Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 1 of 48 PageID #: 23487
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-904-RGA-SRF
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC, a
`Delaware Limited Liability Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendant.
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND TO EXCLUDE EXPERT OPINIONS
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`OF COUNSEL:
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`Hercules Plaza
`Paul J. Andre
`P.O. Box 951
`Lisa Kobialka
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`James Hannah
`(302) 984-6000
`Kristopher Kastens
`provner@potteranderson.com
`Michael Lee
`
`Christina M. Finn
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
`Acceleration Bay, LLC
` & 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: June 18, 2024
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`11569541
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Public version dated: June 26, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 2 of 48 PageID #: 23488
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`AWS Does Not Have a License to the Asserted Patents ........................................ 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AWS Abandoned the Non-Assert Clause ....................................................2
`
` is Unenforceable as a One-Sided Form
`The
`Agreement Lacking Consideration ..............................................................4
`
` Should Be Narrowly
`The Ambiguous
`Construed .....................................................................................................6
`
`
`AWS Should Be Precluded From Relying on the
` Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)
`Because it Selectively Withheld Relevant Amendments .............................9
`
`AWS Does Not Have Admissible Evidence to Prove Boeing’s Use
`of VPC, EC2 and Cloudfront .....................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AB Notified AWS it Was Infringing in 2019 ....................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`AB’s Notice Letter to AWS Identifies the Infringing Product Line
`and the Family of Asserted Patents ............................................................13
`
`The Epic Games Notice Letter Confirms AWS Was on Notice ................16
`
`AWS’ Decision to Ignore AB’s Notice Letter Creates a Genuine Issue of
`Material Fact as to Willfulness ............................................................................. 18
`
`The Accused Products Use M-Regular Networks ................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Accused Products Provide Scalable Cloud-Computing
`Services ......................................................................................................21
`
`VPC Peering Uses M-Regular Networks ...................................................22
`
`VPC Infringes Through the Use of M-Regular
`
` Products .............25
`
`Transit Gateway Uses Infringing M-Regular Networks ............................27
`
`AB Disclosed Damages Theories for
`
` and Hyperplane ................30
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 3 of 48 PageID #: 23489
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Cole Used a Reliable Methodology to Determine the Technical Value
`of the Infringing Functionality to the Accused Products ...................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Cole Relied on AWS Documents Identifying the Technical
`Features of the Accused Products ..............................................................32
`
`Dr. Cole Consistently Applied his Methodology .......................................34
`
`Mr. Gunderson’s Reasonable Royalty Opinion Reliably Captures the Full
`Scope of AWS’ Infringement ............................................................................... 36
`
`Mr. Gunderson Properly Opined that the Parties to the Hypothetical
`Negotiation Would Be Aware of the Activision Verdict ...................................... 38
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 23490
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D. Del. 2018) .........................................................................................39
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,
`No. 16-453-RGA, 2017 WL 3738383 (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2017) ............................24, 38, 39, 40
`
`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)........................................................20
`
`Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,
`24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..............................................................................................15, 17
`
`Applied Med. Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................40
`
`Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co.,
`No. 20-51, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2727 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2021), adopted 530
`F. Supp. 3d 468, 478 (D. Del. 2021) ..................................................................................19, 20
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Dali Wireless, Inc. v. CommScope Techs. LLC,
`2022 WL 19830016, (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2022) ...........................................................................19
`
`Eastman Kodak Co. v. Agfa-Gevaert N.V.,
`560 F. Supp. 2d 227 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) ....................................................................................15
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................18
`
`Epic Games, Inc. v. AB,
`No. 4:19-cv-4133 (N.D. Cal.) ............................................................................................16, 17
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.
`No. 2:15-cv-1202, 2017 WL 2190055 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ..........................................20
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC,
`No. 19-cv-01937-MFK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243938 (D. Del. Aug. 8,
`2022) ........................................................................................................................................19
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 5 of 48 PageID #: 23491
`
`
`
`Farmers Ins. Co. v. U.S.F. & G. Co.,
`13 Wash.App. 836 (1975) ..........................................................................................................6
`
`Ferris v. Blumhardt,
`48 Wash. 2d 395 (1956) .........................................................................................................2, 4
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................33
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-00072-BLF, 2020 WL 13180005 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) ...................33, 34, 35
`
`Flatworld Interactives LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 378 (D. Del. 2014) ...........................................................................................15
`
`Gabl v. Alaska Loan & Inv. Co.,
`6 Wn. App. 880 (1972) ..............................................................................................................7
`
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc.,
`254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..........................................................................................16, 17
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC,
`587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................16
`
`Interspiro USA, Inc. v. Figgie Int’l Inc.,
`18 F.3d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1994)......................................................................................................2
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.,
`607 F. Supp. 3d 464 (D. Del. 2022) ...................................................................................39, 40
`
`IP Power Holdings Ltd. v. Westfield Outdoor, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-01878, 2020 WL 2992415 (D. Nev. June 4, 2020) .......................................19, 20
`
`Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`558 F. Supp. 3d 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2021)........................................................................................18
`
`King v. Rice,
`146 Wash. App. 662 (2008) .................................................................................................7, 10
`
`Luna v. Gillingham,
`57 Wash. App. 574 (1990) .........................................................................................................6
`
`Marshall v. Thurston Cnty.,
`165 Wash. App. 346 (2011) .......................................................................................................9
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C 20-08103 WHA, 2021 WL 4685306 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) .....................................19
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 6 of 48 PageID #: 23492
`
`
`
`McMillen v. Bancroft,
`162 Wash. 175 (1931) ............................................................................................................2, 4
`
`Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Ass’n,
`559 F.2d 894 (3d Cir.1977)................................................................................................10, 11
`
`Montrose Med. Grp. Participating Sav. Plan v. Bulger,
`243 F.3d 773 (3d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................17
`
`Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Watson,
`120 Wash. 2d 178 (1992) ...........................................................................................................6
`
`Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 1:09-cv-00791-GMS, 2011 WL 2160904 (D. Del. Jun. 1, 2011) .....................................18
`
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
`96 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d, 304 F.3d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ....................13, 15
`
`Pabst v. Hardwick,
`105 Wash. App. 1028 (2001) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc.,
`772 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1985)................................................................................................17
`
`Refac Elecs. Corp. v. A & B Beacon Bus. Machines Corp.
`695 F. Supp. 753 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ..........................................................................................16
`
`Schoneman v. Wilson,
`56 Wash.App. 776 (1990) ..........................................................................................................4
`
`Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.,
`669 F. Supp. 3d 826 (N.D. Cal. 2023) ...............................................................................11, 12
`
`Skillz Platform Inc. v. AviaGames Inc.,
`No. 21-CV-02436-BLF, 2023 WL 8438738 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2023) ...................................33
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`760 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................39, 40
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Lab’ys, Inc.,
`127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..........................................................................................15, 17
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................18, 19
`
`United Emp’rs Ins. Co. v. Mentor,
`No. 35237-7-I, 1996 WL 509559 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 1996) ............................................7
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 7 of 48 PageID #: 23493
`
`
`
`Universal/Land Const. Co. v. City of Spokane,
`49 Wash. App. 634 (1987) .........................................................................................................8
`
`Unova Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard.,
`No. 02-cv-3772 ER, 2006 WL 5434534 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2006) ........................................16
`
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`No. 11-515-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 12731924 (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2015) .......................................31
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ...................................................................................................................13, 17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) .........................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) ....................................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C) ..............................................................................................................9
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) .......................................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 8 of 48 PageID #: 23494
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc.’s (“AWS”) summary judgment and Daubert motions ignore
`
`Acceleration Bay, LLC’s (“AB”) substantial evidence of infringement and damages, including
`
`AWS’ technical documents, the binding admissions of its corporate witnesses, and detailed expert
`
`opinions. This evidence creates trial issues of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
`
`AWS’ Daubert challenges fare no better and, at most, raise disagreements between the experts that
`
`it can address on cross examination. AWS’ motions should be denied, as set forth below.
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`AWS Does Not Have a License to the Asserted Patents
`
`AWS claims it obtained a license to the Asserted Patents for some of the Accused Products
`
`based on
`
`. But after years of public pushback regarding
`
`its abusive and unenforceable boilerplate “patent non-assert clause” (“Non-Assert Clause”), AWS
`
`notified its customers that it had abandoned that provision. Thus, long before AB filed this suit,
`
`AWS relinquished any rights it had,
`
`
`
`.
`
`There are at least four additional grounds that each independently warrant denial of AWS’
`
`motion regarding the
`
`. As explained below, (1) there was
`
`
`
`, rendering it invalid and unenforceable, (2) it is ambiguous and should be
`
`construed narrowly against AWS as the drafter, (3) AWS should be precluded from relying on the
`
`, and
`
`(4) AWS failed to provide admissible evidence to prove
`
`.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 9 of 48 PageID #: 23495
`
`
`
`
`
`AWS Abandoned the Non-Assert Clause
`
`AWS’s Non-Assert Clause that appeared in all of its customer agreements was heavily
`
`criticized as abusive and ambiguous. See, e.g., Exs. 1, 2 (articles criticizing Non-Assert Clause).1
`
`In response to this outcry, AWS announced in 2017 that it was abandoning its Non-Assert Clause
`
`in all of its customer contracts, and that customers did not need to take any action to obtain the
`
`benefit of AWS’ relinquishment of this provision:
`
`The AWS Customer Agreement was updated on June 28, 2017. In this update
`we are improving the terms of the AWS Customer Agreement related to
`intellectual property rights. These changes include … removing the patent
`non-assert clause. AWS customers do not need to take any action to get the
`benefit of the updates to the online AWS Customer Agreement.
`
`Ex. 3 (2017 AWS website notice) (emphasis added). Thus, due to mutual abandonment of this
`
`provision, “the parties are entitled to restoration to their original rights,” and
`
`. McMillen v. Bancroft, 162 Wash. 175, 180 (1931).
`
`Under the Washington state law,
`
`
`
` is
`
`“treated as abandoned where the acts of one party inconsistent with its existence are acquiesced in
`
`by the other.” Id. (citation omitted); AWS Ex. 32 (the
`
`
`
`; Interspiro USA, Inc. v. Figgie Int’l Inc., 18 F.3d 927, 931 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1994) (interpretation of an agreement is governed by state contract law). Here, AWS took
`
`multiple actions
`
`Ferris v. Blumhardt, 48 Wash. 2d 395, 402-03 (1956).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, “Ex.” refers to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Christina M.
`Finn in Support of AB’s Opposition to AWS’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
`2 “AWS Ex.” refers to exhibits attached to Declaration of R. William Sigler. D.I. 149.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 10 of 48 PageID #: 23496
`
`
`
` when it publicly informed its customers that it was
`
`“removing the patent non-assert clause” and that “AWS customers do not need to take any action
`
`to get the benefit of the updates to the online AWS Customer Agreement.” Ex. 3 (2017 AWS
`
`website notice). AWS’ announcement was an “action inconsistent with” maintaining the existence
`
`of the Non-Assert Clause in its customer agreements.
`
` Id.
`
`. Ex. 4 (“2022 Amendment”) at 12.
`
`AWS further demonstrated its
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AB’s notice in 2019 that it was infringing the Asserted Patents and needed a license
`
`(discussed in Section II.B). AWS Ex. 9.
`
`. AWS Ex. 10. Because AWS had
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` such that
`
`. Novation
`
`between the same parties “substitutes a new obligation for an old one” and requires “[1] the
`
`necessary parties, [2] a valid prior obligation to be displaced by the new obligation, [3]
`
`consideration, and [4] mutual agreement.” Pabst v. Hardwick, 105 Wash. App. 1028 (2001)
`
`(citation omitted). The 2022 Amendment meets all four requirements. It is (1)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 11 of 48 PageID #: 23497
`
`
`
`4
`
` and (2)
`
` at
`
`specifically states that
`
`Collectively, AWS’ actions evince a
`
` Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
` Additionally, the 2022 Amendment
`
` Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ferris, 48 Wash. 2d at 402-03
`
`(“Abandonment occurs when a party voluntarily relinquishes a right to something, with the
`
`intention of terminating its ownership in that right.”); see also McMillen, 162 Wash. at 180 (due
`
`to mutual abandonment, “the parties are entitled to restoration to their original rights”).
`
`To the extent AWS disputes abandonment or novation, the resolution of these issues are a
`
`“mixed question of law and fact” that preclude summary judgment. Schoneman v. Wilson, 56
`
`Wash.App. 776, 850 (1990) (resolution of abandonment is appropriate for the trier of fact.”)
`
`
`
`The Non-Assert Clause is Unenforceable as a One-Sided Form
`Agreement Lacking Consideration
`
`. There is no evidence to support AWS’ claim that the
`
`provided Boeing with
`
`for AWS’ implication that those
`
`
`
`
`
` and, in particular, no support
`
`
`
` Mot. at 1. Rather, viewing
`
`the contract as a whole and in light of evidence that AWS failed to produce, the
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 12 of 48 PageID #: 23498
`
`
`
`. It is part of
`
`, which
`
`AWS failed to produce and which AB found on the Internet archive3. Compare AWS Ex. 9 at
`
`
`
` with Ex. 5 (2017 Customer Agreement) at § 8.5 (containing substantially identical provision).
`
`The same is true for the remainder of the
`
`. It is
`
` and the first paragraph shows that
`
`demonstrating that there were
`
`. AWS Ex. 3 at 1. Additionally,
`
` the
`
` instead reflects that
`
`. Id. at 8. And rather than reflecting
`
` Id. at
`
`Further, AWS
`
` (emphasis added). AWS does not identify
`
`
`
` The
`
`
`3 Although AWS should have no objection to the authenticity and admissibility of this document
`from AWS’ website, AB will obtain a declaration from the Internet Archive if necessary.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 13 of 48 PageID #: 23499
`
`
`
`, which is not surprising
`
`As a fundamental principle of contract law, that
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`Co. v. Watson, 120 Wash. 2d 178, 195 (1992). Thus, the
`
`
`
` renders it invalid. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Ambiguous
`
` Should Be Narrowly Construed
`
`Prior to AWS’ public global abandonment of its Non-Assert Clauses in 2017, these
`
`provisions were heavily criticized due to their abusive nature and the serious ambiguities in the
`
`provision. See, e.g., Exs. 1, 2.
`
`
`
`because “its terms are uncertain or capable of being understood in more than one manner.”
`
`Farmers Ins. Co. v. U.S.F. & G. Co., 13 Wash.App. 836, 840-41 (1975) (construing term “owner”
`
`against insurance carrier because term was ambiguous due to the fact that it “may have many
`
`meanings depending on the circumstances in which it is used”). Therefore, it should be
`
`
`
`
`
`(1990) (“requir[ing] [] ambiguous contract language be construed against the drafter.”).
`
`. Luna v. Gillingham, 57 Wash. App. 574, 581
`
`While
`
`a far more reasonable interpretation of the provision is that
`
`. This provision did not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AWS Ex. 3 at § 7.6.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 14 of 48 PageID #: 23500
`
`
`
`It would not make sense for
`
` in the context of
`
`
`
`
`
`. The parties’ intent is to be “interpreted in the context of the entire agreement” and “must
`
`be consistent with the principal purpose for which the parties entered into the agreement.” United
`
`Emp’rs Ins. Co. v. Mentor, No. 35237-7-I, 1996 WL 509559, at *2 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 1996).
`
`Washington state law requires consideration of “the objective of the contract, the contracting
`
`parties’ conduct, and the reasonableness of the parties’ respective interpretations.” King v. Rice,
`
`146 Wash. App. 662, 670-71 (2008) (reversing summary judgment based on finding that terms of
`
`conveyance were ambiguous in light of the context of the agreement) (citation omitted). Here, the
`
` had nothing at all to do with
`
`
`
`. Indeed, if companies like AWS and Boeing intended
`
`, they reasonably would have
`
`
`
`
`
`. See, e.g., D.I. 151 at 29; Ex. 8 (Confidential
`
`Patent License Agreement between ZitoVault, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc., including for example,
`
`Interpreting the
`
`).
`
`
`
`
`
` because “the law disfavors promises not to sue in the future.” United
`
`Emp’rs, 1996 WL 509559, at *2, citing Gabl v. Alaska Loan & Inv. Co., 6 Wn. App. 880, 884
`
`(1972) (because “the law disfavors promises not to sue in the future,” exculpatory clause of
`
`agreement was construed narrowly against lessor and by “reading the clause contextually” within
`
`the context of agreement in view of its “principal purpose”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 15 of 48 PageID #: 23501
`
`
`
`The principal purpose of AWS Procurement Agreement was
`
`it is unreasonable to read the clause as AWS proposes:
`
`; it was not
`
`
`
`. Therefore,
`
`
`
`. See
`
`Mot. at 9-10. This is far less plausible than AB’s plain reading of the provision. To the extent
`
`AWS’ overbroad reading is not rejected out of hand, it is at most the basis for an ambiguity that
`
`must be resolved
`
`. Universal/Land Const.
`
`Co. v. City of Spokane, 49 Wash. App. 634, 636-38 (1987) (construing contract term against drafter
`
`where provisions were internally inconsistent and thus ambiguous).
`
`. AWS Ex. 3 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Hypothetically, under AWS’ unsupported interpretation,
`
`AWS could have
`
`Such a reading is plainly unreasonable in the context of
`
` such that there is simply no way that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 16 of 48 PageID #: 23502
`
`
`
`Because the
`
` cannot be resolved
`
`on summary judgment. Marshall v. Thurston Cnty., 165 Wash. App. 346, 351-52 (2011) (finding
`
`grant of summary judgment inappropriate where term in contract was ambiguous as it was
`
`susceptible to two interpretations).
`
`
`
`
`AWS Should Be Precluded From Relying on the
` Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) Because it Selectively
`Withheld Relevant Amendments
`
`AWS should be precluded from relying on the
`
`
`
`
`
` its global abandonment of the Non-Assert Clause. AWS did not
`
`produce the
`
` to AB, despite it being plainly responsive to AB’s requests for “[a]ll
`
`Documents, communications, and things relating to Your defenses of . . . lack of standing, express
`
`or implied license, breach of contract, estoppel, and other equitable defenses.” Ex. 6 at 73 (AWS’
`
`response RFP 69) (emphasis added). Because the
`
`
`
`
`
`. Moreover, AWS also failed to produce any responsive discovery relating to
`
`its abandonment of the Non-Assert Clause in all of its customer agreements.
`
`AWS has no justification for failing to produce during discovery this highly material
`
`discovery. The circumstances demand exclusion of AWS’
`
`
`
` from consideration in this Motion or at trial pursuant to Rule 37(c)(1).
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (“If a party fails to provide information . . . as required by Rule 26(a) or
`
`(e), the party is not allowed to use that information . . . to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing,
`
`or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”). Further, the Court
`
`should strike AWS’ defenses relying on the agreement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) (“the court . . . may impose other appropriate sanctions, including” “prohibiting
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 17 of 48 PageID #: 23503
`
`
`
`the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.”). Exclusion is
`
`warranted here under the Pennypack factors. Meyers v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership
`
`Ass’n, 559 F.2d 894, 904-05 (3d Cir.1977).
`
`Factor One – Surprise: AB was surprised by the late discovery of the
`
`
`
` and its recent discovery
`
`of AWS’ public abandonment of the Non-Assert Clause. AWS produced
`
`, yet failed to produce
`
`
`
`
`
`, and all AWS announcements regarding this
`
`clause. As AB was not a party to the AWS/Boeing transactions, it had no way to know that AWS
`
`had provided a self-servingly incomplete set of agreements.
`
`
`
`
`
` and further evidences AWS’
`
` King, 146 Wash. App. at 670-71 (contract interpretation requires
`
`viewing contract as a whole, and considering its purpose and the parties’ actions).
`
`Factors Two and Three – Inability to Cure and Disruption to Trial: Absent striking
`
`AWS’ defense and reliance on the AWS Procurement Agreement, AB cannot cure the prejudice
`
`because it did not have any opportunity to take any discovery on AWS’ global abandonment of
`
`the Non-Assert Clauses, including AWS’ recognition that the clauses were ambiguous and
`
`unenforceable and its decision to retroactively release its customers from those provisions. Indeed,
`
`failing to produce the relevant discovery prevented AB from deposing relevant witnesses regarding
`
`the public announcements and the reasoning for such statements as well. Given that trial is only
`
`three months away, with summary judgment briefing concluding in less than two weeks, there is
`
`no time to reopen fact discovery to attempt to cure this prejudice. D.I. 14 at ¶ 16.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 18 of 48 PageID #: 23504
`
`
`
`Factors Four and Five – Intent and Importance: These factors also dictate exclusion.
`
`AWS’ intentional withholding of directly relevant evidence regarding
`
`
`
`. Such an incomplete disclosure for a
`
`defense that AWS seeks to assert in a litigation should not be countenanced. Even more troubling
`
`was AWS’s response to AB’s inquiries as to why AWS failed to produce this relevant discovery.
`
`AWS inexplicably asserted that the
`
`
`
` Ex. __ (Saltman email response). This explanation is
`
`implausible given the
`
` and suggests bad faith.
`
`AWS’ argument is also undercut because, in response to AB’s request for production of all
`
`documents and things “relating to” AWS’ license defense, AWS produced a 2018 amendment,
`
`entered into years after Boeing sold the patents to AB in 2014. AWS is not contending its
`
`withholding of the
`
` was an oversight. Rather, AWS made a deliberate decision
`
`to withhold this important evidence without any reasonable justification to the severe prejudice of
`
`AB. As a result and in view of the collective Pennypack factors, AWS should be precluded from
`
`relying on the
`
` should be stricken.
`
`
`
`AWS Does Not Have Admissible Evidence to Prove
`
`
`
`
`AWS does not have admissible evidence to support its license defense. Even under AWS’
`
`incorrect and overbroad reading
`
`
`
`. AWS Ex. 3 at
`
`. AWS has not come forward with admissible
`
`evidence that
`
` that are the same as those
`
`accused of infringement in this case. This is a factual issue for which AWS must affirmatively
`
`demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than in favor of AWS in order to
`
`proceed. Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple, Inc., 669 F. Supp. 3d 826, 831-33 (N.D. Cal. 2023), citing
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 19 of 48 PageID #: 23505
`
`
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, (1986) (denying infringer’s summary judgment
`
`motion on license defense for failing to meet its burden to establish undisputed facts through
`
`evidence that “could be presented in an admissible form at trial” to sustain defense).
`
`As its sole evidence that
`
`, AWS relies
`
`on hearsay created for the purpose of this litigation. AWS cite to spreadsheets that its witness
`
`admitted AWS created solely for purposes of this litigation. Ex. 7, Gasper Tr. at 121:5-13, 121:17-
`
`18. These spreadsheets are not business records and are hearsay because they are being offered to
`
`prove truth of
`
`. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c); Scramoge, 669 F.
`
`Supp. 3d at 831-32 (refusing to dismiss patentee’s claims based on out of court financial
`
`spreadsheets being offered to proof truth of required license terms where alleged infringer did not
`
`establish that “the statements’ contents could be presented in an admissible form at trial”).
`
`AWS did not produce in this litigation any business records establishing the
`
`
`
`. AWS’ litigation
`
`spreadsheets reference different
`
` in the spreadsheets, and AWS has
`
`not provided any admissible evidence
`
`
`
`. See AWS Ex. 5 at first column; Ex. 7, Gasper Tr. at 124:17-125:2 (“I know these are
`
`. I’m not sure beyond that.”). Even under AWS’ reading of
`
`Ex. 3 at
`
`. Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence as to the
`
` AWS
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, AWS lacks the evidence to proceed and summary judgment should be denied.
`
`, when it sold the Asserted Patents to AB.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 167 Filed 06/26/24 Page 20 of 48 PageID #: 23506
`
`
`
`
`
`AB Notified AWS it Was Infringing in 2019
`
`
`AB’s Notice Letter to AWS Identifies the Infringing Product Line and
`the Family of Asserted Patents
`
`AB is entitled to damages starting from March 13, 2019, when it notified AWS through a
`
`detailed notice letter that its global infrastructure infringes AB’s family of Asserted Patents. AWS
`
`Ex. 9 (the “AWS Notice Letter”). Specifically, AB informed AWS that the connections between
`
`its VPCs infringe, which applies to all of the Accused Products, not just CloudFront. Id. at 2-3.
`
`For purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), notice may be given through identification of the relevant
`
`product class, as AB did here by identifying the VPC-based products. Contrary to AWS’
`
`misstatement of the law (Mot. at 11-14), there is no requirement to mention “the specific accused
`
`device . . . in the notice” due to the “flex