Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`IGT and IGT CANADA SOLUTIONS ULC,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`Zynga Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ZYNGA INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`OF NO WILLFULNESS
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§§
`
`IGT and IGT CANADA SOLUTIONS ULC,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`Zynga Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ZYNGA INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`OF NO WILLFULNESS
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 2 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................ iii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 1
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 1
`III.
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO PRE- OR
`POST-SUIT WILLFULNESS ........................................................................................... 1
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 3
`
`IV.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 3 of 10
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation,
`28 F.4th 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..............................................................................................1, 3
`
`Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Nevro Corp.,
`560 F. Supp. 3d 837 (D. Del. 2021) ...........................................................................................3
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. C 20-08103 WHA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194462 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7,
`2021) ..........................................................................................................................................2
`
`Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States,
`833 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. § 30(b)(6).................................................................................................................1
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 4 of 10
`
`Exhibit No.
`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`Exhibit 8
`
`Exhibit 9
`
`Exhibit 10
`Exhibit 11
`Exhibit 12
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description.
`Relevant excerpts from the August 11, 2022 deposition transcript of
`Stephen Calogero
`Relevant excerpts from IGT’s Second Supplemental Objections and
`Responses to Zynga’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-17)
`Relevant excerpts from an Excel spreadsheet produced by Zynga with
`Filename “Social Casino Data_4Q16.xlsx” (ZYNGA00007681)
`A document produced by Zynga titled “Digital & Interactive Gaming,
`Market Research” (ZYNGA00007682-7700)
`IGT Substantive Motion 1 (For Judgment Based On No Interference-In-
`Fact) as filed on June 4, 2010 in Patent Interference No. 105,747 and
`produced by Zynga (ZYNGA00006207-266)
`IP Sale Agreement between Legal iGaming, Inc. and Atwater Ventures
`Limited produced by Zynga (ZYNGA00012848)
`Patent Acquisition Agreement between Zynga Inc. and Atwater Ventures
`Limited produced by Zynga (ZYNGA00012863)
`Letter from Mr. Renato Ascoli to Mr. Frank D. Gibeau dated September 25,
`2020 and produced by Zynga (ZYNGA00007140)
`Relevant excerpts from the January 11, 2023 deposition transcript of Craig
`E. Wills
`Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199, Paper 11 (PTAB June 14, 2022)
`Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00200, Paper 10 (PTAB June 7, 2022)
`Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00368, Paper 7 (PTAB July 8, 2022)
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 5 of 10
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`IGT is currently asserting that Zynga willfully infringes four patents. IGT asserts both pre-
`
`and post-suit willfulness. The Court should grant summary judgment of no pre-suit willfulness
`
`because IGT has no evidence that Zynga had any pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The Court
`
`should grant summary judgment of no post-suit willfulness because IGT has no evidence that
`
`Zynga intentionally infringes. Instead, IGT’s allegation is simply that Zynga continued with its
`
`pre-existing business in the face of unproven claims of infringement. As a matter of law, that does
`
`not amount to a specific intent to infringe.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“[A]n entry of summary judgment is appropriate against” a plaintiff “who fails to make a
`
`showing sufficient to establish the existence of an essential element to its case, and on which it
`
`will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States, 833
`
`F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
`
`III.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO PRE- OR
`POST-SUIT WILLFULNESS
`
`IGT has failed to obtain evidence that Zynga willfully infringes any patent-in-suit, either
`
`pre- or post-suit. To establish willfulness, IGT “must show that the accused infringer had a specific
`
`intent to infringe at the time of the challenged conduct.” BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth
`
`Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation, 28 F.4th 1247, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The patentee must
`
`show “more than knowledge of the asserted patent and evidence of infringement—which is
`
`necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of willfulness.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Pre-suit willfulness: IGT has no evidence that Zynga has any pre-suit knowledge of the
`
`’189, ’064 and ’212 patents.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 6 of 10
`
`IGT also cannot show that Zynga had pre-suit knowledge of infringement of the ’089
`
`patent. The ’089 patent was part of an interference proceeding with a patent application owned by
`
`Legal iGaming, Inc. See, e.g., Ex. 5 (ZYNGA00006207). Zynga eventually acquired that pending
`
`application from a later owner. Ex. 6 (Legal iGaming-Atwater Agreement) at ZYNGA00012848,
`
`ZYNGA00012858; Ex. 7 (Atwater-Zynga Agreement) at ZYNGA00012863, ZYNGA00012870.
`
`IGT claims, with no legal support,
`
`
`
`. But even if such
`
`knowledge could be imputed to Zynga, it is, at most, knowledge of the patent’s existence—not
`
`knowledge that the accused products infringe the ’089 patent.
`
`IGT also points to
`
`
`
` did not identify any patent claims and provided no
`
`explanation as to how Zynga potentially infringes. Id. The bare bones accusations in
`
`
`
`are not enough to impart knowledge of infringement. See MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
`
`Inc., No. C 20-08103 WHA, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194462, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2021)
`
`(rejecting pre-suit willfulness allegations that did not detail “how or why” the defendant knew it
`
`specifically infringed the asserted patent) (emphasis in original).
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 7 of 10
`
`Post-suit willfulness: The Court should also grant summary judgment of no post-suit
`
`willfulness. Even if a complaint were sufficient to provide post-suit knowledge of infringement,1
`
`IGT has no evidence that Zynga “had a specific intent to infringe” after the filing of the complaint.
`
`BASF, 28 F.4th at 1274. For example, IGT has no evidence that Zynga copied any of IGT’s
`
`patents—indeed,
`
` no such evidence with respect to
`
`the ‘089 patent, which is the only patent that Zynga was even allegedly aware of before being sued.
`
`. Nor has IGT alleged that Zynga introduced new games
`
`since the filing of the complaint that infringe. IGT also cannot show that Zynga has ever lacked a
`
`good-faith belief in the merits of its non-infringement and invalidity positions. On the contrary,
`
`the reasonableness of Zynga’s positions is confirmed by the PTAB’s institution of IPRs against
`
`the ’089, ’212 and ’064 patents. Ex. 10 (IPR2022-00199, Institution Decision for ’089 Patent,
`
`Paper 11); Ex. 11 (IPR2022-00200, Institution Decision for ’064 Patent, Paper 10); Ex. 12
`
`(IPR2022-00368, Institution Decision for ’212 Patent, Paper 7). The only so-called “willful”
`
`conduct that IGT has identified is that IGT has accused Zynga of infringing its patents and Zynga
`
`has not halted or altered its operations in response. But that is true in basically every case and
`
`cannot (on its own) be sufficient to show that the defendant had an intent to infringe as opposed to
`
`a good-faith belief in the merits of its defenses. BASF, 28 F.4th at 1274.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons explained above, the Court should grant Zynga’s motion of no willful
`
`infringement of any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`1 Zynga acknowledges that this Court has previously found a complaint is an adequate basis to
`provide knowledge, but to preserve the argument for appeal, respectfully contends that it is not.
`See, e.g., Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Nevro Corp., 560 F. Supp. 3d 837, 843 (D. Del. 2021).
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 8 of 10
`
`Dated: February 2, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Mark D. Siegmund
`
`Mark D. Siegmund
`Texas Bar No. 24117055
`STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVEPLLC
`8416 Old McGregor Road
`Waco, Texas 76712
`mark@swclaw.com
`Telephone: 254.651.3690
`Facsimile: (254) 651-3689
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`Clement Seth Roberts, Bar No. 209203 (Pro Hac Vice)
`croberts@orrick.com
`Elizabeth R. Moulton, Bar No. 286937 (Pro Hac Vice)
`emoulton@orrick.com
`Will Melehani, Bar No. 285916 (Pro Hac Vice)
`wmelehani@orrick.com
`Sarah K. Mullins, Bar No. 324558 (Pro Hac Vice)
`sarahmullins@orrick.com
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: +1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile: +1 415 773 5799
`
`Bas de Blank, Bar No. 191487 (Pro Hac Vice)
`basdeblank@orrick.com
`1000 Marsh Rd.
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: +1 650 614 7400
`Facsimile: +1 415 773 5799
`
`Alyssa Caridis, Bar No. 260103 (Pro Hac Vice)
`acaridis@orrick.com
`Isaac S. Behnawa, Bar No. 342441 (Pro Hac Vice)
`ibehnawa@orrick.com
`777 South Figueroa Street
`Suite 3200
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: +1 213 629 2020
`Facsimile: +1 213 612 2499
`
`Sten Jensen, Bar No. 443300 (Pro Hac Vice)
`sjensen@orrick.com
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 9 of 10
`
`Chris Childers, Bar No. 1719610 (Pro Hac Vice)
`cchilders@orrick.com
`Columbia Center
`1152 15th St NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: +1 202 339 8400
`Facsimile: +1 202 339 8500
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Zynga Inc.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 145 Filed 02/09/23 Page 10 of 10
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on February 2, 2023 all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document (and any declarations,
`
`exhibits, and proposed orders filed concurrently herewith) via email.
`
`/s/ Mark D. Siegmund
`Mark D. Siegmund
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
