2
`
`David C. Marcus (SBN 158704)
`david. marcus@wilmerhale.com
`James M. Dowd (SBN 259578)
`j aJlleS. dowd@wilmerhal e. com
`3 Matthew J. Frawkinson (SBN 248216)
`matthew.hawkinson@wilmerhale.com
`4 Aaron Thompson (Sl3N 272391)
`aaron. thompson@wilmerhale.com
`5 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Doff LLP
`350 South Grand A venue, Suite 2100
`6 Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 443-5300
`7 Facsimile:
`(213) 443-5400
`
`8 William F. Lee (vro hac vice)
`william.lee@wifmerhale.com
`9 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Doff LLP
`60 State Street
`10 Boston, MA 02109
`Telephone: ( 617) 526-6000
`Facsnnile:
`(617) 526-5000
`
`11
`12 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
`Hughes Communications Inc.
`13 Hughes Network Systems LLC
`DISH Network Corporation,
`14 DISH Network LLC and
`dishNET Satellite Broadband LLC
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2: l 3-cv-07245-MRP(cid:173)
`JEM
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS'
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`The Hon. Mariana R. Pfaelzer
`United States District Court Judge
`Hearing Date: March 27, 2015
`Time: 1:30PM
`Place: Comiroom 12
`
`17 THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY,
`
`18
`
`19
`
`HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS INC:-i..
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS LL\._,,
`DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,
`22 DISH NETWORK LLC, and DISHNET
`SATELLITE BROADBAND LLC,
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 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 Contents
`
`MOTION NO. 1: CALTECH'S DAMAGES THEORY IS INVALID AS A
`
`MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE ENTIRE MARKET VALUE RULE ............... 1
`
`I.
`
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ........................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Accused Products ................................................................ 2
`
`Caltech's Damages Theory ......................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Royalty Base ..................................................................... 6
`
`Royalty Rate ..................................................................... 7
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 9
`
`MOTION NO. 2: THE ASSERTED '781 PATENT CLAIMS ARE INVALID ... 13
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Undisputed Facts ...................................................................... 13
`
`Argument .................................................................................. 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Divsalar Invalidates Claim 19 ........................................ 17
`
`Divsalar Invalidates Claim 16 ........................................ 19
`
`Caltech's Attempt To Distinguish Divsalar Fails As A
`
`Matter Of Law ................................................................ 20
`
`MOTION NO. 3: THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE '833 PATENT ARE
`
`INVALID UNDER THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT ............. 26
`
`I.
`
`UNDISPUTED FACTS ...................................................................... 26
`
`A.
`
`Argument .................................................................................. 27
`
`1. Written Description Requires An Objective Showing
`
`That The Inventors Possessed The Full Scope Of What Is
`
`Claiined ........................................................................... 27
`
`2.
`
`The Asserted '833 Patent Claims Fail The Written
`
`Description Requirement ................................................ 27
`
`MOTION NO. 4: ALL THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID BASED
`
`ON IMPROPER INVENTORSHIP ........................................................................ 30
`
`- l -
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 2
`
`

`
`1 MOTION NO. 5: CALTECH'S INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS UNDER
`
`2 THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`ITS CLAIM ............................................................................................................. 32
`
`I.
`
`Undisputed Facts ................................................................................. 32
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Caltech's April 2014 Infringement Contentions ...................... 32
`
`Dr. Wicker's January 28, 2015 Infringement Rep01i ............... 33
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................... 33
`
`8 MOTION NO. 6: NON-INFRINGEMENT BY DISH AND dishNET
`
`9 PRODUCTS ............................................................................................................ 36
`
`10 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 37
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`26
`27
`
`28
`
`- 11 -
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2: 13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 3
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`2
`3 CASES
`4 Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`No. 06CV2433 DMS .......................................................................................... 33
`5 Ariad Phannc;., Inc. v. Eli Lilly_ & Co.,
`6
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) .................................................... 26, 27
`
`Page(s)
`
`7 Atlas JP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc,
`No.13-CIV-23309-ALTONAGA/O'Sullivan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`158787 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2014) ......................................................................... 12
`8
`
`9 Digi[al Reg of Tex. v. Adobe .S}:s'., Inc.,
`~o. C f2-1971 CW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115565 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`10
`
`11 Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Cmp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 22
`12 Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link ~ys., Inc.\
`13
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014; ................................................................... passim
`
`14 Evans Cooling Sys., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`l 25F .3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 30
`15 Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare !fealth Mgmt. Sys., Inc.,
`16
`701F.3d1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 36, 37
`
`17 Hill-Rom SenJices, Inc. v. Stryker C01p.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 22, 23
`
`18
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`
`Hyatt v. Boone,
`146 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 27, 28
`
`In re lnnovatio IP Ventures Patent Litig_.,
`No. 11C9308, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144061 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2013) .......... 12
`
`In re Rambus Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 21
`
`23 KSR Int 'l Co. v. Telejl_ex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ..................................................................................... 17, 20
`24 LaserDy_namics, Inc. v . .Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`25
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 1, 12
`
`26 Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway_, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 1
`27 · Malta v. Schulmerich Carillons, Inc.,
`28
`952 F.2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................... 33, 35
`
`- Ill -
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2: 13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 4
`
`

`
`Mirror Worlds, LLC v. AppJe, Inc.,
`784 F. Supp. 2d 703 (t.D. Tex. 2011) ............................................................... 12
`
`2
`Network Commerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`3
`422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005) . .' .................................................................. 32, 33
`4 Om3~4R3§ l3 {'~r(F~d~d~~~d~{f"_' .............................................................. · · · ...... · 21
`5
`6 Pa1551F.~~1~44°(Fed. cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 32
`7 Perricon v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.,
`432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 16
`
`8
`9
`
`Phillips v. A WH Corp.<
`4r5 F.3d 1303 (Fea. Cir. 2005) .................................................................... 20, 24
`
`10 Pro-Mold and Tool Co., Inc. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
`75 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...................................................................... 30, 31
`
`13
`14
`
`15
`
`SoJ74f.3~}2{61F~d.'6~~·199~)~~,~~~~:-.~~~'. -~~~: '. .......................... ·· ··· · ···· · ···· ······ 24
`Taurus JP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 18
`
`16 TechSearch L.L.C. v. Intel Corp_.,
`286 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 36
`
`17
`
`18
`19
`20
`
`21
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USE, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (Januaiy 20, 2015) ...................................................................... 20
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsof! Cmp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 12
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................. 1, 2, 9, 10
`
`- IV -
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2: 13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 5
`
`

`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule 56,
`
`2 Defendants Hughes Communications Inc., Hughes Network Systems LLC, DISH
`
`3 Network Corporation, DISH Network LLC, and dishNET Satellite Broadband LLC
`
`4
`
`(collectively, "Hughes") respectfully move for summmy judgment that: (1)
`
`5 Caltech's damages theory is invalid as a matter oflaw; (2) the '781 patent claims
`are invalid as anticipated and obvious; 1 (3) the asserted'833 patent claims are
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement; ( 4) all of the
`
`asserted patents are invalid for non-joinder of Dr. Dariush Divsalar as an inventor;
`
`(5) the accused products do not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents; and (6)
`
`10
`
`that no DISH or dishNET products infringe.
`
`11
`
`MOTION NO. 1: CALTECH'S DAMAGES THEORY IS INVALID
`
`12 ASA MATTER OF LAW UNDER THE ENTIRE MARKET VALUE RULE
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`"Where small elements of multi-component products are accused of
`
`infringement, calculating a royalty on the entire product carries a considerable risk
`
`that the patentee will be improperly compensated for non-infringing components of
`
`that product." LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 67
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). A patentee may therefore recover damages using the market
`
`18 value of the accused end product as the royalty base only if the patentee proves that
`
`19
`
`"the patent-related feature is the 'basis for customer demand"' for the end product.
`
`20 Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009). "In the
`
`21
`
`absence of such a showing, principles of apportionment apply." VirnetX, Inc. v.
`
`22 Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The revenues associated
`23 with the accused product as a whole "must" be apportioned between the value of
`
`24
`
`the invention and the value of unpatented features to determine the royalty base
`
`25
`
`1 Caltech asse1is infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710 ('"710 patent");
`26
`27 7,421,032 ('"032 patent"); 7,916,781 ('"781 patent"); and 8,284,833 ("'833
`patent").
`28
`
`-1-
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 6
`
`

`
`fails to explain how or why the elements are substantially the same, his opinions
`
`2 are conclus01y and cannot raise an issue of material fact.
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`MOTION NO. 6: NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`BY DISH AND dishNET PRODUCTS
`
`In order to survive a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement,
`
`7 Caltech must demonstrate that the accused products practice each and eve1y
`
`8
`
`limitation of the asse1ied patent claims. See Catalina Mktg. Int'!, Inc. v.
`
`9 Coo/savings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 812 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "[G]eneral assetiions
`
`10 of facts, general denials, and conclusory statements are insufficient." TechSearch
`
`11 L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Caltech cannot meet
`
`12
`
`this burden as a matter oflaw for any DISH or dishNET products, because it has
`
`13 offered no expert opinion that any of these products infringe any asserted claim.
`
`14 Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 701 F.3d 1351, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`15 2012) ("The inherent complexity of patent cases almost always requires expert
`
`16
`
`17
`
`testimony on questions of infringement and validity .... ").)
`
`Caltech's complaint alleged that DISH and dishNET products infringe, but
`
`18 only identified the DISH Hopper as being accused. (Dkt. No. 29 at 3.) Caltech
`
`19
`
`alleged that the Hopper infringed because it was supposedly DVB-S2 compliant.
`
`20
`
`(Id.) Caltech has never named any dishNET product as accused. (Id.)
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`In March 2014, at the outset of discovery, Hughes answered Caltech's
`
`Interrogatory No. 1 by explaining that the Hopper does not practice DVB-S2.
`
`(Thompson Deel. Ex. W [Defendants' Responses to Caltech's First Set of
`
`Interrogatories] at 4.) Undaunted, Caltech continued to press its infringement
`
`contentions against the Hopper (and continued to demand burdensome discove1y
`
`about this product). (Dkt. 37 at 3.) Hughes followed up with the deposition of
`
`27 Edmund Petruzzelli, who testified that the Hopper is not DVB-S2 compliant.
`
`28
`
`(Thompson Deel. Ex. X [December 10, 2014 Deposition Transcript of Edmund
`-36-
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 7
`
`

`
`Petrnzzelli] at 87:5-11 (testifying that the EchoStar XiP, which is the internal
`
`2 product designation for the Hopper, does not use DVB-S2 forward error
`
`3 correction).) Given this testimony, Hughes asked Caltech to drop its claims
`
`4 against DISH before the depositions of two DISH executives. But Caltech refused,
`
`5 and insisted on pressing ahead.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`After the close of fact discovery, however, Caltech effectively conceded that
`
`it has no evidence of infringement against the Hopper. Specifically, the report of
`
`8 Caltech's technical expert, Dr. Wicker, never once mentions the Hopper and
`
`9 contains not a shred of evidence that the Hopper practices any asserted patent
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`claim. The report of Caltech's damages expe1i, Dr. Kearl, similarly does not claim
`
`any damages based on sales of the Hopper. Because even Caltech's experts
`
`refused to supp01i a claim against the Hopper, Caltech's infringement allegations
`
`against the Hopper fail as a matter oflaw. Highmark, 701 F.3d at 1365.
`
`Before filing this motion, Hughes aiiiculated each of the foregoing points to
`
`15 Caltech. Caltech has thus far refused to dismiss its claims against DISH and
`
`16 dishNET with prejudice. Accordingly, summary judgment of non-infringement
`should be granted. 14
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`For the reasons explained in each motion above, the Court should grant
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`20
`
`summary judgment in Hughes' favor on all issues described herein.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Dated: March 2, 2015
`
`By:
`
`Isl David Marcus
`David C. Marcus
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim(cid:173)
`Plaintiffs
`
`14 Caltech and the DISH defendants have engaged in discussions about a voluntaiy
`dismissal of the Dish claims. Because the parties have not as of the fili~g date of
`this motion agreed to the form of a dismissal, however, the Defendants file this
`motion as a precautionary matter. The Court will be promptly advised if the
`parties have reached agreement on the foim of a dismissal.
`
`-37-
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2: 13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 8
`
`

`
`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
`
`Hughes Communications Inc.,
`Hughes Network Systems LLC,
`DISH Network Corporation,
`DISH Network L.L.C., and
`dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C.
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: +1213443 5300
`Facsimile: + 1 213 443 5400
`William F. Lee (pro hac vice)
`william.lee@wifmerhale.com
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale And Dorr
`LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Telephone:+ 1 617 526 6000
`Facsnnile: + 1 617 526 5000
`William G. McElwain (pro hac vice)
`william.mcelwain@wilmerhale.com
`
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone:+ I 202 663 6388
`Facsimile: +I 202 663 6363
`
`-38-
`MEMORANDUM ISO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1071, p. 9