Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 268-11, PageID.29417 Filed 07/18/24 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 268-11, PageID.29418 Filed 07/18/24 Page 2 of 8
`Case 5:13-cv-01776-PSG Document 404 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`ADAPTIX, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ADAPTIX, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ADAPTIX, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`(Re: Docket No. 307)
`
`Case No. 5:13-cv-01777-PSG
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`(Re: Docket No. 333)
`
`Case No. 5:13-cv-01778-PSG
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`(Re: Docket No. 302)
`
`1
`Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 268-11, PageID.29419 Filed 07/18/24 Page 3 of 8
`Case 5:13-cv-01776-PSG Document 404 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 7
`
`ADAPTIX, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
`WIRELESS, et al.,
`
`Case No. 5:13-cv-01844-PSG
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`(Re: Docket No. 285)
`
`Defendants.
`
`ADAPTIX, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:13-cv-02023-PSG
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`(Re: Docket No. 309)
`
`In the months leading up to the filing of what became the patents-in-suit, multiple
`
`employees of Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC with technical information about a “Project Angel”
`jumped ship to work at a predecessor-in-interest of Plaintiff Adaptix, Inc. Curiously, a large
`number of AT&T confidential emails detailing Project Angel specifications also found their way
`into Adaptix’s files. Adaptix now brings a motion for partial summary judgment to head off an
`invalidity challenge based on derivation by AT&T as well as Defendants Apple, Inc., Verizon
`Wireless and HTC Corporation. Because there remains a genuine dispute whether Adaptix knew
`about the specifications of AT&T’s Project Angel before Adaptix filed its patent applications, the
`motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED.
`I.
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), the “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant
`shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
`judgment as a matter of law.”1 At the summary judgment stage, the court “does not assess
`
`1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
`
`2
`Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 268-11, PageID.29420 Filed 07/18/24 Page 4 of 8
`Case 5:13-cv-01776-PSG Document 404 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 7
`
`credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whether there is a genuine factual issue
`for trial.”2 Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case.3 A dispute as to a
`material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for
`the nonmoving party.4
`Patents are presumed valid, a presumption that can only be defeated by clear and
`convincing evidence.5 A patent is invalid if the asserted inventors did not in fact invent the
`invention.6 “To show derivation, the party asserting invalidity must prove both prior conception of
`the invention by someone other than the named inventors and communication of that conception to
`the patentee.”7 “Communication” must include sufficient information to allow someone or
`ordinary skill in the art to construct and operate the invention.8 If any element of the claimed
`invention is not communicated, there can be no derivation.9
`In August 1999, after nearly four years of development, AT&T began selling services from
`its Project Angel system.10 Little over a year later and only months after its own founding,
`Broadstorm Telecommunications Inc.—Adaptix’s predecessor11—filed an application for the first
`of the patents-in-suit.12
`
`2 House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 559-60 (2006).
`3 See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (“Only disputes over facts that
`might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of
`summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.”).
`4 See id.
`5 See Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`6 See Creative Compounds, LLC v. Starmark Labs., 651 F.3d 1303, 1313(Fed. Cir. 2011).
`7 Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`8 See Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`9 See id. at 1193.
`10 See Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 332-3 at 10.
`11 For the purpose of this order, both Broadstorm and Adaptix will be referred to as Adaptix.
`12 See Case No. 13-01776: Docket No. 332-3 at 1, 12.
`3
`Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 268-11, PageID.29421 Filed 07/18/24 Page 5 of 8
`Case 5:13-cv-01776-PSG Document 404 Filed 01/15/15 Page 4 of 7
`
`From the earliest stages, Adaptix’s goals were ambitious—it sought to prototype its
`technology just nine months after its founding. Though motivated, Hui Liu—one of the company’s
`co-founders—recognized that reaching this goal was futile without additional help.13 Along with
`Xiandong Li, another one of Adaptix’s co-founders, Liu proposed to strategically hire key Project
`Angel engineers from AT&T.14 Adaptix was able to recruit three engineers: Pal Meiyappan, Liang
`Hong and James Hite.15 Adaptix began working with Meiyappan just over two months before the
`patents-in-suit were filed.16 A few days later, Adaptix hired Hite and subsequently began
`consulting with Hong. 17 In fact, Hong’s consulting relationship with Adaptix began while he was
`still an employee of AT&T, and he continued in his dual role for months before leaving AT&T.18
`Among the three engineers, Adaptix had—as Liu put it—“pretty much…everything…on
`[AT&T’s] engineering side.”19 It was only after Adaptix began working with these three engineers
`that it proceeded to file applications for the patents-in-suit.20
`All three former AT&T employees contributed significant knowledge and expertise to
`Adaptix, but that was not all. Among these were many internal AT&T email communications
`authored by Hong as well as several AT&T technical documents related to Project Angel.21
`Adaptix has offered no explanation as to how it came into possession of these files.22
`
`13 See id. at 6.
`14 See id.
`15 See id. at 7.
`16 See id.
`17 See id. at 11.
`18 See id. at 8.
`19 Id. at 9.
`20 See id. at 11, 12.
`21 See id. at 10.
`22 See id.
`
`4
`Case Nos.: 5:13-cv-01776; -01777; -01778; -01844; -02023
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 268-11, PageID.29422 Filed 07/18/24 Page 6 of 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 268-11, PageID.29423 Filed 07/18/24 Page 7 of 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 268-11, PageID.29424 Filed 07/18/24 Page 8 of 8
`Case 5:13-cv-01776-PSG Document 404 Filed 01/15/15 Page 7 of 7
`
`