Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 25 PageID 596
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02824 JPM tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02825 JPM tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`)))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF B.E. TECHNOLOGY L.L.C.’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT
`CONTENTIONS AND STAY CERTAIN DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 25 PageID 597
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND FACTS ............................................................................ 1
`
`B.E.’S INITIAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS SATISFY THE
`REQUIREMENTS OF LPR 3.1 ........................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Law Governing The Disclosure Required By Initial Infringement
`Contentions ............................................................................................................ 3
`
`B.E.’S Initial Infringement Contentions Raise a Reasonable Inference That
`the Accused Products Infringe The ’290 Patent .................................................... 6
`
`III.
`
`THE DEFENDANTS’ CRITIQUE OF B.E.’S CONTENTIONS LACKS MERIT ....... 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`B.E. Adequately Discloses “User Profile” And “User-Selectable Items For
`User Links Contained Within The User Profile.” ................................................ 12
`
`B.E.’S Initial Infringement Contentions Adequately Disclose “User
`Library Containing One or More Files” And the “Server.” ................................. 13
`
`The Defendants’ Remaining Criticisms Have No Merit ...................................... 15
`
`B.E.’S CONTENTIONS REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
`COMPLY WITH LPR 3.1(E) .......................................................................................... 16
`
`THE COURT SHOULD ORDER THE PARTIES TO NEGOTIATE A
`REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCTS STIPULATION ...................................................... 18
`
`DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NON-
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
`PURSUANT TO LPR 3.3 AND 3.4 ................................................................................ 19
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 3 of 25 PageID 598
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Big Baboon Corp. v. Dell, Inc.,
`723 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................15
`
`Computer Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`503 F. Supp. 2d 819 (E.D. Tex. 2007) .......................................................................................5
`
`Creagri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc.,
`2012 WL 5389775 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) ........................................................................4, 5
`
`Keithley v. The Homestore.com, Inc.,
`553 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................17
`
`Nazomi Commcn’s, Inc. v. Nokia Corp.,
`2013 WL 3146796 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2013) .........................................................................17
`
`Network Caching Tech. LLC v. Novell, Inc.,
`2003 WL 21699799 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2003) ...................................................................4, 17
`
`Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, Inc.,
`2002 WL 32126128 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002) ......................................................................15
`
`Orion IP, LLC v. Staples, Inc.,
`407 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .......................................................................................5
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc.,
`2008 WL 5411564 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2008) .........................................................................17
`
`Renesas Tech. Corp. v. Nanya Tech. Corp.,
`2004 WL 26000466 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2004) ........................................................................5
`
`Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On Inc.,
`2013 WL 673718 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 25, 2013) .....................................................................4, 17
`
`Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`2011 WL 3878388 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011) ............................................................................4
`
`Shurtape Techs., LLC v. 3M Co.,
`2011 WL 4750586 (W.D. N.C. Oct. 7, 2011) ............................................................................5
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 25 PageID 599
`Case 2:12—cv—O2824—JPM—tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 4 of 25 Page|D 599
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`LPR 3 .............................................................................................................................................19
`LPR 3 ........................................................................................................................................... ..19
`
`LPR 3.1 .................................................................................................................................. passim
`LPR 3.1 ................................................................................................................................ .. passim
`
`LPR 3.1(e) ......................................................................................................................................16
`LPR 3.1(e) .................................................................................................................................... ..16
`
`LPR 3.2 ............................................................................................................................................1
`LPR 3.2 .......................................................................................................................................... ..1
`
`LPR 3.3 ................................................................................................................................2, 19, 20
`LPR 3.3 .............................................................................................................................. ..2, 19, 20
`
`LPR 3.4 ................................................................................................................................2, 19, 20
`LPR 3.4 .............................................................................................................................. ..2, 19, 20
`
`LPR 3.11 ........................................................................................................................................18
`LPR 3.11 ...................................................................................................................................... ..18
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`-iii -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 5 of 25 PageID 600
`
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) respectfully responds to defendants Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, LLC’s (“STA”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s
`
`(“SEA”) (together “the defendants”) motion to compel supplemental infringement contentions
`
`and stay certain discovery obligations. B.E. has complied with this District’s Local Patent Rules
`
`(“LPR”) to serve initial infringement contentions that provide reasonable notice of B.E.’s
`
`infringement theories. Rather than comply with their own disclosure obligations required by the
`
`LPR, the defendants urge this Court to hold B.E.’s initial infringement contentions to a higher
`
`standard not justified at this early stage of the case or contemplated by the LPR.
`
`The defendants surprisingly contend that they do not understand what in each of the
`
`accused products infringes the asserted patent. The defendants demonstrated at the initial case
`
`management conference a deep understanding of the asserted patent and why, they believe, their
`
`products do not infringe. Rather than further delay this action and mire B.E. in the
`
`supplementation of 178 claim charts, B.E. requests that the Court deny the defendants’ motion
`
`and order the case to proceed pursuant to the agreed upon, and now adopted by the Court, case
`
`schedule.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT BACKGROUND FACTS.
`
`B.E. filed its complaints in these actions on September 21, 2012. See STA D.E. 1; SEA
`
`D.E. 1. B.E. accuses the defendants of infringing at least claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290
`
`(“’290 patent”), entitled Computer Interface Method and Apparatus with Portable Network
`
`Organization System and Targeted Advertising. Id. B.E.’s complaint includes a non-exhaustive
`
`list of accused products that include the infringing features. Id.
`
`On December 31, 2013, the defendants filed Answers denying infringement of any claim
`
`of the ’290 patent. STA D.E. 22; SEA D.E. 26. On January 7, 2013, B.E. timely served initial
`
`infringement contentions and produced documents as required by LPR 3.1 and 3.2. B.E. accused
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 6 of 25 PageID 601
`
`
`178 of the defendants’ products, including, inter alia, smart TVs, smartphones, tablet computers,
`
`notebook computers, and smart home theater systems. The claim charts, which comprised a
`
`substantial part of the required LPR 3.1 disclosure, contained more than 10,000 pages. Though
`
`large in number, the accused products share common features that are the subject of this case,
`
`namely by providing users of the accused devices access, over a network, to information
`
`resources in the user’s library associated with the user’s profile.
`
`The claim charts contain, on an element by element basis, B.E.’s contentions for why
`
`each accused product infringes the ’290 patent. The charts include both written explanations of
`
`how the accused products meet the claim limitations and images depicting the accused products
`
`in various states of operation that B.E. contends meet the claim limitations. For example,
`
`retrieving a user’s profile from a server, and selecting links within the user’s profile to access
`
`such information resources as music or books within the user’s libraries of music or books.
`
`On January 18, 2013, the defendants sent B.E. a letter complaining that the initial
`
`infringement contentions were so devoid of necessary information that it is “difficult to
`
`impossible for Samsung to prepare its Initial Non-infringement Contentions and produce the
`
`accompanying documents as required by Local Patent Rules 3.3 and 3.4.” Olaniran Decl.1 Ex. 1
`
`at 2. On January 30, 2013, B.E. responded and explained in detail how B.E.’s initial
`
`infringement contentions satisfy the requirements of LPR 3.1. Olaniran Decl. Ex. 2.
`
`On February 8, 2013, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to stay these actions
`
`pending resolution of the defendants’ motions to transfer venue from the Western District of
`
`Tennessee to the District of New Jersey, or alternatively, to the Northern District of California.
`
`
`1 “Olaniran Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Qudus B. Olaniran in Support of Plaintiff B.E.
`Technology L.L.C’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Compel
`Supplemental Infringement Contentions and Stay Certain Discovery Obligations.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 7 of 25 PageID 602
`
`
`STA D.E. 33; SEA D.E. 37. The stay tabled the parties’ discussion of the sufficiency of B.E.’s
`
`initial infringement contentions.
`
`On July 12, 2013, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to transfer venue and lifted
`
`the stays. STA D.E. 43; SEA D.E. 47. On July 15, 2013, the parties resumed their meet and
`
`confer regarding B.E.’s contentions. Olaniran Decl. Ex. 3. While B.E. maintained that its initial
`
`infringement contentions comply with LPR 3.1, B.E. made a mutually beneficial proposal to the
`
`defendants: B.E. would agree to supplement its contentions if the defendants agreed to a
`
`representative products stipulation based on the number of essentially identical products (for
`
`purposes of infringement) at issue. Olaniran Decl. Ex. 4. B.E. identified representative product
`
`categories and offered to supplement the infringement chart of each representative product from
`
`each product category. The defendants declined to make such an agreement and, on July 23,
`
`2013, filed this motion.
`
`Shortly before that, on July 19, 2013, the parties agreed to a proposed case schedule that
`
`was submitted to the Court in advance of the July 26 initial case management conference. The
`
`parties agreed that the deadline for serving of initial non-infringement contentions would be 30
`
`days from the last order denying any motion to transfer, and that the deadline for serving initial
`
`invalidity and unenforceability contentions would be 60 days after the last order. SEA D.E. 56,
`
`STA D.E. 52. The proposed schedule was adopted by the Court. SEA D.E. 56, STA D.E. 52.
`
`II.
`
`B.E.’S INITIAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS SATISFY THE
`REQUIREMENTS OF LPR 3.1.
`
`A.
`
`Law Governing The Disclosure Required By Initial Infringement
`Contentions.
`
`Initial infringement contentions are intended to provide defendants fair notice of the
`
`nature of the plaintiff’s infringement claims. This Court recently confirmed that initial
`
`infringement contentions should provide “reasonable notice to the defendant why the plaintiff
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 8 of 25 PageID 603
`
`
`believes it has a reasonable chance of proving infringement and raise a reasonable inference that
`
`all accused products infringe.” Olaniran Decl. Ex. 5 (Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings,
`
`Inc. v. MSC Marketing and Tech., Inc., 2:12-cv-02112-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. July 23, 2013)
`
`(quoting Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 2013 WL 633406, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb.
`
`20, 2013))). The Court also explained that “[i]nfringement contentions are not intended to
`
`require a party to set forth a prima facie case of infringement and evidence in support thereof.”
`
`Id. (quoting Realtime Data, LLC v. Packeteer, Inc., 2009 WL 2590101, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18,
`
`2009)); see also, e.g., Robert Bosch LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 2013 WL 673718 at *3 (E.D. Mich.
`
`Feb. 25, 2013).
`
`“[Preliminary infringement contentions] are not meant to provide a forum for litigation of
`
`the substantive issues; they are merely designed to streamline the discovery process . . . .”
`
`Network Caching Tech. LLC v. Novell, Inc., 2003 WL 21699799, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21,
`
`2003) (“Network Caching II”) (“Patent LR 3-1 [does not] require that [plaintiff’s] preliminary
`
`infringement theories be incontrovertible or presented in excruciating detail.”). Indeed, “there is
`
`no requirement that [plaintiff] thoroughly present and successfully defend its theories of
`
`infringement in the confines of a PIC chart.” Id. Rather, “all courts agree that the specificity
`
`under Local Rule 3-1 must be sufficient to provide reasonable notice to the defendant why the
`
`plaintiff believes it has a ‘reasonable chance of proving infringement.’” Shared Memory
`
`Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc., 2011 WL 3878388, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2011)) (quoting View
`
`Eng’g, Inc. v. Robotic Vision Sys., Inc., 208 F. 3d 981, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Use of the accused
`
`infringer’s advertising materials is sufficient evidence for initial infringement contentions
`
`because patentees are not required to prove infringement through initial contentions, just raise a
`
`reasonable inference that the accused products infringe. See Creagri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc.,
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 9 of 25 PageID 604
`
`
`2012 WL 5389775, at *2-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (finding reliance on advertising materials
`
`sufficient).
`
`LPR 3.1 requires B.E. to “provide specific theories of infringement and representative
`
`examples of the alleged infringement so as to give defendants fair notice of the infringement
`
`beyond that which is provided by the mere language of the patent claims themselves.” Orion IP,
`
`LLC v. Staples, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 2d 815, 817 (E.D. Tex. 2006). As the LPR contemplate,
`
`B.E.’s infringement contentions are initial. The initial infringement contentions are intended to
`
`notify a defendant at the early stages of a case of the nature and scope of a plaintiff’s
`
`infringement contention in light of the publicly available information about the accused products.
`
`B.E.’s initial infringement contentions do just that.
`
`As explained next, B.E. identified how the defendants’ accused products infringe each
`
`asserted claim and provided as much specificity as possible, using publicly-available
`
`information, see Shurtape Techs., LLC v. 3M Co., 2011 WL 4750586, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Oct. 7,
`
`2011) (recognizing the need “to distinguish the requirements of initial infringement contentions
`
`from later stages in litigation”) (citations omitted), to show where each claim limitation is found
`
`in the accused products. B.E. provided separate claim charts for each accused product, even
`
`though the LPR does not impose such a requirement. Computer Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 503 F. Supp. 2d 819, 823 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (explaining a party “is not required to make
`
`separate charts where the infringement contentions are identical for each accused product.”); see
`
`also Renesas Tech. Corp. v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 2004 WL 26000466, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10,
`
`2004) (“[T]he text of Patent L.R 3.1(c) only requires ‘a chart identifying specifically where each
`
`element of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality,’ and not a separate
`
`chart for each individual product.”).
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 10 of 25 PageID 605
`
`
`B.
`
`B.E.’S Initial Infringement Contentions Raise a Reasonable Inference That
`the Accused Products Infringe The ’290 Patent.
`
`The defendants contend that B.E.’s initial infringement contentions fail to comply with
`
`LPR 3.1 because B.E. does not “identify where in any of the accused Samsung products most of
`
`the limitations of claim 2 of the ’290 patent exist.” SEA D.E. 502 at 6. This is not true. B.E.’s
`
`initial infringement contentions include written descriptions and images that identify where each
`
`limitation of the asserted claims is found in each of the accused products. To illustrate this point,
`
`B.E. will explain how its contentions disclose the way in which the Google-Samsung Galaxy
`
`Nexus smartphone (one of the defendants’ accused products) infringes claim 2 of the ’290
`
`patent.3 The ’290 patent provides as follows:
`
`2. A computer-readable memory for use by a client computer in
`conjunction with a server that is accessible by the client computer
`via a network, the server storing a user profile and user library for
`each of a number of different users, with the user library
`containing one or more files and the user profile containing at least
`one user link that provides a, link to one of the files in the user
`library, the computer readable memory comprising:
`
`a non-volatile data storage device;
`
`a program stored on said non-volatile data storage device in a
`computer-readable format;
`
`said program being operable upon execution to display a graphical
`user interface comprising an application window having a number
`of user-selectable items displayed therein, wherein each of said
`items has associated with it a link to an information resource
`accessible via the network and wherein said program is operable
`upon execution and in response to selection by a user of one of
`said items to access the associated information resource over the
`network;
`
`
`2 Because the Motions to Compel of STA and SEA are identical, B.E. will refer to the Motion to
`Compel on SEA’s docket, Civil Case No. 12-2825, at D.E. 50.
`3 B.E.’s infringement contentions for the Google-Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone are
`exemplary of the other claim charts.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 11 of 25 PageID 606
`
`
`said program being operable upon execution to receive from server
`one of the user profiles and to display a user-selectable item for
`user links contained within the user profile, said program further
`being operable in response to selection by a user of one of the user
`links to access the file associated with the selected user link from
`the user library associated with the received user profile.
`
`’290 patent, Col. 39:1-40:10.
`
`B.E. begins by contending that the Nexus smartphone is a “client computer” that uses its
`
`“computer readable memory in conjunction with a server” that is accessible “via a network.”
`
`Olaniran Decl. Ex. 6 Google-Samsung Galaxy Nexus Chart, p. 1 (“The accused device is a client
`
`computer. The accused device includes a computer-readable memory for use by the accused
`
`device in conjunction with a server that is accessible . . . via a network.”). Next, B.E. links the
`
`claimed elements “user profile” and “user library” to the accused device by stating:
`
`“[A] user of a Google-Samsung Nexus Android smartphone is
`provided with a Google Account. The user may use his or her
`Google Account to access his or her Google user profile stored in a
`server accessible via a network using, for example, WiFi, CDMA,
`GSM, HSPA, or LTE. The user’s user profile in the server
`contains one or more user links that provide links to one or more
`files (e.g., music files, books, magazines, TV shows, movies, apps)
`in the user’s library in the server.”
`
`Id. This statement clearly sets forth B.E.’s contention that the “Google Account” meets the “user
`
`profile” limitation. Further, the statement explains B.E.’s contention that the user’s “music files,
`
`books, magazine, TV shows, movies, [and] apps” constitute the “one or more files” that are
`
`contained within the user’s library, and that links within the user’s profile enable access to those
`
`“one or more files.” Moreover, the statement discloses the specific methods by which the user
`
`may access the profile over the network: “WiFi, CDMA, GSM, HSPA, or LTE.”
`
`B.E. next includes images from the defendants’ advertising materials for the Nexus
`
`smartphone describing the Google Play software that is installed on the device and how it
`
`provides a user access to his or her “apps and entertainment anywhere you go,” whether from a
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 12 of 25 PageID 607
`
`
`“tablet, phone, or on the web.” Id. at 4 (“Buy a song on the web and listen to it on your phone,
`
`or start reading a book on your laptop and pick up right you left off on your tablet.”). These
`
`statements evidence B.E.’s contention that the applications are stored on servers, as required by
`
`the claim language, because the applications can be accessed from multiple devices. The role of
`
`the server in the operation of programs executed by the Nexus smartphone is clear from the
`
`promotional material quoted in the initial infringement contentions.
`
`The next claim limitation is “a non-volatile data storage device.” Here, B.E. states that
`
`the Nexus device has “a non-volatile data storage device.” Id. at 4. Below that statement, B.E.
`
`includes excerpts from publicly available specifications for the Nexus smartphones showing the
`
`internal memory. See id. at 4-5 (“MEMORY 16 GB Internal Storage (actual formatted capacity
`
`will be less) 1 GB RAM”). The memory storage is “non-volatile,” meaning stored data is
`
`retained when the smartphone is powered off.
`
`The next limitation in claim 2 of the ’290 patent is “a program stored on said non-volatile
`
`data storage device in a computer-readable format.” B.E. explains that the Nexus smartphone
`
`contains a program, including identifying by name the programs, stored on the above mentioned
`
`non-volatile data storage device in a computer-readable format. Id. at 6 (“The Google-Samsung
`
`Nexus smartphone includes a program, YouTube, Google Play or Android Market, stored on said
`
`non-volatile data storage device in a computer-readable format.”). B.E. then includes a screen
`
`shot of one of those programs, Google Play, in operation. Id. at 7 (identifying the program,
`
`“Google Play,” at the top of the screen). The next page shows a screen shot of the YouTube
`
`program in operation. Id. at 8. As will be discussed further below, the Google Play and
`
`YouTube screen shots include a number of “links” that access information in a user’s library
`
`when selected by the user.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 13 of 25 PageID 608
`
`
`The next claim limitation is “said program being operable upon execution to display a
`
`graphical user interface comprising an application window having a number of user-selectable
`
`items displayed therein, wherein each of said items has associated with it a link to an information
`
`resource accessible via the network and wherein said program is operable upon execution and in
`
`response to selection by a user of one of said items to access the associated information resource
`
`over the network.” B.E. states that:
`
`The Google Play, YouTube or Android Market is operable upon
`execution to display a graphical user interface comprising an
`application window having a number of user-selectable items
`displayed therein, wherein each of said items has associated with it
`a link to an information resource accessible via the network and
`wherein the Google Play, YouTube, or Android Market is operable
`upon execution and in response to selection by a user of one of
`said items to access the associated information resource over the
`network.
`
`Id. at 9. While this statement incorporates the claim language, B.E. immediately provides
`
`images to substantiate the contentions contains therein. First, B.E. includes images of Google
`
`Play showing user selectable items on the “Apps” page, id. at 10, user selectable items on the
`
`“Books” page, id. at 11, user selectable items on the “Magazines” page, id. at 12, user selectable
`
`items on the “Music” page, id. at 13, and user selectable items on the “Movies & TV” page. Id.
`
`at 14.
`
`The claim chart also shows that YouTube is operable to show a number of user selectable
`
`items on the “YouTube Autos” page, including the titles (a) “Warm | Under the Blue Arch |
`
`Chevrolet,” (b) “2014 Audi R8: Now With a Proper Gearbox? – Ignition …,” and (c) “Driving
`
`Debut: Porsche Panamera Sport Turismo.” Id. at 15. The next page of the chart shows the Audi
`
`R8 video—which was one of the three videos displayed on the preceding screen capture—
`
`playing at the 3:17 mark. Id. at 16. The chart thus contains images showing all of the elements
`
`of the claim limitation, from the software programs displaying an “interface” containing “user
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 14 of 25 PageID 609
`
`
`selectable items,” to the items having a link to “information resource accessible via the network.”
`
`See also id. at 17-18 (showing publicly-available specifications for the Nexus smartphone
`
`describing the network connectivity).
`
`The last claim limitation of claim 2 of the ’290 patent is “said program being operable
`
`upon execution to receive from server one of the user profiles and to display a user-selectable
`
`item for user links contained within the user profile, said program further being operable in
`
`response to selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file associated with the
`
`selected user link from the user library associated with the received user profile.” For this
`
`limitation, B.E. states that “Google Play, YouTube, or Android Market is operable upon
`
`execution to receive from server one of the user profiles (e.g., Google Account profile) and to
`
`display a user-selectable item for user links contained within the user profile.” Id. at 18. B.E.
`
`then includes Google Play images showing the user’s “My Apps” page displaying links to three
`
`applications: “Baseball Superstars 2012,” “TripIt Travel Organizer No-Ad,” and “Zinio.” Id. at
`
`19. Next, an image of the user’s books is shown with links to two books: “The Exploits of
`
`Arsène Lupin” and “Arsene Lupin Versus Herlock Sholmes.” Id. at 20; see also id. at 21-23
`
`(showing links for the user’s magazine’s (Newsweek), music (Gangnam Style), and movies (The
`
`Bourne Legacy)).
`
`The claim chart then includes images from the YouTube software program, including the
`
`user profile, identified by the user name “hhlin630ify,” and containing user selectable links to
`
`“History,” “Uploads,” “Favorites,” “Playlists,” and “Watch later.” Id. at 24. The next image
`
`shows the selection of the “History” link, which contains more links to a number of videos,
`
`including “How to take Samsung Galaxy Note 2 Screen Shot/Captur…” (which was useful in
`
`preparing B.E.’s charts), and the previously mentioned “2014 Audi R8: Now With a Proper
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 15 of 25 PageID 610
`
`
`Gearbox? – Ignition …” video. Id. at 25; see also id. at 26-28 (showing images reflecting the
`
`selection of the “Favorites,” “Playlists,” and “Watch later” links within the user’s profile).
`
`After these series of screen shots, B.E. states “Google Play, YouTube, or Android Market
`
`is operable in response to selection by a user of one of the user links to access the file (e.g., apps,
`
`books, magazines, music files, TV shows, movies, etc.) associated with the selected user link
`
`from the user library associated with the received user profile.” Id. at 28. It is clear that a
`
`particular user’s library of information, such as, apps, books, and music, is associated with a
`
`user’s profile.
`
`The Nexus smartphone claim chart then includes images of screen shots that show what
`
`happens when the previously identified links from the user’s library are selected. Id. at 29-30
`
`(showing the selection of “Zinio” from “My Apps”); 31 (displaying “The Exploits of Arsène
`
`Lupin” from the user’s books library); 32 (displaying Newsweek from the user’s magazine
`
`library); 33 (playing “Gangnam Style” from the user’s music library); 34 (watching “The Bourne
`
`Legacy” from the user’s movie library); 35 (watching the “Audi R8” video on YouTube).
`
`The foregoing explanation of the representative Galaxy Nexus claim chart establishes
`
`that B.E.’s initial infringement contentions provide more than reasonable notice of B.E.’s
`
`infringement theories. The defendants’ selective citations to B.E.’s claim charts, as discussed in
`
`the next section, do not change the fact that B.E.’s initial infringement contentions are sufficient
`
`under the LPR. B.E.’s initial infringement contentions raise a reasonable inference that all of the
`
`accused products infringe the asserted claims of the ’290 patent.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp Document 53 Filed 08/09/13 Page 16 of 25 PageID 611
`
`
`III. THE DEFENDANTS’ CRITIQUE OF B.E.’S CONTENTIONS LACKS MERIT.
`
`A.
`
`B.E. Adequately Discloses “User Profile” And “User-Selectable Items For
`User Links Contained Within The User Profile.”
`
`The defendants contend that B.E. did not adequately identify the “user profile” in the
`
`accused products. SEA D.E. 50 at7. But the defendants’ own comments evidence an
`
`understanding that the “user profile” is the “Google Account” and “Samsung Account.” Id. at 7
`
`(“B.E. Tech. merely uses the phrases ‘Google Account’ and ‘Samsung Account’ to modify the
`
`words ‘user profile,’ but does not tell Samsung what the ‘user profile’ and ‘user-selectable items
`
`for user links’ contained within the user profile are, or where they may be found in the accused
`
`products.”). As discussed above, the claim chart for the Nexus Smartphone states “a user of a
`
`Google-Samsung Galaxy Nexus Android-based smartphone is provided with a Google Account.
`
`The user may use his or her Google Account to access his or her Google user profile stored in a