Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20093
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING
`S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., and LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
`INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.’S SUR REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO LG’S
`SECOND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW OR NEW TRIAL
`(VALIDITY)
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 1
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 20094
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Having failed to carry its high burden of proof at trial, LG asks the Court to cast aside the
`
`jury’s factual findings and conclusions that the ’020 and ’476 patents are not anticipated by the
`
`Blanchard patent. In doing so, LG distorts Core Wireless’s explanation as to why the jury
`
`reasonably (and correctly) concluded that Blanchard does not disclose all the claim limitations in
`
`the ’020 and ’476 patents. Contrary to LG’s contention, Core Wireless is not making, and does
`
`not need to make, any arguments that the ’020 and ’476 patents are valid over Blanchard due to
`
`“non-existent claim limitations.” Instead, whether Blanchard discloses every claim limitation is
`
`a question of fact that the jury resolved in Core Wireless’s favor. It was LG’s burden to prove
`
`by clear and convincing evidence that Blanchard anticipated the asserted claims of the Martyn
`
`patents. Blanchard on its face fails to disclose several claim elements including the “application
`
`summary,” “limited list,” “sub-set of functions,” and “unlaunched state” limitations found in the
`
`’020 and ’476 patents. Moreover, LG’s expert--tasked with explaining to the jury how a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would view these patents--was thoroughly impeached on cross-
`
`examination. The jury was entitled to discredit Dr. Rhyne’s testimony. Absent credible expert
`
`testimony explaining the Blanchard reference and Martyn patents from the perspective of one
`
`skilled in the art, LG’s invalidity case boils down to the four corners of the Blanchard patent
`
`standing alone. But Blanchard’s disclosures, which are at most ambiguous, do not teach all of
`
`the asserted claim limitations and cannot justify overturning the jury’s verdict and awarding LG
`
`judgment as a matter of law.
`
`II.
`
`SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE JURY’S VERDICT THAT LG
`FAILED TO CARRY ITS BURDEN OF PROOF
`
`The jury’s verdict that Blanchard does not anticipate the ’020 and ’476 patents is
`
`supported by substantial evidence showing that Blanchard does not disclose at least the
`
`
`
`1
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 2
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 20095
`
`“application summary window”/“application summary,” “limited list” or “sub-set of functions, ”
`
`and “unlaunched state” limitations in the asserted claims. LG has not offered the “overwhelming
`
`amount of evidence needed to require [the Court] to overturn the jury’s verdict.” Whitserve, LLC
`
`v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10, 24 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Initially, LG cannot rely on any
`
`of Dr. Rhyne’s testimony to establish invalidity as a matter of law, as the jury was free to
`
`discredit that testimony because Dr. Rhyne was repeatedly impeached. Reeves v. Sanderson
`
`Plumbing Prods. Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); Jenkins v. General Motors Corp., 446 F.2d 377,
`
`380 (5th Cir. 1971). Thus, LG’s Motion can only rely on the Blanchard patent itself, viewed in
`
`the light most favorable to Core Wireless. Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154, 168 (5th Cir.
`
`2015). But the jury was entitled to conclude that Blanchard does not disclose certain limitations
`
`of the Martyn patents. It was not and is not Core Wireless’s burden to convince the jury of these
`
`deficiencies, but here Core Wireless explains just three of the potential omissions in Blanchard
`
`that the jury could have reasonably found as a bar to anticipation.
`
`Blanchard Does Not Disclose an Application Summary Window
`A.
`All of the asserted claims require an “application summary window” or “application
`
`summary.” Those terms were not raised for construction by either party and, accordingly, were
`
`not construed by the Court. Thus, they were given their plain and ordinary meaning in the
`
`context of the patent. The jury could reasonably conclude that Blanchard does not expressly or
`
`inherently disclose this limitation. The menus displayed in Blanchard do not summarize the
`
`application; they represent the actual application itself, not the separate application summary
`
`window claimed by the Martyn patents. As Core Wireless explained at trial and in its
`
`opposition, Blanchard does not disclose any other manner to access an application’s functions
`
`other than through the myriad of menus. (Opp. at 4). While the Martyn patents disclose an
`
`application summary window that is an alternative means of navigating to functions in the
`
`
`
`2
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 3
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 20096
`
`application, Blanchard presents only the application itself, listing all of the various functions.
`
`See Blanchard Fig. 3.
`
`LG seeks to write off this glaring omission in Blanchard by accusing Core Wireless of
`
`relying on three unclaimed limitations. (Reply at 2). This is not the case. It was a question for
`
`the jury to determine, among other things, whether Blanchard disclosed the “application
`
`summary” limitation, and that limitation was to be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the
`
`context of the patent and art. As described in the Martyn patents, the application summary
`
`window presents an alternative to launching the application directly from the main menu. ’020
`
`patent at 3:5-22. Using the main menu approach, a user is required to open the Application
`
`Launcher, scroll to the desired application, and then “take conventional navigation steps . . . .”
`
`Id. at 3:19-22. For example, the user may launch the application from this point, but then has to
`
`spend time trying to locate the desired function within the application itself. See, e.g., id. at 1:33-
`
`46. Using the application summary feature, however, the user may simply highlight the desired
`
`application in the Application Launcher, causing the application summary window to be
`
`displayed, and select the desired function directly from the application summary window. Id. at
`
`3:22-44.
`
`Blanchard does not teach or suggest such an application summary window because the
`
`menu options presented in response to a top-row icon being highlighted (as a result of a user
`
`scrolling to a desired top-row icon) are the only means by which the associated application (or
`
`function) may be invoked. Or, put differently, when a user is navigating the various options
`
`disclosed in Blanchard, he is actually navigating within the application itself (and thus the
`
`application is also not in an unlaunched state, as explained below). Hence, the menu displayed
`
`as a result of such selection cannot be considered an application summary window because rather
`
`
`
`3
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 4
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 20097
`
`than presenting an alternative application summary approach to launching the associated
`
`application, the menu options being presented provide the only means of doing so.
`
`B.
`
`Blanchard Does Not Disclose an Application Summary Window Displayed
`While the Application Is in an “Unlaunched State”
`
`In evaluating Blanchard, the jury could have also concluded that Blanchard does not
`
`satisfy the “unlaunched state” limitation contained in all of the asserted claims. Related to the
`
`point above that application functionality in Blanchard is accessible only through the menu
`
`structure that LG meritlessly argues is an application summary window, the jury could have
`
`reasonably and properly found that the functions seen in Figure 3 of Blanchard are found within
`
`the application itself, and thus the sub-menu displays shown in Figure 3 are visible only once the
`
`application itself is launched, or per the Court’s claim construction, “displayed.” See Blanchard
`
`Fig. 3 & 3:64-4:11.
`
`C.
`
`Blanchard Does Not Disclose the “Limited List’ or “Sub-Set of Functions”
`Limitations
`
`LG’s attempt to show that Blanchard discloses the “limited list” or “sub-set of functions”
`
`limitations is risible. LG argued at trial and here that this limitation is satisfied by Blanchard by
`
`virtue of the fact that a user would have to scroll down to see all of the five functions in the
`
`Phone Book application. (Reply at 3 n.4). The argument ignores the fact that under LG’s
`
`alleged interpretation of the application summary window, all of these five functions are
`
`displayed as part of the application summary. See Blanchard Fig. 3 at 320, 321, 322, 323, 324.
`
`As indicated by the brackets highlighted in the figure below, each of these callouts depicts the
`
`functions available from the Phone Book application. The fact that the Blanchard screen could
`
`only depict three of the five at a time does not alter the fact that the hold-over two are still listed
`
`as part of what LG contends is the application summary window.
`
`
`
`4
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 5
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 20098
`
`As Dr. Rhyne admitted, the five functions listed here are the only functions of
`
`Blanchard’s Phone Book and all of them are available through what LG alleges is the application
`
`summary window. See 3/22/16 12:33pm Tr. 129:8-13; 3/23/16, 8:30am Tr. 31:9-20. The only
`
`basis LG presented at trial for a finding that Blanchard discloses the “limited list” or “sub-set”
`
`limitations of Claim 1 of the ’020 and ’476 patents and Claim 13 of the ’020 patent is the
`
`implausible reading that the alleged application summary window of the Phone Book application
`
`includes only the top three of five functions. See 3/22/16 12:33pm Tr. 129:8-13; 132:6-25. The
`
`jury could have disagreed with this contention by looking at Figure 3 itself, which discloses (in
`
`LG’s alleged summary window) all of the available functions of all of the displayed
`
`applications.
`
`
`
`5
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 6
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 20099
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 7
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 20100
`
`III. LG CANNOT SHIFT THE BURDEN TO CORE WIRELESS
`
`In light of these deficiencies in Blanchard, LG is not entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law that Blanchard anticipates and invalidates the asserted claims of the Martyn patents. “What
`
`a prior art reference discloses is, of course, a question of fact, and if there are disputes over
`
`material facts, whether the [prior art] anticipates [asserted claims] should be resolved at trial by
`
`the fact finder.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Laboratories, 512 F.3d 1363, 1378 & n.6 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008). Core Wireless disputed that Blanchard discloses several limitations as explained above.
`
`And Core Wireless discredited LG’s expert on cross-examination. At most, Blanchard is
`
`ambiguous as to whether it satisfies all of the Martyn limitations. Viewing all of the evidence in
`
`the light most favorable to Core Wireless--as the Court must on this Motion--there was at most
`
`an open question of fact regarding anticipation. The jury reasonably resolved that question in
`
`Core Wireless’s favor, and that decision is supported by substantial evidence (e.g., reasonable
`
`interpretations and inferences drawn from the Blanchard patent itself). (Opp. at 6-8). LG does
`
`not provide any reason to upset that verdict.
`
`IV.
`
`LG CONCEDES NO NEW TRIAL IS WARRANTED UNDER RULE 59
`
`As it did with respect to infringement, LG has all but abandoned its alternative request for
`
`a new trial under Rule 59. It does not even attempt to rebut any of Core Wireless’s explanation
`
`as to why no new trial would be appropriate. (Opp. at 8-12.) LG also fails to address any of
`
`Core Wireless’s explanations for why the Ericsson R380s reference was properly excluded from
`
`trial. No new trial is warranted under Rule 59.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, LG’s post-verdict motion as to invalidity under Rules 50(b)
`
`and 59 should be denied in its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 8
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 20101
`
`Dated: May 31, 2016
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Alexander C.D. Giza
`
`
`
`Alexander C.D. Giza (California Bar # 212327)
`Padraic W. Foran (California Bar # 268278)
`HUESTON HENNIGAN LLP
`526 West 6th Street, Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90014
`Telephone: (213) 788-4340
`Facsimile: (888) 775-0898
`Email: agiza@hueston.com
`Email: pforan@hueston.com
`
`S. Calvin Capshaw, III (Texas Bar # 3783900)
`Elizabeth L. DeRieux (Texas Bar # 05770585)
`D. Jeffrey Rambin (Texas Bar # 00791478)
`CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP
`114 E. Commerce Ave.
`Gladewater, TX 75647
`Telephone: (903) 236-9800
`Facsimile: (903) 236-8787
`E-mail: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com
`E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com
`E-mail: jrambin@capshawlaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 9
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00911-JRG-RSP Document 482 Filed 05/31/16 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
` 20102
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically. I further
`certify that all counsel of record were served a complete and accurate copy of the document via
`email and/or CM/ECF on this day.
`Dated: May 31, 2016
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Alexander C.D. Giza
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`LG Exhibit 1008, Page 10
`LG Electronics, Inc. v. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Trial No. IPR2015-01985