throbber
Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 24423
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY, LLC, a
`Delaware Limited Liability Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-904-RGA-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY, LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTION
`
`
`
`Philip A. Rovner (#3215)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza
`P.O. Box 951
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 984-6000
`provner@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Acceleration Bay, LLC
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul J. Andre
`Lisa Kobialka
`James R. Hannah
`Michael H. Lee
`Kristopher Kastens
`Christina M. Finn
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 752-1700
`
`Aaron M. Frankel
`Marcus A. Colucci
`Cristina L. Martinez
`Pooja P. Parekh
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS
` & FRANKEL LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 715-9100
`
`Dated: June 28, 2024
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Public version dated: July 11, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 24424
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`There is No Genuine Dispute That AWS’ Transit Gateway is M-Regular and
`Incomplete........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
` Forwarding is M-Regular and Incomplete ....................................... 1
`
`Transit Gateway’s
`
` is M-Regular and Incomplete ............................. 4
`
`Multicast on Hyperplane is M-Regular and Incomplete ......................................... 5
`
`AWS Arguments on Apportionment are Irrelevant to Infringement ...................... 7
`
`II.
`
`Summary Judgment of No Invalidity is Required Because AWS Does Not Have Any
`Admissible Evidence to Support its Defense ...................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`AWS Abandoned its Anticipation Defense ............................................................ 7
`
`Mr. Greene’s Unexplained Inherency Opinions Should Be Excluded ................... 7
`
`Mr. Greene’s Obviousness Analysis is Insufficient as a Matter of Law ................ 9
`
`III.
`
`AWS’ Non-Infringing Alternative Opinions Should be Excluded and Summary
`Judgment Granted That There are No Non-Infringing Alternatives ................................. 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Ms. Sultanik’s Opinions on Alleged Alternatives are Unsupported and
`Unreliable .............................................................................................................. 12
`
`Ms. Kindler’s NIA Opinions Fall With Ms. Sultanik’s Unreliable
`Opinions ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`C.
`
`Summary Judgment of No Non-Infringing Alternatives is Appropriate .............. 15
`
`IV. Ms. Kindler’s Damages Opinions Should Be Excluded ................................................... 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Ms. Kindler’s Methodology is Unsound ............................................................... 16
`
`Ms. Kindler Failed to Assume Infringement ........................................................ 18
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 24425
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................10
`
`Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
`771 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .........................................................................12
`
`Dali Wireless, Inc. v. CommScope Techs. LLC,
`No. 19-952 (MN), 2022 WL 19830016, at *3 (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2022) ...................................14
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-02885-LHK, 2014 WL 1494247, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2014) .....................14
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Lab’ys,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................10
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................10
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1359, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................15
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574, 585-87 & n.10 (1986) .........................................................................................4
`
`Meyer Intellectual Properties Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc.,
`690 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................11
`
`MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`209 F. Supp. 3d 756, 766 (D. Del. 2016) .................................................................................13
`
`NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-01503-JHC, 2023 WL 3933877 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2023) ..............................15
`
`Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2015 WL 349197, at *3, *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2015) .........................17
`
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186, 1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..............................................................................7, 8
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 24426
`
`Persawvere, Inc. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.,
`No. 21-400-GBW, 2023 WL 8019085, at *10 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2023) .................................17
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`942 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................9, 10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ...........................................................................................................................11
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 ...........................................................................................................8, 11, 13, 14
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 24427
`
`I.
`
`There is No Genuine Dispute That AWS’ Transit Gateway is M-Regular and
`Incomplete
`
`Acceleration Bay (“AB”) established that AWS’ Transit Gateway uses infringing m-
`
`regular and incomplete networks through (1)
`
`, (2)
`
`, and (3)
`
`Multicast. D.I. 151 (“Br.”) at 2-12. AWS denies infringement, but its Opposition (D.I. 159,
`
`“Opp.”) fails to come forward with any evidence to create a genuine dispute as to this limitation.
`
`As shown below, AWS does not offer any affirmative explanation for how Transit Gateway’s
`
`networks are structured, attacks strawman arguments that AB is not making, and relies on non-
`
`existent claim limitations and unsupported attorney argument.
`
`A.
`
` is M-Regular and Incomplete
`
`AB provided unrebutted evidence that Transit Gateway’s core
`
`
`
`functionality is implemented with networks that are m-regular and incomplete. Br. at 7-9. As
`
`shown with AWS’ technical documents, engineer testimony, and Dr. Medvidović’s expert
`
`analysis, each participant in
`
` has the same number of connections (m-
`
`regular) but does not connect to
`
` (incomplete). Id.
`
`For example, Dr. Medvidović explains that AWS’ documentation depicting
`
`
`
` shows that “[e]ach of the
`
` are connected to
`
`, making the
`
`network -regular and incomplete.” AB MSJ Ex. 11, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶ 318 (citing AB MSJ
`
`Ex. 6, AMZ_AB_000124568). AWS does not dispute that this document shows
`
`,
`
`with each connected to
`
`, and that this is an m-regular, incomplete network.
`
`See Opp. at 6-7. Similarly, AWS concedes the
`
` network is incomplete
`
`because of “shuffle sharding,” which means that not every
`
` is connected to every
`
`. Id.
`
`
`1 “AB MSJ Ex.” refers to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Christina M. Finn in support of
`AB’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motion. D.I. 152.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 24428
`
`at 5 (“Because of shuffle sharding, not
`
` . . . . So,
`
` engage in a process called
`
` . . . .”). As such, there is no dispute that
`
`these elements are present in the Transit Gateway.
`
`AWS does not offer any alternative affirmative explanation for the structure that
`
` uses, for example, by contending that the network diagram AB and its expert rely
`
`upon is inaccurate. Instead, AWS contends that the
`
` in isolation, as shown in the diagram, do
`
`not form an m-regular network. Id. at 6. This is an argument against a strawman infringement
`
`claim, because the participants forming the m-regular network are
`
`, not
`
` in
`
`isolation. The
`
`that represents
`
` which is a networking component in a VPC
`
`. See id. at 5. Thus, the
`
` together act as the network “participants,” meeting the Court’s definition of “computer
`
`processes that are connected by a network.” D.I. 81 at 3. AWS incorrectly claims that “AB does
`
`not define
`
` as participants; it identifies
`
` as the participants.” Opp. at 6. As shown
`
`below, Dr. Medvidović’s infringement opinion clearly identifies the
`
` as the
`
`participant, and he shows that each
`
` (the left column) is connected to exactly
`
`
`
` (listed in the right column), thus forming a -regular incomplete network.
`
`AB MSJ Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶ 318 (annotated), excerpted in Br. at 8.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 24429
`
`Neither AWS nor its expert, Ms. Sultanik, responds to AB’s infringement claim based on
`
`, explains why a
`
` is not a participant as construed by the Court, or
`
`explains how the network connections identified by Dr. Medvidović are not an m-regular
`
`incomplete network. These undisputed facts alone warrant summary judgment.
`
`AWS contends that “a diagram alone cannot show m-regularity under the Court’s
`
`construction” because “[a]n m-regular network must be configured to maintain a state where the
`
`participants are connected to the same number of participants.” Opp. at 7. This is another attack
`
`on a strawman argument, because Dr. Medvidović is not relying on a “diagram alone.” Rather, he
`
`provides a detailed analysis, including citations to AWS’ source code, documents, and deposition
`
`testimony, to establish that
`
` is indeed configured to provide the network
`
`shown in the diagram. See, e.g., AB Reply Ex. 12, Medvidović Rpt. at ¶¶ 319, 323-338.
`
`For example, Dr. Medvidović explained that Transit Gateway, will “maintain[] the network
`
`as m-regular and incomplete by
`
`.” Br. at 7 (citing AB MSJ Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 272, 317 (“
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`”). AB cites AWS internal documents and deposition testimony that describe how
`
`Transit Gateway starts with
`
`
`
`. Id. at 9. While AWS points to deposition testimony
`
`that “[n]othing requires [] a network [to] operate at the limit,” (Opp. at 8), there is no dispute that,
`
`even when not at the limit, the
`
` are connected to the same number of connections due
`
`to AWS’
`
`. AB MSJ Ex. 1, Medvidović Rpt.
`
`
`2 “AB Reply Ex.” refers to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Christina M. Finn in support of
`AB’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motion.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 24430
`
`at ¶¶ 202-206; AB MSJ Ex. 11 at AMZ_AB_000124573 (“
`
`”), AMZ_AB_000124575 (“there’s
`
`
`
`
`
`”);
`
`see also AB MSJ Ex. 12, MacCarthaigh Tr. at 187:19-188:23 (describing how “each Transit
`
`Gateway customer
`
`” and
`
`describing the Auto Scaling to
`
`.). This shows that AWS would still
`
` these
`
` to allow for scaling to avoid hitting the limit on
`
`the number of
`
`, as admitted by AWS. Opp. at 5 (“To spread workload out amongst computing
`
`resources, AWS implements a technique called shuffle sharding to connect each
`
`In sum, AWS does not offer any affirmative evidence that
`
` …”).
`
` uses a
`
`network structure different from the m-regular, incomplete structure Dr. Medvidović identified,
`
`leaving his opinion unrebutted. Given AWS’ failure to “come forward with specific facts showing
`
`that there is a genuine issue for trial,” summary judgment is warranted. Matsushita Elec. Indus.
`
`Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 & n.10 (1986) (citations and emphasis omitted).
`
`B.
`
`Transit Gateway’s
`
` is M-Regular and Incomplete
`
`Transit Gateway also infringes because its
`
`, responsible for monitoring
`
`,
`
`is m-regular. Br. at 9. For example, AWS’ technical documents show a
`
` architecture
`
`with
`
` connected to
`
` in that
`
`. AB Reply Ex. 1, Medvidović
`
`Rpt. at ¶ 489 (citing D.I. 149, AWS Ex. 19 at AMZ_AB_000124590, Fig. 4). AWS does not
`
`dispute these facts regarding
`
`
`
`Instead, AWS argues that the
`
` “is not concerned with maintaining the same
`
`number of connections amongst all
`
` at a given time since
`
` missing connection is
`
`not enough to trigger any reconfiguration of the network . . . to achieve any particular
`
`
`
`.” Id. at 10. The anthropomorphic “concerns” of the network are not relevant, and
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 24431
`
`AWS offers no evidence to support this claim. See id. Rather, as Dr. Medvidović establishes, the
`
` is
`
` be connected to the same number of
`
`. Br.
`
`at 9. Indeed, AWS does not dispute that its expert confirmed during her deposition that when the
`
`system is operating as envisioned, there are
`
` in Figure 4, which each
`
`
`
`. AB MSJ Ex. 13, Sultanik Tr. at 92:8-21. This
`
`makes the network -regular and incomplete, notwithstanding AWS’ claims about its intentions.
`
`AWS notes that the
`
` is used to send
`
`, which it contends is
`
`unrelated to m-regularity. Opp. at 9. But the claims do not require that the specific data that are
`
`broadcasted “relate” to m-regularity. Rather, the asserted claims require that the underlying
`
`network is m-regular and incomplete. See, e.g., D.I. 50-1, Ex. A-2, ’966 Pat. at Claim 12.
`
`Finally, AWS contends that the
`
` is complete, but does not offer any evidence
`
`supporting this conclusion. Opp. at 10. At most, AWS cites to the deposition testimony of an
`
`AWS engineer that
`
` is sending
`
`. Id., n.41. But as shown
`
`in Dr. Medvidović’s unrebutted analysis, the
`
`
`
`through the through the m-regular, incomplete network, with
`
` relaying to
`
`, and
`
`. Br. at 9. Thus, AWS fails to come
`
`forward with evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to the
`
`, and the Court should
`
`grant summary judgment that it uses m-regular, incomplete networks.
`
`C. Multicast on Hyperplane is M-Regular and Incomplete
`
`Transit Gateway also infringes through it use of Multicast, which is based on m-regular,
`
`incomplete networks. Id. at 10. As AWS acknowledges, Transit Gateway’s Multicast organizes
`
`, where
`
` receive a message and then
`
` to their connected
`
` and so on. Opp. at 12. This is undisputedly an incomplete, broadcast network, as no
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 24432
`
`participant is connected to all others participants and participants relay messages so they reach all
`
`participants.
`
`AWS does not dispute that AB and its expert identify a diagram showing such an m-regular,
`
`incomplete network. Id. at 13; Br. at 10 (citing AB MSJ Ex. 9, Fig. 4). Instead, AWS contends
`
`that the “diagram does not depict m-regularity,” because “[i]t shows nothing about the state the
`
`network seeks to maintain.” Opp. at 13. AWS again ignores the detailed evidence of infringement
`
`Dr. Medvidović identifies in his reports and offers no affirmative evidence of Multicast having an
`
`architecture that is not m-regular and incomplete. See, e.g., AB MSJ Ex. 1 at ¶ 274 (citing AB
`
`MSJ Ex. 9 at AMZ_AB_000124581 (“For every
`
`. This
`
` is
`
`. When
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.”)).
`
`AWS contends without explanation that Multicast is not incomplete. Opp. at 12-14. AWS
`
`cites no evidence to support this claim, and its expert never opined that every
`
` is connected to
`
`. AWS also argues that AB did not consider “the connection from
`
` to
`
`,” but the
`
` connection are not part of the broadcast channel
`
`because the multicasting only takes place
`
`, as AWS acknowledges. Id. at 12-13
`
`(“Hyperplane supports multicasting by organizing
`
` into
`
`.”). Thus, AWS fails
`
`to come forward with a genuine dispute, and summary judgment that Multicast uses m-regular,
`
`incomplete networks is appropriate. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 585-87 & n.10 (a party must “come
`
`forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” to defeat summary
`
`judgment) (internal quotations, citations and emphasis omitted).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 24433
`
`D.
`
`AWS Arguments on Apportionment are Irrelevant to Infringement
`
`In Section IV.A.5 of its Opposition, AWS argues that AB has not correctly apportioned the
`
`value of Hyperplane. Opp. at 16-17. This argument about damages has no relationship to AB’s
`
`motion, which is based on the absence of any genuine dispute that Transit Gateway uses m-regular,
`
`incomplete networks. In particular, AWS does not explain how its argument about apportionment
`
`is a basis to oppose summary judgment on infringement. Moreover, as AB explained in its
`
`Opposition to AWS’s Motion for Summary Judgment, AB’s expert properly apportioned Transit
`
`Gateway revenue for damages purposes. D.I. 161 at 30-31.
`
`II.
`
`Summary Judgment of No Invalidity is Required Because AWS Does Not Have Any
`Admissible Evidence to Support its Defense
`
`A.
`
`AWS Abandoned its Anticipation Defense
`
`AWS abandoned its anticipation defense, leaving that portion of AB’s motion unopposed.
`
`Opp. at 18 n.84.
`
`B. Mr. Greene’s Unexplained Inherency Opinions Should Be Excluded
`
`Having withdrawn anticipation, AWS is only asserting inherency in the context of
`
`obviousness. The standard to do so is “high,” because to assert inherency for obviousness, “the
`
`limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements
`
`explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186,
`
`1195-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). Exclusion of Mr. Greene’s inherency opinions and
`
`summary judgment of no inherency is warranted because his reports are devoid of any explanation
`
`as to why either is purportedly true for any element of the Asserted Claims. Br. at 15-17.
`
`By asserting that every reference inherently discloses every element in every asserted claim
`
`of every asserted patent, Mr. Greene is purporting to present over 450 inherency opinions. The
`
`sum total of the basis for those inherency opinions in his two reports is his invocation of the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 24434
`
`boilerplate phrase for every element that, “[t]o the extent Acceleration Bay contends that [prior art
`
`reference X] does not disclose this element, it is . . . inherent.” Br. at 15-16. These unexplained,
`
`ipse dixit opinions should be excluded. Id.
`
`Mr. Greene conflated the requirements for obviousness and inherency during his
`
`deposition. When asked to explain why these elements are inherently disclosed in references, Mr.
`
`Greene testified that he did need to provide such an explanation because “it seemed obvious” and
`
`“[b]ut again, to others, it might not be. But it’s something that we had to know at the time . . . .”
`
`AB MSJ Ex. 25, Greene Tr. at 186:10-20 (emphasis added). Even if it was true that a claim
`
`limitation was obvious at the time, that is not evidence that “the limitation at issue necessarily must
`
`be present” in a specific reference (or in a combination of references), which is required to establish
`
`inherency. PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195-96.
`
`AWS cannot explain away Mr. Greene’s error. It contends that Mr. Greene has “30-plus-
`
`years of experience as an implementor of technical solutions” and that the asserted patents
`
`purportedly acknowledge that “computer networks were utilized to distribute information to
`
`participants.” Opp. at 18-19. Neither proposition is a substitute for the required explanation of
`
`why the specific element was “necessarily present” in the specific reference or (unspecified)
`
`combination of references. Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee’s note to 2000 amendments (an
`
`expert witness relying on experience “must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion
`
`reached”). Similarly irrelevant is AWS’ claim that in 741 pages of claim charts Mr. Greene
`
`supposedly provided express disclosures for many of the elements. Opp. at 17-18. The issue is
`
`Mr. Greene’s total failure to disclose the basis for an inherency opinion for each of these elements.
`
`AWS’ citation to Appendix C1 is illustrative of the deficiencies in Mr. Greene’s analysis.
`
`Appendix C1 is Mr. Greene’s claim chart for “the ’634 patent claims over the combination of Du,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 24435
`
`Hughes, Hwang, and [Olson].” AB MSJ Ex. 14, Greene Rpt. ¶ 155. As AWS explains, “element
`
`10.c show[s] express disclosure in Du, with reference to inherency and previous claim elements in
`
`other references of the combination.” Opp. at 18 n.86. However, AWS fails to mention that, in
`
`addition to the “express disclosure from Du,” Mr. Greene also states that, “[t]o the extent AB
`
`contends that Du does not disclose this element, it is either inherent, or a POSITA would have
`
`been motivated and found it obvious to include this element with Du based upon a POSITA’s own
`
`knowledge,” just as he did for the other three references. AB MSJ Ex. 18, Appx. C1 at 33-34. Mr.
`
`Greene offers no analysis to support inherency. The Asserted Patents’ general acknowledgement
`
`that “computer networks were utilized to distribute information to participants” says nothing about
`
`whether Du, Hughes, Hwang, and/or Olson necessarily disclose a “non-routing table based
`
`broadcast channel.” See Opp. at 19 (emphasis added).
`
`Mr. Greene should not be permitted at trial to rely on his myriad boilerplate placeholders
`
`to provide previously undisclosed opinions. His inherency opinions should be excluded as ipse
`
`dixit and AWS’ inherency defense should be disposed of on summary judgment.
`
`C. Mr. Greene’s Obviousness Analysis is Insufficient as a Matter of Law
`
`AWS’ obviousness defense and Mr. Greene’s obviousness opinions fail because they
`
`impermissibly depend on hindsight. Obviousness approaches that rely, as Mr. Greene’s admittedly
`
`did, “on the [challenged] patent itself as [a] roadmap for putting . . . pieces of a ‘jig-saw puzzle’
`
`together” are improper. TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(citation omitted); Opp. at 21. Twelve years after KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398
`
`(2007), the Federal Circuit explained that its decisions in InTouch, ActiveVideo and Innogenetics,
`
`each of which AB cited, “rejected obviousness determinations based on conclusory and
`
`unsupported expert testimony” because such testimony “risks allowing the challenger to use the
`
`challenged patent as a roadmap to reconstruct the claimed invention using disparate elements from
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 24436
`
`the prior art—i.e., the impermissible ex post reasoning and hindsight bias that KSR warned
`
`against.” TQ Delta, LLC, 942 F.3d at 1360-61 (citations omitted); Br. at 18-21; InTouch Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Lab’ys, 512
`
`F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Mr. Greene’s impermissible approach is not admissible
`
`to support AWS’ obviousness defense, and summary judgment of no obviousness is required.
`
`AWS’ defense of Mr. Greene’s obviousness opinion is limited to (1) citing to his
`
`discussions of how the asserted references are in similar technological fields and (2) contending
`
`that “a POSITA’s normal practice was to assemble pieces of different technologies together to
`
`solve problems and deliver technical solutions.” Opp. at 20-21. Neither is sufficient to establish
`
`a prima facie case of obviousness. Obviousness requires an explanation of “how specific
`
`references could be combined, which combination(s) of elements in specific references would
`
`yield a predictable result, [and] how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted
`
`claims,” because the absence of such an explanation fails to “explain why a [POSITA] would have
`
`combined elements from specific references in the way the claimed invention does.” TQ Delta,
`
`LLC, 942 F.3d at 1360 (quoting ActiveVideo, citing KSR).
`
`As a matter of law, it is not enough for Mr. Greene to have opined that each claim element
`
`can be found in some analogous reference. To pass muster, he needed to provide an explanation
`
`of why (absent hindsight) a POSITA would have combined them in a particular way to reach the
`
`specific inventions of the asserted claims. AWS is unable to identify any such explanation in Mr.
`
`Greene’s reports, because there is none. Even AWS’ Opposition is not clear as to which
`
`permutations of prior art references Mr. Greene actually relies on and which disclosures from each
`
`reference are used for each combination.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 24437
`
`For example, AWS identifies Mr. Greene’s first obviousness combination as “consist[ing]
`
`of ’882 Maxemchuk, ATT Maxemchuk, Hughes, and InsideDirectX.” Opp. at 20 n.95. However,
`
`in explaining motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success, AWS only discusses
`
`pairs of two references, i.e. ’882 Maxemchuk and ATT Maxemchuk; ’882 Maxemchuk and
`
`Hughes; and, ’882 Maxemchuk and InsideDirectX. Id. at 20, 24. Neither AWS nor Mr. Greene
`
`ever addresses the motivation to combine or reasonable expectation of success in doing so for all
`
`four references. And even for the pairs, neither AWS nor Mr. Greene explains why a POSITA
`
`would have combined them in a particular way to reach a specific asserted claim. Mr. Greene’s
`
`hundreds of pages of “requirements matrices” littered with thousands of “puzzle pieces” are not a
`
`substitute for disclosure of a reasoned opinion explaining how to purportedly piece them together
`
`in the way the claimed invention does and why a POSITA would have done so.
`
`AWS cites to a single Federal Circuit case purportedly supporting admissibility. But that
`
`case, Meyer Intellectual Properties Ltd. v. Bodum, Inc., pertains to whether an expert’s report met
`
`the disclosure requirements of Rule 26, not whether an opinion was sufficiently supported to be
`
`admissible under FRE 702 and Daubert to carry the challenger’s clear and convincing evidentiary
`
`burden. 690 F.3d 1354, 1374 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Opp. at 21-22. Further, in Meyer, as in KSR,
`
`the technology was relatively simple. Here, the technology is complex, as demonstrated by Mr.
`
`Greene’s admission that explaining how to “combine the teachings of Du, Hughes, Hwang and/or
`
`Olson to arrive at the asserted claims” to a jury would not be possible “in a short period of time”
`
`and would require “several, fairly thick books on the topic.” D.I. 160-1, AWS Opp. Ex. H, Greene
`
`Tr. at 61:16-62:16. That it would have taken significant effort to explain an opinion does not give
`
`Mr. Greene a free pass for having failed to do so.
`
`In sum, Mr. Greene’s obviousness opinions should be excluded and summary judgment
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 24438
`
`should issue because he fails to provide a prima facie case of obviousness as to any asserted claim.
`
`III. AWS’ Non-Infringing Alternative Opinions Should be Excluded and Summary
`Judgment Granted That There are No Non-Infringing Alternatives
`
`A. Ms. Sultanik’s Opinions on Alleged Alternatives are Unsupported and
`Unreliable
`
`The purported non-infringing alternatives (“NIAs”) of AWS’ technical expert, Ms.
`
`Sultanik, should be excluded because she failed to rely on sufficient facts or data. Br. at 22-26.
`
`Ms. Sultanik failed to offer even a prima facie case for a viable NIA because she did not provide
`
`any of the requisite facts or analysis that an alleged NIA was available and acceptable. Id. at 22-
`
`25. In particular, she does not offer any analysis of how the proposed changes to the Accused
`
`Products would impact performance, which is necessary to show a valid NIA. Id. AWS concedes
`
`this point by failing to identify opinion from Ms. Sultanik on this issue. See Opp. at 25-28.
`
`Moreover, Ms. Sultanik does not support her claim that the ’069 Patent allegedly identifies prior
`
`art that would be NIAs for all Asserted Patents, which AWS also leaves unrebutted. Br. at 25-26.
`
`These undisputed gaps in Ms. Sultanik’s analysis are alone sufficient grounds to exclude her
`
`opinion and grant summary judgment of no NIAs.
`
`Ms. Sultanik’s NIA opinions should also be excluded because she adopted nearly-verbatim
`
`AWS’ interrogatory response, which was devoid of any factual support, and then added no analysis
`
`of her own. Br. at 22-26. Ms. Sultanik cannot simply copy an interrogatory response into her
`
`report and, without analysis or any underlying support, adopt it as her opinion. Id. at 22-23 (citing
`
`Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1179 (N.D. Cal. 2010)).3
`
`
`3 Conceptus is squarely on point. In that case, an expert’s conversation with company employees
`was insufficient, without more, to support an NIA opinion. Br. at 23 (citing 771 F. Supp. 2d at
`1179). Here, Ms. Sultanik did not even speak with any AWS employees, nor does AWS’
`interrogatory response cite to any of its employees. Thus, the case for exclusion is even stronger.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 176 Filed 07/11/24 Page 17 of 25 PageID #: 24439
`
`AWS contends that Ms. Sultanik’s reliance on its interrogatory response was appropriate
`
`because its engineer, Mr. MacCárthaigh, “vetted” the NIAs. Opp. at 25. This is not in evidence.
`
`AWS’ interrogatory does not cite to any statements from Mr. MacCárthaigh. To the contrary, AB
`
`asked in its interrogatory that AWS identify the “most knowledgeable individuals” about NIAs,
`
`and AWS failed to identify Mr. MacCárthaigh or anyone else. AB MSJ Ex. 27 at 21-22
`
`(Interrogatory No. 6); see also id. at 22-27 (AWS’ responses failing to identify or refer to Mr.
`
`MacCárthaigh).4 Moreover, Ms. Sultanik never spoke with Mr. MacCárthaigh, so she cannot have
`
`relied on any information known to him in forming her opinions. AB MSJ Ex. 10, Sultanik
`
`Rebuttal Rpt. at ¶¶ 717-724 (Ms. Sultanik’s opinions not citing Mr. MacCárthaigh).
`
`To give an opinion at trial as an expert, Ms. Sultanik was obligated to have satisfactorily
`
`disclosed in her report an opinion “based on sufficient facts or data” that was “the product of
`
`reliable principles and methods.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Ms. Sultanik did not disclose such an opinion.
`
`At most, AWS suggests that Mr. MacCárthaigh had in his mind undisclosed facts that could have
`
`given Ms. Sultanik a valid basis for her opinions, but that cannot retroactively render her ipse dixit
`
`opinion well-founded, because she did not rely on those facts.5
`
`The deposition testimony of AB’s expert, Dr. Cole, does not render Ms. Sultanik’s opinions
`
`reliable. Dr. Cole simply testified that he had “worked on those types of networks before,”
`
`
`4 Given this failure to identify Mr. MacCárthaigh in its interrogatory response, AB would move to
`strike a

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