Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 1 of 47 PageID #: 23148
`
`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)
`
`REDACTED – PUBLIC VERSION
`Original Filing Date: June 18, 2024
`Redacted Filing Date: June 25, 2024
`
`DEFENDANT AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS
`
`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
`
`June 18, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 2 of 47 PageID #: 23149
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................................1
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ..............................................................................3
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4
`Summary Judgment that Transit Gateway Infringes the M-regular and
`A.
`Incomplete Limitations is Inappropriate. .................................................................4
`1.
` Forwarding Does Not Infringe. .............................................5
`2.
` Does Not Infringe ..................................................................9
`3.
`Multicasting Does Not Infringe. ................................................................12
`4.
`AB’s Case Law Is Inapposite. ....................................................................14
`5.
`AB Has Not Apportioned the Value of Hyperplane ..................................16
`Mr. Greene’s Obviousness Opinions Should Not be Excluded and Summary
`Judgment of Validity is Inappropriate. ..................................................................17
`Mr. Greene Relies on Express Disclosures for Every Element of
`1.
`the Asserted Claims. ..................................................................................18
`Mr. Greene Explained the Motivation to Combine in His Reports
`and During His Deposition. .......................................................................20
`AWS’s Experts Provide Reliable and Admissible Opinions on Non-Infringing
`Alternatives. ...........................................................................................................25
`1.
`Ms. Sultanik’s Opinions Are Well-Supported and Reliable ......................27
`2.
`Ms. Kindler’s Qualitative NIA Analysis Should Not Be Excluded...........28
`Ms. Kindler’s Damages Opinions Should Not Be Excluded .................................31
`1.
`Ms. Kindler’s Opinion Relies on Multiple Relevant Datapoints ...............31
`2.
`Ms. Kindler’s Opinion Correctly Assumes Infringement. .........................34
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................39
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 3 of 47 PageID #: 23150
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Acceleration Bay v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`612 F. Supp. 3d 408 ...................................................................................................................7
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Comms., Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................23
`
`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) .......................................23
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. SciMed Life Sys.,
`101 F. Supp. 2d 1257 (N.D. Cal. 1999) ...................................................................................23
`
`Alza Corp. v. Andrx Pharm., LLC,
`C.A. No. 05-642-JJF, 2008 WL 1886042 (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2008) .........................................26
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...............................................................................................................3, 4
`
`ATD Corp. v. Lydall, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 534 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................23
`
`Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
`771 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................27
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988)................................................................................................19
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .......................................................................................................4, 26, 28
`
`EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage, Inc.,
`154 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D. Del. 2016) .....................................................................................26, 29
`
`First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co.,
`391 U.S. 253 (1968) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Formax, Inc. v. Alkar–Rapidpak–MP Equip., Inc.,
`No. 11-C-398, 2014 WL 3057116 (E.D. Wis. July 7, 2014) ...................................................29
`
`Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-135, 2022 WL 17325656 (D. Del. Nov. 28, 2022) .................................................29
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 4 of 47 PageID #: 23151
`
`Hitkansut LLC v. United States,
`130 Fed. Cl. 353 (2017), aff’d, 721 F. App’x 992 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................23
`
`Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC,
`946 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................19
`
`HSM Portfolio LLC v. Elpida Memory Inc.,
`C.A. No. 11-770-RGA, 2016 WL 552543 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2016) ..................................37, 38
`
`i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................................4
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Lab’ys,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................22, 23
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................22
`
`Johnston v. IVAC Corp.,
`885 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................4
`
`Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC,
`381 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................23
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
`550 U.S. 398 (2007). ................................................................................................................21
`
`L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................4
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................34
`
`Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................29, 30
`
`Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp.,
`62 F. Supp. 3d 368 (D.Del.2014) .............................................................................................26
`
`Meyer Intellectual Properties Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc.,
`690 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................21, 22, 26
`
`MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`209 F. Supp. 3d 756 (D. Del. 2016) .........................................................................................28
`
`Novosteel SA v. U.S. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
`284 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................37
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 5 of 47 PageID #: 23152
`
`NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.
`No. 2:20-CV-01503-JHC, 2023 WL 3933877 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2023) ............................30
`
`Persawvere, Inc. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.
`C.A. No. 21-400-GBW, 2023 WL 8019085 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2023) .....................................33
`
`Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation & Rsch. v. Donghee Am., Inc.,
`387 F. Supp. 3d 404 (D. Del. 2018) .........................................................................................29
`
`Princeton Biochems., Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.,
`411 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................23
`
`Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp.,
`127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................3
`
`S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS, 2022 WL 22401011 (D. Del. April 8, 2022).....................................21
`
`Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried,
`320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003).......................................................................................................4
`
`Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Techs., Inc.,
`796 F. Supp. 2d 520 (D. Del. 2011) .........................................................................................21
`
`TQ Delta LLC v. 2Wire, Inc.
`C.A. No. 13-1835-RGA, 2021 WL 2649739 (D. Del. June 28, 2021). .............................14, 15
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Adtran, Inc.,
`C.A. Nos. 14-954-RGA and 15-121-RGA, 2020 WL 4529865 (D. Del. July
`31, 2020) ..................................................................................................................................37
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Adtran, Inc.
`C.A. No. 14-954-RGA, 2021 WL 1200595 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2021) ......................................15
`
`Vehicle IP, LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`227 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D. Del. 2016) .........................................................................................26
`
`ViaTech Tech. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`C.A. No. 14-1226 (RGA), 2017 WL 2538570 (D. Del. June 12, 2017) ..................................37
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................17
`
`WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999)................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 6 of 47 PageID #: 23153
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P 26 ............................................................................................................................26
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 7 of 47 PageID #: 23154
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Fact and expert discovery have closed. Trial is set to begin on September 23, 2024. Plaintiff
`
`Acceleration Bay (“AB”) has filed motions for summary judgment and to exclude testimony of
`
`Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) experts Joe Greene, Nadya Sultanik, and Lauren
`
`Kindler. This is AWS’s answering brief in opposition.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Summary judgment that Hyperplane—a technology used by one of the accused products,
`
`Transit Gateway—infringes the asserted claims’ “m-regular” and “incomplete” limitations is not
`
`appropriate. As AWS’s summary judgment motion shows, Transit Gateway and the other accused
`
`products do not use the distinct m-regular network required by all asserted claims. And indeed,
`
`AB’s motion presents no evidence that any feature of Hyperplane meets the Court’s construction
`
`of m-regular, since there is none showing a network configured to maintain a particular state where
`
`all participants are connected to the same number of other participants. At best, AB’s motion shows
`
`that aspects of Hyperplane networks can achieve an m-regular number of connections, but that is
`
`not what the Court’s construction requires. Nor does AB provide undisputed evidence that
`
`Hyperplane uses an incomplete network, as most of the asserted claims require. Rather, the record
`
`here—including AWS’s documentary evidence, AWS engineer testimony, and AWS non-
`
`infringement expert Nadya Sultanik’s opinions—shows that there is at least a genuine issue of
`
`material fact on whether Hyperplane’s networks are incomplete.
`
`Summary judgment of validity is also not appropriate. AWS’s invalidity expert, Mr.
`
`Greene, provided 893 pages of expert reports and claims charts showing that the claims are obvious
`
`over the asserted prior art references. And he supported his opinions with record facts and the
`
`proper legal framework for analyzing obviousness. Those opinions show at least a genuine dispute
`
`of material fact as to whether the claims are valid, and AB provides no basis for excluding them.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 8 of 47 PageID #: 23155
`
`Indeed, Mr. Greene properly applied his over 30 years of computer networking experience in
`
`analyzing invalidity. And contrary to AB’s assertions, he did not use improper hindsight, as both
`
`his opening and reply reports detail, among other things, specific evidence from the prior art
`
`references’ disclosures showing motivation to combine his combinations. AB’s critiques of his
`
`opinions go to their weight, and not their admissibility.
`
`Likewise, AB provides no basis to exclude Ms. Sultanik’s opinions on non-infringing
`
`alternatives (“NIAs”) or Ms. Kindler’s reliance on those opinions. Here too, AB points to issues
`
`that go to the weight of the evidence these experts rely on, not the admissibility of their opinions.
`
`That Ms. Sultanik relies on AWS’s interrogatory responses for her opinions does not mandate
`
`exclusion—to the contrary, it shows that she appropriately addressed the NIAs that AWS disclosed
`
`during fact discovery. This is standard expert procedure in patent infringement cases—indeed,
`
`AB’s experts used AB’s interrogatory responses in framing their opinions on issues such as the
`
`benefits of the accused technologies. And Ms. Kindler is a non-technical expert, who appropriately
`
`relied on a technical expert’s assessment of the NIAs, following the standard approach in patent
`
`infringement litigation that courts have endorsed. Beyond that, her analysis is the sort of qualitative
`
`assessment that courts regularly admit. That AB disagrees with these opinions does not require
`
`exclusion; it requires cross-examination.
`
`Finally, Ms. Kindler’s damages opinions do not use the “black box” approach that courts
`
`have cautioned against. Rather, she relies on multiple data points to produce a likely damages
`
`range—meaning that no single data point is indispensable. To be sure, her opinion relies on
`
`multiple comparable licenses that all converge around the range she identifies. Thus, the removal
`
`of any one of those licenses individually, as the hypotheticals AB presented to her at her deposition
`
`did, would not change the range since other datapoints independently support her conclusion. And
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 9 of 47 PageID #: 23156
`
`her opinion assumes infringement based on the infringement theories AB identified in its
`
`affirmative expert disclosures. Specifically, she assumed that VPC and Transit Gateway infringed,
`
`and the five other products included in the damages calculation infringed “through the use” of one
`
`or both of those services—as AB’s infringement expert Dr. Medvidović opined in his opening
`
`report. Ms. Kindler’s approach followed Judge Fallon’s February 26, 2024 discovery ruling,1
`
`which found that AB had confined its infringement theories to VPC and Transit Gateway, and
`
`other products’ infringement through the use of those products. And there is no basis to exclude
`
`Ms. Kindler’s opinion for failing to consider infringement theories that Dr. Medvidović
`
`impermissibly disclosed in his reply report eleven days after she issued her report.
`
`Accordingly, for these reasons and as detailed further below, AB’s motions should be
`
`denied.
`
`III. 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.” In applying this standard, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed,
`
`and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [the non-movant’s] favor.”2 So, for instance, AB,
`
`as the moving party, bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine issue of material fact that
`
`Hyperplane meets the limitations in question.3 To be sure, a patentee “must make a prima facie
`
`showing of infringement as to each accused device before the burden shifts to the accused infringer
`
`
`
`1 D.I. 115.
`2 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
`3 See Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“To show literal
`infringement of a patent, a patentee must supply sufficient evidence to prove that the accused
`product or process meets every element or limitation of a claim.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 10 of 47 PageID #: 23157
`
`to offer contrary evidence.”4 And, to meet its burden, AWS, as the non-moving party, need only
`
`point to evidence raising a genuine dispute of material fact to preclude summary judgment of
`
`infringement.5 That is in contrast to a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, where
`
`an accused infringer “is entitled to summary judgment, on the ground of non-infringement, by
`
`pointing out that the patentee failed to put forth evidence to support a finding that a limitation of
`
`the asserted claim was met by the structure in the accused devices.”6
`
`Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that expert testimony be “not only relevant, but
`
`reliable.”7 Reliable testimony “must be based on the ‘methods and procedures of science’ rather
`
`than on ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’” 8 Indeed, “Daubert and Rule 702 are
`
`safeguards against unreliable or irrelevant opinion, not guarantees of correctness.” 9 And the
`
`traditional methods for a party to attack admissible evidence it disagrees with are “[v]igorous
`
`cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of
`
`proof.”10
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment that Transit Gateway Infringes the M-regular and
`Incomplete Limitations is Inappropriate.
`
`AB fails to meet its burden to prove on summary judgment that Transit Gateway infringes
`
`
`4 L & W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`5 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249 (“all that is required is that sufficient evidence supporting the claimed
`factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the
`truth at trial.” (quoting First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968)).
`6 Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1577-78 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
`7 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993).
`8 Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396, 404 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal citations
`omitted).
`9 i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 854 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`10 Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 11 of 47 PageID #: 23158
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 11 of 47 PagelD #: 23158
`
`the m-regular and incomplete limitations. In fact, it has provided no evidencethat it meets those
`
`limitations, and summary judgmentof non-infringementofall claims is appropriate as set forth in
`
`AWS’s motion for summary judgment.!! As AWS’s documents show,
`
`its engineers have
`
`confirmed, and its expert has opined, nothing about any of the three Hyperplane features that are
`
`the focus ofAB’s motioni forwardingfill2c multicasting) is configured
`
`to maintain a network in whichall participants are connected to the same numberofall other
`
`participants, nor is there evidence that the networks must be incomplete.
`
`L; Po Does NotInfringe.
`Hyperplane is a component of Transit Gateway thatis used to route data.!” Hyperplaneis
`
`made up ofa. and eachfi is made upofseverallayers. ? Theiii layer of each
`a is comprised ofP| calledfil that control the flow of data from one destination
`to another based on thehz defined by the customer.'* Every a in Hyperplanestarts
`withi instances peravailability zone, but that limit can increase to a. or even beyond
`
`if demand requires it.!° To spread workload out amongst computing resources, AWS implements
`
`a technique called shuffle sharding to connect eachi to iim throughi
`Po associated with the a. 16 Because of shuffle sharding, noti
`
`1! See D.I. 148.
`
`2 DI. 149-1, Ex. 19 at 1.
`3 Td. Fx.21 at'1—2;,10-11.
`
`14 Tq, Ex. 21 at 10-11.
`1 Td., Ex. 19 at 3.
`
`iE
`
`Mt Je
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 12 of 47 PageID #: 23159
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 12 of 47 PagelD #: 23159
`
`I so 0 i dats can then be routed toETxp
`accuses that process ofinfringement, but the evidenceit relies on fails to even create a
`
`genuine dispute of material fact that the network is m-regular or incomplete, since noneofit proves
`
`that the network seeks to maintain a particularstate.
`
`For its LCT theory, AB relies primarily on a diagram from an AWS
`
`internal documentthat it alleges shows an m-regular network, and an accompanying table that
`
`purportsto list the connections between a usersubnet andi. '? But that diagram
`
`does not show each participant connected to the same number of otherparticipants, as the
`
`construction for “m-regular” requires. It depicts|| with an additional connection to each of
`the subnets that thea do not have, as Ms. Sultanik confirmed in her deposition.”°
`According to Dr. Medvidovic’schart, this is because the depiction ofii actually includes i
`po within thea. and thus each ml can forward toa. But AB
`does not definefl as participants;it identifies as the participantsin its brief, not different
`|| within thea. which Dr. Medvidoviéalso confirmedin his deposition.”? AB points to
`
`a portion of Ms. Sultanik’s deposition which it claims showsthat she agrees with Dr. Medvidovié
`
`that the depicted network is m-regular since she identifies that is connected to|
`|ie But her calculation ofthe numberofconnections there included that are both connected
`
`18 Td., Ex. 21 at 4, 15-16.
`
`19 See D.I. 151 at 8.
`
`20 See Ex. A at 65:9-66:5.
`
`21 See D.I. 151 at 8 (citing D.I. 152-1, Ex. 1 at § 318).
`2 See DI. 151 at 7 (“The Hyperplane
`form m-regular networks, where each participant[ij is
`connected to the same numberof other
`.”); Ex. B at 289:8-10 (“Q. All right. And in this -- in
`your view, those|| comprise the participants in the claims here; right? A. They would be the
`participants.”).
`3 See D.I. 151 at 10 (citing 152-1, Ex. 13 at 69:6—14 (referring to D.I. 152-1, Ex. 6 at Fig. 8)).
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 13 of 47 PageID #: 23160
`
`to the same subnet, and thus would not engage in
`
` with each other.24 Thus, the diagram
`
`does not depict each
`
` with the same number of connections for
`
`, as AB
`
`alleges.25
`
`Further, and more fundamentally, a diagram alone cannot show m-regularity under the
`
`Court’s construction. An m-regular network must be configured to maintain a state where the
`
`participants are connected to the same number of participants. 26 The critical element of the
`
`construction is “configured to maintain”—i.e., the construction requires that the network not only
`
`be in a state where each participant is connected to the same number of other participants, the
`
`network must seek that state out if there’s a change in participants. As this Court explained it in
`
`Acceleration Bay vs. Take Two Interactive, “if the network does not have each participant
`
`connected to m neighbors, this is fine so long as, when appropriate, it tries to get to that
`
`configuration.”27 So, a single diagram—like the one AB relies on here—does not show what state
`
`the network seeks to maintain. And AB’s experts have recognized this. For instance, Dr. Goodrich,
`
`AB’s validity expert, testified that he could not determine from a “single snapshot in time” whether
`
`a network was configured to maintain any particular state such as m-regularity.28 Dr. Medvidović
`
`testified similarly, stating that “without further context,” a diagram alone cannot show whether a
`
`
`24 See D.I. 149-2, Ex. 36 at ¶ 341.
`25 The diagram reproduced in AB’s brief appears in Dr. Medvidović’s report at ¶ 318. See D.I.
`152-1, Ex 1 at ¶ 318. Paragraph 318 contains a second diagram and accompanying chart that fails
`to show a network with m connections for the same reason: it relies on differentiating between
` within a
` rather than the
` themselves. See id.
`26 See D.I. 81 at 2, 4.
`27 Acceleration Bay v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 3d 408, 419 (D. Del.
`2020).
`28 D.I. 149-2, Ex. 34 at 124:13–21.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 14 of 47 PageID #: 23161
`
`network is configured to maintain m-regularity.29 And, as shown above, Dr. Medvidović’s chart—
`
`the purported context—does not show m-regularity since it does not depict every
`
` with the same
`
`number of connections.
`
`AB’s motion also claims that “Hyperplane
`
` maintains the network as
`
`m-regular and incomplete by imposing limits on the number of
`
` in the system and the
`
`connections each
`
` is allowed to have.”30 But the presence of a limit does not show whether the
`
`network is configured to maintain a state where every participant is connected to the same number
`
`of other participants. Nothing requires that a network operate at the limit, for example. Indeed, in
`
`Hyperplane networks it is the opposite; Mr. MacCárthaigh confirmed that in the “unusual” case
`
`where AWS saw a customer whose traffic was approaching the
`
` limit, AWS would “be
`
`working with that customer to help them, you know, spread traffic around in other ways or find
`
`other patterns.”31
`
`
`
`Although Ms. Sultanik does not dispute that participants can have the same number of
`
`connections to other participants in Hyperplane, that is not what the patents require. The patents
`
`require that the network be configured to maintain a particular state.32 AB’s brief does not even
`
`mention this requirement, much less point to any evidence showing that the network is concerned
`
`with maintaining any particular state. Therefore, AB has not met its burden to prove its entitlement
`
`to summary judgment of infringement, or to overcome AWS’s motion for summary judgment of
`
`
`29 Ex. B at 114:1–14 (“All we can tell is that it's m-regular. We cannot -- without further context,
`we can't really say anything about it, but fortunately for all of us, that context is provided in the
`patent; so this figure comes from the patent (indicating). So we all know how to read it because of
`what the – what patent teaches about it.”).
`30 D.I. 151 at 7.
`31 D.I. 152-1, Ex. 12 at 202:20–203:2.
`32 See D.I. 77 at 10 n.3; D.I. 81 at 2.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 15 of 47 PageID #: 23162
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 15 of 47 PagelD #: 23162
`
`non-infringement. And contrary to AB’s assertions, Ms. Sultanik does “makethe affirmative claim
`
`that Dr. Medvidovic’s explanation of the connections betweenfi is incorrect”*° when she notes
`that the diagram herelies on in paragraph 318 ofhis report does not depict theSS the way
`he explains them for purposesofherdiscussion(iiiit Thus, AB’s argument
`
`9933
`
`that her report somehow concedes m-regularity is incorrect. As her opinions explain, and AWS’s
`
`documents confirm,wa is not an m-regular, incomplete network under the
`
`Court’s construction and, to the extent AWS’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement
`
`is denied, summary judgmentthat it meets those limitations is inappropriate since there is at least
`
`a genuine dispute of materialfact.
`
`ze PEDoes Not Infringe
`The HyperplaneLh is not an m-regular, incomplete network, either. The Ly
`BE 200EEi
`
`Sultanik opined, nothing aboutthisee: anything to do with m-regularity.*’
`
`That is because the Court’s construction requires that the network be configured to maintain the
`
`m-regular state, not merely achieve it at any particular time.** TheTE<<: not try to
`
`3 D1. 151 at 11
`
`#4 D1. 152-1, Ex. 10 at § 342.
`> Eg. Ex. C at 193:14-21 (“[T]he
`they're just
`with the expectation that the
`
`And it determines
`
`. They have a
`will see it —
`
`wal
`
`371)I. 149-2, Ex. 36 at J 344.
`38 See DI. 81 at 2, 4.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 16 of 47 PageID #: 23163
`
`
`achieve any particular numberof connections. ma themselves
`
`separate component called the Po must see thatPo received a
`
`
`
`
`
`same number of connections amongst all Po at a given time sincea
`
`
`
`
`reconfiguration of the network. Andthe record also shows
`
`s AWSengineer Bashuman Deb explained,
`
`1 And the AWS documents that AB cites confirm that.*
`
`Indeed,it is critical that each
`
`
`
`By contrast, AB does not provide any evidence that theEe. m-
`
`regular and incomplete. Instead it relies on its rote assertions that m-regularity is enforced in the
`
`network because || are added in groups ofa. and largely cites to evidence related to other
`
`portions of the Hyperplane system.** Specifically, AB cites two paragraphs from Dr. Medvidovié’s
`
`
`
`#” Ee. DI. 152-1, Ex. 8 at 7 (“The
`
`ain7
`
`instances themselves are responsible for
`
`“ D.L.151 at 9.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 17 of 47 PageID #: 23164
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 164 Filed 06/25/24 Page 17 of 47 PagelD #: 23164
`
`report that appear in a section describing| deposition testimony from
`AWS’s Mr. MacCarthaigh where he was not asked about thea. and a document
`discussing Hyperplane scaling that does not mentionL at all.*” None of those pieces of
`evidence even discussa. muchless provethat there is no genuine dispute ofmaterial
`
`fact that it is m-regular and incomplete under the Court’s construction.
`
`Nordo the threeBEpieces of evidence that AB does cite—two AWSdocuments
`
`and a paragraph from Dr. Medvidovié’s report that itself relies on those two documents **—
`
`is a diagram that purports to show how Ll
`support AB’s argument. The first document
`connI;a
`
`connected to each other.*? But in deposition, when AB’s counsel showed him this diagram, Mr.
`
`MacCarthaigh testified that he was “not completely certain what[it is] getting at” since it depicts
`
`connections between [| in LC availability zones and “Hyperplane is a — ay
`|ln To that end, he explained, “if a LILo aa. theLd|
`So: ico:it
`BE bichis cesiened soEELP
`a.” Further, the second document, an overview of Hyperplane’s |
`
`4 See D.I. 152-1, Ex. 1 at 9 201-202.
`“© See id., Ex. 12 at 187:19-23, 202:8-203:2.
`47 See generally, D.I. 152-1, Ex. 11 at AMZ_AB000124572-73.
`48 See id., Ex. 1 at § 2