Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 36 PageID #:
`10146
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 1 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10147
`
`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
`
`
`
`STACY YAE (S.B. #315663)
`syae@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope St., 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone:
`(213) 430-6000
`
`
`
`
`DARIN W. SNYDER (S.B. #136003)
`dsnyder@omm.com
`LUANN L. SIMMONS (S.B. #203526)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`DAVID S. ALMELING (S.B. #235449)
`dalmeling@omm.com
`MARK LIANG (S.B. #278487)
`mliang@omm.com
`BILL TRAC (S.B. #281437)
`btrac@omm.com
`AMY K. LIANG (S.B. #291910)
`aliang@omm.com
`SORIN G. ZAHARIA (S.B. #312655)
`szaharia@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 984-8700
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Google LLC and Waze
`Mobile Ltd.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Case No. 5:22-cv-04826-BLF
`(Consolidated case)
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Date: September 7, 2023
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`Courtroom: 3, Fifth Floor
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Complaint Filed: November 4, 2019
`
`v.
`
`WAZE MOBILE LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 2 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 3 of 36 PageID #:
`
`10148
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ..................................... 2
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 2
`A.
`AGIS’s Asserted Patents And Claims ...................................................................... 2
`B.
`Accused Google Software Applications .................................................................. 5
`1.
`Find My Device (“FMD”) ............................................................................ 5
`2.
`Google Maps Mobile (“GMM”) .................................................................. 6
`The Accused Waze Products .................................................................................... 8
`1.
`The Waze Application (“Waze App”) ......................................................... 8
`2.
`Waze Carpool ............................................................................................. 10
`D. Waze Had No Pre-Suit Knowledge Of The Asserted Patents ................................ 10
`E.
`The Asserted Patents’ Priority Chain ..................................................................... 10
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 12
`GOOGLE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED PATENTS .................................. 12
`FMD And GMM Do Not Infringe Any Asserted Claim Because They Do
`A.
`Not Meet The “group” Limitations ........................................................................ 12
`1.
`FMD ........................................................................................................... 13
`2.
`GMM .......................................................................................................... 13
`FMD and GMM Do Not Infringe The ’251, ’838, Or ’123 Patents Or ’829
`Patent, Claims 41, 60 Because They Do Not Meet “sending data”
`Limitations ............................................................................................................. 15
`1.
`FMD ........................................................................................................... 15
`2.
`GMM .......................................................................................................... 16
`GMM Does Not Infringe The ’829 Patent Because GMM Does Not Meet
`The “remote control” Limitations .......................................................................... 17
`VI. WAZE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE ’829 OR ’123 PATENT........................................ 17
`A.
`The Accused Waze Products Do Not Meet The “group” Limitations ................... 17
`B.
`AGIS’s Infringement Theories Address Only The “joining” Aspect Of The
`“group” Limitations And Have No Merit .............................................................. 19
`Opening The Waze App Or Waze Carpool Does Not Satisfy The
`1.
`“request to join a group” Limitations ......................................................... 20
`A Request To Download The Waze App Or Waze Carpool Is Not A
`“request to join a group” Or A “message relate[d] to joining a
`group” ......................................................................................................... 20
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`2.
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 3 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 4 of 36 PageID #:
`
`10149
`
`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
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Sharing A Location With Friends Or Contacts In The Waze App Or
`Waze Carpool Does Not “join a group” ..................................................... 21
`Because There Is No “group” In Waze Carpool, Riders/Drivers
`Cannot Be Invited To Join A “group”........................................................ 22
`VII. THE ASSERTED PATENTS ARE ANTICIPATED BY THE ’724 PATENT ................ 22
`A.
`The ’410 Application Fails To Incorporate The ’724 Patent ................................. 24
`B.
`The ’410 Application Does Not Support The Asserted Claims’ Limitation
`Of Receiving Georeferenced Maps From A Server ............................................... 25
`The ’724 Patent Antedates And Anticipates The Asserted Claims ........................ 29
`C.
`VIII. WAZE CANNOT BE A WILLFUL INFRINGER ............................................................ 29
`IX.
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 4 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 5 of 36 PageID #:
`
`10150
`
`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
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 28
`
`Page
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 29
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 12
`
`Exigent Tech., Inc. v. Atrana Sols., Inc.,
`442 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................... 20, 22
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ....................................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................... 23, 26
`
`In re De Seversky,
`474 F.2d 671 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ................................................................................................. 25
`
`In re Hogan,
`559 F.2d 595 (C.C.P.A. 1977) ................................................................................................. 23
`
`In re Lund,
`376 F.2d 982 (C.C.P.A. 1967) ................................................................................................. 25
`
`Ledergerber Med. Innovations, LLC v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.,
`736 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ..................................................................................... 25
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ 28
`
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 24
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. ON Semiconductor Corp.,
`No. 5:16-cv-06371-BLF (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2019) .................................................................. 30
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 23
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................ 30
`
`Zenon Env’t, Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................... 23, 24, 29
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 5 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 6 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10151
`
`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
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on September 7, 2023, in Courtroom 3, Fifth Floor, of the
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, located at
`
`280 South First Street, San Jose, California, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, a
`
`hearing will be held by the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman, United States District Judge, on
`
`Defendants Google LLC (“Google”) and Waze Mobile Ltd. (“Waze”)’s Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment.
`
`Google moves the Court for summary judgment that (1) Google does not infringe the
`
`asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (“’251 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (“’838
`
`Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (“’829 Patent”), or U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123 (“’123 Patent”);
`
`and (2) the asserted claims of the ’251 Patent, ’838 Patent, ’829 Patent, and ’123 Patent are invalid
`
`as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (“’724 Patent”). The ’251, ’838, ’829, and ’123 Patents
`
`are collectively referred to herein as the “Asserted Patents.”1
`
`Waze moves the Court for summary judgment (1) that Waze does not infringe the asserted
`
`claims of the ’829 Patent or ’123 Patent; (2) that the asserted claims of the ’829 Patent and ’123
`
`Patent are invalid as anticipated by the ’724 Patent; and (3) that Waze cannot be found to have
`
`willfully infringed the asserted claims of any Asserted Patent.
`
`This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities,2 the
`
`accompanying declaration of Mark Liang, the pleadings and records on file in this action, and such
`
`other written and/or oral arguments as may be presented at or before the time this Motion is taken
`
`under submission by the Court.
`
`
`
`
`1 Google has filed a separate Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the one additional asserted patent
`
`not addressed in this motion, U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970. ECF 425.
`
`2 The Court permitted Defendants an additional five (5) pages, or thirty (30) pages total, for their
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities. ECF 428 (3/1/23 Hr’g Tr.) at 15:7-15.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 6 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 7 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10152
`
`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 OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AGIS filed this action over three years ago, initially asserting 266 claims across six patents.
`
`But AGIS’s assertions against Google and Waze have now been reduced to 44 claims across five
`
`patents. Through claim construction, fact and expert discovery, dispositive motions, and
`
`preparation for the previously impending trial in the Eastern District of Texas, the relevant facts
`
`concerning the accused products are now undisputed, as is the interpretation of the remaining
`
`claims. This case is, thus, ripe for summary judgment.
`
`The Asserted Patents are directed to fundamentally different uses and applications from
`
`those provided by the accused Google and Waze products, and, as a result, the accused products do
`
`not infringe any asserted claims. The patents’ stated goal is to help first responders, military, and
`
`emergency personnel responding to emergencies or threats by forming “ad hoc groups” of users
`
`who can see each other’s real-time locations and coordinate their activities. The accused Google
`
`products—Find My Device (“FMD”) and Google Maps Mobile (“GMM”)—and Waze products—
`
`Waze app and Waze Carpool—by contrast, are consumer applications that do not allow forming
`
`“ad hoc groups” but instead provide users with functionality such as finding a lost device (FMD),
`
`navigating a route (GMM and Waze app), and booking carpool rides (Waze Carpool).
`
`Reflecting these fundamental differences, FMD, GMM, Waze app, and Waze Carpool do
`
`not practice several limitations of the Asserted Patents: First, none of the four accused applications
`
`have or support the use of “groups” at all, much less “groups” that allow members to share locations
`
`bidirectionally—key requirements of all asserted claims. Second, FMD and GMM do not allow
`
`one device to “send data” to another device by tapping a symbol corresponding to that other device
`
`on the screen, as required by nearly all asserted claims. Third, GMM does not permit one device
`
`to “remotely control” another device, as required by the asserted claims of the ’829 Patent. Because
`
`the evidence is clear that the accused products operate in fundamentally different ways than the
`
`claimed invention, this Court should grant summary judgment of non-infringement.
`
`The evidence is equally clear that the Asserted Patents are invalid as anticipated by their
`
`ancestor, U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (“’724 Patent”), to which they all purport to claim priority.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`CASE NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 7 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 8 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10153
`
`There is no dispute that the ’724 Patent discloses every limitation of the asserted claims. The sole
`
`dispute is whether the Asserted Patents cannot properly claim priority back to the ’724 Patent due
`
`to a broken priority chain. As a matter of law, for the Asserted Patents to claim priority to the ’724
`
`Patent, every intervening application filed between them must provide written description support
`
`for the Asserted Patents’ claims. But the record irrefutably shows that the Asserted Patents do not
`
`meet this continuity of disclosure requirement. The intervening applications that followed the ’724
`
`Patent—including U.S. Application No. 14/027,410 (“’410 Application”)—do not include written
`
`description support for the Asserted Patents’ claims and fail to incorporate the ’724 Patent by
`
`reference. As a result, the ’724 Patent is prior art to, and anticipates, all claims.
`
`Finally, because it is undisputed that Waze had no pre-suit knowledge of the ’829 or ’123
`
`Patents, this Court should grant summary judgment of no willful infringement by Waze.
`
`II.
`
`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`Whether Google does not infringe any Asserted Patent because FMD and GMM do not
`
`satisfy the “group” limitations and other limitations required by all claims asserted against Google.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Waze does not infringe the ’829 or ’123 Patent because the Waze app and Waze
`
`Carpool do not satisfy the “group” limitations required by all claims asserted against Waze.
`
`3.
`
`Whether the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are anticipated by the ’724 Patent
`
`because the Asserted Patents’ priority claim to the ’724 Patent is broken by intervening applications
`
`that fail to provide written description support for the claims.
`
`4.
`
`Whether Waze cannot be found to have willfully infringed the ’829 or ’123 Patent because
`
`it is undisputed Waze had no pre-suit knowledge of either patent.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`AGIS’s Asserted Patents And Claims
`
`The Asserted Patents share the same specification and are directed to forming “ad hoc”
`
`groups of mobile devices. Ex. 4 (’829) at Abstract. Users can join an ad hoc group by entering a
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 8 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 9 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10154
`
`group or “event name” and a “password,” without users needing to know or
`
`enter other users’ “names, telephone numbers or Email addresses.” Id. at
`
`5:23-24, 11:10-14. After joining, group participants can share and view each
`
`other’s locations on a map interface on their device screens, as shown in
`
`Figure 1 to the right. Id. at 6:14-58. Using the map interface, participants
`
`can send “data (a text message . . . or chat)” to other participants by “touching
`
`his or her symbol” on the map. Id. at 11:19-23.
`
`The specification explains that ad hoc groups are useful for “emergency groups, police, fire
`
`personal [sic], military, first responders and other groups [that] need to be able to set up ad hoc
`
`digital and voice networks easily and rapidly.” Id. at 10:35-37. The specification gives an example
`
`of firefighters forming an emergency group with the name “Katrina Fire” and coordinating their
`
`locations and activities in response to a fire. Id. at 12:15-41.
`
`AGIS asserts the following claims of the Asserted Patents against Google (“Asserted
`
`Google Claims”) and Waze (“Asserted Waze Claims”) (collectively, “Asserted Claims”):
`
`
`
`The Asserted Claims include four categories of claim limitations relevant to this Motion,
`
`listed below. Exhibit 1 to this Motion is a claim chart that excerpts the full language of these
`
`limitations in each of the Asserted Claims.
`
`1.
`
`“group” (all Asserted Claims; relevant to non-infringement; see Ex. 1, § I):
`
`These limitations require that a user’s device receive a “message” or “request” to join a “group” of
`
`other users’ devices and that each device in the “group” share “location information” with other
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`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
`
`Independent Claims From Which Asserted
`Patent Asserted Claims (independent
`Dependent Claims Depend
`claims emphasized)
`Asserted Google Claims (asserted against FMD and GMM)
`24, 29, 35
`24
`1, 5, 10, 19, 27, 38, 40
`1
`8, 20, 27, 34, 41, 60
`1, 34, 35
`16, 17, 22, 37, 41
`1, 14, 36
`Asserted Waze Claims (asserted against Waze App and Waze Carpool)
`1, 4, 16, 20, 24, 27, 32, 34, 38, 41, 45,
`1, 34, 35
`50, 60, 67
`1, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 34, 36, 37,
`41, 46, 48
`
`’251
`’838
`’829
`’123
`
`’829
`
`’123
`
`1, 14, 23, 36
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 9 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 10 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10155
`
`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
`
`users’ devices in the “group.” As one example, the ’123 Patent, Claim 1 recites: “performing, by
`
`a first device: receiving a message sent by a second device, wherein the message relates to joining
`
`a group.” Claim 1 then recites that after the first device joins the group, it must both “send” its
`
`location to other devices in the group and “receive” the locations of those other devices, via a server.
`
`[first device] sending first location information to a first server and receiving
`
`second location information from the first server, the first location information
`
`comprising a location of the first device, the second location information comprising
`
`one or more locations of one or more respective second devices included in the
`
`group;
`
`This explicitly requires that the location sharing be bidirectional: each user’s device must
`
`both send and receive location information with other users’ devices in the “group.” In this manner,
`
`and consistent with the specification’s description and depiction in Figure 1, each user can access
`
`and view the locations of other users in the “group.”
`
`The term “group” has been construed to mean: “more than two participants associated
`
`together.” ECF 147 at 11. AGIS’s expert, Mr. McAlexander, conceded that within the
`
`construction, a “participant” is a “user” of a mobile device. Ex. 6 (McAlexander Dep. Tr.) at 88:25-
`
`89:4. Thus, the “group” limitations require (1) joining a group of more than two users with devices
`
`and (2) sharing location information bidirectionally among them.
`
`2.
`
`“sending data” to “selected” devices (all claims of ’251, ’838, ’123 Patents and
`
`Claims 41 and 60 of the ’829 Patent; relevant to non-infringement; see Ex. 1, § II): These
`
`limitations require that a user select a symbol on a map corresponding to another device and then
`
`“send data” to the selected device. As one example, Claim 1 of the ’838 Patent recites:
`
`identifying user interaction with the interactive display selecting one or more of the
`
`second set of user selectable symbols corresponding to one or more of the second
`
`devices and positioned on the second georeferenced map . . . and, based thereon,
`
`sending third data to the selected one or more second devices . . .
`
`3.
`
`“remote control” (all claims of ’829 Patent; relevant to non-infringement; see
`
`Ex. 1, § III): These limitations require that a “first device” engage in “remote control operations”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 10 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 11 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10156
`
`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
`
`with other devices. For example, Claim 1 of the ’829 Patent recites: “authorizing the first device
`
`to repeatedly share device location information and repeatedly engage in remote control
`
`operations with each device included in the group.”
`
`4.
`
`“georeferenced map” from “server” (all Asserted Claims; relevant to
`
`invalidity; see Ex. 1, § IV): These limitations require that a device receive a “georeferenced map”
`
`(or “georeferenced map data”) from a “server.” As one example, the ’829 Patent’s Claim 35 (from
`
`which asserted Claims 41 and 60 depend) recites that a “second device” “receiv[es], from a second
`
`server, georeferenced map data.” The specification explains that a “georeferenced map” is a map
`
`with additional data correlating the “x and y coordinates” on the screen to real-world latitude and
`
`longitude positions. Ex. 4 (’829) at 7:2-8.
`
`B.
`
`Accused Google Software Applications
`
`1.
`
`Find My Device (“FMD”)
`
`As its name suggests, FMD allows a single user to find that user’s own device(s), such as a
`
`smartphone. Ex. 7 (Wolfe Rebuttal) ¶¶ 74-75. To use FMD, the device a user is trying to locate
`
`must be connected to the user’s Google account (e.g., via a Gmail address), and the user must sign
`
`into that account. Id. ¶¶ 73, 509. If a user has multiple devices, a user can sign into their Google
`
`account through any of those devices. Id. ¶ 510. Because FMD is a single user application, the
`
`locations of a user’s devices are accessible only to that user through his or her Google account. The
`
`locations of a user’s devices
`
`cannot be accessed by other
`
`users. Id. ¶ 75. The screenshot
`
`on the left shows the user
`
`interface
`
`for FMD
`
`after
`
`opening the application and
`
`logging in. As shown, FMD
`
`displays icons corresponding
`
`to one or more of the user’s
`
`devices above the map, with three devices shown in this example. Id. ¶ 599; Ex. 9 (McAlexander
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 11 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 12 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10157
`
`Google) Attach. D at D-a415; see also Ex. 8 (McAlexander Google) Attach. C at C-a103. When
`
`the user selects an icon above the map for one of the devices (e.g., the phone icon), a green symbol
`
`showing the location of the selected device appears on the map, and a menu of options with respect
`
`to the selected device appears below the map. Ex. 7 (Wolfe Rebuttal) ¶ 599. As shown in the
`
`screenshot on the right, selecting the symbol for a device on the map displays the device’s
`
`remaining battery capacity and wireless signal strength. Ex. 14 (AGIS-GOOGLE00001445).
`
`Selecting the symbol does not send data to the corresponding device. Ex. 7 (Wolfe Rebuttal) ¶ 599.
`
`2.
`
`Google Maps Mobile (“GMM”)
`
`GMM is an application that provides mapping and navigation. Id. ¶ 80. It also allows a
`
`user to share its location with another user, which is the feature accused by AGIS. As detailed
`
`below, there are two ways a user can share location: (1) selecting another user’s Google Account
`
`ID (“GAIA”), or (2) sending a URL link via a messaging application. Id. ¶¶ 88-92.
`
`Location sharing via GAIA: Sharing location via GAIA occurs as a one-way share
`
`between two users via their GAIAs: (1) a sender’s GAIA (Person A) to (2) a recipient’s GAIA
`
`(Person B). Id. ¶ 89. The screenshots below show the user interface for GAIA sharing location.
`
`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
`
`Sender’s Device Screen
`
`
`
`Recipient’s Device Screen
`
`
`
`
`
`As depicted in the left screenshot of the sender device (Person A), the sender sees their
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 12 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 13 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10158
`
`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
`
`device’s location (denoted “Andrew Wolfe”) on a map and shares that location with another,
`
`recipient identified by the recipient’s GAIA under “Share your real-time location.” Id. ¶ 88. (In
`
`this example, to test the accused feature, Defendants’ expert Dr. Andrew Wolfe shared his location
`
`with another, recipient device logged into the same GAIA belonging to “Andrew Wolfe.”) When
`
`a location is shared via GAIA, the recipient (Person B) receives a notification. Clicking the
`
`notification opens GMM on Person B’s phone and shows the location of Person A’s device on the
`
`map, as shown in the screenshot above on the right. Importantly, the location share is one-way:
`
`the device of the receiving GAIA (Person B) does not automatically share its location back to the
`
`sender (Person A). Id. ¶ 89. Instead, if the recipient wants to share their device’s location with the
`
`sender, the recipient must initiate and create a separate location-share. Id.
`
`Location sharing via URL link: Like sharing location via GAIA, sharing location via
`
`URL link occurs as a one-way link shared between two users, a sender and recipient. Id. ¶¶ 90-94.
`
`The screenshots below show the interface on the sender’s device for sharing location via URL link.
`
`Sender’s Screen: User Interface Flow For Location Sharing Via URL Link
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`To share via URL link, the sender must select a messaging application. Here, in the left-
`
`most screenshot, the sender selects the “Messages” application, which opens up a menu of existing
`
`text message conversations. Id. As shown in the middle screenshot, the sender selects the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-04826-BLF Document 434 Filed 04/03/23 Page 13 of 35Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 123-8 Filed 09/07/23 Page 14 of 36 PageID #:
`
`
`10159
`
`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
`
`conversation with “(408) 394-1096,” which opens up that conversation. Id. GMM populates the
`
`message box with a URL link, which the sender can send to the recipient. Id.
`
`If the recipient clicks on the URL link, GMM opens on the recipient’s phone and shows the
`
`location of the sender’s device on the map in the same manner as GAIA location sharing, discussed
`
`above. The sender can send the URL link to multiple users, each of whom can access it to see the
`
`sender’s location. Id. But again, the location share is one-way only: the recipient devices do not
`
`automatically send their location back to the sender, as recipients cannot send their locations back
`
`to the sender using the same URL link. Id. Instead, each recipient of a location-share who wants
`
`to share their own device location with the sender must create and share a new URL link. Id.
`
`After receiving and viewing the sender’s shared location in GMM, the recipient can tap the
`
`symbol corresponding to a sender’s location on the map, which opens up a menu of four options,
`
`shown in the screenshot below. Id. ¶¶ 604-606. None of the four options send any data to the
`
`sender’s device. Id. Rather, each of the menu options only affects what
`
`is displayed on the recipient’s device:
`
` “Refresh” pulls updated location data, if available, from the Google
`
`server, about the sender’s device and does not send any data to the
`
`sender device. Id.
`
` “Add to Home screen” adds a shortcut on the main screen of the
`
`recipient’s device and does not send data to the sender’s device. Id.
`
` “Hide [user] from map” hides the symbol corresponding to the
`
`sender’s device and does not transmit any data to the sender. Id.
`
` “Block” blocks the user corresponding to the sender’s device and
`
`prevents location sharing between the sender and recipient, but does
`
`not send any data to the sender’s device. Id.
`
`C.
`
`The Accused Waze Products
`
`1.
`
`The Waze Application (“Waze App”)
`
`The Waze app is a navigation software application developed by Defendant Waze Mobile
`
`Ltd. that was first released in the United States in 2009. Ex. 7 (Wolfe Rebuttal) ¶¶ 111-112. Aside
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`NO. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF
`
`

`

`