`LOS ANGELES
`CALIFORNIA 90017-3543
`
`TELEPHONE: 213.892.5200
`FACSIMILE: 213.892.5454
`
`WWW.MOFO.COM
`
`
`M O R R I S O N & F O E R S T E R L L P
`B E I J I N G , B E R L I N , B R U S S E L S ,
`D E N V E R , H O N G K O N G , L O N D O N ,
`L O S A N G E L E S , N E W Y O R K ,
`N O R T H E R N V I R G I N I A , P A L O A L T O ,
`S A N D I E G O , S A N F R A N C I S C O , S H A N G H A
`S I N G A P O R E , T O K Y O , W A S H I N G T O N , D . C
`
`
`Writer’s Direct Contact
`+1 (213) 892.5428
`BRahebi@mofo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 24, 2021
`
`Via email
`
`Daniel J. Schwartz
`djschwartz@nixonpeabody.com
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`70 West Madison, Suite 3500
`Chicago, Illinois 60602-4224
`
`Re: MemoryWeb, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00531-ADA
`
`Dear Dan:
`
`I write to request that MemoryWeb dismiss its action against Apple with prejudice because it
`has no viable claim.
`
`MemoryWeb asserts patents that are invalid because they are anticipated and obvious in view
`of prior art—including, in particular, well-known prior art from Apple.1 By way of example
`only and without limitation or waiver:
`
`Numerous digital photo management products and services predate MemoryWeb’s patents,
`which products and services included features for organizing and viewing photos by location,
`pictured individuals, or date. One prominent example well-known in the field is Apple’s
`Aperture 3 product, released by 2010. It included a map view with which users could view
`photos organized by location, wherein a user’s interaction with a location label would display
`a location view showing the photos associated with a particular location:
`
`
`1 Apple also does not infringe any of the asserted patents, and its non-infringement and other defenses as set
`forth in Apple’s Answer pleading are not detailed herein simply for sake of brevity.
`
`
`
`
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2039
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2112
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Daniel J. Schwartz
`September 24, 2021
`Page Two
`
`
`Aperture 3 also included a “Faces” feature for viewing photos organized by individual and
`thumbnail images with which users could interact to access photos of particular people:
`
`
`
`sf-4557275
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2039
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2112
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Daniel J. Schwartz
`September 24, 2021
`Page Three
`
`
`These features were not limited to Aperture 3. Interactive map views that organized photos
`by location, and photo albums that organized photos and videos by people, were all well-
`known and widely applied in other Apple products, including iPhoto. As the maker of
`Aperture 3, iPhoto, and other prior art disclosing such features, Apple not only would show
`that its prior art anticipates and renders obvious MemoryWeb’s asserted patents, but it would
`do so in compelling fashion, demonstrating first-hand how it had invented, practiced, and
`sold products with the claimed features since well before MemoryWeb’s patents.
`
`Nor were the sort of features that MemoryWeb claims are covered by its patents limited to
`Apple’s products. For example, U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0058212 (“Belitz”),
`published in 2010 and assigned to Nokia, also discloses a map for viewing and organizing
`photos grouped by location, complete with interactive thumbnails:
`
`
`
`sf-4557275
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2039
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2112
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`
`
`Daniel J. Schwartz
`September 24, 2021
`Page Four
`
`Other well-known prior art photo-storing and -sharing software similarly included such
`features, including Panoramio and Picasa.
`
`MemoryWeb should not have filed this lawsuit to begin with, and in view of the foregoing it
`has no reasonable basis to proceed. The only way MemoryWeb can hope to mitigate the
`accrual of additional expenses is to immediately dismiss its complaint with prejudice. Such a
`dismissal is necessary to avoid subjecting both parties to undue fees and costs. See Octane
`Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U. S. 545, 554 (2014). Apple reserves all
`rights, including to seek fees/expenses in this proceeding and invalidation of the asserted
`patents in patent office proceedings.
`
` look forward to hearing from you.
`
` I
`
`Sincerely,
`
`
`
`Bita Rahebi
`
`sf-4557275
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2039
`Unified Patents v. MemoryWeb – IPR2021-01413
`
`MemoryWeb Ex. 2112
`Apple v. MemoryWeb - IPR 2022-00031
`
`