`
`
`
`
`CustomPlay
`CustomPlay
`Exhibit 2013
`Exhibit 2013
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 1 of 29
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO. 9:17-cv-80884-KAM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`CUSTOMPLAY, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendant
`
`_________________________/
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF DEFENDANT AMAZON.COM, INC.
`IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`500746523 v1
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 2 of 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`A.
`
`THE PARTIES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`CustomPlay ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Amazon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
`
`B.
`
`THE CUSTOMPLAY PATENTS -------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Specifications ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`The Claims -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
`
`The Prior Art ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`CUSTOMPLAY’S COMMUNICATIONS WITH AMAZON ---------------------- 6
`
`THIS LITIGATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
`
`ARGUMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`CUSTOMPLAY’S INEXCUSABLE MULTI-YEAR DELAY IS,
`STANDING ALONE, SUFFICIENT TO DENY THIS MOTION ------------------ 8
`
`CUSTOMPLAY’S UNCLEAN HANDS ARE, STANDING
`ALONE, SUFFICIENT TO DENY THIS MOTION ---------------------------------- 9
`
`CUSTOMPLAY’S LACK OF IRREPARABLE HARM IS,
`STANDING ALONE, SUFFICIENT TO DENY THIS MOTION ----------------- 12
`
`SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNDERLYING
`MERITS ARE, STANDING ALONE, SUFFICIENT TO DENY
`THIS MOTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`A.
`
`Substantial Questions Regarding Infringement ------------------------------- 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ’950 Patent ----------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`The ’282 Patent. ---------------------------------------------------------- 15
`
`The ’346 Patent ----------------------------------------------------------- 16
`
`B.
`
`Substantial Questions Regarding Validity ------------------------------------- 17
`
`500746523 v1
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 3 of 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ---------------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 ------------------------------------------------ 18
`
`V.
`
`THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST
`WEIGH HEAVILY AGAINST CUSTOMPLAY’S MOTION --------------------- 19
`
`CONCLUSION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
`
`
`
`
`500746523 v1
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 4 of 29
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`Acoustic Processing Tech., Inc. v. KDH Elec. Sys., Inc.,
`697 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D. Me. 2010) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 17
`
`Am. Broad. Co. v. Aereo, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2498, 2509 (2014) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`
`Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Alabama Farmers Fed’n,
`935 F. Supp. 1533 (M.D. Ala. 1996), aff’d, 121 F.3d 723 (11th Cir. 1997) ---------------- 12
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7, 13
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Ascend Geo, LLC v. Oyo Geospace Corp.,
`2009 WL 3735963 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2009) ---------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`AutoAlert, Inc. v. DealerSocket, Inc.,
`2014 WL 11512624 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014) ---------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Berber v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`2017 WL 2417960 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2017) ---------------------------------------------------- 8-9
`
`Berkheimer v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`224 F. Supp. 3d 635, 645 (N.D. Ill. 2016) -------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`BRK Brands, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
`28 F. Supp. 3d 765, 772 (N.D. Ill. 2014) --------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Ent. Corp.,
`174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`- iii -
`
`500746523 v1
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 5 of 29
`
`Ceiva Logic Inc. v. Frame Media Inc.,
`2009 WL 10673158 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2009) --------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear Corp.,
`516 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Chestnut Hill Sound Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 6870037 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2015) ------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Consol. Aluminum Corp. v. Foseco Int’l Ltd.,
`910 F.2d 804 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`CustomPlay, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 9:17-cv-80886-KAM (S.D. Fla., filed July 27, 2017) ----------------------------------- 5-6
`
`Docusign, Inc. v. Sertifi, Inc.,
`468 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (W.D. Wash. 2006) ----------------------------------------------------- 7, 9
`
`Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co.,
`717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 14
`
`Elantech Devices Corp. v. Synaptics, Inc.,
`2008 WL 1734748 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2008) ------------------------------------------------- 7-8
`
`Elantech Devices Corp. v. Synaptics, Inc.,
`2008 WL 4058722 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2008) ------------------------------------------------- 7-8
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC,
`2016 WL 6873541 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016) -------------------------------------------- 7, 9, 13
`
`Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, Inc.,
`1998 WL 132922 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 1997), aff’d, 152 F.3d 925 (9th Cir.
`1998) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S,
`108 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`Gilead Sci., Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
`2016 WL 3143943 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2016) ----------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`500746523 v1
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 6 of 29
`
`Girafa.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2008 WL 5155622 (D. Del. Dec. 9, 2008) ------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Gulf Coast Produce, Inc. v. Am. Growers, Inc.,
`2007 WL 2302109 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2007) ----------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Heart Imaging Techs., LLC v. Merge Healthcare Inc.,
`2013 WL 4432125 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2013) -------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`High Tech Med. Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Indus., Inc.,
`49 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`iLOR, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`2007 WL 4259586 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 30, 2007) ---------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA,
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co.,
`290 U.S. 240 (1933) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Kotari Designs, LLC v. Living Well Spending Less, Inc.,
`2016 WL 6833004 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2016) --------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Krush Commc’ns, LLC v. Lunex Telecom, Inc.,
`2014 WL 12069847 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2014) -------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Landmark Tech., LLC v. Assurant, Inc.,
`2015 WL 4388311 (E.D. Tex. July 14, 2015) --------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`Mkt. Track, LLC v. Efficient Collaborative Retail Mktg., LLC,
`2015 WL 3637740 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2015) ----------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`MMJK, Inc. v. Ultimate Blackjack Tour LLC,
`513 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ----------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Nat’l Steel Car Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd.,
`357 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2004) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir.2008) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`Open Text, S.A. v. Box, Inc.,
`36 F. Supp. 3d 885, 889 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ----------------------------------------------------- 7, 9
`
`Pals Group, Inc. v. Quiskeya Trading Corp.,
`2017 WL 532299 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 09, 2017) ------------------------------------------------------ 8
`- v -
`
`500746523 v1
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 7 of 29
`
`Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc. v. Hayward Indus., Inc.,
`2012 WL 194403 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2012) --------------------------------------------------- 7, 9
`
`Port-a-Pour, Inc. v. Peak Innovations, Inc.,
`49 F. Supp. 3d 841 (D. Colo. 2014) --------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Pronman v. Styles,
`No. 12-80674-CIV, 2014 WL 5325207 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014) -------------------------- 7-8
`
`Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Clean Harbors Indus. Servs., Inc.,
`2015 WL 3764646 (D. Del. June 12, 2015) ------------------------------------------------------ 7
`
`Red Bend Ltd. v. Google Inc.,
`2011 WL 1288503 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2011) ------------------------------------------------ 7, 13
`
`Regions Bank v. Kaplan,
`2017 WL 3446914 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2017) --------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co.,
`700 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 2012) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7-8
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.,
`659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`Rudolph Techs., Inc. v. Camtek Ltd.,
`2015 WL 5039295 (D. Minn. Aug. 26, 2015) --------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`SCQuARE Int'l, Ltd. v. BBDO Atlanta, Inc.,
`455 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2006) ----------------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Janam Techs. LLC,
`729 F. Supp. 2d 646 (D. Del. 2010) --------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio, Inc.,
`2015 WL 12532491 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015) -------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Travel Tags, Inc. v. UV Color, Inc.,
`690 F. Supp. 2d 785 (D. Minn. 2010) ------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.,
`867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`Wells Fargo & Co. v. WhenU.com, Inc.,
`293 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`Wreal, LLC v. Amazon, Inc.,
`840 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2016) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`- vi -
`
`500746523 v1
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 8 of 29
`
`Statutes and Rules:
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11, 17
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106(2) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`
`35 U.S.C § 102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
`
`35 U.S.C § 103 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
`
`Miscellaneous:
`
`Dana Wollman, Amazon Announces X-Ray for Movies, a Kindle Feature that
`uses IMDB To Name the Actors for You, ENGADGET, September 6, 2012 ------------------- 9
`
`https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/CustomPlay-Reviews-E907785.htm ---------------------- 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`500746523 v1
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 9 of 29
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`CustomPlay seeks to enjoin technology running on tens of millions of mobile devices,
`
`television peripheral devices, and PCs used daily by the public based on patents that are neither
`
`valid nor infringed, where CustomPlay fails to allege even a single lost business opportunity be-
`
`cause of Amazon, where it turns out CustomPlay’s product (and this is especially ironic under
`
`the circumstances) relies on misappropriating Amazon’s own proprietary content and infringing
`
`Amazon’s copyrights and trademarks, and where, in all events, CustomPlay waited more than
`
`four years to bring this dispute to the attention of the Court. Granting a preliminary injunction
`
`under these circumstances would be unprecedented. CustomPlay’s motion should be denied.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`CustomPlay
`
`1.
`CustomPlay is a Florida company based in Delray Beach (D.I. 5 at 2) and is in the busi-
`
`ness of creating “data overlays” for movies (id. at 1). “Data overlays” are digital annotations that
`
`contain, for example, information about actors and other things that appear in movies. (Id.; D.I.
`
`5-3 ¶¶ 4-5.) CustomPlay’s goal is to distribute its software and services in partnership with one
`
`or more video streaming companies (e.g., Netflix or Hulu). (D.I. 5-3 ¶¶ 9-13, 15.) According to
`
`its founder and CEO, “CustomPlay’s technologies have been designed and developed to be dis-
`
`tributed primarily to end users in conjunction with a potential strategic partner in the content de-
`
`livery business, such as a video streaming service.” (Id. ¶ 15.) CustomPlay complains that it has
`
`been unable to secure such a strategic business partner because of Amazon’s alleged infringe-
`
`ment. (Id. ¶ 17.)
`
`There is good reason, entirely independent of Amazon’s alleged infringement, for Cus-
`
`tomPlay’s lack of strategic business success. Although CustomPlay claims to have developed
`three products (id. ¶ 4), it offers only one1—and that product is unacceptable to most companies.
`
`1 One of CustomPlay’s alleged products, released in 2014, is now defunct. (Goodin Decl.
`
`
`
`500746523 v1
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 10 of 29
`
`The product is called “Second Screen” and runs on a tablet or smartphone while a movie is play-
`
`ing on another screen. (Goodin Decl. ¶¶ 30-36.) When a viewer wants more information about
`
`an actor appearing on a screen, the user pushes a button to request, for example, biographical in-
`
`formation about that actor. (Id. ¶ 37 & Fig.5.) But CustomPlay does not use its own database of
`
`actor information. Instead, CustomPlay’s software relies on widespread and unauthorized use of
`
`Amazon’s own proprietary Internet movie database—famously known the world over as
`IMDb®—to extract Amazon’s own proprietary content and then pass off Amazon’s proprietary
`
`content as CustomPlay’s own. (Id. ¶¶ 38-41 & Fig 6.) There are self-evident reasons—wholly
`
`independent of this lawsuit—why other video streaming companies like Netflix and Hulu would
`want nothing to do with this illegal practice.2
`
`2.
`
`Amazon
`
`Amazon is one of the world’s leading technology companies. (Carlson Decl. ¶ 1; Raj
`
`Decl. ¶ 5.) Among Amazon’s many innovations is something called “X-Ray for Movies and
`
`TV” or X-Ray for short—a technology that displays movie annotations when requested by a
`
`viewer. (Raj Decl. ¶ 2; Carlson Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)
`
`
`
`—more than two years before CustomPlay filed for its patents, more than four years before
`
`the first of those patents issued, and more than eight years before this lawsuit was filed—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`¶¶ 23-29.) Another has not been released. (Id. ¶¶ 42-45.) Thus, the only product relevant to this
`motion is something called “Second Screen,” which is discussed immediately below.
`2 Amazon may be compelled to bring counterclaims against CustomPlay and its CEO for
`copyright infringement, trademark infringement, breach of contract based on CustomPlay’s vio-
`lation of IMDb’s terms of use, and other causes of action arising out of CustomPlay’s unauthor-
`ized use of Amazon proprietary content. However, in an effort to avoid escalating this contro-
`versy at this time, Amazon has deferred those claims in the answer that Amazon has filed con-
`temporaneously with this brief.
`
`500746523 v1
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 11 of 29
`
`Screen product, X-Ray can overlay annotations on the same screen that is watched by a user.
`
` (See id. ¶ 10.) Unlike CustomPlay’s Second
`
`(See Raj Decl. ¶¶ 23-25.) Unlike CustomPlay,
`
`
`
`
`
`(Carlson Decl. ¶ 16.) And unlike CustomPlay, Amazon enjoys all legal rights to use the movie
`
`content that Amazon presents to customers because Amazon did the hard work of creating and
`
`compiling that content itself.
`
`B.
`
`The CustomPlay Patents
`
`This case involves three patents. The first, U.S. Patent No. 8,494,346 (“the ’346 patent”),
`
`issued in July 2013, more than four years before CustomPlay filed this emergency motion and
`
`nearly a year after Amazon first offered X-Ray to customers. The second, U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,124,950 (“the ’950 patent”), issued in September 2015, nearly two years before CustomPlay
`
`filed this emergency motion and three years after Amazon first offered X-Ray to customers. The
`
`third, U.S. Patent No. 9,380,282 (“the ’282 patent”), issued in June 2016, more than a year be-
`
`fore CustomPlay filed this emergency motion and nearly four years after Amazon first offered X-
`
`Ray to customers.
`
`1.
`
`The Specifications
`
`The ’346 patent is directed to the idea of identifying a performer during the playing of a
`
`video. The patent’s Background section notes that, in the prior art, there were “many sources
`
`that provide a listing of the performer/characters present in a video” (’346 patent, 1:51-57), but
`
`they did not provide prompt access to the desired information. The purported solution is an “au-
`
`toactive system[]” (id. at 1:67, 2:5-8), which relies on a “video map” that identifies the perform-
`
`ers visible in each video segment, along with other “data,” such as the performer’s picture and
`
`filmography. (Id. at 11:59-12:64.) The ‘346 patent states that this solution is a more “efficient”
`
`way to provide actor information to viewers. (Id. at 1:67, 2:5-8; ’950 patent at 1:64-2:11; ’282
`
`500746523 v1
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 12 of 29
`
`patent at 1:64-2:11.) The ’346 patent does not, however, identify the purportedly novel compu-
`
`ting technology that creates these efficiencies. To the contrary, the only technology disclosed is
`
`referred to as “conventional.” (’346 patent at 20:31-34.)
`
`The ’950 and ’282 patents, which share a common specification, also describe using ge-
`
`neric “video map[ping]” to provide additional information about things in a video, but focus on
`
`“items” (e.g., merchandise) instead of performers. One additional step introduced in the ’950
`
`patent is displaying “an indication [such as an onscreen icon] that item information is available”
`
`in the video. (Id. at 7:38-42.) Again, however, the common specification describes only “con-
`
`ventional” technology for performing these functions. (’950 patent at 26:18-21, 35-38.)
`
`The Claims
`
`2.
`The asserted claims recite a number of features that, as discussed infra (pp. 14-16), are
`
`absent from Amazon’s X-Ray feature. For instance, the asserted claims of the ’950 and ’282 pa-
`
`tents require that the system link video annotations to a specific video frame. (See ’950 patent at
`
`37:16-17, 21-22; ’282 patent at 36:65-37:2.) Those claims require also that a system retrieve an-
`
`notations from multiple time locations within a video stream. (See ’950 patent at 37:16-17, 21-
`
`22; ’282 patent at 36:65-37:2.) The asserted claims of the ’950 patent add that an “indication” or
`
`icon must appear to alert a viewer that annotation information is available; for example, a shop-
`
`ping bag might appear on the screen to let a user know that merchandise shown in the video is
`
`available for purchase. (See ’950 patent at 37:18-20; id. Fig.2A, elmt.140.) The asserted claims
`
`of the ’346 patent require a user to request actor information specifically. (‘346 patent at 29:26-
`
`28, 30:57-59, 31:15-17.) Those claims require also that something called “segment definitions”
`
`link together all annotations for a particular timeframe within a video. (See ’346 patent at 29:20-
`
`23, 29:32-34.) None of the claims purports to improve the function of a computer or any net-
`
`work of computers. All rely solely on conventional computing devices performing their conven-
`
`tional functions to deliver secondary content (i.e., annotations) to enhance primary content—an
`
`500746523 v1
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 13 of 29
`
`ancient, pre-computing idea for organizing information.
`
`3.
`
`The Prior Art
`
`Annotating digital files is certainly more recent than annotating text, but even that tech-
`
`nology goes back decades. In the mid-1990s, as digital video became more widespread, engi-
`
`neers began creating digital annotations. (See Bovik Decl. ¶ 26.) For example, engineers at IBM
`
`created something called a “Who Is This?” feature, which allowed video viewers to request the
`
`names and images of actors appearing on a screen. (Id. ¶¶ 27, 68-72.) Technology companies
`
`have been refining this idea ever since. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29, 50-56.) In fact, those efforts became so
`
`widespread that they were standardized in 2003—eight years before the earliest of CustomPlay’s
`
`patents was filed—in MPEG-7, a multimedia content description standard. (Id. ¶ 28.) And as
`
`the early 2000s saw vast increases in network broadband speeds, video annotation services be-
`
`came more widely available to customers. (Id. ¶ 29.) At least three companies offered such ser-
`
`vices before December 22, 2011—the earliest filing date of the CustomPlay patents. (Id. ¶ 53;
`
`Carlson Decl. ¶¶ 20-22.) For example, in 2009, Sony launched MovieIQ, which used Internet-
`
`connected Blu-ray players to show movie annotations. (Carlson Decl. ¶ 20; Bovik Decl. ¶ 53.)
`
`In July 2011, TVPlus began offering annotations for certain TV shows, such as Glee. (Carlson
`
`Decl. ¶ 21.) And in early December 2011, Hulu Labs launched “Face Match,” which showed the
`
`name, picture, and biography for actors appearing on screen. (Id. ¶ 22.) Since then, in October
`
`2012, Microsoft released its SmartGlass mobile application, (id. ¶ 23), and in early 2013, Google
`
`released “info cards” for movies, (id. ¶ 24). Finally, in September 2015, Apple TV launched a
`
`feature called “What did he say?” which Custom Play accuses of infringement in a companion
`
`lawsuit filed in this Court, CustomPlay, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 9:17-cv-80886-KAM (S.D. Fla.,
`
`filed July 27, 2017), although CustomPlay does not regard that dispute—which is more recent by
`
`three years than CustomPlay’s dispute with Amazon—as sufficiently urgent to warrant the ex-
`
`traordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief.
`
`500746523 v1
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 14 of 29
`
`CustomPlay’s Communications with Amazon
`
`C.
`CustomPlay first wrote to Amazon in 2008. (D.I. 1-6.) Its letter described features such
`
`as “parental control” and “[f]ocused versions,” all of which are unrelated to the patents involved
`
`in this case. (Id.) In 2014, CustomPlay sent unsolicited letters and emails to more than 30 Ama-
`
`zon employees promoting its video annotation services. (D.I. 1-7; D.I. 1-9.) Although X-Ray
`
`for Movies and TV had launched nearly two years earlier, CustomPlay’s letters failed even to
`
`mention it. (See D.I. 1-7 at 2.) Nor did they mention any patents, whether pending or issued.
`
`(Id.) Amazon responded by stating that it would follow up if it was interested in speaking fur-
`
`ther. (D.I. 1-8.) Amazon never followed up because it was not interested—having launched its
`
`X-Ray technology two years earlier.
`
`D.
`
`This Litigation
`
`CustomPlay filed this motion on July 27, 2017, four years after the ’346 patent issued and
`
`nearly five years after Amazon made X-Ray available to customers. (D.I. 1.) The motion relies
`on a declaration from Max Abecassis, CustomPlay’s founder,3 in which only two conclusory
`
`paragraphs touch upon CustomPlay’s alleged need for emergency relief. (D.I. 5-3 ¶¶ 17-18.)
`
`Those paragraphs state only that Amazon’s alleged infringement has somehow compromised
`
`CustomPlay’s long-term strategic plans and has harmed CustomPlay’s alleged reputation as an
`
`innovator. (Id.) Notably absent from these paragraphs is a single fact in support of Mr. Abecas-
`
`sis’ conclusions. There is no evidence of a single lost business opportunity, whether or not
`
`caused by Amazon. (Id.) And there is no mention, much less explanation, of CustomPlay’s
`
`more than four-year delay in bringing this case, to say nothing of CustomPlay’s sudden need for
`
`emergency relief.
`
`3 Mr. Abecassis is known from his prior litigation campaigns on behalf of CustomPlay’s sis-
`ter company, Nissim Corp., a patent litigation and licensing entity, see <http://custom
`play.com/patents.php>; <http://nissim.com/patents.htm>, and for his unusual management style,
`at least according to some of the employees to whom he refers in his declaration, (D.I. 5-3 ¶ 3),
`see https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/CustomPlay-Reviews-E907785.htm
`
`500746523 v1
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 15 of 29
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Federal Circuit has cautioned that a preliminary injunction is a “drastic and extraor-
`
`dinary remedy that is not to be routinely granted.” See Nat’l Steel Car Ltd. v. Canadian Pac.
`Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted).4 This Court, too,
`
`has emphasized that “a preliminary injunction is considered to be an ‘extraordinary and drastic
`
`remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion . . . .’”
`
`Pronman v. Styles, No. 12-80674-CIV, 2014 WL 5325207, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 4, 2014); see
`
`also Gulf Coast Produce, Inc. v. Am. Growers, Inc., 2007 WL 2302109, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8,
`
`2007) (“A court’s power to grant injunctive relief should be exercised only when intervention is
`
`essential to protect property or other rights from irreparable injury.”). In software patent cases,
`preliminary injunctions are almost never granted—even in cases between bitter rivals.5
`
`
`4 When deciding whether to grant a motion for preliminary injunction, this Court follows
`Federal Circuit authority “insofar as it reflects considerations specific to patent issues” such as
`“the merits of the infringement charge.” Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Mfg. Co., 700 F.3d
`524, 525-26 (Fed. Cir. 2012). This Court may consider Eleventh Circuit law on issues not
`unique to patent law, such as delay, unclean hands, and irreparable harm. Id.
`5 Amazon has searched for every reported case in which the owner of a software patent
`sought a preliminary injunction. In nearly every case found, the preliminary injunction was de-
`nied. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. (“Apple I”), 678 F.3d 1314, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir.
`2012); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. (“Apple II”), 695 F.3d 1370, 1380 (Fed. Cir.
`2012); Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Finjan, Inc.
`v. Blue Coat Systems, LLC, 2016 WL 6873541, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2016); Chestnut Hill
`Sound Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 6870037, at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2015); TeleSign Corp. v.
`Twilio, Inc., 2015 WL 12532491, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015); Rudolph Techs., Inc. v.
`Camtek Ltd., 2015 WL 5039295, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 26, 2015); Mkt. Track, LLC v. Efficient
`Collaborative Retail Mktg., LLC, 2015 WL 3637740, at *15 (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2015); Quest In-
`tegrity USA, LLC v. Clean Harbors Indus. Servs., Inc., 2015 WL 3764646, at *1 (D. Del. June
`12, 2015); Krush Commc’ns, LLC v. Lunex Telecom, Inc., 2014 WL 12069847, at *8 (N.D. Ga.
`Sept. 12, 2014); Open Text, S.A. v. Box, Inc., 36 F. Supp. 3d 885, 889 (N.D. Cal. 2014); BRK
`Brands, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 3d 765, 772 (N.D. Ill. 2014); AutoAlert, Inc. v. Deal-
`erSocket, Inc., 2014 WL 11512624, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2014); Heart Imaging Techs., LLC v.
`Merge Healthcare Inc., 2013 WL 4432125, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2013); Pentair Water Pool
`& Spa, Inc. v. Hayward Indus., Inc., 2012 WL 194403, at *16 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2012); Red
`Bend Ltd. v. Google Inc., 2011 WL 1288503, at *22 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2011); Travel Tags, Inc.
`v. UV Color, Inc., 690 F. Supp. 2d 785, 809 (D. Minn. 2010); Acoustic Processing Tech., Inc. v.
`KDH Elec. Sys., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 146, 148 (D. Me. 2010); Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Janam
`Techs. LLC, 729 F. Supp. 2d 646, 666 (D. Del. 2010); Ascend Geo, LLC v. Oyo Geospace Corp.,
`
`- 7 -
`
`500746523 v1
`
`

`

`Case 9:17-cv-80884-KAM Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2017 Page 16 of 29
`
`To satisfy its heavy burden of proof, CustomPlay must prove “[1] that it is likely to suc-
`
`ceed on the merits, [2] that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
`
`relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public
`
`interest.” Revision Military, 700 F.3d at 525. In addition, courts in the Eleventh Circuit impose a
`
`heightened burden where, as here, a party seeks to disrupt the status quo, Berber v. Wells Fargo
`
`Bank, N.A., 2017 WL 2417960, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 2, 2017), such as by seeking an order disa-
`
`bling technology used and relied on by the public. And important for this case, courts of equity
`
`do not reward delay, see infra pp. 8-9, to say nothing of parties who, like CustomPlay, petition
`
`the court with unclean hands.
`
`I.
`
`Here, CustomPlay’s conclusory papers fail at every turn.
`
`CUSTOMPLAY’S INEXCUSABLE MULTI-YEAR DELAY
`IS, STANDING ALONE, SUFFICIENT TO DENY THIS MOTION.
`CustomPlay’s more than four-year delay in filing this motion, standing alone, bars the
`
`rad