TED DANE (State Bar No. 143195)
`ted.dane@mto.com
`PETER E. GRATZINGER (State Bar No. 228764)
`peter.gratzinger@mto.com
`ZACHARY M. BRIERS (State Bar No. 287984)
`zachary.briers@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
`Telephone: (213) 683-9100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 687-3702
`PETER A. DETRE (State Bar No. 182619)
`peter.detre@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
`San Francisco, California 94105-3089
`Telephone: (415) 512-4000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 512-4077
`
`Attorneys for GOOGLE LLC AND
`YOUTUBE, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE
`STREAMING LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-03629-GW-JC
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`vs.
`GOOGLE LLC, and YOUTUBE, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`

`

`Patent L.R. 3-4(c) and 3-4(e)
`C.
`Google incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the documents
`Realtime produced at Bates range RAS-GYT_00004421 – RAS-GYT_00006140, as
`agreements that Google may contend are comparable to a license that would result
`from a hypothetical reasonable royalty negotiation, and agreements that Google may
`use to support its damages case. As discovery proceeds, Google reserves the right to
`identify additional agreements that are comparable to a license that would result
`from a hypothetical reasonable royalty or that Google may use to support its
`damages case.5 Google will supplement its document production if it later finds
`additional responsive documents.
`Patent L.R. 3-4(d)
`D.
`Google’s document production includes documents sufficient to show the
`sales, revenue, cost, and profits for the instrumentalities identified by Realtime in its
`Patent L.R. 3-1(b) contentions. These documents are contained in Bates range
`GOOG-RAS-00000306 - GOOG-RAS-00000310. Based on its investigation to
`date, Google states that there are no revenues or profits associated with Google Duo.
`
`
`
`DATED: January 18, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Zachary Briers
`ZACHARY M. BRIERS
`Attorneys for GOOGLE LLC AND
`YOUTUBE, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`5 The parties agreed to not exchange Damages Contentions pursuant to the Northern
`District of California Patent Local Rules 3-8 and 3-9.
`
`-116-
`DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on January 18, 2018, I served the foregoing Infringement
`Contentions with all attachments and exhibits upon Realtime Adaptive Streaming
`LLC’s counsel of record by electronic mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Dated: January 18, 2018, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Zachary Briers
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`

`

`Attachment 1. Identification of Prior Art Anticipating or Rendering Obvious The Asserted Claims of the Fallon Patents
`
`Google contends that the following prior art references anticipate and/or render obvious each of the Asserted Claims of one or more of
`the Fallon Patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,046, 8,934,535, and 9,769,477, as indicated in the chart below. Where Google contends
`that a reference anticipates an Asserted Claim, Google contends that the reference discloses, explicitly or inherently, each and every
`limitation of the Asserted Claim, as explained more fully in the associated claim chart identified in the chart below. Where Google
`contends that a references renders an Asserted Claim obvious, Google contends that the subject matter of that Asserted Claim would
`have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the purported invention, given the differences between the
`subject matter of the Asserted Claim and the disclosure of that reference alone or the disclosure of that reference combined with other
`references as explained more fully in the associated claim chart. Google’s contention in the Claim Chart Exhibits that a reference
`discloses a limitation also means that Google contends that the reference renders that limitation obvious alone, in combination with the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and in combination with other references.1
`
`
`Prior Art Reference
`
`Short Name
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,956,808 to Aakre
`(“Aakre”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,495,291 to Adams
`(“Adams”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,838,823 to Ancessi
`("Ancessi")
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,021,198 to Anigbogu
`("Anigbogu")
`
`Aakre
`
`Adams
`
`Ancessi
`
`Anigbogu
`
`Patent(s)/Ex. #(s)
`’535: Ex. B-001
`’477: Ex. C-001
`
`’535: Ex. B-001
`’477: Ex. C-001
`
`’046: Ex. A-001
`’535: Ex. B-003
`’477: Ex. C-003
`’046: Ex. A-002
`’535: Ex. B-004
`’477: Ex. C-004
`
`
`1 The date of issue and/or date of publication of each reference is disclosed herein and/or in the corresponding Claim Chart Exhibit(s).
`
`1
`Google’s Invalidity Contentions
`Attachment 1 (Fallon Patents)
`
`
`
`

`

`Prior Art Reference
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,731,812 to Bailleul
`("Bailleul")
`
`Bell, Better OPM/L Text Compression,
`34.12 IEEE Transactions on
`Communications 1176 (Dec. 1986)
`(“Bell”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,198,850 to Banton
`(“Banton”)
`The Bay Area Research Wireless Access
`Network (“BARWAN”)
`European Patent Publication
`EP1024638A1 (“Beyda”) (and U.S. Patent
`No. 7,023,839 to Shaffer et al.)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,568,983 to Bobick
`(“Bobick”)
`Bocheck, Paul, et al. “Utility-Based
`Network Adaptation for MPEG-4
`Systems.” Network and Operating System
`Support for Digital Audio and Video
`(NOSSDAV), June 1999. (“Bocheck”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,859,496 to Boroczky et
`al. ("Boroczky")
`U.S. Patent No. 7,143,432 to Brooks
`("Brooks")
`
`
`
`
`
`Short Name
`
`Bailleul
`
`Bell
`
`Banton
`
`BARWAN
`
`Beyda
`
`Bobick
`
`Bocheck
`
`Boroczky
`
`Brooks
`
`2
`
`Patent(s)/Ex. #(s)
`’046: Ex. A-003
`’535: Ex. B-005
`’477: Ex. C-005
`
`’535: Ex. B-105
`’477: Ex. C-105
`
`’535: Ex. B-006
`’477: Ex. C-006
`
`’046: Ex. A-004
`
`’046: Ex. A-005
`’535: Ex. B-007
`’477: Ex. C-007
`’535: Ex. B-008
`’477: Ex. C-008
`
`’046: Ex. A-006
`’535: Ex. B-009
`’477: Ex. C-009
`
`’535: Ex. B-104
`’477: Ex. C-058
`’535: Ex. B-010
`’477: Ex. C-010
`
`Google’s Invalidity Contentions
`Attachment 1 (Fallon Patents)
`
`

`

`Exhibit C-010
`to Defendant Google’s Invalidity Contentions
`
`Invalidity Chart for U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477
`U.S. Patent No. 7,143,432 (“Brooks”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,143,432 to Brooks (“Brooks”) was filed on February 10, 2000 and issued on November 28, 2006. Brooks is prior art to the
`’477 Patent under at least pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(2) because it is a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the
`United States before the purported invention of the ’477 Patent. Brooks anticipates or renders obvious, alone or in combination with other
`references, each of the Asserted Claims of the ’477 Patent as described in the chart below and in the main invalidity contentions document to
`which this chart is annexed. Google hereby incorporates by reference all statements and reservations of rights in the main invalidity
`contentions document.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Corresponding Disclosure in the Prior Art Reference(s)
`
`[Claim 1 – Preamble] A
`system, comprising:
`
`[1a] a plurality of different
`asymmetric data compression
`encoders, wherein each
`asymmetric data compression
`encoder of the plurality of
`different asymmetric data
`compression encoders is
`configured to utilize one or
`more data compression
`algorithms, and
`
`Brooks discloses a system as set forth below.
`
`Brooks discloses a plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders, wherein each asymmetric
`data compression encoder of the plurality of different asymmetric data compression encoders is
`configured to utilize one or more data compression algorithms.
`See, e.g.:
`As illustrated in the examples in FIG. 1, computing systems 120–140 and network appliance 180
`are all coupled to computer network 160 with different bandwidth limited connections. Further,
`computing systems 120–140 and network appliance 180 typically have different processing
`power, display capabilities, memory, operating systems, and the like. As a result of these
`differences, each system have different abilities to receive, process, and display video data.
`In the example in FIG. 1, the bandwidth of network connection 230 between computing system
`140 and computer network 160 is a DSL connection. As illustrated in FIG. 1, because the
`bandwidth is relatively large, network connection 230 is capable of providing computing system
`140 with enough video data to display up to a 640×480 pixel color image at 10 frames per
`second (fps) using an MPEG1 format. In alternative embodiments, other configurations are
`
`