`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC, ZTE (USA), INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI INVESTMENT & HOLDING CO. LTD.,
`HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT CO. LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE (HONG KONG) CO. LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Cywee Group Ltd.
`(record) Patent Owner
`_____________
`
`IPR2018-01257
`_____________
`
`Patent No. 8,552,978
`
`
`PETITIONER’S SURREPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TERMINATE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,441,438 (“the ’438 patent”).
`
`Declaration of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh.
`
`C.V. of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,089,148 (“Bachman”).
`
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0095317 (“Zhang”).
`
`U.S. Pat. 7,158,118 (“Liberty”).
`
`Return of Service for Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case
`No. 1-18-cv-00571, (D. Del.).
`
`Return of Service for Cywee Group Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies
`Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2-17-cv-00495, (E.D. Tex.).
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. App. 13/176,771
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in Cywee
`Group Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 2-
`17-cv-00140, (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Ex. D to Complaint of April 16, 2018 in Cywee Group Ltd. v.
`Google, Inc., Case No. 1-18-cv-00571 (D. Del.).
`
`Email of August 3, 2018 from Michael Shore to Luann
`Simmons.
`
`CyWee’s First Requests for Production of Documents in Cywee
`Group Ltd. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 1-18-cv-00571, (D. Del.).
`
`CyWee’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder to Inter
`Partes Review IPR2018-01258 of February 8, 2019.
`
`CyWee’s Opp. to Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Inter
`Partes Review Proceedings in CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Samsung
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`Elec. Co., Ltd., Case 2:17-cv-00140-WCB-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jan.
`25, 2019).
`
`Complaint of April 16, 2018 in Cywee Group Ltd. v. Google,
`Inc., Case No. 1-18-cv-00571 (D. Del.).
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 2010/0312468 Al (“Withanawasam”).
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Professor Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Joseph LaViola in IPR2018-01257,
`-01258 (May 22, 2019)(“LaViola Tr.”).
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,356,361 (“Hawkins”).
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,741 (“Siddiqui”).
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,103 (“Puente Baliarda”)
`
`USPTO PATFT database search results (search string
`“ref/7089148”).
`
`U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018/0153587 A1 (“van der Walt”).
`
`Deposition Transcript of Joseph LaViola in CyWee Group Ltd.,
`v. Huawei Device Co. Ltd., CASE NO. 2017-cv-00495-WCB-
`RSP (E.D. Tex. September 25, 2018).
`
`Complaint, CyWee Group Ltd., v. Google, Inc. 1:18-cv-00571
`(D. Del. Apr. 16, 2018).
`
`First Amended Complaint, CyWee Group Ltd. v. LG Electronics,
`Inc., 3:17-cv- 01102 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2017).
`
`First Amended Complaint, CyWee Group Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., 2:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017).
`
`Complaint, CyWee Group Ltd. v. ZTE Corp., 3:17-cv-02130
`(S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2017)
`
`About the Android Open Source Project,
`https://source.android.com
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`Android Is For Everyone, Enabling Opportunity, available at
`https://www.android.com/everyone/enabling-opportunity/
`
`Android Is For Everyone, Facts available at
`https://www.android.com/everyone/facts/
`
`Official Blog, Hiroshi Lockheimer April 15, 2015, available at
`https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/android-has-helped-
`create-more-choice.html
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. #250), CyWee v.
`Samsung, 2:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018)
`
`PAXLICENSE.ORG, available at
`https://paxlicense.org/index.html
`
`PhoneArena.com, Phone Manufacturers, available at
`www.phonearena.com/phones/manufacturers
`
`PhoneArena.com, Google Pixel Rivals and Competitors,
`available at https://www.phonearena.com/phones/Google-Pixel-
`2_id10584/rivals
`
`Declaration of Collin W. Park
`
`Screenshot of Adobe Acrobat Creation and Modified Date
`Properties for Exhibit 2021.
`
`from European Patent Office Web site
`results
`Search
`(https://worldwide.espacenet.com) for applicant CyWee, in order
`of ascending priority date.
`
`Search results from U.S.P.T.O. Web site assignee database for
`assignee CyWee.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,041,860.
`
`[SEALED] Second Deposition Transcript of Dr. Joseph LaViola
`in IPR2018-01257, -01258 (August 13, 2019)(“2nd LaViola
`Tr.”).
`
`1044
`
`Third Declaration of Majid Sarrafzadeh
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`Apple Press Release, Apple Announces the New iPhone 3GS—The
`Fastest, Most Powerful
`iPhone Yet,
`June 8, 2009,
`https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2009/06/08Apple-
`Announces-the-New-iPhone-3GS-The-Fastest-Most-Powerful-
`iPhone-Yet/
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,441,438
`
`Exhibit 1014 from IPR2019-00143.
`
`[PUBLIC-REDACTED] Second Deposition Transcript of Dr.
`Joseph LaViola
`in IPR2018-01257, -01258 (August 13,
`2019)(“2nd LaViola Tr.”).
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Collin W. Park (August 21, 2019)
`(Redacted version of Ex. 2045)
`
`to Supplement Infringement
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave
`Contentions and Expert Reports (Dkt. #326), CyWee v. Samsung,
`No. 2:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2019)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Google addresses CyWee’s argument concerning Exhibits 2046-2048, which
`
`further confirm that Google properly identified Huawei as an RPI, and that LG,
`
`Samsung, and ZTE are not Google’s RPIs or privies. CyWee relies on an improper
`
`“benefits-plus-relationship” standard expressly rejected by the Board after AIT. See
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming, LLC, IPR2018-00883, Paper
`
`29 at 13-19, (PTAB Oct. 11, 2018) (cited by Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N.
`
`Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 at 10 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (precedential)
`
`(warning against overextending AIT to cover a general benefit and a relationship)).
`
`CyWee cites Exhibit 2046 to argue that Google relied on a “Samsung phone” for
`
`the Android trademark to argue that Samsung is an RPI.1 Reply 4. CyWee also cites
`
`Exhibit 2048, an image from an LG FCC filing, to argue that LG is an RPI because
`
`it “manufactures the Pixel 2 XL for Google.” Id. Both exhibits are irrelevant to the
`
`RPI analysis. Rather, the question “lying at [the] heart” of “[d]etermining whether a
`
`non-party is a ‘real party in interest’” is “whether a petition has been filed at a
`
`nonparty’s ‘behest.’” Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d
`
`1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Google did not file its IPR petitions at the behest of
`
`Samsung, ZTE, or LG. Google, in conjunction with Huawei, selected the petitions’
`
`
`1 In fact, CyWee’s allegations against the Samsung accused products are directed
`
`to Qualcomm, not Google. See Ex. 1050. Exhibit 2046 is, therefore, irrelevant.
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`prior art and developed the positions in the petitions, and Google alone financed the
`
`petitions. Samsung, ZTE, and LG were not involved in the preparation of the
`
`petitions. No document cited by CyWee suggests the contrary. Indeed, CyWee’s
`
`deposition of LG’s lead counsel confirmed that LG had no knowledge of Google’s
`
`IPR petitions or expert declarations until after they were filed. Ex. 1049, 54:10-19,
`
`51:17-52:22. In addition, LG’s sworn testimony further confirms that “LG is not”
`
`“providing a defense to Google or indemnification to Google for any of the phones
`
`manufactured by LG for Google that are accused of infringement.” Id. at 238:6-11.
`
`The same is true for Samsung and ZTE. CyWee fails to present evidence, even after
`
`deposing LG’s lead counsel, that any other party should have been named as an RPI
`
`to this proceeding. Instead, CyWee vaguely argues that the Android Defendants
`
`should have been named as RPIs based on an arms-length commercial relationship,
`
`which the Board has previously found insufficient to establish an RPI relationship
`
`with Google based on the use of the Android OS. See, e.g., Google LLC v. Seven
`
`Networks, LLC, IPR2018-01116, Paper 36 at 17–19 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (finding
`
`Samsung-Google customer-supplier relationship insufficient to establish RPI).
`
`As for Huawei, and contrary to CyWee’s suggestion (Reply 4), Huawei was
`
`named an RPI here not “sole[ly]” because Huawei is Google’s ODM for the Nexus
`
`6P. Rather, Huawei was involved in Google’s IPR petitions prior to filing and,
`
`therefore, was properly named as an RPI in this proceeding.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`Date: September 11, 2019
`
`
`
`/Andrew S. Baluch/
`Andrew S. Baluch
`Reg. No. 57,503
`SMITH BALUCH LLP
`700 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, Suite 2060
`Washington, DC 20003
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-01257
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,552,978
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing, together with all exhibits and other
`
`documents filed therewith, was served by email on September 11, 2019, on the
`
`counsel of record as follows:
`
`Counsel for CyWee:
`Jay Kesan
`
`jay@jaykesan.com;
`Cecil Key
`
`cecil@keyiplaw.com
`Ari Rafilson
`arafilson@shorechan.com;
`Michael Shore
`mshore@ShoreChan.com
`
`Counsel for ZTE:
`James R. Sobieraj jsobierah@brinksgilson.com
`Yeuzhong Feng
`yfeng@brinksgilson.com
`Andrea Shoffstall ashoffstall@brinksgilson.com
`ZTE_CyweeIPRs@brinksgilson.com
`
`
`Counsel for Samsung:
`Naveen Modi PH-Samsung-Cywee-IPR@paulhastings.com
`Chetan Bansal
`
`Counsel for LG:
`Collin Park
`Andrew Devkar
`Jeremy Peterson
`Adam Brooke
`
`collin.park@morganlewis.com
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`jeremy.peterson@morganlewis.com
`adam.brooke@morganlewis.com
`MLB_CyweevsLGE@morganlewis.com
`
`Counsel for Huawei:
`Kristopher L. Reed HuaweiCywee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Benjamin M. Kleinman
`Norris P. Boothe
`
`Dated: September 11, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`/Andrew S. Baluch/
`Andrew S. Baluch (Reg. No. 57,503)
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
