Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 18066
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00036
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO
`INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,339,493 IN VIEW OF THE
`SONY MVC-FD83 AND MVC-FD88 CAMERAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 18067
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ...................................................................... 3
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE ................................... 4
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 4
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 18068
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc.,
`182 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................5
`
`BroadSoft, Inc. v. CallWave Commc’ns, LLC,
`282 F. Supp. 3d 771 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................8
`
`Carella v. Starlight Archery,
`804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986)....................................................................................................2
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc.,
`560 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................2
`
`Eason v. Thaler,
`73 F.3d 1322 (5th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`180 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 1999)..................................................................................................3
`
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986)....................................................................................................2
`
`Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ...........................................................................2, 5, 10
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) .....................................................................................................................2
`
`Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc.,
`303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................2
`
`Navico Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00190-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139806 (E.D. Tex.
`July 28, 2017).............................................................................................................................7
`
`Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co.,
`136 F.3d 455 (5th Cir. 1998) .....................................................................................................2
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`382 F. Supp. 2d 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), rev’d on other grounds, 594 F.3d 860
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) ..........................................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 18069
`
`
`
`
`
`Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-1330-WCB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180708 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2017) ......................7
`
`Zimmer Tech. Inc. v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.,
`476 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (N.D. Ind. 2007) .................................................................................3, 7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 18070
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Excerpts from the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Alan C. Bovik
`Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`Subpoena to Sony to Produce Documents (March 6, 2020)
`
`Subpoena to Sony to Testify at a Deposition (March 6, 2020)
`
`Service Manual for MVC-FD83/FD88 Cameras (SCA0004377)
`
`Sony Sales Data (SCA0004493)
`
`Declaration of Susan West
`
`Image of “P06” Version of MVC-FD88 Camera
`(MAXELL_APPLE0274104)
`
`Image of “P07” Version of MVC-FD88 Camera (APL-
`MAXELL_01099037)
`
`Image of “P06” Version of MVC-FD88 Camera
`(MAXELL_APPLE0274105)
`
`10
`
`Image of “P07” Version of MVC-FD88 Camera (APL-
`MAXELL_01099039)
`
`11
`
`Sony Digital Image Training Guide (SCA0003619)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 18071
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A simple failure of proof precludes Defendant Apple Inc. from relying on two alleged
`
`prior art products to show invalidity. While Apple’s technical expert, Alan Bovik, relies upon
`
`two models of Sony digital cameras that he contends render claims 5 and 6 of the ’493 Patent1
`
`invalid, he has done nothing to show that the versions of the products on which his invalidity
`
`opinions rest were actually sold in the United States prior to the patent’s priority date more than
`
`20 years ago. There are no sales receipts for these camera samples, no documentation evidencing
`
`a chain of title, and no indication that these products accurately reflect what was allegedly
`
`available for sale in the United States in late 1999. And despite Apple subpoenaing Sony in this
`
`case specifically about these camera models, no one from Sony has verified that the relied-upon
`
`versions are fair representations of whatever may have predated the ’493 Patent.
`
`Indeed, the chief evidence Apple offers regarding public availability of these cameras
`
`consists of three magazine advertisements and inconclusive sales data. But the magazine ads do
`
`not show when the specific versions Apple relies upon were sold in the United States, and the
`
`sales data are silent on the location where those sales took place or which versions were being
`
`sold. No one has attested that these cameras are original, unmodified, and accurate
`
`representations of the versions supposedly on sale before the patent’s priority date.
`
`In short, Apple has offered no evidence of the sale date or location for the specific
`
`versions of the Sony cameras used in Dr. Bovik’s invalidity analysis. Apple cannot possibly meet
`
`its clear and convincing burden on the issue of public availability with such scant offerings.
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 8,339,493
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 18072
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule CV-56,
`
`Plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment of no invalidity of claims 5 and 6 of the ’493
`
`Patent based on the Sony MVC-FD83 and Sony MVC-FD88 cameras (the “Sony cameras”).2
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`When the nonmoving party fails to establish the existence of an element essential to its
`
`case and on which it will bear the burden of proof, summary judgment serves as a means to
`
`dispose of such claims. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); see also Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 56(c); Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir. 1998). Mere
`
`conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported
`
`speculation are not competent summary judgment evidence. See Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d 1322,
`
`1325 (5th Cir. 1996).
`
`The presumption of validity places the burden on the challenging party to prove
`
`invalidity by clear, convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95
`
`(2011). This high standard applies to all facts underlying anticipation or obviousness, including
`
`the availability of the product as prior art. Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc., 560 F.3d
`
`1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`Whether a product qualifies as prior art is a legal determination based on factual findings.
`
`Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Hall,
`
`781 F.2d 897, 899 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Summary judgment of no invalidity applies where the
`
`accused infringer lacks clear and convincing evidence on which a reasonable jury could conclude
`
`that a given product qualifies as prior art. Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d
`
`
`2 Maxell also disputes that these products—as well as the remainder of Apple’s prior art—teach every limitation of
`the ’493 Patent’s claims. Maxell is moving for summary judgment on the issue of public availability in order to
`focus the Court on the most clear-cut issues.
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 18073
`
`
`
`
`
`964, 973-76 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (granting summary judgment of no invalidity where the
`
`defendant “failed to adduce evidence” of the relevant prior art date).
`
` The party challenging a patent on the basis of prior public use must present sufficient
`
`corroborating evidence to support a finding that a product is in fact prior art. Finnigan Corp. v.
`
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In such cases, that party must show
`
`that the relied-upon product qualifies as “prior art.” See, e.g., Zimmer Tech. Inc. v. Howmedica
`
`Osteonics Corp., 476 F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1045 (N.D. Ind. 2007) (granting summary judgment that
`
`physical product does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102).
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`1.
`
`The ’493 Patent has a priority date of January 11, 2000. Ex. 1 (Bovik Op. Rep.) at
`
`¶ 44 (“[F]or my analysis in this report, I have used January 11, 2000 as the priority date ….”).
`
`2.
`
`Apple asserts that both the Sony MVC-FD83 and Sony MVC-FD88 cameras
`
`anticipate or render obvious claim 5 of the ’493 Patent. Id. at ¶ 20. Apple asserts that both the
`
`Sony MVC-FD83 and Sony MVC-FD88 cameras alone or combined with another reference
`
`(Misawa3) renders obvious claim 6 of the ’493 Patent. Id.
`
`3.
`
`Dr. Bovik relies on three physical samples of the Sony cameras as a basis for his
`
`invalidity analysis: an MVC-FD83 camera (APL-MAXELL_P03); a first version of an MVC-
`
`FD88 camera (APL-MAXELL_P06); and a second version of an MVC-FD88 camera (APL-
`
`MAXELL_P07). See id. at ¶ 112.
`
`4.
`
`Apple made these physical samples available for inspection, but the samples did
`
`not include their original packaging, manuals, or other documentation.
`
`5.
`
`The “P07” version of the MVC-FD88 camera was torn down by Sage Analytical
`
`Lab, LLC, id., while the “P06” version was “used and tested” by Dr. Bovik in support of his
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,444,482
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 18074
`
`
`
`
`
`invalidity analysis, id. at ¶ 120.
`
`6.
`
`Apple has not argued that the user manuals or other documentation for the Sony
`
`cameras renders the claims invalid; rather, Apple is arguing that the products themselves render
`
`the claims anticipated and obvious. See id. at ¶ 134 (“As explained in the chart below, each of
`
`the Sony MVC-FD83 and MV[C]-FD88 cameras anticipates or renders obvious claim 5.”).
`
`7.
`
`Apple subpoenaed a Sony entity on March 6, 2020. Ex. 2 (Sony Document
`
`Subpoena); Ex. 3 (Sony Deposition Subpoena). As part of its document subpoena, Apple asked
`
`for information concerning both of the Sony cameras. See, e.g., Ex. 2 at 11.
`
`8.
`
`In response to those subpoenas, Sony provided marketing sheets, operating
`
`instructions, service manuals, and late-1999 sales data. See, e.g., Ex. 4 (Sony User Manual for
`
`MVC-FD83/FD88); Ex. 5 (Sony Sales Data).
`
`9.
`
`Sony also provided a declaration from an in-house paralegal, Susan West. Ex. 6
`
`(West Declaration). Ms. West’s declaration references the produced documents and attests that
`
`they are “true and correct copies” of what they purport to be, id. at ¶ 5, but she does not
`
`otherwise comment on the documents themselves.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE
`
`Can Apple establish at trial by clear and convincing evidence that the Sony cameras
`
`invalidate claims 5 and 6 of the ’493 Patent when Apple has not put forth clear and convincing
`
`evidence of where or when these versions of the Sony cameras were first sold?
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Apple cannot carry its burden of proving invalidity based on the Sony MVC-FD83 and
`
`MVC-FD88 cameras as prior art. It has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that these
`
`versions of the cameras were publically used or sold in the United States before the January 11,
`
`2000 priority date of the ’493 Patent. Apple has not provided any evidence from any witness
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 18075
`
`
`
`
`
`stating where these cameras came from, who purchased them, whether they were modified from
`
`their original software/hardware configurations, and when or where these specific versions were
`
`first sold. Apple thus cannot carry its clear and convincing burden.
`
`It was Apple’s burden to come forward with evidence of the public availability of the
`
`specific versions of the Sony cameras that Dr. Bovik relied upon. See Abbott Labs. v. Geneva
`
`Pharms., Inc., 182 F.3d 1315, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that party asserting on-sale bar
`
`bears the burden of proving its existence by clear and convincing evidence); Hilgraeve, 271 F.
`
`Supp. 2d at 973-76 (granting summary judgment of no invalidity where the defendant “failed to
`
`adduce evidence” of the relevant prior art date).
`
`But Apple has no evidence regarding the origin of these products. While Dr. Bovik has
`
`attempted to show that some version of the Sony cameras were offered for sale in the latter half
`
`of 1999, he has not shown that the specific version of the cameras he tested and applied in his
`
`invalidity analysis were on sale or used in the United States before the ’493 Patent’s priority
`
`date. Dr. Bovik offers no opinions on whether the hardware components in or software on the
`
`Sony cameras that he relies upon are the same as the versions purportedly sold in 1999.
`
`Dr. Bovik also does not state that he purchased either Sony camera prior to January 11,
`
`2000, nor does he describe what steps he took, if any, to verify that the specific version of
`
`camera he analyzed was sold prior to that date. Neither he nor Apple presents sales receipts for
`
`these cameras, nor any details concerning when they were purchased, where they were
`
`purchased, and by whom. Nor has Apple or Dr. Bovik offered evidence that the Sony cameras
`
`were not modified, reconstructed, or otherwise altered in the more than two decades since they
`
`were purportedly first available. Dr. Bovik has failed to comment on the origin of these units at
`
`all, and Apple offers nothing to explain or excuse this shortcoming.
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 18076
`
`
`
`
`
`A comparison of the P06 and P07 versions of the MVC-FD88 reveals several differences,
`
`showing that different versions of the MVC-FD88 camera have been available. For example, the
`
`P06 and P07 versions have different serial or production numbers. Apple’s P06 model bears
`
`numbers 206341 and SSG 3-055-922-11, while the P07 version has numbers 45957 and SKD 3-
`
`055-922-01:
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 7 (Image of P06 Model)
`
`Ex. 8 (Image of P07 Model)
`
`This difference in production/serial numbers alone shows that there are different versions of the
`
`MVC-FD88 device. The P06 model appears to be version “11,” while the P07 model appears to
`
`be version “01.” Neither Dr. Bovik nor Apple ever reconcile these differences.
`
`As also shown in the preceding images, the P06 model was made in China, while the P07
`
`model was made in Japan. This also evidences that these models were made at different times
`
`and, perhaps, for different regions. Dr. Bovik provides no evidence that either the P06 and P07
`
`versions were ever publically used or sold in the U.S. before the ’493 Patent’s priority date; he
`
`never addresses these differing serial/production numbers or countries of origin.
`
`There are other differences in the products that show that they were made at different
`
`times and for different markets. The P06 version has a label with information about the image
`
`sensor on the upper left of the back of the housing, but the P07 model does not. Compare Ex. 1
`
`at p. 55 (P06 version with label) with Ex. 1 at p. 38 (P07 version without label). The P06 version
`
`has a UL (Underwriter Laboratories) “9C” label, while the P07 version has a UL “9B” label.
`
`Compare Ex. 9 (image of P06 version) with Ex. 10 (image of P07 version). Again, neither Apple
`
`nor Dr. Bovik have explained these inconsistencies.
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 18077
`
`
`
`
`
`It is Apple’s burden to show that there are no material differences between the Sony
`
`cameras “used and tested” by Dr. Bovik and those described in the technical manuals and other
`
`documentation relied on by Apple to show public availability prior to the ’493 Patent’s priority
`
`date. See Navico Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00190-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 139806, at *11 (E.D. Tex. July 28, 2017) (adopted by Navico Inc. v. Garming Int'l, Inc.,
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141147, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017). In Navico, Judge Payne
`
`rejected Garmin’s argument that the patentee had not shown any relevant differences between
`
`the system relied on by Garmin as prior art versus its description in an operator’s manual,
`
`because it is the challenger who bears that burden. Id. Judge Payne explained that there was only
`
`“potentially” a connection between the alleged prior art system and the manual, being that “the
`
`only connection between the two is use of ‘MS 1000’ designation.” Id. The court granted
`
`summary judgment that the system did not qualify as prior art, explaining that this evidence was
`
`“too tenuous to support a prior-sale contention under § 102,” and not enough to meet the clear
`
`and convincing standard. Id.
`
`The same holds true here. Apple has made no effort to verify that the version of the Sony
`
`camera samples Dr. Bovik analyzes, and the operating manuals describing them, reflect the
`
`versions sold before the ’493 Patent’s priority date. Apple also has not verified that the relied-
`
`upon versions of these cameras were ever repaired, whether certain components were replaced,
`
`or whether any software or firmware was updated, as is common for electronic devices.
`
`Summary judgment is therefore appropriate. See Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc., No. 14-cv-
`
`1330-WCB, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180708, at *28 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2017) (granting patentee’s
`
`motion of no invalidity based on prior art products that were modified from their original state
`
`because those products received software updates after the patent’s priority date); Zimmer Tech.,
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 18078
`
`
`
`
`
`476 F. Supp. 2d at 1045 (granting summary judgment of no invalidity when accused infringer
`
`failed to put forth clear and convincing evidence of sale of prior art product before priority date).
`
`Apple could have asked Sony to verify that Dr. Bovik’s versions were accurate, but it
`
`chose not to. Sony’s declarant, Ms. West, likewise could have attested to the accuracy of these
`
`cameras, but she says nothing about them. See generally Ex. 6 (West Decl.). Her declaration is
`
`silent on whether the Sony cameras used by Dr. Bovik are true and correct versions of any Sony
`
`device, much less true and correct versions of what was supposedly sold more than 20 years ago.
`
`Apple’s evidence that some version of a prior art product was publically available is
`
`insufficient to show that the specific version relied upon for invalidity was also publically
`
`available prior to the priority date. Apple and Dr. Bovik were required to show that these
`
`versions are “materially identical,” but they have put forth no evidence on this point. See
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 382 F. Supp. 2d 424, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), rev’d on other
`
`grounds, 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[The accused infringer] must demonstrate that no
`
`genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the accused version of [the prior art product] is
`
`materially identical to that offered for sale [prior to the priority date].”); see also BroadSoft, Inc.
`
`v. CallWave Commc’ns, LLC, 282 F. Supp. 3d 771, 778 (D. Del. 2017) (“Where the accused
`
`product has been updated since the prior art version, the accused infringer ‘must demonstrate that
`
`. . . the accused version . . . is materially identical’ with respect to the asserted claims.”).
`
`The evidence Apple does offer relates only to the MVC-FD83 and MVC-FD88 models
`
`generally, not the versions Dr. Bovik relies on specifically. For example, Dr. Bovik relies upon
`
`“sales records” produced by Sony as evidence of the Sony cameras being available in the U.S.
`
`prior to January 11, 2000. Ex. 1, Bovik Op. Rep. at ¶ 106. However, nothing in Dr. Bovik’s
`
`report or the sales data itself indicates where these sales took place. See generally Ex. 5 (Sony
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 18079
`
`
`
`
`
`Sales Data). The
`
` sales data also does not specify the unit of
`
`currency. See id. Similarly, there are no serial numbers or other identifying information
`
`contained in this data that would link the products with numbers 206341 and 45957 (i.e., the
`
`versions Dr. Bovik relies on) to a sale in the U.S. prior to January 11, 2000.
`
`The three-page authentication declaration from Sony’s paralegal does not plug these
`
`holes. In that declaration, Ms. West did not state whether these sales took place in the U.S. See
`
`generally Ex. 6 (West Decl.). Nor does she say anything about Dr. Bovik’s samples. The
`
`material Sony contributed does nothing to show when or where Dr. Bovik’s versions of the Sony
`
`cameras were sold.
`
`Apple also offers a trio of magazine advertisements as establishing public availability of
`
`the Sony cameras prior to the ’493 Patent’s priority date. See, e.g., Ex. 1 (Bovik Op. Rep.) at
`
`¶¶ 103-05. But, at best, these ads simply suggest that some version of the MVC-FD83 and MVC-
`
`FD88 cameras were offered for sale, not that the specific versions Dr. Bovik relies upon were
`
`publically available in the U.S. before January 11, 2000.
`
`Finally, Apple points to service manuals and marketing sheets for the Sony cameras.
`
`These too fail to show when or where Dr. Bovik’s versions of the cameras were sold. Indeed, the
`
`material produced by Sony shows inconsistencies that Apple and its expert have not reconciled.
`
`For example, Dr. Bovik relies on a marketing sheet titled “Digital Image Training Guide” that
`
`mentions the MVC-FD83 and MVC-FD88 cameras. Ex. 11 (Digital Image Training Guide).
`
`However, this sheet is undated and does not indicate which version of these cameras it is
`
`referencing, or even whether it is referencing the as-sold version of these cameras at all. Indeed,
`
`this guide has conflicting information about the maximum resolution for the MVC-FD88 camera,
`
`stating it as “1280 x 960” in one instance and “up to 1280 x 768” in another. Id. at 2. This too
`
`
`
`9
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 18080
`
`
`
`
`
`shows that different versions of the device were available at different times, yet neither Apple
`
`nor Dr. Bovik have shown which version they used and when that version was sold.
`
`As another indication that Sony sold different versions of these cameras at different
`
`times, the Sony-produced versions of the MVC-FD83/FD88 service manual (“version 1.1”) is
`
`dated October 2001—about nine months after the ’493 Patent’s priority date. See Ex. 4 (Sony
`
`Service Manual) at 1. Not only does this version of the manual post-date the ’493 Patent’s
`
`priority date, it also conflicts with the version of the manual that Dr. Bovik relies on (dated
`
`1999). The differences in versions and in copyright dates also shows that there were different
`
`versions of the Sony cameras available both before and after the priority date. Apple has
`
`provided no evidence or basis on which to draw the conclusion that the version of cameras used
`
`and tested by Dr. Bovik correspond to the pre-priority-date manual, as opposed to the Sony-
`
`produced post-priority-date manual.
`
`An opposition to a motion for summary judgment is not the time to correct such failures.
`
`At bottom, there are simply too many unknowns regarding the Sony cameras and no
`
`evidence showing that Dr. Bovik’s versions of them were publically available in the U.S. prior to
`
`the ’493 Patent’s priority date. Apple has fallen far short of its obligation to show public
`
`availability by clear and convincing evidence and, as a consequence of these failings, Maxell is
`
`entitled to partial summary judgment of no invalidity. See Hilgraeve, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 973-76
`
`(granting summary judgment of no invalidity where the defendant “failed to adduce evidence” of
`
`the relevant prior art date).
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Maxell requests partial summary judgment that claims 5 and 6
`
`of the ’493 Patent are not anticipated or obvious based on the Sony MVC-FD83 camera or the
`
`Sony MVC-FD88 camera.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 18081
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`Geoff Culbertson
`Kelly Tidwell
`Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP
`2800 Texas Boulevard (75503)
`Post Office Box 5398
`Texarkana, TX 75505-5398
`Telephone: (903) 792-7080
`Facsimile: (903) 792-8233
`gpc@texarkanalaw.com
`kbt@texarkanalaw.com
`
`Jamie B. Beaber
`Alan M. Grimaldi
`Kfir B. Levy
`James A. Fussell, III
`William J. Barrow
`Baldine B. Paul
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Michael L. Lindinger
`Saqib Siddiqui
`Bryan C. Nese
`Alison T. Gelsleichter
`Clark S. Bakewell
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 263-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
`jbeaber@mayerbrown.com
`agrimaldi@mayerbrown.com
`klevy@mayerbrown.com
`jfussell@mayerbrown.com
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`tmiller@mayerbrown.com
`mlindinger@mayerbrown.com
`ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com
`bnese@mayerbrown.com
`agelsleichter@mayerbrown.com
`cbakewell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda Streff Bonner
`Luiz Miranda
`
`Dated: June 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 18082
`
`
`
`
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 782-0600
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`asbonner@mayerbrown.com
`lmiranda@mayerbrown.com
`
`Graham (Gray) M. Buccigross
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`3000 El Camino Real, Suite 2-300
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 331-2000
`gbuccigross@mayerbrown.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.
`
`
`
`12
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 380 Filed 07/02/20 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18083
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`electronic service are being served this 30th day of June 2020, with a copy of this document via
`electronic mail pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(d).
`
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`