Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 11963
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§§§§
`
`
`
`§§§
`
`REMBRANDT WIRELESS
`TECHNOLOGIES, LP
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, LLC; AND SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-213
`
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`REMBRANDT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG DEFENDANTS’
`RULE 50(b) RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`AND/OR RULE 59(a) MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON LIABILITY ISSUES
`
`Apple Exhibit 1116
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless
`IPR2020-00034
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 11964
`
`Table of Contents
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`II. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 4
`IV. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 5
`A. Samsung Failed To Prove By Clear And Convincing Evidence That Rembrandt’s
`Patents Were Invalid As Obvious. ....................................................................................... 5
`1. None Of The Prior Art, Including The Boer Patent And The Lucent Press Release,
` Discloses “Different Types” Of Modulation Methods. .................................................... 7
`2. Samsung Failed To Prove That It Would Be Obvious to Combine a Master/Slave
`Protocol With The Boer Patent. ....................................................................................... 9
`3. Samsung Did Not Establish That The Prior Art Teaches Reversion. ............................ 13
`4. Samsung Failed To Prove Claim 21 Of The ‘228 Patent Is Obvious. ........................... 15
`5. Samsung Failed to Make a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness as to the Asserted
`
`Claims............................................................................................................................. 17
`6. The Jury’s Verdict Is Consistent With The PTO’s Validity Decisions After
`Considering The Same Prior Art. ................................................................................... 18
`7. Secondary Considerations Support The Jury’s Conclusion Of Nonobviousness. ......... 19
`8. There Were No Improper Ad Hominem Attacks, And A New Trial Is Not
` Warranted. ...................................................................................................................... 20
`B. The Court Correctly Construed the Term “Of A Different Type.” .................................... 23
`C. Samsung Is Not Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on Unasserted
`Claims 1, 19, 23, 29, 41, 52, and 58 of the ‘580 Patent or Unasserted
`Claims 1, 26, 28, 29, 50, and 51 of the ‘228 Patent. .......................................................... 29
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 31
`
`i
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00002
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 11965
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 30
`Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
`2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13616 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2015) .......................................................... 12
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 4
`Cassidian Comms., Inc. v. microDATA GIS, Inc.,
`2:12-CV-162-JRG, Dkt. 201 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2014) ............................................................ 14
`Circuit Check, Inc. v. QXQ Inc.,
`2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13620 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2015) .......................................................... 16
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-341, Dkt. 361 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2010) ............................................................ 23
`Dresser–Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation Inc.,
`361 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 4
`Edwards v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
`512 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1975) .................................................................................................... 21
`Eiland v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,
`58 F.3d 176 (5th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................................ 5
`Eli Lilly v. Zenith Goldline Pharms.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................. 18
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 13
`Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs.,
`247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 24
`Foradori v. Harris,
`523 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................... 25
`Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 6:09-CV-2030-LED, Dkt. 1113 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2012) ................................................. 6
`Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc.,
`84 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................... 21
`Hall v. Freese,
`735 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................... 21
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................... 7
`In re Geisler,
`116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................. 10
`
`ii
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00003
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 11966
`
`In re Gurley,
`27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................... 11
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 11
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 14
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 12, 14
`IPPV Enterprises, LLC v. Echostar Comms., Corp.,
`191 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Del. 2002) .......................................................................................... 15
`Johnson v. Ford Motor Co.,
`988 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................... 21
`Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`870 F.2d 982 (5th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................................... 5
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) .................................................................................................... 10, 12
`Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc.,
`628 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................. 27
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited P’ship,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) ................................................................................................................ 5
`Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.,
`141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................... 6
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 27
`Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc.,
`806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986)................................................................................................... 5
`PACT XPP Tech., AG v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-CV-563-RSP, Dkt. 441 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2013) ............................................... 6, 29
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................... 6
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l., Inc.,
`711 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................. 19
`Reading & Bates Constr. Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp.,
`748 F.2d 645 (Fed. Cir. 1984)................................................................................................... 16
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.,
`530 U.S. 133 (2000) .............................................................................................................. 4, 11
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Occupational & Med. Innovations, LTD,
`No. 6:08-CV-120, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82069 (E.D. Tex. Aug 11, 2010) .......................... 29
`
`iii
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00004
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 11967
`
`Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co.,
`324 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................. 15
`Sciele Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.,
`684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 16
`Sibley v. Lemaire,
`184 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 28
`Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.,
`836 F. Supp. 2d 462 (E.D. Tex. 2010) ........................................................................................ 6
`Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......................................................................................... 4, 8, 11
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 28
`The Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Team Tech. Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-552, Dkt. 130 (S.D. Ohio, July 3, 2014) ................................................................ 19
`TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc.,
`2:11-CV-248-JRG, Dkt. 464 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2015) ............................................................ 4
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling United States, Inc.,
`699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 19
`U.S. v. Adams,
`383 U.S. 39 (1966) .................................................................................................................... 13
`U.S. v. Morin,
`627 F.3d 985 (5th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 21
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................... 12, 18
`Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc.,
`870 F.2d 1546 (Fed. Cir. 1989)................................................................................................. 30
`WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`953 F. Supp. 2d 731 (S.D. Tex. 2013) ...................................................................................... 28
`Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss., Inc.,
`163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 5, 23
`Statutes 
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................... 5
`Rules 
`FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b) ..................................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`iv
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00005
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 11968
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Jury resoundingly found in favor of Rembrandt on the issues in this case. Dkt. No.
`
`288 (Verdict). The Jury weighed the evidence presented at trial and decided that the Asserted
`
`Claims were both infringed and not invalid, and that appropriate damages were $15.7 million.
`
`Id. at 2-4. Having lost with the Jury on every issue, Samsung now seeks to set the verdict aside
`
`(although Samsung does not contest the Jury’s infringement finding).1 But the Jury’s verdict is
`
`supported by substantial—indeed, compelling—evidence.
`
`Samsung’s requests for JMOL and/or a new trial are unwarranted. Rather than accepting
`
`the evidence supporting the verdict, Samsung’s briefs ignore that evidence in favor of evidence
`
`that the Jury was free to, and apparently did, reject. And rather than viewing that evidence in the
`
`light most favorable to Rembrandt, Samsung’s briefs skew and misinterpret the evidence against
`
`Rembrandt. Samsung gives no deference to the Jury’s determination of witness credibility,
`
`reasonable inferences drawn by the Jury, and the weighing of the evidence in favor of
`
`Rembrandt. That is not the proper legal analysis. The Jury’s verdict should be upheld and no
`
`new trial is required.
`
`II.
`
`TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`The Jury was presented with persuasive evidence that the patents-in-suit “make
`
`communication devices work better, faster, and cheaper.” TT 2/9/15 PM (Morrow) at 157:7-11.
`
`They do so by providing “seamless communication using different types of modulation
`
`methods.” Id. at 157:12-14.
`
`
`1 Samsung filed two motions for JMOL and/or a new trial—one primarily focused on liability
`issues and the other primarily focused on damages issues. Dkt. Nos. 328 (Damages Motion) &
`329 (Liability Motion; hereinafter, “Mtn.”). In this brief, Rembrandt opposes Samsung’s
`liability motion. Rembrandt’s opposition to Samsung’s separate damages motion is filed
`concurrently herewith.
`
`1
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00006
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 11969
`
`Before the inventions claimed by the patents-in-suit, devices communicated using a
`
`single common type of modulation. Id. at 160:22-161:1; see also PX1 (‘580 Patent) at 1:27-65,
`
`3:40-48, Fig. 1. Samsung’s primary prior art reference—the Boer Patent2—is exemplary of these
`
`devices. DX1192. There were at least three major drawbacks to such systems; they were
`
`inefficient, costly to upgrade, and provided no backwards compatibility. TT 2/9/15 PM
`
`(Morrow) at 161:12-162:4; see also PX1 at 1:66-2:15.
`
`The patents-in-suit improve on prior art communications systems (specifically, those
`
`systems that used a master/slave protocol) by permitting different types of modulation methods
`
`to be seamlessly used together on the same network. TT 2/9/15 PM (Morrow) at 163:18-23; see
`
`also PX1 at 2:24-49, 5:47-56, Fig. 4. Using the claimed inventions, if a new type of modulation
`
`is introduced, network devices can begin using that new type of modulation right away, leading
`
`to improved efficiency. TT 2/9/15 PM (Morrow) at 164:14-21. The claimed inventions also
`
`provide cost savings because newer devices using different types of modulation methods can use
`
`the existing network without incurring costly upgrades. Id. at 164:22-24. And the claimed
`
`inventions also provide backwards compatibility, leading to improved life spans for older
`
`devices. Id. at 164:24-165:1.
`
`According to the claimed inventions, the key to providing seamless communication using
`
`different types of modulation methods is to divide network communications into sequences—a
`
`“first sequence” and a “second sequence”—and to have something within the first sequence
`
`“indicate” the type of modulation used by the second sequence. See TT 2/9/15 PM (Morrow) at
`
`166:11-19; PX1 (‘580 Patent) at 11:64-67; see also PX1 at 2:34-38 & 7:66-8:5; PX2 (‘228
`
`
`2 The “Boer Patent” is U.S. Patent No. 5,706,428, invented by Mr. Jan Boer, among others.
`DX1192. Samsung mistakenly refers to this patent as the “Lucent Patent,” even though it is
`currently assigned to Conversant Intellectual Property Management, Inc. and has not been
`assigned to Lucent for more than a decade. Ex. 1, Boer assignment history at 1, 5.
`2
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00007
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 11970
`
`Patent) at 8:43-47. This is illustrated by the following annotated excerpt from ‘580 Figure 8,
`
`where the first sequence uses Type A modulation to “indicate” that the second sequence uses
`
`Type B modulation:
`
`First Seq uence
`
`Type B ModJl• uon
`Data Sig,,a! 10 Type 8 Tnt> v. ,111 'I),~ 8 144,~
`
`1)'pc A Modu.arion
`Tr1ilintt S1gi,al
`
`PX1 at Fig. 8 (annotated); TT 2/9/15 PM (Morrow) at 166:20-23.
`
`
`
`About seven years after the inventions of the patents-in-suit, the patented technology
`
`became an integral part of Bluetooth, in a feature known as Bluetooth Enhanced Data Rate
`
`(“EDR”). TT 2/9/15 PM (Morrow) at 169:21-170:1. Like the claimed inventions, Bluetooth
`
`EDR communicates using two different types of modulation methods. Id. at 170:20-22; TT
`
`2/10/15 AM (Morrow) at 18:13-20:8. And like the claimed inventions, Bluetooth EDR messages
`
`have a “first sequence” that “indicates” the type of modulation used by the “second sequence.”
`
`TT 2/10/15 AM (Morrow) at 21:16-33:21. This is illustrated by the following annotated excerpt
`
`from the Bluetooth EDR specification, in which the first sequence uses “GFSK” (a frequency
`
`type modulation) to “indicate” that the second sequences uses “DPSK” (a phase type
`
`modulation):
`
`First Sequence
`
`Second Sequence
`
`ACCESS
`CODE
`
`GUARD
`
`DATA RATE
`SYNC ENHAN
`PAYLOAD
`
`TRA ILER
`
`GFSK
`
`DPSK
`
`Figure 1.3: Standard Enhanced Data Rate packet format
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00008
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 11971
`
`PX23 (Bluetooth EDR Specification, v2.0) at SAM 99669 (annotated); TT 2/10/15 AM
`
`(Morrow) at 21:16-22:10; see also TT 2/9/15 PM (Morrow) at 172:19-174:21. Samsung does
`
`not challenge the Jury’s determination that its Bluetooth EDR-Compliant devices infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`In the Fifth Circuit, a court determining whether to grant JMOL must give “great
`
`deference to a jury’s verdict.” Dresser–Rand Co. v. Virtual Automation Inc., 361 F.3d 831, 838
`
`(5th Cir. 2004). JMOL is appropriate “only if, when viewing the evidence in the light most
`
`favorable to the verdict, the evidence points so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one
`
`party that the court believes that reasonable jurors could not arrive at any contrary conclusion.”
`
`Dresser–Rand, 361 F.3d at 838. “If reasonable minds could differ as to the import of the
`
`evidence, however, a verdict should not be directed.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
`
`242, 250–51 (1986).
`
`It is the jury’s responsibility to determine the credibility of each witness’s testimony.
`
`Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150-51 (2000). If the jury finds a
`
`witness is not credible, then it may disregard that witness’s testimony or choose to give that
`
`witness’s testimony little weight relative to the testimony of other witnesses. Id. Jurors are also
`
`permitted to draw reasonable inferences from testimony and exhibits. Id. The reviewing court
`
`“must view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and must grant the benefit
`
`of all reasonable inferences to the party to whom the jury awarded the verdict.” Spectralytics,
`
`Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151); TQP
`
`Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., 2:11-CV-248-JRG, Dkt. 464, at 4 (E.D. T Aug. 17, 2015)
`
`(“The Court will not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence, as those are
`
`functions for the jury.”) (citing Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151). The reviewing court must also
`4
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00009
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 10 of 37 PageID #: 11972
`
`“disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.” Id.
`
`(quoting Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151).
`
`A motion for a new trial “should not be granted unless the verdict is against the great
`
`weight, not merely the preponderance, of the evidence.” Jones v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 870
`
`F.2d 982, 986 (5th Cir. 1989). “The decision to grant or deny a motion for new trial or remittitur
`
`rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge; that exercise of discretion can be set aside only
`
`upon a clear showing of abuse.” Eiland v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 58 F.3d 176, 183 (5th Cir.
`
`1995). “The denial [of a new trial motion] will be affirmed unless, on appeal, the party that was
`
`the movant in district court makes a clear showing of an absolute absence of evidence to support
`
`the jury’s verdict, thus indicating that the trial court had abused its discretion in refusing to find
`
`the jury’s verdict contrary to the great weight of the evidence.” Whitehead v. Food Max of Miss.,
`
`Inc., 163 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original, internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`As shown below, sufficient evidence supports the Jury’s verdict, and thus it should
`
`remain undisturbed.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Samsung Failed To Prove By Clear And Convincing Evidence That
`Rembrandt’s Patents Were Invalid As Obvious.
`
`Rembrandt’s patents are presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. To overcome this
`
`presumption, Samsung bears the heavy burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011). A jury may
`
`reach a conclusion that a claim is not invalid based solely on the failure of Samsung’s evidence
`
`to clearly and convincingly establish the contrary, and thus Rembrandt is not required to submit
`
`any evidence in support of a conclusion of validity by a court or a jury. Orthokinetics, Inc. v.
`
`Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Under the law set by
`
`5
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00010
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 11 of 37 PageID #: 11973
`
`Congress, a jury or a court may reach a conclusion that a patent remains valid solely on the
`
`failure of the patent challenger’s evidence to convincingly establish the contrary.”); see also
`
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that the “burden of
`
`proof never shifts to the patentee to prove validity.”). “In order to show that it is entitled to
`
`JMOL on its affirmative defense of invalidity, [an infringer] is required to prove the essential
`
`elements of that defense to a virtual certainty.” Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., 836 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 462, 478 (E.D. Tex. 2010). Accordingly, only in an “extreme” case is it appropriate to
`
`grant JMOL in favor of Samsung on an issue regarding which it bore the clear and convincing
`
`burden of proof. Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 1065 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1998).
`
`Samsung’s arguments for JMOL on obviousness are premised largely on the fact that
`
`Rembrandt chose not to present a validity rebuttal expert at trial. Mtn. at 4, 11. But as the cases
`
`above make clear, rebuttal is not required where, as here, the patent challenger does not carry its
`
`burden. See supra. Indeed, numerous courts in this district have denied JMOL on invalidity—
`
`even when the patentee did not present a validity rebuttal expert—because the defendant failed to
`
`carry its burden. E.g., PACT XPP Tech., AG v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-563-RSP, Dkt. 441, at
`
`18-21 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2013); Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., No. 6:09-CV-2030-
`
`LED, Dkt. 1113, at 18-30 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2012). Samsung failed to present a prima facie
`
`case of obviousness, and it was reasonable for the Jury to reject Samsung’s invalidity contention.
`
`In fact, Samsung’s own expert, Dr. Goodman, agreed during cross-examination as to the
`
`differences between the Samsung’s prior art references and the claimed invention, including that
`
`certain references undermined any reason to combine the prior art. TT 2/11/15 PM (Goodman)
`
`6
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00011
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: 11974
`
`at 48:17-66:18. This made it unnecessary to put a rebuttal expert witness on the stand merely to
`
`confirm what Samsung’s expert already admitted.
`
`The verdict form contained a single question on validity. Dkt. No. 288 (Verdict) at 3.
`
`When a jury answers a general verdict form, courts “uphold such a verdict if there was sufficient
`
`evidence to support any of the plaintiff’s alternative factual theories.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 849 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). Thus, in order to overturn the
`
`Jury’s verdict, the Court would have to conclude that Samsung proved every disputed issued by
`
`clear and convincing evidence.
`
`Samsung advances several invalidity arguments in its brief—none of which have merit.
`
`Mtn. at 11-23. Rembrandt addresses those arguments in the order presented by Samsung:
`
`1.
`
`None Of The Prior Art, Including The Boer Patent And The Lucent
`Press Release, Discloses “Different Types” Of Modulation Methods.
`
`The Asserted Claims require the capability to communicate using modulation methods of
`
`“different types.” PX1 (‘580 Patent) at 7:63-65, 11:61-62; PX2 (‘228 Patent) at 8:51-53.
`
`Samsung argues that (1) the Boer Patent or (2) the Boer Patent combined with the Lucent Press
`
`Release (DX1185) discloses this limitation. Mtn. at 11-13. But as explained below, the Jury had
`
`substantial evidence to reach the opposite conclusion. The Court should not disturb the Jury’s
`
`finding for at least this reason.
`
`The Court construed the phrase at issue to mean “different families of modulation
`
`techniques, such as the FSK family of modulation methods and the QAM family of modulation
`
`methods.” Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 114) at 29. Samsung contends that Dr.
`
`Goodman’s testimony as to different families is “uncontradicted” and “unrebutted.” Mtn. at 13.
`
`But Rembrandt’s technical expert, Dr. Morrow, provided extensive testimony about modulation
`
`techniques, the various characteristics of a carrier signal that can be modified by a modulation
`
`7
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00012
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: 11975
`
`method, and how to determine if two modulation methods are in “different families.” TT 2/10/15
`
`AM (Morrow) at 14:2-18:24.
`
`First, Dr. Morrow explained that there are only three characteristics of a carrier signal
`
`that can be varied during modulation: phase, amplitude, and frequency.3 TT 2/10/15 AM
`
`(Morrow) at 15:3-16:2. Second, Dr. Morrow explained that two modulation methods are “in
`
`different families” (and thus of “different types”) when there are “no overlapping characteristics
`
`[of the carrier] between these two modulation types.” Id. at 18:22-24 (emphasis added). While
`
`Dr. Goodman did not agree with Dr. Morrow that there must be no overlapping characteristics,
`
`the Jury was entitled to credit Dr. Morrow’s testimony and disregard Dr. Goodman’s directly
`
`conflicting testimony. Spectralytics, 649 F.3d at 1341 (“[T]he reviewing court on JMOL must
`
`give credence to the evidence favoring the nonmovant, and must disregard all evidence favorable
`
`to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`After crediting Dr. Morrow’s testimony that any overlapping characteristic means that
`
`two modulation methods are not in “different families,” it was straightforward for the Jury to
`
`find that neither the Boer Patent nor the Lucent Press Release disclose the claimed “different
`
`types” of modulation methods. It is undisputed that all of the modulation methods disclosed in
`
`the Boer Patent and the Lucent Press Release modulate at least one overlapping characteristic of
`
`the carrier: phase. Dr. Goodman unequivocally acknowledged that each of DBPSK and
`
`PPM/DQPSK—the modulation methods disclosed in the Boer Patent—modify at least the phase
`
`characteristic of the carrier during modulation. TT 2/11/15 PM (Goodman) at 17:8-13; 53:1-
`
`
`3 Dr. Goodman testified that there was a fourth characteristic that could be modified: position.
`TT 2/11/15 PM (Goodman) at 15:16-16:5. But the jury was entitled to credit Dr. Morrow’s
`testimony and disregard Dr. Goodman’s testimony. See Spectralytics, 649 F.3d at 1341. In any
`event, whether there are three or four characteristics of the carrier does not change whether the
`Boer Patent and the Lucent Press Release disclose modulation methods “of different types”
`under the proper legal framework.
`
`8
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00013
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 14 of 37 PageID #: 11976
`
`54:13. Similarly, and as Samsung concedes in its brief, Dr. Goodman testified that each of
`
`DBPSK and DS/PPM (also referred to as PPM/QAM)—the modulation methods in the Lucent
`
`Press Release—vary at least a common phase characteristic of the carrier. Id. at 34:7-21; Mtn. at
`
`13. When coupled with Dr. Morrow’s explanation of “different families” (which the Jury was
`
`entitled to accept), Dr. Goodman’s own testimony establishes that these modulation methods are
`
`not “different types” of modulation methods because they each modify the common phase
`
`characteristic of the carrier.
`
`Because the jury was given substantial evidence that none of the prior art presented
`
`during trial, including the Boer Patent and the Lucent Press Release, discloses “different types”
`
`of modulation methods as claimed, Samsung’s invalidity JMOL must fail.
`
`2.
`
`Samsung Failed To Prove That It Would Be Obvious to Combine a
`Master/Slave Protocol With The Boer Patent.
`
`The Asserted Claims also require a device capable of communicating according to a
`
`master/slave relationship. PX1 (‘580 Patent) at 7:53-54, 11:51-52; PX2 (‘228 Patent) at 8:18-20.
`
`Samsung now concedes that “the [Boer] Patent does not disclose the use of a master/slave
`
`protocol.” Mtn. at 1 (emphasis added); see also id. at 7. In fact, Samsung’s own expert, Dr.
`
`Goodman, testified that the Boer Patent discloses a different communication protocol, called
`
`“CSMA/CA” (TT 2/11/15 PM (Goodman) at 49:8-17), and that protocol operates in a very
`
`different way from a master/slave protocol (id. at 49:18-51:10; 51:25-52:25). Because the Boer
`
`Patent does not teach a master/slave protocol, Samsung must resort to arguing obviousness based
`
`on a combination of the Boer Patent with the Upender article (DX1190).4 Mtn. at 13-16.
`
`
`4 Samsung never mentions, in its brief or at trial, combining the Lucent Press Release with
`Upender.
`
`9
`
`
`IPR2020-00034 Page 00014
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-00213-JRG Document 335 Filed 09/07/15 Page 15 of 37 PageID #: 11977
`
`But rather than providing a reason to replace the Boer Patent’s CSMA/CA protocol with
`
`a master/slave protocol, Upender actually endorses CSMA/CA and teaches away from using a
`
`master/slave protocol. DX1190 at DEF 2343. Upender provides a head-to-head comparison
`
`chart of various protocols, including CSMA/CA and master/slave protocols. Id. (referring to
`
`master/slave as “polling”5)