Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 24501
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 22-904 (RGA) (SRF)
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`Original Filing Date: June 28, 2024
`Redacted Filing Date: July 11, 2024
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS 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 28, 2024
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 24502
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 2 of 27 PagelD #: 24502
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`AWSHas a Licenseto the Asserted Patents i_ peDeUeRSEERESEEON 1
`A.
`AB’s Other Arguments on the|ack MBPcscscscucccacecacecacecacscacncuuscuuscus 4
`
`Il. The DamagesPeriod Should Be Limited to After July 6, 2022..0.........ccceceeeeeseeeeeeseeeeeeeeeees 7
`
`Ill. Summary Judgment of No Willfulness and No Enhanced Damagesis Warranted................ 9
`
`IV. Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Is Warranted.....................ccccccceecceeseeeseeeeeeeeseeeeees 10
`
`V.
`
`AWSChallenged Dr. Cole’s Apportionment Approach, and the Opinions Relying on
`That Flawed Approach Should Be Excluded...................ccccccesceescesecesceeeeeeeeeeeeseenseeseeeaees 15
`
`VI. Mr. Gunderson’s Opinions Are Inconsistent With AB’s Infringement Theories and
`Judge Fallon’s Order. ..............cccccccesccescecceseeseeseeeseeseeeseeeaeeeeeseeeaeeaceaeeeaeeeeteeceaeesstensensees 18
`
`VII. Mr. Gunderson’s Reliance on the Activision Verdict Should Be Excluded.......................4.. 20
`
`ll
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 24503
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.,
`612 F. Supp. 3d 408 (D. Del. 2020) .........................................................................................11
`
`Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 470 (D. Del. 2018) .........................................................................................20
`
`Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,
`24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................7, 9
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................20
`
`Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co.,
`C.A. No. 20-51-RGA, D.I. 36 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2021), adopted 530 F. Supp. 3d
`468 (D. Del. 2021) ...............................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Dali Wireless, Inc. v. CommScope Techs. LLC,
`C.A. No. 19-952, 2022 WL 19830016 (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2022) ...............................................10
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1202, 2017 WL 2190055 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ............................................9
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC,
`C.A. No. 19-1937, D.I. 261 (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2022) ................................................................10
`
`Extang Corp. v. Truck Accessories Grp., LLC,
`C.A. No. 19-923, 2022 WL 607868 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022) ....................................................9
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-72, 2020 WL 13180005 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2020) ................................................16
`
`Flatworld Interactives LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 378 (D. Del. 2014) .............................................................................................7
`
`G.G. v. Valve Corp.,
`799 F. App’x 557 (9th Cir. 2020) ..............................................................................................2
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC,
`587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................8
`
`Horatio Washington Depot Techs. LLC v. TOLMAR, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-1086-LPS, 2018 WL 5669168 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2018) .........................................7
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 24504
`
`Horizon Meds. LLC v. Apotex Inc.,
`C.A. No. 22-640, 2022 WL 16739909 (D. Del. Nov. 7, 2022) .................................................1
`
`Houys Delaware Series, LLC v. Key Bank Nat. Ass’n,
`No. C14-1546-RSL, 2015 WL 106338 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 6, 2015) ..........................................2
`
`In re Greer,
`2008 WL 2655805 (Wash. Ct. App., Jul. 8, 2008) ....................................................................2
`
`Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-660, 2013 WL 3354390 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2013) ....................................................1
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-8103, 2021 WL 4685306 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021) ..................................................9
`
`Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Watson,
`120 Wash. 2d 178 (1992) ...........................................................................................................2
`
`Newport Yacht Basin Ass’n of Condo. Owners v. Supreme NW., Inc.,
`277 P.3d 18 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) ...........................................................................................2
`
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
`96 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)......................................................................................7, 8
`
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc.,
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Refac Elecs. Corp. v. A&B Beacon Bus. Machines Corp.,
`695 F. Supp. 753 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ............................................................................................8
`
`RSD AAP, LLC v. Alyeska Ocean, Inc.,
`190 Wash. App. 305 (2015) .......................................................................................................2
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`760 F. App’x 977 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ..........................................................................................20
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Lab’ys, Inc.
`127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................8
`
`Tadych v. Noble Ridge Constr., Inc.,
`200 Wash. 2d 635 (2022) ...........................................................................................................2
`
`United States v. Battles,
`514 F. App’x 242 (3d Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................3
`
`United States v. Fujii,
`301 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 24505
`
`Unova Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard,
`No. 02-cv-3772, 2006 WL 5434534 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2006) ................................................8
`
`W. Coast Stationary Eng’rs Welfare Fund v. City of Kennewick,
`39 Wash. App. 466 (1985) .........................................................................................................2
`
`W.L. Gore v. C.R. Bard,
`No. 11-515-LPS-CJB, 2015 WL 12731924 (D. Del. Nov. 4, 2015) .......................................15
`
`Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 17-770, 2024 WL 456739 (D. Del. Feb. 5, 2024) ....................................................16
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ..............................................................................................................................10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ............................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1) ......................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ...........................................................................................................................10
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 702 .....................................................................................................................16, 17
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) .........................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 24506
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 6 of 27 PagelD #: 24506
`
`L.
`
`AWSHasa License to the Asserted Patents orii.
`There is no genuine disputefortrial that in 2010 bocinii
`PE Boeing thus could not transferthat right to
`
`ABin 2014—indeed, as AWS’s opening brief detailed, patent owners “cannot transfer an interest
`
`greaterthanthat which [they] possess[].”! AB cites no law to the contrary, and hence, Boeing could
`
`not assign[nn to AB thatit no longer had.”
`
`Thus, the relevant question is what rights Boeing had in the asserted patents whenit
`
`assigned them to AB, vor what rights it had in other patents years later. When AB acquired the
`
`asserted patents in 2014, Boeing did not have the nght_
`a, because| of the 2010 AWS-Boeing Agreementstates:
`
`
`
`This allowed Bocing to use AWS services,
`sd just what Bosing is
`stempting todoheresned
`
`And AB’s arguments that §§Jof the 2010 AWS-Boeing Agreement is unenforceable,
`
`ambiguous, or objectively unreasonable all lack merit. For instance, AB argues that there was no
`
`consideration. But AB wasnota party to this contract, and so lacks standing to challengeit on that
`
`1D. 148 at 1, 10 (citing Horizon Meds. LLC v. Apotex Inc., C.A. No. 22-640, 2022 WL 16739909,
`at *4 (D.Del. Nov. 7, 2022)).
`> See DI. 148 at 10-11 (citing Jnnovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp., No. 12-cv-660, 2013 WL
`3354390, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2013)).
`3 DI. 149-1, Ex. 3 (2010 AWS-Boeing Agreement)at 8.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 24507
`
`basis.4 Regardless, Boeing’s access to AWS’s services and
`
`
`
` are consideration, and AB cites no contrary law.5 The law also does not
`
`support AB’s argument that
`
` is ambiguous. Under Washington law, “‘[c]ourts presume that
`
`parties to an agreement … intend what is stated in its objective terms.’”6 Section
`
` expressly
`
`applies to
`
` And since this clause is unambiguous,
`
`its interpretation is a matter of law for summary judgment.7 AB also provides no legal support for
`
`rewriting or interpreting
`
` to apply only to
`
`
`
`.8 Thus,
`
` of the 2010 AWS-Boeing Agreement
`
`unambiguously
`
`Nothing supports limiting this license to any time period before patent expiration.10
`
`And there is no genuine dispute that, by 2014, Boeing had
`
`AWS produced two spreadsheets detailing
`
`, including
`
`.9
`
`.
`
`
`
`.11 These spreadsheets are admissible, because the data they provide comes from AWS’s
`
`
`4 See Newport Yacht Basin Ass’n of Condo. Owners v. Supreme NW., Inc., 277 P.3d 18, 32 (Wash.
`Ct. App. 2012) (“Because consideration constitutes the heart of the parties’ bargain, this defense
`to a contract is personal to the contracting parties.”); Houys Delaware Series, LLC v. Key Bank
`Nat. Ass’n, No. C14-1546-RSL, 2015 WL 106338, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 6, 2015) (same); In re
`Greer, 2008 WL 2655805, at *5 (Wash. Ct. App., Jul. 8, 2008) (“As a general rule, a person must
`be a party to a contract to challenge its validity.”).
`5 See D.I. 149-1, Ex. 3 at 2; D.I. 161 at 4–6 (citing only Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Watson,
`120 Wash. 2d 178, 195 (1992), which explains that “[w]hether a contract is supported by
`consideration is a question of law and may be properly determined …on summary judgment”).
`6 G.G. v. Valve Corp., 799 F. App’x 557, 558 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting W. Coast Stationary Eng’rs
`Welfare Fund v. City of Kennewick, 39 Wash. App. 466 (1985)).
`7 E.g., RSD AAP, LLC v. Alyeska Ocean, Inc., 190 Wash. App. 305, 314–15 (2015).
`8 See D.I. 161 at 6; cf. Tadych v. Noble Ridge Constr., Inc., 200 Wash. 2d 635, 648 (2022) (Courts
`cannot, “under the guise of interpretation, rewrite a contract.”).
`9 See D.I. 148 at 10.
`10 Cf. D.I. 149-1, Ex. 3 at 8 (
`).
`11 See D.I. 148 at 4 n.8 (identifying supporting documents and deposition testimony).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 24508
`
`“billing system” and is kept “in the ordinary course of business,” as AWS Finance Director Kevin
`
`Gasper testified.12 As the Third Circuit has explained, such database records do not become
`
`inadmissible hearsay when converted into spreadsheet format for litigation.13 And AB is relying
`
`on the same type of data from AWS’s financial record-keeping system for its damages case here.14
`
`AB cannot rely on such records, and then block AWS from doing the same.
`
`Further, the actions of AB’s counsel in representing Boeing here in response to AWS’s
`
`subpoena undermine its present questioning of the evidence of Boeing’s usage. AWS subpoenaed
`
`Boeing for documents and testimony sufficient to show Boeing’s “annual use of the Accused
`
`Products … prior to the sale of the Asserted Patents to [AB].”15 AB’s and Boeing’s counsel
`
`objected on relevance, but proposed that AWS “provide a set of the specific invoices that it wants
`
`Boeing to verify, which should be sufficient to address [AWS’s] discovery needs.”16 AWS
`
`disagreed on relevance, but requested that Boeing’s corporate representative Ms. Barrio be
`
`prepared to confirm that “Boeing used certain of the Accused Products before it sold the Asserted
`
`Patents to [AB].”17 After reviewing the billing spreadsheets, Ms. Barrio confirmed that Boeing
`
`used
`
` before 2014.18 AB cannot now argue that “AWS lacks the
`
`evidence to proceed” with its license defense, when its (and Boeing’s) counsel represented that
`
`Ms. Barrio’s confirmation of AWS billing records would “be sufficient to address [AWS’s]
`
`
`12 Ex. 51 at 7:21–24, 121:5–22; Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).
`13 United States v. Battles, 514 F. App’x 242, 249 (3d Cir. 2013); accord, e.g., United States v.
`Fujii, 301 F.3d 535, 539 (7th Cir. 2002).
`14 Ex. 57 at ¶¶ 253-56, 259, 260.
`15 D.I. 62 at pp. 15, 60.
`16 Ex. 52 at 2-3.
`17 Id. at 1.
`18 D.I. 149-1, Ex. 7 at 109:6–114:12; see also D.I. 162-1, Ex. 7 at 122:1–123:1 (similar).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 24509
`
`discovery needs.”19
`
`In sum, Boeing could not assign
`
` to AB that it did not have in
`
`2014. And the undisputed evidence shows that by 2014, Boeing had used
`
`
`
`. Thus, all infringement claims relying on
`
` should be
`
`dismissed.20
`
`A.
`
`AB’s Other Arguments on the
`
` Lack Merit.
`
`AB argues that, even if
`
`, AWS abandoned it. But none of the actions
`
`AB cites shows abandonment. AB begins by incorrectly characterizing AWS’s 2017 announcement
`
`prospectively removing a different clause in a different agreement as applying to “all of [AWS’s]
`
`customer contracts.”21 The block quote AB references from that announcement indicates that it
`
`applied to only “the online AWS Customer Agreement”22 (also known as the “AWS Customer
`
`Agreement”).23 Since the 2010 AWS-Boeing Agreement is
`
`
`
` the public announcement was not applicable.24 And the Operative Clause was not
`
` as AB claims.25 While AWS
`
`
`
`Hayden testified, since
`
`, as Amazon’s VP of IP Operations Scott
`
`26 Boeing and AWS
`
`
`
`19 Ex. 52 at 2.
`20 If granted, this motion would eliminate
` as accused products. See D.I. 148 at n.45.
`21 D.I. 161 at 2 (emphasis added).
`22 AB quoted this language in its response brief. Id. (quoting D.I. 162-1, Ex. 3) (emphasis added).
`23 The webpage shown as D.I. 162-1, Ex. 3 links to the current “AWS Customer Agreement.” The
`2017 version is attached to AB’s briefing as D.I. 162-1, Ex. 5.
`24 D.I. 149-1, Ex. 3 at 1 (emphasis added). Indeed, AB’s own citation inviting comparison of the
`clauses indicates they are numbered differently and are not identical. D.I. 161 at 5.
`25 D.I. 161 at 5.
`26 Ex. 53 at 6:14–16, 109:18–110:12; see https://aws.amazon.com/pricing/enterprise/ (“Enterprise
`Agreements give customers the option to tailor agreements that best suit their needs.”).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 24510
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 10 of 27 PagelD #: 24510
`
`i) ~
`
`ABnextargues that AWS abandoned the Operative Clause in 2019, whenit did not identify
`
`the license in responseto a letter from AB.”* But AB cites no law requiring AWSto have
`
`license defense in responseto a letter sent more than three years before AB filed suit, and which
`
`did not identify Boeing as the prior assignee or [Fl 9 AWStimely raised the
`
`defense in its Answer. *?
`
`SS s: \:ss
`AB also argues that AWS abandonedthe Operative Clause in 2022, when iim
`According to,aa
`
`*7 Exs. 54-56.
`
`* DI. 161 at 3.
`
`?° See DI. 161 at 3; DI. 149-1, Ex. 9 at 1 (dated March13, 2019); D.I. 1 at 1 (dated July 6, 2022).
`3° 1DI. 10 at 78-79 (Fourth Defense): Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1); 12(b).
`31 DI. 149-1, Ex. 3 at 11.
`? DI. 161 at 3-4 (citing DL. 162-1, Ex. 4 (A).
`33 Td; DI. 162-1, Ex. 4 at 1 (listing past agreements).
`
`#4 DI. 162-1, Ex. 4 at 1, 11
`
`) (emphasis added). Boeing, a sophisticated company, 1s aware
`
`of the ability to backdate an agreement forretroactive effect. See Ex. 67 at 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 24511
`
`.35
`
`
`
`.36
`
`Second, AB’s argument that the
`
` is “the operative agreement
`
`[AWS] purports to rely on for its license defense” is incorrect.37 AWS detailed its reliance on the
`
`2010 AWS-Boeing Agreement in its Answer, interrogatory responses, and in correspondence
`
`before AB filed its response.38 AB accuses AWS of deliberately not producing
`
`
`
`, but that agreement is not relevant to AWS’s license defense nor responsive to AB’s
`
`discovery requests—nor did AB (represented by the same counsel as Boeing) press for its or any
`
`Boeing-AWS agreements’ production in discovery.39 And any purported prejudice to AB from its
`
`“late discovery” of the
`
`and AWS’s 2017 announcement is of AB’s own making.
`
`AWS first identified the license defense in its Answer, and produced the 2010 agreement and the
`
`detailed basis for its defense one year before fact discovery closed.40 AB’s counsel represents
`
`Boeing and presumably spoke with Boeing about these agreements at least to respond to AWS’s
`
`subpoenas.41 There is no surprise here, and AB should not profit from its failure to seek information
`
`on the AWS-Boeing relationship until “after receiving AWS’s motion.”42
`
`
`
`35 D.I. 162-1, Ex. 4 at 12.
`36 Id. at 17 (§ 10.12).
`37 D.I. 161 at 9.
`38 See, e.g., D.I. 10 at 78–79; Ex. 59 at 18 (Interrogatory No. 4); Ex. 58.
`39 See Ex. 58.
`40 See Ex. 59 at 18; D.I. 149-1, Ex. 3 (2010 Agreement, produced Feb. 16, 2023); D.I. 109 at 1
`(setting close of fact discovery for Feb. 9, 2024).
`41 These subpoenas requested: “All Documents relating to or constituting any license, covenant
`not to sue, or other encumbrance related to the Asserted Patents.” D.I. 62 at p. 59; D.I. 108-1 at 8.
`That Boeing itself also did not produce the
` in response to the subpoenas is telling.
`42 D.I. 161 at 10.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 24512
`
`II.
`
`The Damages Period Should Be Limited to After July 6, 2022.
`
`AB’s opposition confirms that AB cannot recover any damages before providing actual
`
`notice under § 287.43 AB’s opposition further confirms that it premises pre-complaint notice solely
`
`on the March 13, 2019 letter.44 And as the Federal Circuit has pronounced, actual notice requires
`
`the communication of a “specific charge of infringement by a specific accused product or
`
`device.”45 To meet this standard, AB attempts to recharacterize its 2019 letter as asserting that “the
`
`connections between … VPCs infringe.”46 But that letter accused only CloudFront of using its
`
`“patented technologies.”47 It did not claim that CloudFront—let alone other, unnamed AWS
`
`products—infringed through the use of VPC. The letter’s text never uses the word “VPC,” and its
`
`only reference to VPC comes in a diagram offered to describe CloudFront that AB copied from
`
`AWS’s website.48 The letter does not discuss that diagram nor explain how any product infringes.49
`
`Actual notice focuses on the patentee’s actions, not the alleged infringer’s understanding.50
`
`And here, without a specific accusation, AB’s letter could not “put [AWS] on notice that its line of
`
`VPC-based products are infringing,” as AB claims.51 AB’s cited cases do not show otherwise. For
`
`example, in Novo Nordisk, the court found that the plaintiff provided actual notice by accusing a
`
`
`43 Compare D.I. 148 at 11–12 with D.I. 161 at 13–16.
`44 D.I. 161 at 13–16.
`45 Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 24 F.3d 178, 187 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (emphasis
`added); see also Horatio Washington Depot Techs. LLC v. TOLMAR, Inc., C.A. No. 17-1086-LPS,
`2018 WL 5669168, at *4 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2018) (applying Amsted’s actual notice standard).
`46 D.I. 161 at 13, 15.
`47 See e.g., D.I. 149-1, Ex. 9 at 1.
`48 Id. at 2.
`49 See id. at 2–3. For example, the letter never explained that the patents relate to m-regularity or
`edge networks, and never addressed whether the diagram was m-regular. See id.
`50 E.g., Flatworld Interactives LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 77 F. Supp. 3d 378, 389 (D. Del. 2014).
`51 D.I. 161 at 15; D.I. 148 at 12–13 (collecting cases establishing that a letter cannot provide notice
`for products it does not identify).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 24513
`
`“class of products” in its complaint.52 But AB’s letter did not accuse a “class of products,” nor
`
`initiate an infringement action. And SRI International merely held that “[t]he criteria for actual
`
`notice under § 287(a) are not coextensive with the criteria for filing a declaratory judgment
`
`action.”53 In contrast, AWS’s caselaw demonstrates that actual notice requires specific allegations
`
`about the allegedly infringing conduct or products. For example, Unova Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
`
`confirms that notice letters must identify specific products; when they do not, the damages period
`
`begins with the complaint.54 AB’s attempts to distinguish these cases incorrectly assumes that the
`
`unexplained diagram copied from AWS’s website provided actual notice of VPC’s infringement.55
`
`Further, AB’s notice letter and arguments in Epic Games continue to support AWS’s
`
`position. Contrary to what AB suggests, the California court did not hold that AB’s letter to Epic
`
`Games established § 287 notice. The issue there concerned declaratory judgment jurisdiction.56
`
`For such jurisdiction, any patent or claim is sufficient, and the analysis focuses on the patent
`
`owner’s threats.57 Here, the issue is the scope of the notice, if any, that AB’s letters provided.
`
`According to AB, its letters to Epic Games were “superficial communications” that “lack any
`
`patent infringement analysis.”58 And AB’s CEO, Joe Ward, testified that they do not provide
`
`
`52 Novo Nordisk A/S v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 96 F. Supp. 2d 309, 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
`53 SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Lab’ys, Inc. 127 F.3d 1462, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (addressing
`whether notice letters must explicitly threaten infringement action, not how specifically letters
`must identify infringing activity for actual notice).
`54 No. 02-cv-3772, 2006 WL 5434534, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2006); see also Refac Elecs. Corp.
`v. A&B Beacon Bus. Machines Corp., 695 F. Supp. 753, 755 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (“A plaintiff cannot
`leave clues, like breadcrumbs, expecting the defendant to piece together that other products could
`infringe.”); D.I. 148 at 12–13.
`55 D.I. 161 at 16 (arguing these cases are distinguishable because notice letters identified “wholly
`different” products, “while VPC is a primary part of infringement for all Accused Products”).
`56 D.I. 162-1, Ex. 15 at 3:16–22 (finding “particularly relevant” that AB demanded compensation).
`57 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`58 D.I. 149-2, Ex. 28 at 5–6.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 24514
`
`“specific infringement allegations.”59 Even if such statements do not suffice for estoppel, they
`
`support that the 2019 letter did not provide sufficient notice. And regardless, it is dispositive that
`
`AB’s 2019 letter does not contain any “specific charge[s] of infringement by … specific accused
`
`product[s] or device[s].”60 Thus, partial summary judgment limiting the damages period to after
`
`July 6, 2022 is warranted.
`
`III.
`
`Summary Judgment of No Willfulness and No Enhanced Damages is Warranted.
`
`AB does not dispute that its pre-suit willfulness claim relies solely on its 2019 letter.61 But
`
`this letter mentioned only CloudFront, not any of the other nine accused products. It also did not
`
`attach claim charts or explain how CloudFront (or any other product) infringes.62 As AWS’s cited
`
`cases confirm,
`
`that
`
`is
`
`insufficient
`
`for willfulness or enhanced damages.63
`
`Indeed,
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft v. Eli Lilly remains on all fours, as detailed in AWS’s opening brief.64 AB
`
`does not address that case, except to note that it involved a midtrial motion for JMOL, not summary
`
`judgment.65 But the standard for JMOL is the same,66 and so it supports summary judgment on
`
`willfulness. Similar cases AWS cited further support that, including Bench Walk, in which this
`
`Court dismissed willfulness based on substantially identical facts.67 AB only attempts to
`
`
`59 D.I. 149-2, Ex. 25 at 246:15–18.
`60 Amsted Indus., 24 F.3d at 187.
`61 See D.I. 161 at 18–20.
`62 D.I. 149-1, Ex. 9 (also not identifying one asserted patent).
`63 See D.I. 148 at 15–18 (citing and discussing cases); see generally Extang Corp. v. Truck
`Accessories Grp., LLC, C.A. No. 19-923, 2022 WL 607868, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2022).
`64 D.I. 148 at 16–17 (discussing this case and noting, inter alia, that AB’s letter did not include
`claim charts and was sent almost eleven years after CloudFront launched).
`65 D.I. 161 at 20, n.4.
`66 Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prod., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
`67 Bench Walk Lighting LLC v. LG Innotek Co., C.A. No. 20-51-RGA, D.I. 36 (D. Del. Jan. 7,
`2021), adopted 530 F. Supp. 3d 468 (D. Del. 2021); accord, e.g., MasterObjects, Inc. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., No. 20-cv-8103, 2021 WL 4685306, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 24515
`
`distinguish Bench Walk on procedural grounds that do not diminish its persuasive value.68
`
`The cases AB cites do not counsel a contrary result. For example, the notice letter in
`
`Express Mobile included claim charts and specific allegations of infringement, which AB’s 2019
`
`letter did not.69 AB’s other cited cases are also distinguishable.70 And AB does not dispute that
`
`AWS’s post-suit conduct cannot support willfulness or enhanced damages.71 So, summary
`
`judgment on pre- and post-suit willfulness, and § 284 enhanced damages, should be granted.
`
`IV.
`
`Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Is Warranted.
`
`It is undisputed that the asserted claims all require an m-regular network, meaning that the
`
`accused networks must be “configured to maintain [a state] where each participant is connected to
`
`exactly m neighbor participants.”72 AB’s infringement theories fail as a matter of law, because
`
`AB’s cited evidence at most shows that accused networks sometimes have an m-regular number
`
`of connections, not that they are configured to maintain that number of connections.
`
`VPC: AB’s opposition disregards any network that is below the maximum number of
`
`connections, on the basis that such networks are in the “small regime” described in the patents’
`
`specification. But the claims make no distinction between the “small regime” and the “large
`
`regime.” And whether VPC networks are below or at the maximum, there is no evidence showing
`
`that the network maintains the same number of connections, as claimed.73 For instance, the record
`
`
`68 D.I. 161 at 20 (noting Bench Walk involved Rule 12 motion that plaintiff did not contest).
`69 Express Mobile, Inc. v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, C.A. No. 19-1937, D.I. 261 at 30 (D. Del. Aug. 8,
`2022).
`70 See, e.g., Dali Wireless, Inc. v. CommScope Techs. LLC, C.A. No. 19-952, 2022 WL 19830016,
`at *3, 27 (D. Del. Jan. 28, 2022) (permitting willfulness to survive summary judgment where
`plaintiff relied on long history and previous litigation between parties, but calling it a “close case”).
`71 Compare D.I. 148 at 18–19 with D.I. 161 (not addressing post-suit willfulness).
`72 D.I. 81 at 2.
`73 See generally Ex. 65 at 94:6–18 (testifying that customers range from
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 24516
`
`shows that customers must define the routes between VPCs in each VPC’s routing table.74 If a
`
`customer disconnects a VPC (or more), the network does not adjust the connections to any
`
`neighbor VPCs to seek m-regularity.75 As the Court explained in Take-Two: “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.”76 There is no such evidence here. AB’s citation to this Court’s
`
`2017 claim construction order in the Activision case—three years before the Take-Two summary
`
`judgment order and six years before the claim construction order in this case—ignores that the
`
`Court has construed the claims here to require that the network be “configured to maintain” an m-
`
`regularity.77 AB points to no specific evidence about how VPCs connect, much less evidence that
`
`each maintains m number of connections. At most, AB identifies that VPC networks can achieve
`
`m connections, not that they satisfy the Court’s construction. That is unsurprising, since VPCs are
`
`modular by design. It would not make sense for VPCs to seek any particular number of
`
`connections, when they are intended to be logically isolated networks, tailored for each particular
`
`customer’s needs.78
`
`: AB omits portions of the
`
`network to make it appear m-regular, but that
`
`ignores the Court’s construction. Again, “m-regular” requires that the network is configured to
`
`maintain a state in which every participant is connected to exactly m number of participants.79
`
`
`
` in claiming that a typical AWS customer has a “large number of
`VPCs, and, therefore, operate[s] in the large regime”).
`74 D.I. 149-1, Ex. 13 at 2.
`75 D.I. 148 at 21.
`76 AB v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 3d 408, 419 (D. Del. 2020).
`77 See D.I. 161 at 24; D.I. 81 at 2 (emphasis added).
`78 E.g., D.I. 148 at 5–6, 20–21.
`79 D.I. 81 at 2. Participants are “computers or computer processes connected by a network.” Id. at
`3.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document 178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 24517
`Case 1:22-cv-00904-RGA-SRF Document178 Filed 07/11/24 Page 17 of 27 PagelD #: 24517
`
`Each diagram AB relies on showsthat every participant in ai network does not have the
`
`same numberof connections.*? AB’s expert Dr. Medvidovié and AWS’s documents further confirm
`
`that.*! Again, AB’s cited evidence at most showsthat part of the network may have m numberof
`
`connectionsat one pointin time, but not that the network is m-regular.** Forinstance, AB asserts
`
`that as scales, the numberofconnectionsis kept the same. But nothing in Dr. Medvidovié
`§ 199 (which AB cites) refersoi. orto the numberofconnections involving a