Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234 Filed 11/11/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`GOOGLE LLC and YOUTUBE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`14 Civ. 2396 (PGG)
`
`14 Civ. 9558 (PGG)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234 Filed 11/11/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`TO THE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff
`Network-1 Technologies, Inc.’s Motion For Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
`and this Court’s Local Civil Rule 56.1 dated September 11, 2020; the accompanying Affidvait
`of Brian D. Ledahl dated September 11, 2020 and all exhibits thereto; and all of the prior
`pleadings and proceedings in this Action, Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc., by and through
`its undersigned counsel, hereby moves this Court, before the Honorable Judge Paul G. Gardephe,
`U.S.D.J., at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, at 500 Pearl Street,
`New York, NY 10007, Courtroom Number 14B, for an Order dismissing Google’s affirmative
`defenses concerning patent invalidity based on 35 USC § 102 or § 103 for the following reasons:
`1. Google has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the Clango prior art
`reference anticipates or renders obvious all elements of claim 17 of the asserted U.S. Patent No.
`8,010,988 (the “‘988 patent”), renders obvious asserted claims 33, 34, and 35 of the asserted U.S.
`Patent No. 8,205,237 (the “‘237 patent”) (standing alone), or renders obvious claims 1, 8, 10, 16,
`18, 25, 27, and 33 of the asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,904,464 (the “‘464 patent”) in combination
`the Chen prior art reference on the grounds Google cannot demonstrate facts showing: (a) public
`use of the relevant portions of Clango under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a); (b) that the relevant portions of
`Clango were not suppressed or concealed under 25 U.S.C. § 102(g); (c) proper corroboration of
`testimony regarding the relevant features of the Clango System; and (d) that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would be motivated to combine Clango with Chen with an expectation of success;
`2. Google has failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the FreeAmp prior art
`reference renders obvious all elements of claim 17 of the ‘988 patent, or renders obvious asserted
`claims 33, 34, and 35 of the asserted ‘237 patent alone or in combination other prior art
`references on the grounds Google cannot demonstrate facts showing: (a) public use of the
`relevant portions of FreeAmp under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a); (b) that the relevant portions of
`FreeAmp were not suppressed or concealed under 25 U.S.C. § 102(g); (c) proper corroboration
`of testimony regarding the relevant features of the FreeAmp System; and (d) that a person of
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234 Filed 11/11/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine FreeAmp with other prior art references
`with an expectation of success; and
`3. Google’s claims that the combination of the Chen prior art reference and the Arya prior
`art reference invalidates claim 17 of the ’988 Patent and claims 33, 34, and 35 of the ’237 Patent
`are barred by the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).
`By agreement of the Parties and approval of the Court, Google’s answering papers shall be
`served on or before October 16, 2020; and Plaintiff’s reply papers shall be served on or before
`November 6, 2020. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled by the Court.
`
`
`Dated: September 11, 2020
`
`
`/s/ Brian D. Ledahl
`Marc A. Fenster (pro hac vice)
`Brian D. Ledahl (pro hac vice)
`Adam S. Hoffman (pro hac vice)
`Paul A. Kroeger (pro hac vice)
`Amy E. Hayden (pro hac vice)
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`ahoffman@raklaw.com
`pkroeger@raklaw.com
`ahayden@raklaw.com
`
`Charles R. Macedo
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN & EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (212) 336-8000
`Facsimile: (212) 336-8001
`cmacedo@arelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 234 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`true and correct copy
`that on September 11, 2020, a
`
`I certify
`
`of foregoing documents were served on all parties of record via email.
`
`/s/ Brian D. Ledahl
`Brian D. Ledal
`Attorneys for
`Network Technologies Inc.
`
` 3
`
`