Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 13 Page ID
`#:16782
`
`WILLKIE FARR &
`GALLAGHER LLP
`Barrington Dyer (SBN 264762)
` BDyer@willkie.com
`Koren L. Bell (SBN 268614)
` KBell@willkie.com
`2029 Century Park East, Suite 3400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 855-3000
`
`[Attorneys/Law Firms Continued
`on Next Page]
`
`Indranil Mukerji (pro hac vice)
` IMukerji@willkie.com
`Stephen Marshall (pro hac vice)
` SMarshall@willkie.com
`Aliza George Carrano (pro hac vice)
` ACarrano@willkie.com
`John Christopher Moulder (pro hac vice)
`CMoulder@willkie.com
`1875 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-1238
`Telephone: (202) 303-1198
`
`Devon W. Edwards (pro hac vice)
`DEdwards@willkie.com
`Eric L. Saunders (pro hac vice)
`ESaunders@willkie.com
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019-6099
`Telephone: (212) 728-8000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NETFLIX, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
`
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Hon. R. Gary Klausner
`Courtroom 850 – Roybal
`
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
`TO GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
`MATTER OF LAW
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Crtrm:
`
`November 27, 2023
`9:00 am
`850
`
`FAC Filed: November 10, 2022
`Trial Date: October 17, 2023
`Netflix v. GoTV
`IPR2023-00757
`Netflix Ex. 1023
`
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`310.855.3000
`
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
`
`2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 3400
`
`WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2 of 13 Page ID
`#:16783
`
`
`
`[Attorneys/Law Firms Continued]
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`Thomas G. Saunders (pro hac vice)
` thomas.saunders@wilmerhale.com
`2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202) 663-6536
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`Lauren E. Matlock-Colangelo (pro hac vice)
` lauren.matlock-colangelo@wilmerhale.com
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`Telephone: (212) 295-6566
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NETFLIX, INC.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 3 of 13 Page ID
`#:16784
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................... 1
`
`III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Court Declined To Submit the Issue of Patent Ownership
`to the Jury .................................................................................... 2
`
`The Court Declined To Submit the Issue of Invalidity to the
`Jury .............................................................................................. 2
`
`GoTV Is Not Entitled to JMOL of Non-Infringement of Claim
`16 of the ’245 Patent ................................................................... 3
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 4 of 13 Page ID
`#:16785
`
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acco Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs.,
`501 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................. 5
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`579 U.S. 261 (2016) .............................................................................. 3
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................. 6
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................. 4
`
`Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`692 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................. 5
`
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 4
`
`Novartis AG v. Noven Pharms., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................. 3
`
`Juhnke v. EIG Corp.,
`444 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1971) ............................................................... 2
`
`United California Bank v. THC Financial Corp.,
`557 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1977) ............................................................... 2
`
`White v. Ford Motor Co.,
`312 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................. 1
`
`Statutes and Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) .................................................................................. 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................................................................................. 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a).......................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`ii
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 5 of 13 Page ID
`#:16786
`
`
`
`
`Treatises
`
`9B Wright & Miller,
`Federal Practice and Procedure § 2535 (3d ed. 2023) ........................ 1
`
`
`Inter Partes Reviews
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00757 (PTAB) .................. 2
`
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00758 (PTAB) .................. 2
`
`
`
`iii
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 6 of 13 Page ID
`#:16787
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Netflix, Inc. partially opposes GoTV Streaming, LLC’s motion for judgment
`
`as a matter of law under Rule 50(a). The Court already decided that it would not
`
`submit the issues of ownership and invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to the jury,
`
`and, in the interest of streamlining the disputes between the parties, Netflix does
`
`not oppose granting JMOL to GoTV on those two issues. However, GoTV is not
`
`entitled to JMOL of infringement of claim 16 of the ’245 patent. Contrary to
`
`GoTV’s argument, the ’245 patent presented distinct issues from infringement of
`
`the ’715 patent, and Netflix did not concede that the differences between the two
`
`patents were immaterial. GoTV’s sole theory of direct infringement on the ’245
`
`patent at trial relied on alleged internal testing by Netflix, and GoTV bore the
`
`burden of proving that during such testing, Netflix made or used in the United
`
`States a non-transitory computer usable medium with all of the instructions
`
`required for a wireless device to execute the claimed steps. But GoTV’s evidence
`
`of allegedly infringing testing was vague and incomplete, and GoTV comes
`
`nowhere close to showing that the jury was compelled to accept that evidence as
`
`proof of infringement. Indeed, for the reasons explained in Netflix’s Rule 50(a)
`
`motion, (Dkt. No. 389-1 at 3-5), no rational jury could have relied on GoTV’s
`
`evidence to find infringement of the ’245 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Judgment as a matter of law may be granted where “the evidence, construed
`
`in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable
`
`conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary to that of the jury.” White v. Ford Motor
`
`Co., 312 F.3d 998, 1010 (9th Cir. 2002). “[C]ourts often caution that granting a
`
`judgment as a matter of law for the party bearing the burden of proof is reserved
`
`for extreme cases.” 9B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2535
`
`(3d ed. 2023). “A directed verdict for the plaintiff presents an exceptional case and
`
`
`
`is sustainable only if the evidence ‘was such that the court could say that as a matter
`1
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`310.855.3000
`
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
`
`2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 3400
`
`WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 7 of 13 Page ID
`#:16788
`
`
`
`of law the evidence was capable of only one interpretation and that in favor of
`
`liability.” United California Bank v. THC Financial Corp., 557 F.2d 1351, 1356
`
`(9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Juhnke v. EIG Corp., 444 F.2d 1323, 1325 (9th Cir. 1971)).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Court Declined To Submit the Issue of Patent Ownership to
`
`the Jury
`
`The Court declined to submit the issue of patent ownership to the jury and
`
`stated its intention to rule, as a matter of law, that GoTV Streaming, LLC owns the
`
`’715 and ’245 patents. (Dkt. 404-1 at 3 (Day 3 AM Tr. 57:7-9) (“I can tell you the
`
`Court is going to find, as a matter of law, that the issue of ownership is there.”);
`
`Ex. A, Day 3 PM Tr. 62:22 (instructing jury “Ownership is not at issue.”).) In the
`
`interest of streamlining the disputes between the parties, Netflix does not oppose
`
`this ruling on ownership. Specifically, the trial record shows that assignments of
`
`the ’715 and ’245 patents to GoTV Streaming, LCC were recorded in the Patent
`
`and Trademark Office on October 14, 2022. (Dkt. 404-6 at 2-5 (Tx. 317).)
`
`B.
`
`The Court Declined To Submit the Issue of Invalidity to the Jury
`
`The Court also declined to submit the issue of invalidity to the jury. Before
`
`trial, the Court ruled against Netflix’s argument under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter
`
`of law. (Dkt. 355 at 2 (“The Court’s denial of Netflix’s Motion (Dkt. No. 109)
`
`constitutes the Court’s judgment as a matter of law that the claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and conclusively resolves Section
`
`101 issues for purposes of this case.”); Dkt. 109 at 2-7.) At trial, each party was
`
`allocated no more than four hours to present its case. (Day 1 Tr. 7:13-17.) Netflix
`
`did not present invalidity arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to the jury in light of
`
`those time constraints and the pendency of Netflix’s petitions for inter partes
`
`review. (Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 213:20-25; Ex. A, Day 3 PM Tr. 34:9-11; Ex. C, Netflix,
`
`Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00757, Paper 2 (PTAB) (’715 patent); Ex.
`
`D, Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC, IPR2023-00758, Paper 2 (PTAB) (’245
`
`
`
`2
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 8 of 13 Page ID
`#:16789
`
`
`
`patent).) The Court therefore stated on the final day of trial that it would not submit
`
`the issue of invalidity to the jury. (Dkt. 404-1 at 3 (Day 3 AM Tr. 57:7) (“Validity
`
`is not going to be there.”); Ex. A, Day 3 PM Tr. 62:22-23 (instructing jury “Validity
`
`is not at issue.”).)
`
`The pretrial conference order listed invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as an
`
`issue to be tried. (Dkt. 253-1 at 50-53). Accordingly, just as Netflix is entitled to
`
`JMOL on the six patent claims at issue in the pretrial conference order that GoTV
`
`failed to pursue at trial, (see Dkt. 389-1 at 7), Netflix concedes that GoTV is entitled
`to JMOL of no invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103.1
`
`C. GoTV Is Not Entitled to JMOL of Non-Infringement of Claim 16
`
`of the ’245 Patent
`
`GoTV’s motion seeks JMOL of infringement of the ’245 patent based largely
`
`on the jury’s separate finding with respect to the ’715 patent. (Dkt. 403 at 5). But
`
`contrary to GoTV’s assertions, the infringement analyses for the ’715 and ’245
`
`patents presented distinct issues and cannot be collapsed into a single inquiry.
`
`Critically, this Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’245
`
`patent in connection with customer mobile devices. (Dkt. 249 at 14.) At trial,
`
`GoTV was therefore required to prove infringement of the ’245 patent based on
`
`Netflix’s own internal testing, not the transmissions to customers that formed the
`
`basis of its theory with respect to the ’715 patent. In addition, GoTV had to meet
`
`additional elements not present in claim 4 of the ’715 patent. The jury’s finding
`
`that GoTV did not meet this burden is supported by substantial evidence for at least
`
`five reasons.
`
`
`1 Granting GoTV JMOL of no invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not preclude
`
`Netflix from continuing to seek to have the same claims declared unpatentable in
`
`the IPRs. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 282-83 (2016);
`
`Novartis AG v. Noven Pharms., Inc., 853 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`3
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 9 of 13 Page ID
`#:16790
`
`
`
`First, GoTV points to a single, unsupported statement by its expert, Dr.
`
`Malek, that Netflix “practices” claim 16 “when they perform internal testing of
`
`Netflix’s application.” Dkt. 403 at 9 (citing Dkt. 404-9 at 55:9-11). But Dr. Malek
`
`also admitted that he didn’t “know the specifics of how [Netflix is] performing the
`
`testing.” (Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 83:6-84:23.) Dr. Malek’s conclusory testimony cannot
`
`“sustain a jury’s verdict,” MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159,
`
`1172 (Fed. Cir. 2015), let alone compel a finding of infringement.
`
`Second, a reasonable jury could find that GoTV did not prove that any of the
`
`accused Netflix testing took place in the United States, as required to prove direct
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). GoTV’s sole cited support for the location
`
`of testing was testimony from Steve Johnson, the Vice President of Design at
`
`Netflix. (Dkt. 403 at 9). But Mr. Johnson stated that he was familiar only with
`
`“AB testing” (Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 12:4-13:13), which GoTV admits is “not an activity
`
`giving rise to infringement or damages” (Dkt. 336 at 4 (emphasis in original)). Mr.
`
`Johnson also repeatedly disclaimed knowledge of the location of any other type of
`
`testing. (Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 12:17-13:15 (“Again, I do not know about the
`
`engineering testing centers, only the AB testing centers of which I operate from.”)).
`
`Because GoTV relies solely on evidence regarding unaccused testing, the jury
`
`could have reasonably determined that GoTV did not meet its burden to prove that
`
`the accused testing took place in the United States. The jury’s finding of non-
`
`infringement is supported on this basis alone. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Secure
`
`Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reversing denial of JMOL
`
`of noninfringement because patentee identified no instances of testing in the United
`
`States).
`
`Third, a reasonable jury could find that GoTV failed to prove that the accused
`
`testing took place on wireless devices as required by claim 16. GoTV’s cited
`
`testimony (Dkt. 403 at 9-10) is not to the contrary. Mr. Eichacker’s testimony on
`
`testing of “TVUI devices” (Dkt. 404-11 at 148:25-149:05) is insufficient to show
`
`
`
`4
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 10 of 13 Page ID
`#:16791
`
`
`
`the televisions being tested were connected wirelessly, as opposed to using a wired
`
`connection. (Cf. Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 174:16-18 (discussing televisions with a wired
`
`connection)). Similarly, neither Mr. Castro nor Mr. Boudrant discussed the specific
`
`devices used in the accused testing, let alone whether those devices were wireless
`
`or wired. (Dkt. 404-14 (134:21-23, 135:10-15, 135:19-23); Dkt. 404-16 (125:10-
`
`12, 125:17-19, 125:22-24, 126:4-6).) Ms. Kwok’s testimony on “mobile
`
`automation test labs” also discussed testing generally, but did not specifically
`
`address the features of the accused testing, including which devices were used in
`
`the accused testing. (Dkt. 404-12 at 23:18; cf. Dkt. 336 at 4 (A/B testing not
`
`accused).) Finally, Dr. Malek conceded that he did not know the “specifics” of the
`
`“wireless devices” used in the accused Netflix testing or the standard used to
`
`“communicate between the back end and the client device” in the alleged testing.
`
`(Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 84:1-4, 12-15; see also id. at 84:21-23.) The jury was therefore
`
`entitled to find that GoTV did not prove that Netflix performs the accused testing
`
`with wireless devices.
`
`Fourth, GoTV incorrectly asserts that Netflix “does not dispute” that its
`
`testing met the limitation requiring instructions “rendering said renderable content
`
`on said wireless device.” (Dkt. 403 at 8.) But as explained in Netflix’s JMOL
`
`motion, GoTV’s sole evidence regarding this limitation was Dr. Malek own testing.
`
`(Dkt. 249 at 15; Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 57:1-4; Dkt. 389-1 at 4-5.) Dr. Malek’s testing
`
`cannot meet GoTV’s burden to prove direct infringement by “actual users.” See,
`
`e.g., Acco Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs., 501 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
`
`(patentee “failed to point to specific instances of direct infringement” where “sole
`
`witness at trial who testified to having used [the accused product] in an infringing
`
`manner was [patentee’s] expert”); see also Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc., 692
`
`F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“But demonstration to a jury during trial does
`
`not constitute evidence of infringement on which a claim of infringement can be
`
`based.”). Separately, Dr. Malek’s testing also failed to establish that the rendering
`
`
`
`5
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 11 of 13 Page ID
`#:16792
`
`
`
`functionality came from Netflix’s software, rather than third-party software. See
`
`Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 56: 18-25. In fact, Dr. Malek did not even know what platform
`
`was used in Netflix’s alleged testing. Ex. B, Day 2 Tr. 84:16-20.
`
`Sixth, GoTV’s argument that an apparatus claim is not limited to a particular
`
`“method or use” (Dkt. 403 at 9) makes no sense in the context of the claim at issue.
`
`Claim 16 is a “Beauregard claim,” i.e., “a claim to a computer readable medium
`
`(e.g., a disk, hard drive, or other data storage device) containing program
`
`instructions for a computer to perform a particular process.” CyberSource Corp.
`
`v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis added).
`
`Specifically, the “non-transitory computer usable medium” required by claim 16
`
`must contain “instructions” that “when executed … implement a method of
`
`rendering content on a wireless device” that meets all the specified claim
`
`limitations. (Ex. E, Tx. 14 at 21:42-45; see also id. at 21: 46-67, 22:17-19.) But
`
`GoTV did not establish that all of the relevant “instructions,” including rendering
`
`instructions, were present in the same “non-transitory computer usable medium” of
`
`a Netflix-owned device used in the accused testing.
`
`In short, a reasonable jury could have relied on any one of multiple holes in
`
`GoTV’s case to conclude that GoTV failed to carry its burden of proof on claim 16
`
`of the ’245 patent. GoTV has not established that this is an exceptional case
`
`warranting JMOL on an issue on which GoTV bore the burden of proof.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Netflix requests that the Court deny GoTV’s
`
`request for JMOL of infringement of claim 16 of the ’245 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 12 of 13 Page ID
`#:16793
`
`
`
`Dated: October 26, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Barrington Dyer
`Barrington Dyer
`Koren L. Bell
`Indranil Mukerji
`Stephen Marshall
`Aliza George Carrano
`John Christopher Moulder
`Devon W. Edwards
`Eric L. Saunders
`Steven J. Ballew
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`
`Thomas G. Saunders
`Lauren E. Matlock-Colangelo
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`NETFLIX, INC.
`
`
`
`7
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 406 Filed 10/26/23 Page 13 of 13 Page ID
`#:16794
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`The undersigned, counsel of record for Netflix, Inc., certifies that this brief
`
`contains 2,054 words, which complies with the word limit of L.R. 11-6.1 and the
`
`May 2023 Standing Order Regarding Newly Assigned Cases.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 26, 2023
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Barrington Dyer
`Barrington Dyer
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`NETFLIX, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`GOTV STREAMING, LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`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
`
`