Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 389-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 1 of 22 Page ID
`#:16314
`
`WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
`Barrington Dyer (SBN 264762)
`BDyer@willkie.com
`2029 Century Park East, Suite 3400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 855-3000
`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
`1875 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006-1238
`Telephone: (202) 303-1198
`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
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Hon. R. Gary Klausner
`Courtroom 850 – Roybal
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`NETFLIX’S RULE 50(a) MOTION
`FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER
`OF LAW
`Date:
`Time:
`Crtrm:
`
`October 19, 2023
`8:30 am
`850
`
`FAC Filed: November 10, 2022
`Trial Date: October 17, 2023
`
`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
`
`WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
`
`2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 3400
`
`Page 1 of 3 (IPR2023-0075(cid:27))
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NETFLIX’S
`RULE 50(a) MOTION FOR JMOL
`
`(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:20)
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 389-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 10 of 22 Page ID
`#:16323
`
`F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, even as to his own testing, Dr. Malek
`failed to establish that the rendering functionality came from Netflix’s software,
`rather than third-party software.
`Finally, GoTV failed to show a Netflix-owned wireless device used for
`internal testing with a “custom configuration” (i.e., “a configuration that
`determines the look and feel of the application”) that is “associated with an
`application,” and also “receiv[ed] compiled content”—all within the meaning of
`the ’245 patent.
`C.
`No Literal Infringement of Claim 4 of the ’715 Patent
`GoTV failed to prove that Netflix literally infringes method claim 4 of the
`’715 patent, which recites a “method of generating content that is renderable by a
`wireless device.” (Tx. 16). GoTV needed to show that “each and every step of the
`method or process was performed” by Netflix. Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd.
`v. Int'l Game Tech., 709 F.3d 1348, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). GoTV fell short on its
`burden in at least four ways.
`First, GoTV failed to show actual performance of every element of the claim
`in connection with a “wireless device.” It also failed to show transmission of both
`“compiled content specific to a first page” and “compiled content specific to a
`second page.” GoTV’s evidence on both points related to the activities of its own
`expert, not the real-world actions of Netflix in connection with its customers. That
`was legally insufficient to establish direct infringement. See Acco Brands, 501 F.3d
`at 1313. Subscriber numbers are not proof of what devices the customers own and
`whether content for a second page was transmitted.
`Second, GoTV failed to show “identification of a custom configuration of a
`plurality of rendering blocks.” The elements GoTV pointed to are not “a
`configuration that determines the look and feel of the application” as required by
`the Court’s construction.
`
`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
`
`Page 2 of 3 (IPR2023-0075(cid:27))
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`5
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NETFLIX’S
`RULE 50(a) MOTION FOR JMOL
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-07556-RGK-SHK Document 389-1 Filed 10/19/23 Page 11 of 22 Page ID
`#:16324
`
`Third, GoTV failed to show that the “custom configuration is associated with
`an application.” (Tx 16). The “application” required by the claims is on the server.
`The “application” required by the claims is on the server.
`(Day 2 Tr. 209:12-14, 216:8-9, 222:7-16.) Thus, when Dr. Malek was asked what
`(Day 2 Tr. 209:12-14, 216:8-9, 222:7-16.)
`is “the application” his infringement opinion was formed upon, Dr. Malek
`confirmed it was “the Netflix application that is running on th[e] servers,” and not
`“the Netflix App” on a phone. (Day 2 Tr. 70:16-20.) But there was no proof that
`the alleged custom configuration identified by GoTV determined the look and feel
`associated with the backend on Netflix’s servers. (Day 2 Tr. 225:9-21.)
`Fourth, Dr. Malek never demonstrated that Netflix transmitted “compiled
`content” within the meaning of the patent, as opposed to sending information
`piecemeal in a series of transmissions. (Day 2 Tr. 79:6-17.) Thus, judgment of no
`literal infringement is also proper as to claim 4 of the ’715 patent.
`D.
`No Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
`GoTV presented no evidence of infringement under the Doctrine of
`Equivalents (DOE) for either the ’245 or ’715 patents, meriting judgment of non-
`infringement under an equivalence theory. GoTV was required to “provide
`particularized testimony and linking argument as to the ‘insubstantiality of the
`differences’ between the claimed invention and the accused device or process, or
`with respect to the function, way, result test … to support a finding of infringement
`under the doctrine of equivalents.” AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Sols., 479
`F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Absent any testimony or
`evidence on DOE, judgment of no infringement under DOE should be granted.
`E.
`No Substantial Evidence of Entitlement to Damages.
`GoTV failed to present competent evidence based on which a reasonable jury
`could award damages. GoTV bore the burden of proving damages. Lucent Techs.,
`Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “To properly carry this
`burden, the patentee must ‘sufficiently [tie the expert testimony on damages] to the
`facts of the case.’” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1315 (Fed.
`6
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF NETFLIX’S
`RULE 50(a) MOTION FOR JMOL
`
`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
`
`Page 3 of 3 (IPR2023-0075(cid:27))
`Netflix, Inc. v. GoTV Streaming, LLC
`
`