Case 1:15-cv-10240—LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`I
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`V.
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS B.V.,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-10240—LTS
`
`ZPUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORR, and
`
`QIOPTIQ PHOTONICS GMBH & CO. KG,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ENERGETIQ’S REPLY BRIEF IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`ASML 1409
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-lO240—LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 2 of 7
`
`A gxreliminary injxmction is intended to mgaintaixl the stains quo;_
`
`E ‘>WiVt§2. ifespebt fie Exceiiias’ aflégatiozaé {haf a1iiz1j1mction Wm haem fir" ‘“{0}::e who aiects
`fie ‘auiiti :1 Emsineea 0:1 3 prczciuci fouad ‘so infringe Carma? beheard to cemgzlaixz ifan itijtzztctémz
`
`against mzzztixming ixzfirixzgzmxezxt {ies¥1*oy:s the £m5:ine:°s:s $9 eIeute{i.”’Men?a! £322’. v. Cgpia .LIci., 63}
`
`F.3»z§ 3.233, 3396 (Fed. Cir, 2912} {ci%:=;ti:::«n3 onaiiied}.
`
`As is Bxceiitas, this issue is aim for 21 prelimimny injimction. Baserfi an the iiffie Exceiitas
`
`says in iis opposition in Ex:ergetiq’s motien, a preliminary irxjxmciimz cieariy is appmgzriate here.
`
`0:1 fie mwfiimi G1‘SWss>
`
`Regarding the timing, Exeelifas fakes no issue tim£§';‘a»e::~.geiiq fimt Eeamerci a‘§3a:>?u£ this infiiaging
`
`xfiroéuci fi€v%*°?men* *1 W 2914-
`
`-3 Nor {ices Bxceiitas, a i\rIa.ssac§1t1sett3-iaased csmpany, cimilenge this comfs
`
`jxuisdicfizen er service ofprecess. 3
`
`I.
`
`LIKELIHOGB OF SUCCESS
`
`Infrirtgement. While Defendzxxats argue that
`
`The referenced deciaratioxis are on file with the cam“: ass feflows: Smith I (Dec. No. 14),
`’
`Smith II(f11ed herew§¥h),, L<::1'enzLi=(D0c. No, 2:1}, Lorexaz 321 (Doc. No. 119), Ross (Dec. No, SQ).
`Ersoni 5 Dec. N0, :31 . Leiz H Doc. No- 54 ,
`
`'
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv—lO240~LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 3 of 7
`
`Il||'|||||||l'|l||||||
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15—cv-lO240—LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 4 of 7
`
`Pawn! Valixiigz. Em:-rrgeiiq can new say wifla c-911331113, having new seen Defendants’ Best
`
`case on vaiiciiiy, that it is likely mu prevafl on Efiefendants’ .in°vaii<iity €1S36I'¥iO11$. Far insfamze, with
`
`respect to the ‘£555 ;>aten%3 ciaim 41, 331". R933 identifies only cue prior art refereazcre (G:§rt:x1er}that
`
`she says: shows; evezy ‘linxitatimx offize claim, But, Dr. Ross made a fatal factual mis£a§<e (perhaps
`
`tuacieriiaing a Eaek of expettise in the area. {sf the parents) by sagging %i1,:-at Gamer has 3 ““mrved
`
`refiective surface” mat meets {we reqttiraements of claim 4 i: (1) “receive and refiecf . . . the
`eiecirenzaegzei’-in energy Base: light} iowarzi the imzizeaci gas. . 0: .;” and. {2} “'1‘ef}ex:¥$ the
`
`brighiness iighf [genemfeci by the piasma} towarti an outpiif of {he£ighiso1m:e.” In fact, the
`
`“concave mirzser 39” in Gfixmer $1133: she goints to: does not perform the second ofthese éwcv
`
`requirements. «» And, Gfimzer does not disciose a. ‘fizzigh iyrighixiesza Eight," as the ciaim requires.
`
`Gézmex iizexefore cannot invalitiata ciaiixz 41 Ilnéar 35 U.S.C. § 302. {—Smi£h II ‘€13 44, 45-54;
`
`I.)
`
`Dr. Regs also epines that Géiriner, in combination with ether pxior art, madam ciaim 41
`
`obvions uncier 35 U.S..C. § 103. But her obviousness anaiysis is £00 cm1c112so1y to cmry any
`
`wei_ghf, and indeed, faiis ta meet the miniznmn Iegai requirements for arguing ebviousness:
`
`$31. Ross faiiegi cam lefeiv $9 adflxess the 027 ‘active evidence of11on—o‘9viousness that
`
`Encrgefiq put ft>1‘wa1'<:i, ixlchlciing 1ong~fe¥t need for the invention, unexpectediy goad
`results from $119 ‘invention, anti ovemiaelzning indushy pmise of ihe i1we11iio11 (Smith I. ‘W
`37-11"). See Trmzsocemz %}2oz*e Deepwa2*er.Dri!Ii::g, Inc. v. ffizfzzezzxk Co:m*aczm:s’ U&»i,
`32:3,, 617 R3 :3. 1296, 1305 (Fed. C31‘. 2010} (revmsing district c—ou:1'f obvimzsness finding
`becaazse of “failure to consider the ubjective evidezlce ofI}0I1Q1)Vi011S11BSS .
`. 3’); Procfezr 63:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15—cv-10240-LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 5 of 7
`
`Gamble v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (objective evidence
`of non—obviousness such as long-felt need often is “the most cogent evidence [of non-.
`obviousness] in the record”).
`
`0 Dr. Ross provided no reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art at thetime of the
`invention would have made the combinations that “allegedly render the invention obvious
`(Ross 111124, 31, 39, 49-56). See In Touch Tech. v. ’ VGO Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d
`1327, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Dr. Yanco’s testimony was nothing more than impermissible
`hindsight; she opined that all of the elements of the claims disparately existed in the prior
`"art, but failed to provide the glue to combine these references”); See also Kinetic Concepts,
`Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc, 688 F.3d. 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (obviousness
`argument fails as defendant did not show reason why person skilled in the art would
`combine references).
`
`o Dr. Ross’ obviousness analysis consists of nothing more than boilerplate conclusory
`statements, (e.g. Ross 111] 24, 31, 39, 49-56), and this is not enough. KSR Int 7 Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 341 (2007) (obviousness analysis must be made explicit and
`conclusory statements do not suffice); See In Touch Tech., at 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Dr.
`Yanco’s testimony primarily consisted of conclusory references to her belief that one of
`ordinary skill in the art could combine these references, not that they would have been
`motivated to do so”).
`
`For these reasons alone, the court can find that Defendants failed to raise a substantial question of
`
`patent validity. In addition, Defendants’ validity analysis also fails on the technical merits, as
`
`shown in Dr. Smith’s second declaration, attached hereto. (Smith 11 M 8-79.) 5
`
`II.
`
`OTHER FACTORS
`
`Irregarable Harm. Defendants’ opposition also underscores the irreparable harm here,
`
`absent an injunction
`
`And while Energetiq need only show likelihood of success on one patent claim,
`5
`Defendants invalidity case for claim 10 of the ‘942 patent fails for similar reasons. (Smith 11 111]
`13-40.) With respect to claim 10, Defendants also raise an argument that the claim 10 term
`“high brightness light” is indefinite. (Opp. 13 n. 7.) This argument is without merit, as the ‘982
`patent specification at col. 1, ll. 9-40, provides an express and certain definition of “high
`brightness light.” (Smith 11, ‘W 17-22.)
`6
`See Celsis in Vitro, Inc. v. CelZzDz'rect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 930 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Price
`erosion, loss of goodwill, damage to reputation, and loss of business opportunities are all valid
`grounds for finding irreparable harm.”)
`
`

`

`Case l:l5—cv-10240-LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 6 of 7
`
`Balance 0 E rrities am! Pzrbiic Imerzzsl. Justice is not dune when a snxali iechnaiczsgy
`
`
`company patexiis a_g1‘ezmdb1'e2king21ew technolegyg but ioses the cu:+3tome1* and 3&5 exciusivity right
`
`because someone decides that it wiii be cheaper to make ‘the prociucf itseif. This kind of behavier
`
`kills Ame1'_i<:an i1u1ov:e:tic»n.
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15—cv-10240-LTS Document 66 Filed 03/17/15 Page 7 of 7
`
`Dated: March 17, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Steven M. Bauer
`
`-
`
`.
`
`Steven M_._BauerV(BB'O #542531) .
`Safraz W. Ishmael (BBO #657881)
`S.-James Boumi1III (BBO #684361)
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`One International Place
`
`Boston, MA 02110-2600
`
`Telephone: (617) 526-9600
`Facsimile: (617) 526-9899
`sbauer@proskauer.com
`sishmae1@proskauer.com
`jboumi1@proskauer.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that, on March 17, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
`
`Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. A copy of the document will be served upon
`
`Defendants’ counsel electronically via the CM/ECF system.
`
`/s/ Steven M. Bauer
`Steven M. Bauer
`
`