Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 25999
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`
`Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00036
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 AND 103 OF CLAIMS 7,
`16, AND 17 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,212,586
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 26000
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 1 
`A.
`There Are No Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Regarding
`Anticipation. ......................................................................................................... 1 
`There Are No Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Regarding
`Obviousness. ......................................................................................................... 3 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 5 
`
`B.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 26001
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................3
`
`Canon Inc. v. Color Imaging, Inc.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179445 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 11, 2015) .......................................................5
`
`Cheese Sys. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys.,
`725 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..............................................................................................3, 5
`
`Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................2
`
`Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................5
`
`Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co.,
`122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................5
`
`Scripps Clinic v. Genentech, Inc.,
`927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..................................................................................................2
`
`Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC,
`802 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................5
`
`Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586.................................................................................................... passim
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,871,063 (Schiffer) ..................................................................................... passim
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0041746 (Kirkup) ........................................ passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 26002
`
`
`Apple’s opposition brief (Dkt. 427, “Opp.”) to Maxell’s motion for summary judgment of
`
`no invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,212,586 (Dkt. 366, “Mot.”) attempts to
`
`distract the Court from the simple conclusion that the “memory” limitations as claimed are
`
`simply not present in Schiffer. Apple attempts to salvage its obviousness case by pointing to a
`
`hodgepodge of citations to Dr. Menascé’s report and alleging that Maxell “mischaracterize[ed]”
`
`Dr. Menascé’s opinions. Maxell did nothing of the sort. Rather, Dr. Menascé’s only statement
`
`of obviousness as to the memory limitations for Schiffer alone is boilerplate and unsupported.
`
`Further, Apple’s reliance on Kirkup to allegedly fill in the gaps fails because neither Apple nor
`
`Dr. Menascé demonstrate how Kirkup discloses the memory limitation as claimed—at best,
`
`Kirkup is redundant to Schiffer. Because neither primary art reference discloses the “memory”
`
`limitations, no reasonable jury could conclude that Apple’s prior art anticipates or rendered
`
`obvious the asserted claims. Accordingly, the Court should grant Maxell’s Motion.1
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`There Are No Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Regarding Anticipation.
`
`To concoct disputes of fact where none exist, Apple ignores the plain language of the
`
`claims and asserts that “information about” can mean essentially anything to fit its invalidity
`
`theories, contradicting its own expert in the process. See Opp. at 8-9.
`
`Apple states that “Dr. Menascé explains that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.” Opp. at 9; see id. at 8 (claiming Maxell is wrong for “apparently
`
`assuming that information ‘about’ the mobile phone cannot also be about the computer”). But
`
`
`1 Granting Maxell’s “Motion” does not “eliminate Apple’s invalidity case” (Opp. at 1)—Apple is
`free to make its written description arguments against the ’586 Patent. See Dkt. 444 at 3.
`
`1
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 26003
`
`
`
`merely because information about the first mobile terminal—in Schiffer’s case, the “access
`
`code”—may be located on the second mobile terminal does not mean the information is “about”
`
`the second mobile terminal. The information is “about” the first mobile terminal, not the second,
`
`and the claims require that the information be “about” not “at” a second mobile terminal.
`
`Schiffer is clear that the access code may be one of two things: (1) “subscriber identity
`
`number” of the mobile phone (i.e., first terminal); or (2) an alternate value that may be encrypted
`
`using all or some portion of the subscriber identity value. Mot. at Ex. 2, App. D at 9. Neither
`
`the subscriber identity value nor the alternate value disclosures of Schiffer, including the “other
`
`security code,” provide any evidence that these values are “information about an another mobile
`
`terminal,” i.e., computer system 110. See generally Mot. at 5-7. As such, none of the disclosure
`
`of Schiffer or Dr. Menascé’s opinions present any factual dispute that would lead a POSITA to
`
`believe that the “access code” is “information about an another mobile terminal,” i.e., computer
`
`system 110 as the claims require.2 See Scripps Clinic v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576-
`
`77 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (the purpose of extrinsic evidence in an anticipation analysis “is to educate
`
`the decision-maker to what the reference meant to persons of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`invention, not to fill gaps in the reference.”).
`
`Moreover, Apple’s malleable interpretation—and rewriting—of the claims is contrary to
`
`Dr. Menascé’s interpretation in his non-infringement report: “[T]o show infringement, I
`
`understand that Maxell must show that
`
`
`
`
`2 Apple’s reliance on Medical Instrumentation, for example, is inapposite. Opp. at 7-8. There,
`the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and noted that the reference at issue was found to
`be “‘ambiguous,’ which suggests to us that the issue of exactly what the reference teaches is
`something that should have been resolved by the jury.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics
`Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But Schiffer’s disclosure is not
`ambiguous—it does not disclose the memory limitation as claimed, despite Apple’s attempted
`rewriting of the claim language.
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 26004
`
`
`
`
`” See Lind. Dec., Ex. 5, ¶303. This is error. See Amgen
`
`
`
`Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim terms must be
`
`“construed the same way for both invalidity and infringement.”). Dr. Menascé did not opine
`
`that infringement could be met if
`
`
`
`, which is the interpretation that
`
`Apple is attempting to now forward and is contrary to the claim language and the specification.3
`
`Apple’s further claim that the opinions of Maxell’s expert, Dr. Williams, provide support
`
`for denying Maxell’s motion is circular and wrong. Opp. at 10. It is Apple’s burden to
`
`demonstrate invalidity, and merely because Dr. Williams interpreted the claims consistently for
`
`infringement and validity and pointed out the glaring absence in Schiffer regarding the memory
`
`limitations does not equal a factual dispute. Thus, summary judgment as to Apple’s anticipation
`
`ground is appropriate. See, e.g., Cheese Sys. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341,
`
`1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming grant of summary judgment of no anticipation).
`
`B.
`
`There Are No Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Regarding Obviousness.
`
`Apple is incorrect in stating that Maxell “collapses its anticipation and obviousness
`
`arguments”—Maxell simply explained Dr. Menascé’s approach to the memory limitations. See
`
`Opp. at 11. While Dr. Menascé may have provided some motivations to combine Schiffer and
`
`Kirkup for certain limitations, it is undisputed that he did not forward any opinions as to the
`
`memory limitations—he only relied on Schiffer. See Mot. at 7.
`
`
`3 This is another example of Apple forwarding belated claim construction arguments in an
`attempt to avoid infringement for which Maxell has sought to exclude. See Dkt. 369, 431. And
`Apple’s alleged specification support omits a key passage: “The mobile terminal 1 further
`confirms whether it is the mobile terminal 2 being a previously registered mobile terminal.” See
`Opp. at 9 (citing the Ex. 1, ’586 Patent at 3:37-39).
`3
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 26005
`
`
`
`Regarding the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the claimed
`
`invention and the prior art, Schiffer speaks for itself as discussed in Section I.A.4 Nowhere in
`
`Schiffer does it disclose that the memory on the mobile phone 100 stores information about the
`
`computer system 110. Apple concedes this point by resorting to pointing to the information
`
`about the mobile phone 100 stored at the computer system 110, but that fails to meet the claim
`
`limitation. See supra. The only hint of an “obviousness” opinion as to the memory limitation is
`
`Dr. Menascé claiming in boilerplate fashion that “Schiffer discloses or renders obvious this claim
`
`limitation” (Mot. at Ex. 2, App. D at 7, 45). There is no analysis in Dr. Menascé’s Appendix D
`
`to his Report regarding why a POSITA would conclude it would be obvious for Schiffer to
`
`disclose this limitation. Apple cites to a POSITA’s general knowledge about a Bluetooth
`
`communications link or an access code for authenticating two devices to each other, for example,
`
`but this alleged knowledge and/or opinions are irrelevant to determining why a POSITA would
`
`deem it obvious to conclude that Schiffer discloses the memory limitation as claimed when Dr.
`
`Menascé does not set forth any such an obviousness opinion. See Opp. at 3, 6, 11-12.
`
`Regarding Dr. Menascé’s combination of Schiffer with Kirkup, Apple’s forwards
`
`strawman arguments. Opp. at 3, 6-7, 11-12. Maxell is not arguing that Dr. Menascé’s
`
`combination of the two references is per se inappropriate. Rather, even if the Court
`
`countenances Apple’s reliance on Kirkup’s “authentication code” (which Dr. Menascé does not
`
`mention, see Mot. at Ex. 2, App. D at 7-11), Apple’s obviousness argument still fails as
`
`combination still does not disclose the memory limitations. See Opp. at 3, 6, 12. “Like the
`
`access code from Schiffer,” Kirkup’s “authentication code” generically sends authentication
`
`information to another device. See Opp. at 6. Thus, neither Schiffer nor Kirkup explicitly or
`
`
`4 The differences between the prior art and asserted claims is not “small”—there are additional
`differences that Maxell chose not to move on in its Motion. See Opp. at 13.
`4
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 26006
`
`
`
`inherently discloses that the memory of the first mobile terminal stores “information about” the
`
`second mobile terminal.
`
`Regarding secondary considerations, Apple misstates Dr. Williams’s opinions to
`
`purportedly show factual disputes. See id. at 14 (“Dr. Williams disagrees offering some alleged
`
`secondary considerations”). Dr. Williams’s opinions primarily address Dr. Menascé’s
`
`conclusions regarding the prior art. See Opp. at Ex. 6, ¶¶475-478. Regardless, the Court’s mere
`
`consideration of secondary considerations does not preclude granting Maxell’s Motion that rests
`
`on Apple failing to prove its prima facie case of obviousness.5 See, e.g., Otsuka Pharmaceutical
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (because a district court’s finding
`
`that an accused infringer failed to prove prima facie obviousness was correct, there was no need
`
`to address the district court’s findings on objective evidence); Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn
`
`Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The existence of [secondary considerations] does
`
`not control the obviousness determination.”).
`
`Accordingly, the Court should grant Maxell’s Motion as to Apple’s obviousness grounds.
`
`See Cheese Sys., 725 F.3d at 1353-55 (affirming grant of summary judgment of no obviousness
`
`even without the district court making factual findings on secondary considerations).6
`
`II.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons herein and in Maxell’s Motion, summary judgment should be granted
`
`dismissing Apple’s anticipation and obviousness claims as to the ’586 Patent.
`
`
`
`5 Similarly, the level of ordinary skill in the art component does not impact the obviousness
`analysis or preclude the Court from granting Maxell’s motion. See Opp. at 12-13.
`6 See also Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 802 F.3d 1301, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`(affirming grant of summary judgment of no obviousness); Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`655 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Canon Inc. v. Color Imaging, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`179445 at *102-103 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 11, 2015).
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 26007
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`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
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 26008
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 476 Filed 08/03/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 26009
`
`
`
`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 July 2020, with a copy of this document via
`electronic mail pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(d).
`
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jamie B. Beaber
`Jamie B. Beaber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`