UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`SRC LABS, LLC & SAINT REGIS
`MOHAWK TRIBE,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM, INC., &
`VADATA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00317-JLR
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PRELIMINARY NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`OF DEFENDANTS AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM, INC. AND VADATA, INC.
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 1
`
`

`

`Pursuant to the Court’s Minute Order Setting Trial Dates and Related Dates (Dkt. No. 95)
`
`and Local Patent Rule 121, defendants Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and
`
`VADATA, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) provide the following preliminary non-infringement and
`
`invalidity contentions to plaintiffs SRC Labs, LLC and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (collectively,
`
`“SRC”) regarding the currently asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,149,867 (the “’867 patent”),
`
`7,225,324 (the “’324 patent”), 7,620,800 (the “’800 patent”) and 9,153,311 (the “’311 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “asserted patents”). Although in its complaint, SRC also asserted U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,434,687 (the “’687 patent”), SRC did not include any infringement allegations for the ’687
`
`patent in its infringement contentions, and indeed, did not even mention the ’687 patent in those
`
`contentions. Accordingly, because it is no longer at issue in this case, Amazon does not provide
`
`its preliminary invalidity and non-infringement contentions for the ’687 patent herein. Amazon
`
`expressly reserves the right to provide its preliminary invalidity and non-infringement contentions
`
`for the ’687 patent in the event the Court grants SRC leave to amend its infringement contentions
`
`to re-assert the ’687 patent.
`
`These preliminary contentions are based on Amazon’s present understanding of SRC’s in-
`
`terpretation of the claims of the asserted patents as advanced by SRC in its preliminary infringe-
`
`ment contentions served on June 15, 2018. Nothing in these preliminary contentions should be
`
`regarded as necessarily reflecting the proper interpretation of the claims or an interpretation of the
`
`claims Amazon agrees with or proposes. Amazon disputes SRC’s apparent claim interpretations
`
`and intends to propose alternative constructions.
`
`Amazon hereby incorporates all prior art references, charts, theories, and disclosures
`
`served on SRC in any prior or pending court action or proceeding before the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board involving any of the asserted patents, including without limitation, SRC Labs, LLC
`
`1
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 2
`
`

`

`et al. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:18-cv-00321 (W.D. Wash.).
`
`To the extent additional information regarding SRC’s infringement contentions becomes
`
`available, Amazon anticipates that it will provide corresponding invalidity contentions which es-
`
`tablish that SRC’s interpretation of the claims is disclosed by prior art.
`
`Amazon reserves the right to amend these contentions based on information learned in its
`
`continuing investigation, new developments in the case, or other circumstances.
`
`I. NON-INFRINGEMENT CLAIM CHARTS
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 121(a), Amazon has attached as Exhibit A claim charts stat-
`
`ing, on an element-by-element basis, why the accused products do not infringe the asserted claims
`
`based on Amazon’s current understanding of SRC’s infringement allegations. The bases identified
`
`in the claim charts are not intended to be exhaustive, and are based on SRC’s mapping of the
`
`accused products in its preliminary infringement contentions. Amazon reserves the right to iden-
`
`tify additional non-infringement defenses and theories as the case progresses and also in the event
`
`SRC modifies its infringement theory.
`
`II.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART
`
`The following list identifies each item of prior art, patent, or publication, that anticipates
`
`each asserted claim or renders it obvious.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Patents
`
`Patent Number
`
`4,698,751
`5,361,367
`5,757,959
`6,182,206 B1
`6,119,200
`6,675,187 B1
`6,438,747 B1
`7,139,743 B2
`6,822,959 B2
`
`Country of
`Origin
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`Filing or Priority
`Date
`July 13, 1984
`June 10, 1991
`Apr. 5, 1995
`Apr. 17, 1997
`Aug. 18, 1998
`June 10, 1999
`Aug. 20, 1999
`Apr. 7, 2000
`July 31, 2000
`
`Date of Issue or
`Publication
`Oct. 6, 1987
`Nov. 1, 1994
`May 26, 1998
`Jan. 30, 2001
`Sept. 12, 2000
`Jan. 6, 2004
`Aug. 20, 2002
`Nov. 21, 2006
`Nov. 23, 2004
`
`Short Cite
`
`Parvin
`Fijany
`Lopresti
`Baxter
`George
`Greenberger
`Schreiber
`Indeck
`Galbi
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 3
`
`

`

`Patent Number
`
`6,662,285 B1
`6,981,099 B2
`7,055,016 B2
`7,836,331 B1
`8,683,166 B1
`8,476,926 B2
`B.
`
`Country of
`Origin
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`Filing or Priority
`Date
`Jan. 9, 2001
`Dec. 16, 2002
`Apr. 30, 2003
`May 15, 2007
`Jan. 31, 2009
`Sept. 29, 2009
`
`Date of Issue or
`Publication
`Dec. 9, 2003
`Dec. 27, 2005
`May 30, 2006
`Nov. 16, 2010
`Mar. 25, 2014
`June 10, 2014
`
`Short Cite
`
`Douglass
`Paulraj
`Phelps
`Totolos
`Flateau
`Brunham
`
`Prior Art Publications
`
`Title
`
`Building and Using a Highly Parallel
`Programmable Logic Array
`Searching Genetic Databases on
`Splash 2
`Mapping Nested Loops to Field Pro-
`grammable Gate Array Based Sys-
`tems
`Splash 2: FPGAs in a Custom Com-
`puting Machine
`
`PCI-based WILDFIRE Reconfigura-
`ble Computing Engines
`Architectural Adaptation for Applica-
`tion-Specific Locality Optimizations
`Memory Access Schemes for Config-
`urable Processors
`Artificial Neural Network Implemen-
`tation on a single FPGA of a Pipe-
`lined On-Line Backpropagation
`An FPGA Implementation of Walsh-
`Hadamard Transforms for Signal
`Processing
`Evaluation of the Streams-C C-to-
`FPGA Compiler: An Applications
`Perspective
`An FPGA Implementation of Trian-
`gle Mesh Decompression
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2003/0200382 A1
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2004/0034732 A1
`Suzaku Hardware Manual (V.
`1.0.4)
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`Short Cite
`
`Maya Gokhale et al.
`
`Dzung T. Hoang
`
`Splash
`
`Hoang
`
`John Spillane et al.
`
`Spillane
`
`Date of
`Publication
`Jan. 1991
`
`1993
`
`1995
`
`1996
`
`October 21,
`1996
`1997
`
`D.A. Buell, J. M. Ar-
`nold, and W. J. Klein-
`felder
`B. K. Fross et al.
`
`Xingbin Zhang et al.
`
`2000
`
`Holger Lange et al.
`
`Sept. 2000
`
`Rafael Gadea et al.
`
`Buell
`
`Fross
`
`Zhang
`
`Lange
`
`Gadea
`
`2001
`
`A. Amira et al.
`
`Amira
`
`J. Frigo et al.
`
`Streams-C
`
`Tulika Mitra
`
`Mitra
`
`Wells
`
`Valin
`
`Oct. 23, 2003 Owen Newton Wells et
`al.
`Steven J. Valin et al.
`
`Atmark Techno, Inc.
`
`Suzaku
`
`February
`2001
`
`2002
`
`Feb. 19,
`2004
`December
`14, 2004
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 4
`
`

`

`Date of
`Publication
`2006
`
`Author/Publisher
`
`Short Cite
`
`Dimitris Syrivelis and
`Spyros Lalis
`
`Syrivelis
`
`November
`2008
`2009
`
`JEDEC Solid State
`Technology Association
`Atria Logic Inc.
`
`JEDEC
`
`Atria
`
`Aug. 9, 2010
`
`Xilinx
`
`ComBlock
`
`Spartan-6
`User Guide
`ComBlock
`
`Altera
`
`UniPHY
`
`September.
`22, 2010
`
`June 2011
`
`Title
`
`System- and application-level
`support for runtime hardware recon-
`figuration on SoC platforms
`JEDEC Standard
`
`DDR I/II DRAM Controller
`Core, Atria Logic Inc. Product Infor-
`mation Sheet
`Spartan-6 FPGA Memory Controller
`User Guide
`DD2SOFT; DDR2 Memory
`Controller; VHDL Source Code
`Overview
`External Memory Interface Hand-
`book Volume 3: Section III. DDR2
`and DDR3 SDRAM Controller with
`UniPHY User Guide
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2011/0264934 A1
`ZedBoard Brochure
`
`Oct. 27, 2011
`
`Branover et al.
`
`Branover
`
`2012
`
`Feb. 11,
`2014
`Feb. 13,
`2014
`
`Zedboard
`
`Xilinx
`
`Jackson L. Ellis et al.
`
`ZedBoard
`Brochure
`Zynq
`Manual
`Ellis
`
`Zynq-7000 All Programmable SoC
`Technical Reference Manual
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2014/0043918 A1
`C.
`
`Prior Art Systems/Services
`
`System/Service
`
`Splash 2
`
`Atria DDR I/II DRAM
`Controller Core
`
`At least as early
`as 1991
`
`Relevant Dates Persons/Entities Involved
`in Prior Use, Sale, and/or
`Offers for Sale
`Splash 2 was designed, de-
`veloped, used, advertised,
`published, and also offered
`for sale and/or sold to its
`customers this system as
`evidenced at least by the
`documents identified
`herein.
`Atria Logic, Inc. designed,
`developed, used, adver-
`tised, published, and also
`offered for sale and/or sold
`
`At least as early
`as 2009
`
`Short Cite
`
`Splash 2
`
`Atria
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 5
`
`

`

`System/Service
`
`Altera DDR2 and DDR3
`SDRAM Controller with
`UniPHY
`
`ComBlock DDR2SOFT;
`DDR2 Memory Control-
`ler; VHDL Source Code
`
`Xilinx MIG Spartan-6
`FPGA Memory Control-
`ler
`
`Xilinx Zynq-7000 All
`Programmable SoC
`
`SUZAKU Hardware
`Manual
`
`Short Cite
`
`Altera
`
`ComBlock
`
`Spartan-6
`
`ZedBoard + Zynq
`
`SUZAKU
`
`At least as early
`as 2011
`
`At least as early
`as 2010
`
`At least as early
`as 2010
`
`Relevant Dates Persons/Entities Involved
`in Prior Use, Sale, and/or
`Offers for Sale
`to its customers this sys-
`tem as evidenced at least
`by the documents identi-
`fied herein.
`Altera Corp. designed, de-
`veloped, used, advertised,
`published, and also offered
`for sale and/or sold to its
`customers this system as
`evidenced at least by the
`documents identified
`herein.
`ComBlock designed, de-
`veloped, used, advertised,
`published, and also offered
`for sale and/or sold to its
`customers this system as
`evidenced at least by the
`documents identified
`herein.
`Xilinx designed, devel-
`oped, used, advertised,
`published, and also offered
`for sale and/or sold to its
`customers this system as
`evidenced at least by the
`documents identified
`herein.
`Xilinx designed, devel-
`oped, used, advertised,
`published, and also offered
`for sale and/or sold to its
`customers this system as
`evidenced at least by the
`documents identified
`herein.
`Atmark Techno, Inc. de-
`signed, developed, used,
`advertised, published, and
`also offered for sale and/or
`sold to its customers this
`system as evidenced at
`least by the documents
`
`At least as early
`Feb. 11, 2014
`
`At least as early
`as Dec. 14, 2004
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 6
`
`

`

`System/Service
`
`
`
`Relevant Dates Persons/Entities Involved
`in Prior Use, Sale, and/or
`Offers for Sale
`identified herein.
`
`Short Cite
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION ON CLAIM-BY-CLAIM BASES OF INVALIDITY
`
`Amazon hereby identifies, on a claim-by-claim basis, its contention of whether each as-
`
`serted claim of the asserted patents is invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 103.
`
`Patent
`’867 patent
`’867 patent
`’867 patent
`’324 patent
`’324 patent
`’800 patent
`’800 patent
`’311 patent
`’311 patent
`’311 patent
`’311 patent
`
`Claim
`1
`3
`4
`1
`17
`1
`17
`1
`3
`9
`10
`
`Identification of invalidity
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`This claim is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and §103.
`
`The combinations of references provided in the accompanying prior art reference charts in
`
`
`
`Exhibits B-E are exemplary and are not intended to be exhaustive. Additional obviousness com-
`
`binations of the references identified herein are possible, and Amazon may rely on such combina-
`
`tion(s) in this litigation. In particular, Amazon is currently unaware of SRC’s allegations with
`
`respect to the level of skill in the art and the qualifications of the typical person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. Amazon is also unaware of the extent, if any, to which SRC may contend that limitations
`
`of the claims at issue are not disclosed in the prior art identified by Amazon as anticipatory, and
`
`the extent to which SRC will contend that elements not disclosed in the asserted patent specifica-
`
`tions would have been known to persons of skill in the art. And Amazon does not yet know how
`
`the Court will construe terms in the asserted claims. Amazon reserves the right to supplement
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 7
`
`

`

`these contentions to identify other prior art and combinations that would have made such limita-
`
`tions obvious.
`
`The references listed above, alone or in combination, contain an explicit and/or implicit
`
`teaching, suggestion, and/or reasons to combine them for at least the following reasons.1 The
`
`references all concern the same technological field for each respective patent-in-suit. In particular,
`
`each of the references is directed to the structure and/or operation of reconfigurable processing
`
`devices (e.g., FPGAs). For example, the ’324 patent and ’800 patent each relate to systolically
`
`processing data in an FPGA. The ’311 patent is related to preserving DRAM in a self-refresh state
`
`while a reconfigurable device is being reconfigured. One of ordinary skill in the art would under-
`
`stand these references to all be part of the same field of technology for each respective patent-in-
`
`suit and would naturally look to their teachings to find answers to the problems inherent in the
`
`respective technologies.
`
`For example, the ’311 patent is invalid in view of the combination of Valin and Ellis. Valin
`
`describes the use of a “programmable logic device (PLD)” that is able to communicate with
`
`DRAM to keep the DRAM in self-refresh mode and Ellis describes an FPGA as an example of a
`
`programmable logic device that communicates with DRAM. One of ordinary skill would naturally
`
`look to Ellis’s disclosure of an FPGA as the “PLD” performing the steps described in Valin. Ad-
`
`
`1 In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court held that
`prior art need not disclose the precise teachings of a patented invention to render it obvious, be-
`cause a court “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. Under KSR, an explanation for why a combination of prior
`art items renders a claim obvious may be found in the “interrelated teachings of multiple patents;
`the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 418.
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 8
`
`

`

`ditionally, those of skill in the art would review and naturally combine the teachings of other ref-
`
`erences that also discuss these same technologies.
`
`As another example, Phelps describes a processor comprising a memory controller for re-
`
`trieving data from an external memory and storing it in a cache memory and Douglass describes
`
`an FPGA comprising a memory controller that retrieves data from an external memory for storage
`
`in the FPGA. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to Douglass for its disclosure of an FPGA
`
`as performing the steps described for the processor in Phelps, which discloses a similar technology.
`
`These are only a few examples of the references that one of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`consider to be part of the same body of work and in the same technical field and is not meant to be
`
`limiting.
`
`Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the asserted patents
`
`would have been motivated to combine elements of any of the references identified herein and
`
`recognize that the combination of any of these references is a predictable use of elements known
`
`in the art to solve a known problem and a use of known techniques to solve a known problem in
`
`the same way. Amazon’s expert(s) may further explain the motivation to combine prior art and
`
`why the asserted claims of the asserted patents are invalid for obviousness in accordance with the
`
`case schedule.
`
`IV.
`
`INVALIDITY CHARTS
`
`Invalidity charts for each item of prior art are attached hereto as Exhibits B-E. The charts
`
`identify where specifically in each alleged item of prior art each element of each asserted claim is
`
`found. While each element of each asserted claim is found in each item of prior art in multiple
`
`locations, the attached charts provide examples of citations sufficient to identify at least one such
`
`location where each claim limitation is found in each item of prior art. Each item of prior art,
`
`however, discloses each claim limitation as a whole and specific citations are only exemplary.
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 9
`
`

`

`Accordingly, Amazon and its expert(s) may rely on uncited portions of the prior art references as
`
`the citations must be interpreted in light of the entire disclosure of each reference. In addition,
`
`because persons of skill in the art generally would appreciate an item of prior art in the context of
`
`other publications, literature, products, and understanding, Amazon and its expert(s) may rely on
`
`other publications and expert testimony as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions,
`
`for providing context to them, and as additional evidence that the prior art discloses a claimed
`
`feature. Amazon may establish what was known to a person having ordinary skill in the art through
`
`other publications, products, and/or testimony, and reserves its right to rely on cited and uncited
`
`portions of the prior art references, other publications, and/or testimony to establish that a person
`
`of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references rendering the claims obvi-
`
`ous.
`
`Amazon may modify, amend, and/or change its interpretation of the prior art as construc-
`
`tions of the claim limitations may be provided by the Court, based on additional analysis by Am-
`
`azon’s expert(s), and/or based on other circumstances that may affect the meaning or application
`
`of the claims.
`
`V.
`
`INVALIDITY UNDER § 112
`
`The asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The asserted claims lack a written
`
`description and enabling disclosure commensurate with the alleged scope of the claims, are un-
`
`duly vague and indefinite, and contain purely functional language. The asserted patents, read in
`
`light of their specifications and prosecution histories, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty,
`
`those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,
`
`Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). The asserted patents do not enable one of skill in the art to
`
`practice the full scope of the inventions claimed without undue experimentation. The asserted
`
`patents do not enable one of skill in the art to practice the scope of the inventions set forth in SRC’s
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 10
`
`

`

`preliminary infringement contentions.
`
`The asserted patents provide insufficient guidance on aspects SRC now asserts to be part
`
`of the patented invention. Specifically, in its preliminary infringement contentions, SRC has ap-
`
`plied the patent claims so broadly that they lack a corresponding disclosure in the patent specifi-
`
`cation and are different from what is disclosed in the asserted patents. Based on SRC’s broad
`
`application of the claims and its claim construction proposals advanced in prior litigations, there
`
`is a zone of uncertainty concerning the breadth and meaning of the claim terms, as explained fur-
`
`ther below, that creates such intractable and insoluble ambiguity in those terms that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is unable to discern the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty.
`
`The following identification of claims/claim elements are preliminary and only exemplary
`
`and Amazon reserves the right to supplement the identification of claims and claim elements that
`
`do not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Specifically, to the extent an element
`
`identified below, or its variation, appears in claims other than the ones specified below, it also
`
`renders those additional claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Claims that depend on these addi-
`
`tional claims and on the claims identified below are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Amazon
`
`reserves the right to identify additional claims and claim elements that do not comply with the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 during claim construction or after the Court construes the claims.
`
`At least the following claims are invalid for failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112:
`
`1.
`
`The term “substantially concurrently,” recited in claim 1 of the ’800 patent renders
`
`this claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`2.
`
`The term “seamlessly,” recited in claim 1 of the ’324 patent and claim 1 of the ’800
`
`patent renders these claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 11
`
`

`

`3.
`
`The specification of the ’324 patent fails to satisfy the written description require-
`
`ment and/or the enablement requirement with respect to the term “systolically linked lines of code
`
`of said calculation are instantiated as clusters of functional units within the at least one reconfigu-
`
`rable processor” recited in asserted claim 1 of the ’324 patent.
`
`4.
`
`The specification of the ’324 patent fails to satisfy the written description require-
`
`ment and/or the enablement requirement with respect to the term “transforming an algorithm into
`
`a calculation that is systolically implemented by said reconfigurable computing system at the at
`
`least one reconfigurable processor” recited in asserted claim 1 of the ’324 patent.
`
`5.
`
`The specification of the ’800 patent fails to satisfy the written description require-
`
`ment and/or the enablement requirement with respect to the term “transforming an algorithm into
`
`a data driven calculation that is implemented by said reconfigurable computing system at the at
`
`least one reconfigurable processor” recited in asserted claim 1 of the ’800 patent.
`
`6.
`
`The specification of the ’800 patent fails to satisfy the written description require-
`
`ment and/or the enablement requirement with respect to the term “lines of code of said calculation
`
`are formed as clusters of functional units within the at least one reconfigurable processor” recited
`
`in asserted claim 1 of the ’800 patent.
`
`7.
`
`The term “forming at least two of said functional units at the at least one reconfig-
`
`urable processor to perform said calculation wherein only functional units needed to solve the
`
`calculation are formed and wherein each formed functional unit at the at least one reconfigurable
`
`processor interconnects with each other formed functional unit at the at least one reconfigurable
`
`processor based on reconfigurable routing resources within the at least one reconfigurable proces-
`
`sor as established at formation,” recited in claim 1 of the ’800 patent renders the claim indefinite
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 12
`
`

`

`8.
`
`The term “a data maintenance block coupled to said reconfigurable logic device,”
`
`recited in claim 1 of the ’311 patent renders the claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`9.
`
`The term “[t]he computer system of claim 1 wherein said reconfigurable logic de-
`
`vice comprises said data maintenance block,” recited in claim 9 of the ’311 patent renders the
`
`claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`VI. ADDITIONAL PRIOR ART
`
`In addition to the prior art references charted, Amazon lists in Exhibit F, which is incorpo-
`
`rated herein in its entirety, additional prior art references that disclose or describe the general state
`
`of the art and knowledge of one skilled in the art at the time of the purported inventions and the
`
`filings of the asserted patents. These references may be used to show the state of the art and/or
`
`may be used as supporting references in an obviousness combination depending on how the as-
`
`serted claims are ultimately construed by the Court.
`
`Amazon also incorporates herein by reference, whether or not cited in Exhibit F, all prior
`
`art cited in the asserted patents and all prior art cited in the prosecution histories of the asserted
`
`patents, reexaminations, inter partes or covered business method patent review proceedings, and
`
`any foreign counterparts.
`
`VII. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
`
`Amazon is concurrently producing a copy of each asserted prior art reference that is not in
`
`the file histories of the asserted patents or that has not already been disclosed.
`
`VIII. TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`A
`B
`C
`D
`E
`F
`
`Description
`Non-infringement claim charts
`Invalidity Charts for the ’867 patent
`Invalidity Charts for the ’324 patent
`Invalidity Charts for the ’800 patent
`Invalidity Charts for the ’311 patent
`Prior Art Reflecting the General State of the Art
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 13
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Dated: July 9, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Dargaye H. Churnet
`Jessica M. Kaempf, WSBA No. 51666
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 Second Avenue, 10th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: 206.389.4510
`Facsimile: 206.389.4511
`Email: jkaempf@fenwick.com
`
`J. David Hadden (admitted pro hac vice)
`Saina S. Shamilov (admitted pro hac vice)
`Todd Gregorian (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ravi R. Ranganath (admitted pro hac vice)
`Dargaye Churnet (admitted pro hac vice)
`Shannon Turner (admitted pro hac vice)
`Clay Venetis (admitted pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, California 94041
`Telephone: (650) 988-8500
`Facsimile: (650) 935-5200
`Email:
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`dchurnet@fenwick.com
`sturner@fenwick.com
`cvenetis@fenwick.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc.,
`& VADATA, Inc.
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 14
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing PRELIMINARY NON-INFRINGEMENT AND IN-
`
`VALIDITY CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANTS AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AM-
`
`AZON.COM, INC. AND VADATA, INC. was served via email on counsel of record for plain-
`
`tiffs below.
`
`Carmen E. Bremer
`Carmen.Bremer@bremerlawgroup.com
`
`BREMER LAW GROUP PLLC
`1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2100
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 357-8442
`Facsimile: (206) 858-9730
`
`Michael W. Shore
`mshore@shorechan.com
`Alfonso Garcia Chan
`achan@shorechan.com
`Christopher L. Evans
`cevans@shorechan.com
`Andrew M. Howard
`ahoward@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN DePUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Telephone: 214-593-9110
`Facsimile: 214-593-9111
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`SRC LABS, LLC AND
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE
`
`/s/ Dargaye H. Churnet
`Dargaye H. Churnet
`
`
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2020, p. 15
`
`