`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 1 of 26 Page ID #:601
`
`
`
`KARIN G. PAGNANELLI (SBN 174763)
`kgp@msk.com
`MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
`11377 West Olympic Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
`Telephone: (310) 312-2000
`Facsimile:
`(310) 312-3100
`
`STEPHEN J. JONCUS (pro hac vice)
`stephen.joncus@klarquist.com
`SALUMEH R. LOESCH (pro hac vice)
`salumeh.loesch@klarquist.com
`JOHN D. VANDENBERG (pro hac vice)
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company,
`Dell Inc., and Acer America Corporation
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CASE NO. SA CV11-1681 DOC (ANx)
`[Consolidated With Case Nos. SA
`CV11-1682 DOC (ANx), SA CV11-
`1683 DOC (ANx), and SA CV11-1684
`DOC (ANx)]
`
`DEFENDANTS MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION, HEWLETT-
`PACKARD COMPANY, DELL INC.,
`AND ACER AMERICA
`CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`
`INVALIDITY
`
`8:30 a.m.
`Time:
`August 20, 2012
`Date:
`9D
`Ctrm:
`Before: Hon. David O. Carter
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`MICROSOFT
`
`EXHIBIT 1013
`
`Page 1 of 26
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 2 of 26 Page ID #:602
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD HEREIN:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 20, 2012 at 8:30 a.m., Defendants
`
`Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, Dell Inc., and Acer America
`
`Corporation (“Defendants”) will bring on for hearing this Motion for summary
`
`judgment, before the Honorable David O. Carter, in courtroom 9D at 411 West
`
`Fourth Street, Santa Ana, California 92701.
`
`Defendants, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 for summary judgment that all claims of the asserted
`
`patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
`
`10
`
`This Motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and
`
`11
`
`Authorities, the Declaration of Darrell D.E. Long, the Declaration of Sean-Michael
`
`12
`
`Riley, the Statement of Undisputed Facts, and any matters of which this Court may
`
`13
`
`take judicial notice, and such additional evidence or argument as may be presented
`
`14
`
`at or before the hearing on this matter.
`
`15
`
`This Motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Local
`
`16
`
`Rule 7-3 on June 21, 2012.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`
`DATED: July 3, 2012
`
`KARIN G. PAGNANELLI
`MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
`
`STEPHEN J. JONCUS
`SALUMEH R. LOESCH
`JOHN D. VANDENBERG
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`
`By: /S/Karin G. Pagnanelli
`Karin G. Pagnanelli
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-Packard
`Company, Dell Inc., and Acer America
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 2 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 3 of 26 Page ID #:603
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND MATH ................................................................................ 2
`
`A. Digital Fingerprints ............................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Using Digital Fingerprints To Decrease Data Redundancy ................. 2
`
`False Positives With Fingerprints ......................................................... 3
`
`Probabilities Of False Positives Depend On The Environment............ 3
`
`III. THE ASSERTED PATENT ............................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Patent’s Objectives ................................................................................ 4
`
`Patent Uses “Digital Digests” To Reduce Data Redundancy ............... 4
`
`Patent: “Digital Digest” Has “Low Probability” Of False Positives .... 5
`
`Patent: MD5 And CRC Functions Calculate “Digital Digests” .......... 6
`
`Patent: Rules Out MD5 And CRC By Declaring
`That “Digital Digest” Is Used As A Similarity Check ......................... 7
`
`F.
`
`Patent Applicant: CRC Has “High Probability” Of False Positives .... 9
`
`IV. GOVERNING LAW ....................................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment Standards .............................................................. 9
`
`Patent Claims Must Be Particular And Distinct ................................. 10
`
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Patent’s Self-Contradictions Cloud The Claims .......................... 13
`
`The Patent’s Failure To Disclose Any
`Example Of A “Digital Digest” Clouds The Claims ......................... 14
`
`C.
`
`The Patent Is Unclear On Meaning Of “Low” Probability ................. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Patent Is Unclear On The Environment ............................ 16
`
`The Claims Provide No
`Lower Bound For “Low” Probability ....................................... 18
`
`VI. THIS DEFECT INFECTS ALL CLAIMS .................................................... 20
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 21
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`i
`
`Page 3 of 26
`
`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
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 4 of 26 Page ID #:604
`
`
`
`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
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`CASES
`
`Page
`
`Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp.
`466 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................... 11
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 16
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................... 10
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................. 9, 10
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
`417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................... 12, 15
`
`Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co.,
`261 U.S. 45 (1923) ........................................................................................ 11
`
`Fed. Commc’n Comm’n v. Fox Television Stations,
`2012 WL 2644462 (U.S. June 21, 2012)....................................................... 12
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp.,
`304 U.S. 364 (1938) ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................... 14, 15, 19
`
`Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker,
`329 U.S. 1 (1946) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc.,
`600 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 16
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................... 17, 18
`
`IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc.,
`659 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 11
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`ii
`
`Page 4 of 26
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 5 of 26 Page ID #:605
`
`
`
`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
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................................................... 11
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd P'ship,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) .................................................................................. 10
`
`Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Co.,
`210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) ....................................................................... 10
`
`United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.,
`317 U.S. 228 (1942) .................................................................................. 1, 11
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................ 1, 10, 16, 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 288 ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ................................................................................................... 1, 9
`
`RULES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`iii
`
`Page 5 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 6 of 26 Page ID #:606
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Patent Act requires patent “claims particularly pointing out and
`
`distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. Patent claims failing this mandate create a “zone of
`
`uncertainty” chilling innovation. United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317
`
`U.S. 228, 236 (1942). This motion targets all 34 claims of the patent-in-suit (Riley
`
`Decl., Ex. A) that are anything but particular and distinct and that create an
`
`intolerable zone of uncertainty.
`
`These claims recite a value called a “digital digest.” The patent gives no
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`example of a “digital digest” value. Instead, it purports to define this “digital
`
`11
`
`digest” by its mathematical properties, but these descriptions are unclear and
`
`12
`
`irreconcilably inconsistent.
`
`13
`
`First, the patent gives two supposed examples of mathematical functions for
`
`14
`
`calculating a “digital digest” – the MD5 and CRC algorithms – but then it rules out
`
`15
`
`both examples. It rules them out by declaring that a “digital digest” has a
`
`16
`
`similarity-check property that those functions do not have. Consequently, the
`
`17
`
`patent gives no example of a mathematical function that can calculate the patent’s
`
`18
`
`“digital digest.”
`
`19
`
`Second, the patent defines a “digital digest” as having a “low probability” of
`
`20
`
`something—but without defining “low,” without giving any objective criteria for
`
`21
`
`assessing whether a probability is “low,” and without defining the conditions under
`
`22
`
`which that “probability” is measured. A person of skill in the art could not
`
`23
`
`reasonably determine whether a particular function has that “low probability.”
`
`24
`
`This defect in claiming is a matter of law ripe for summary adjudication. No
`
`25
`
`discovery is needed and no genuinely disputed issue of material fact exists.
`
`26
`
`Defendants therefore respectfully request the Court to grant summary judgment
`
`27
`
`that all of this patent’s claims are invalid.
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`28
`
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 6 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 7 of 26 Page ID #:607
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND MATH
`A. Digital Fingerprints
`
`Human fingerprints are useful as identity checks. If two fingerprints are the
`
`same, then it safely can be assumed they are from the same person. Human
`
`fingerprints are not, however, useful as similarity checks. Two “substantially
`
`identical” but different fingerprints do not indicate that the persons producing those
`
`different fingerprints are substantially identical.
`
`Mathematical functions exist for calculating digital fingerprints. These
`
`functions output a relatively short “hash value” from relatively large data items
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`input into the function. These hash values are useful as identity checks. If two
`
`11
`
`hash values are the same, then it safely can be assumed they were calculated from
`
`12
`
`the same data. These hash functions, however, are not useful as similarity checks.
`
`13
`
`Two “substantially identical” but different hash values do not indicate that the data
`
`14
`
`items producing those different hash values are substantially identical. On the
`
`15
`
`contrary, many hash functions are intentionally designed to turn the smallest
`
`16
`
`difference between two data items into huge differences in their resulting hash
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`values. (“Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts” (“SUF”) Nos. 2-4.)
`B. Using Digital Fingerprints To Decrease Data Redundancy
`
`Digital fingerprints long have been used to reduce the amount of redundant
`
`20
`
`data transported over a computer network. Instead of sending thousands of large
`
`21
`
`files, the sending computer sends a hash value for each file. The receiving
`
`22
`
`computer then checks its own store of hash values for files it possesses for an
`
`23
`
`identical match to a received hash value. An exact match indicates that the
`
`24
`
`receiving computer already has that file. The receiving computer then asks the
`
`25
`
`sending computer to send only those files for which it did not find an exact-match
`
`26
`
`hash value.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 7 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 8 of 26 Page ID #:608
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`C.
`
`False Positives With Fingerprints
`
`The above discussion’s reference to “safely assume” raises the question:
`
`how safe is the identity check? What is the chance that two hash values are
`
`identical but the respective data items from which they were calculated are
`
`different? Or in other words, what is the chance that the identity of hash values (a
`
`positive indication of identity) is actually false because the data items are
`
`different? Such a false positive in this art sometimes is called a “collision”—two
`
`different data items have the same hash value. (SUF No. 13.) The odds of such a
`
`false positive vary between different hash functions. And, the odds also depend on
`
`10
`
`whether someone in the environment is trying to create collisions. (SUF No. 17.)
`
`11
`
`(The odds of a car collision increase in a Demolition Derby.)
`
`12
`
`A precise probability of collisions can be calculated if certain assumptions
`
`13
`
`are made. For example, if it is assumed that the hash function is used in a benign
`
`14
`
`environment not subjected to malicious attacks and it is assumed that the hash
`
`15
`
`function is designed ideally, then the length of the hash value dictates the
`
`16
`
`probability of collision. For example, if an ideal hash function calculates a hash
`
`17
`
`value with a length of 32 bits (“bit” is short for “binary digit” viz, a 0 or a 1), then
`
`18
`
`there is a 50% chance of a collision (two different files having the same hash
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`value) in a population of 77,162 different data files. (SUF No. 15.)
`D.
`
`Probabilities Of False Positives Depend On The Environment
`
`As noted, the above probabilities of collision assume a benign environment.
`
`22
`
`Some hash functions are easily attacked to create collisions. For example, the
`
`23
`
`patent mentions a class of mathematical functions called CRC (“cyclic redundancy
`
`24
`
`check”). CRCs are not designed to resist a malicious attack. An attacker can
`
`25
`
`easily cause collisions no matter how many bits the CRC value has. (SUF No. 18.)
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 8 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 9 of 26 Page ID #:609
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`In sum, many hash functions are useful as identity checks; they are not
`
`useful as similarity checks; and the probability of false positives varies with the
`
`particular hash function used and with the trustworthiness of the environment.
`III. THE ASSERTED PATENT
`A.
`
`Patent’s Objectives
`
`Plaintiff asserts “at least” claims 1, 10, 11, and 22 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,757,717 (the “’717 patent,” Riley Decl., Ex. A). (Dkt. No. 53, ¶¶ 14, 19, 27, 35.)
`
`The ’717 patent purports to “increas[e] the speed of data” accessed in a packet-
`
`switched network by reducing redundant data sent over the network. Another
`
`10
`
`objective “is to maintain accessed data integrity and to improve security.” (SUF
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`No. 23.)
`B.
`
`Patent Uses “Digital Digests” To Reduce Data Redundancy
`
`To avoid sending redundant data over a network, the patent describes
`
`14
`
`calculating a “digital digest” of the data and initially sending the digital digest over
`
`15
`
`the network in place of the data itself. This “digital digest” apparently has some
`
`16
`
`attributes of the traditional digital fingerprint discussed above. A digital digest
`
`17
`
`represents larger, input data in a more compact form by calculating a relatively
`
`18
`
`small number from the input data using a special mathematical function. The
`
`19
`
`sender sends that calculated digital digest over the network, rather than the (larger)
`
`20
`
`input data. The receiver compares the received digital digest with the digital
`
`21
`
`digests it possesses and, based on that comparison, returns to the sender a
`
`22
`
`“positive,” “negative,” or “partial” indication. (SUF No. 24.)
`
`23
`
`The receiver returns a positive indication to indicate that the receiver already
`
`24
`
`has that digital digest; in which case it is assumed that the receiver already has the
`
`25
`
`input data represented by the digital digest and thus the sender need not send it.
`
`26
`
`The receiver returns a negative indication to indicate that the receiver does not
`
`27
`
`have that digest; in which case the sender transmits over the network the input data
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`28
`
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 9 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 10 of 26 Page ID #:610
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`from which the digital digest had been calculated. The third option, returning a
`
`“partial indication,” indicates that the receiver has a digital digest “substantially
`
`identical” to the received digital digest, in which case the sender, according to the
`
`patent, then transmits the “difference between” those “substantially identical”
`
`digital digests. (SUF No. 24.) As explained below, this similarity check attribute
`
`of the patent’s “digital digest” precludes a traditional digital fingerprint which—
`
`like a human fingerprint—is useless as a similarity check. (SUF Nos. 3-4, 11.)
`
`The term “digital digest” is in every independent claim and thus required by
`
`all of the claims of this patent. (SUF No. 25.)
`C.
`
`Patent: “Digital Digest” Has “Low Probability” Of False Positives
`
`The patent purports to define “digital digest” in part in the following
`
`12
`
`passage:
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`The term “digital digest” as used herein refers to a fixed-size
`
`binary value calculated from arbitrary-size binary data in such a
`
`way that it depends only on the contents of the data and the low
`
`probability that two different data or objects have the same
`
`digital digest.
`
`18
`
`(SUF No. 26 (emphasis added).)
`
`19
`
`Thus, the patent says that a “digital digest” is calculated using a function that
`
`20
`
`has a “low probability” of collisions or “false positives.” There is no accepted
`
`21
`
`definition of “low probability” of collisions (false positives) in this field. (SUF
`
`22
`
`No. 14.) Any technical specification characterizing a probability of collisions as
`
`23
`
`“low,” therefore needs to provide a definition thereof or objective criteria for
`
`24
`
`assessing whether a particular mathematical function does or does not qualify as
`
`25
`
`producing a “low probability” of collisions.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 10 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 11 of 26 Page ID #:611
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`But, as explained below, this patent does not say what it means by “low.”
`
`Moreover, the patent does not specify whether this “probability” assumes a benign
`
`or malicious environment, which is critical to assessing the risk of collisions.
`D.
`
`Patent: MD5 And CRC Functions Calculate “Digital Digests”
`
`The patent gives two examples of known mathematical functions for
`
`calculating its “digital digest”:
`
`The term “digital digest” as used herein refers to the per se
`
`known MD5 algorithm, described in RFC 1321 by R. Rivest,
`
`which is a preferred calculation method. Other algorithms may,
`
`however, just as well be used. For example, a digital digest may
`
`be calculated according to the CRC algorithm, or by applying
`
`the CRC algorithm to different subsets or different reorderings
`
`of data, or by consecutively applying CRC and MD5. In
`
`addition, any other algorithm may be used, provided that it
`
`produces a fixed-size binary value calculated from arbitrarily-
`
`sized binary data in such a way that it depends only on the
`
`contents of said data and that the probability of two different
`
`data having the same digital digest, is low.
`
`19
`
`(SUF No. 27 (emphasis added).)
`
`20
`
`MD5 (“MD” is short for “message digest”) was designed as a digital
`
`21
`
`fingerprint. CRC functions were designed for other purposes but in certain
`
`22
`
`environments can be used as digital fingerprints. But like human fingerprints,
`
`23
`
`neither MD5 hash values nor CRC values are useful for similarity checks. (SUF
`
`24
`
`Nos. 3-4, 11.)
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 11 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 12 of 26 Page ID #:612
`
`
`
`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
`
`E.
`
`Patent: Rules Out MD5 And CRC By Declaring
`That “Digital Digest” Is Used As A Similarity Check
`
`The patent describes and claims its “digital digest” being used as a similarity
`
`check. This precludes both MD5 and CRC functions from calculating a “digital
`
`digest” as explained below.
`
`The patent repeatedly states—in its claims, in its “Summary of the
`
`Invention,” and elsewhere—that the patent’s digital digest can be used for
`
`similarity checks, a mathematical property that MD5 fingerprints purposely avoid
`
`(and CRC fingerprints also lack). The ’717 patent repeatedly describes searching
`
`for and using “substantially identical” digital digests. (SUF Nos. 5-6.) Several
`
`claims expressly require searching for and/or using such “substantially identical”
`
`digital digests. (SUF No. 7.) Much of the patent’s supposed invention depends on
`
`this similarity-check property, by looking for and relying on “a digital digest
`
`substantially identical to” another digital digest. In other words, this patent’s
`
`“digital digest” is not like a human fingerprint.
`
`“Substantially identical” does not mean identical in this patent. The patent
`
`applicant relied on this difference in the Patent Office to distinguish prior art that
`
`checked only whether two values were identical:
`
`The process of comparing checksum is described in Fig. 3A and
`
`3B of Van Hoff, and nowhere in the description does it mention
`
`finding a checksum that is “substantially identical” and
`
`producing the difference. . . . Only two choices exist in [Van
`
`Hoff] - either the checksum is the same or not.
`
`(SUF No. 8 (emphasis added).)
`
`The applicant explained to the Examiner that a “substantially identical”
`
`“digital digest” means that the input data also is substantially identical:
`
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 12 of 26
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 13 of 26 Page ID #:613
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`In contrast, the claimed invention would have the client send
`
`digests for data objects A, A1, A2, A3 to the server, where A1,
`
`A2, A3 would be similar to A. Upon receipt, the server would
`
`not do a comparison with its version of A1, A2, or A3.
`
`Limitation (b) of claim 31 states that the server would instead
`
`search for any data object substantially identical to either A1,
`
`A2, or A3. If it finds one, it will then produce the difference and
`
`send it back to the client.
`
`(SUF No. 9 (emphasis added).)
`
`10
`
`He told the Patent Office that “searching for a second data object with a
`
`11
`
`digital digest substantially identical to one of the digital digests received in said
`
`12
`
`request,” as claimed, was a “search for any data object substantially identical” to
`
`13
`
`the data object at the client. (SUF No. 10.) Thus, the patent applicant asserted that
`
`14
`
`his “digital digest” is useful both as a similarity check and an identity check.
`
`15
`
`
`
`In sum, the patent’s descriptions, claims and Patent Office prosecution
`
`16
`
`history all require that the “digital digest” have this similarity-check property.
`
`17
`
`This similarity-check property of the patent’s “digital digest” absolutely
`
`18
`
`rules out calculating that “digital digest” using either an MD5 or CRC function. In
`
`19
`
`an MD5 calculation, even a minor difference between two input data likely will
`
`20
`
`lead to completely different output values. (SUF No. 3.) (It thus makes no sense
`
`21
`
`to talk of “substantially identical” MD5 message digest values.) This property is
`
`22
`
`designed as a security measure against malicious attacks. It allows the input data
`
`23
`
`to remain a secret even if the MD5 output value is known. (SUF No. 3.)
`
`24
`
`Therefore, this patent’s “digital digest” cannot possibly be calculated using an
`
`25
`
`MD5 function because MD5 values cannot be used to check for similarities
`
`26
`
`between data. (SUF No. 11.)
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`8
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 13 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 14 of 26 Page ID #:614
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`The same is true of CRCs. This similarity-check property of the patent’s
`
`“digital digest” precludes using a CRC function to calculate a digital digest. (SUF
`
`Nos. 4, 11.)
`F.
`
`Patent Applicant: CRC Has “High Probability” Of False Positives
`
`The patent applicant separately ruled out at least some CRC functions for
`
`not having the “low probability” required for a “digital digest.” While the patent
`
`says that CRC functions can be used to calculate digital digests (having a “low
`
`probability”), the patent applicant told the Patent Office that a CRC-32 function
`
`(used in a prior art reference) had a “high probability” of collisions:
`
`CRC is mentioned in the present application only for broader
`
`coverage of the topic, and not as a preferred embodiment.
`
`Actually, CRC may be recommended only in a trusted
`
`environment with very costly computational resources.
`
`Bittinger et al considers 32 bit CRC as a preferred embodiment.
`
`It may not serve as a global identifier, because of the high
`
`probability of two different objects having the same CRC and a
`
`threat of malicious creation and infusion into a system of a data
`
`object with a CRC of another data object.
`
`19
`
`(SUF No. 21 (emphasis added).) This statement contradicts the patent’s
`
`20
`
`unqualified declarations that a CRC algorithm can calculate a “digital digest.”
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`(SUF No. 19.)
`IV. GOVERNING LAW
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment Standards
`
`Summary judgment is required where the record, read in the light most
`
`25
`
`favorable to the non-moving party, indicates that “there is no genuine issue as to
`
`26
`
`any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
`
`27
`
`R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`28
`
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`9
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 14 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 15 of 26 Page ID #:615
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). Material facts are those necessary to the proof
`
`of a claim or defense under the governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). A
`
`factual issue is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return
`
`a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505. In deciding a
`
`motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed,
`
`and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at 255, 106 S. Ct.
`
`2505. See generally Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Co., 210 F.3d 1099,
`
`1103 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`10
`
`To the extent that this matter-of-law invalidity defense under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`11
`
`112, ¶ 2, depends on any facts, movants have the burden of proof and the standard
`
`12
`
`of proof for those facts is by “clear and convincing evidence.” Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`13
`
`i4i Ltd P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011).
`
`14
`
`Under these standards and this record, Defendants are entitled to summary
`
`15
`
`judgment that all claims of the ’717 patent are invalid as a matter of law for failing
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`to particularly point out and distinctly claim their alleged invention.
`B.
`
`Patent Claims Must Be Particular And Distinct
`
`A patent must “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out
`
`19
`
`and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
`
`20
`
`invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. By its plain terms, this provision prohibits
`
`21
`
`claims susceptible of multiple reasonable interpretations by one skilled in the art
`
`22
`
`when read in light of the specification and prosecution history. Supreme Court
`
`23
`
`precedent is consistent with this plain meaning interpretation but the Federal
`
`24
`
`Circuit may apply a looser standard. The patent claims challenged here fail under
`
`25
`
`either standard.
`
`26
`
`According to the Supreme Court, “[t]he statutory requirement of
`
`27
`
`particularity and distinctness in claims is met only when [the claims] clearly
`
`Mitchell
`Silberberg &
`Knupp LLP
`
`28
`
`
`
`27434\3185335.1
`
`10
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Page 15 of 26
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 8:11-cv-01681-DOC-JPR Document 71 Filed 07/03/12 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:616
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly
`
`circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise. A zone of uncertainty
`
`which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement
`
`claims would discourage invention only a little less than unequivocal foreclosure
`
`of the field.” United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 236 (1942)
`
`(rejecting claims that described a product by its desired properties, including one
`
`reciting “a pellet of approximately one-sixteenth of an inch in diameter and formed
`
`of a porous mass of substantially pure carbon black”); accord Markman v.
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996) (quoting United Carbon with
`
`10
`
`approval.) A claim susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations does not
`
`11
`
`clearly distinguish what falls within the claim from what falls outside the