Cisco Sys., Inc., 809 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omit-
`ted).
`45 As noted, AB’s infringement contentions regarding CloudFront, Lambda, EKS, GameLift, and
`Lunaare premised solely on their use of VPC. Ex. 23 at §§ 103, 107, 117, 126, 145. Therefore,
`this motion, if granted, would eliminate CloudFront, EC2, VPC, Lambda, EKS, GameLift, and
`Lunaas accused products.
`46 Ex. 3 (AWS-Boeing Agreement) at 13 (emphasis added).
`47 See note 8, supra; Exs. 5; 6; 7 at 112:16-114:12.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 16 of 48 PageID #: 19520
`
`. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has explained that “a patent license agreement
`
`is in essence nothing more than a promise by the licensor not to sue the licensee.”48 And here, per
`
`its terms, the license applied
`
`
`
`When it sold the patents to AB, Boeing could assign only the patent rights it still possessed.
`
`Through its agreement with AWS,
`
`
`
` and thus, it could not assign
`
`Nor could it circumvent its agreement by
`
`
`
`
`
`. As
`
`Judge Burke recently explained, “while the assignment of patent rights may alter the ownership of
`
`those rights, such an assignment cannot expand those rights.”49 Thus, “the assignee of a patent is
`
`bound by prior licenses issued with respect to that patent…even if the assignee was unaware of a
`
`prior license agreement.”50 Indeed, “[i]t is a longstanding principle that an assignee…takes the
`
`patent subject to prior licenses…whether or not [it] had notice.”51
`
`Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. is also analogous. There, the original patent owner,
`
`Philips, and the defendant, Panasonic, entered into a mutual non-assertion agreement covering
`
`“patents relevant to ‘audio and video products.’”52 Innovus Prime, a later assignee, sued Panasonic
`
`for infringement, arguing that it was not bound by the Philips-Panasonic Agreement.53 The court
`
`disagreed, holding that “[p]atent owners cannot transfer an interest greater than what they possess,
`
`
`48 Transcore LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp, 563 F.3d 1271, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`49 Horizon, 2022 WL 16739909, at *4.
`50 Id.
`51 Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp., No. 12-cv-660, 2013 WL 3354390, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
`July 2, 2013).
`52 Id. at *1.
`53 Id. at *2, *4.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 17 of 48 PageID #: 19521
`
`so assignees ‘take[ ] a patent subject to the legal encumbrances thereon.’”54 As in Innovus, here
`
`the original patent owner (Boeing/Philips)
`
`
`
`
`
` covering the asserted patent(s), then a later assignee (AB/Innovus
`
`Prime) sued the defendant (AWS/Panasonic)
`
` And like Philips, Boeing agreed to
`
`
`
`
`
` as part of its agreement
`
`with AWS. As such, Boeing could not have assigned the right
`
` to AB, and AB purchased the patents subject to the
`
`
`
`.
`
`Thus, all infringement claims relying on
`
` should be dismissed.
`
`B.
`
`AB’s Alleged Damages Period Contravenes the Marking Statute.
`
`It is undisputed that the potential damages period began when AB provided AWS with
`
`actual notice of its alleged infringement.55 Although AB contends that its March 13, 2019 letter
`
`provided the required notice, that letter mentioned only one product (CloudFront), did not identify
`
`the ’344 patent, and did not state any specific infringement allegation.56 So, the damages period
`
`began on July 6, 2022, when AB filed this case.
`
`Section 287 provides that patentees who sell embodying products or authorize their sale
`
`“may give notice to the public that the [products are] patented” by marking them.57 If they do not,
`
`“no damages shall be recovered…for infringement” until the patentee provides actual notice of the
`
`
`54 Id. at *5 (quoting Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 522 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
`As a result, the court also explained that notice of such an encumbrance to the assignee “was not
`required.” Id. at *7.
`55 E.g., Ex. 11 at ¶ 59 (“Acceleration Bay is entitled to damages from … the date [it] sent a letter
`to Amazon.com providing notice….”).
`56 See id.; Ex. 9 (March 13 letter) at 2-3.
`57 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 156 Filed 06/07/24 Page 18 of 48 PageID #: 19522
`
`alleged infringement. 58 As the Federal Circuit has pronounced, this requires “affirmative
`
`communication of a specific charge of infringement by a specific accused product or device.”59
`
`Here,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket