Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 12
`
`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 ON PRE-SUIT AND
`FOREIGN DAMAGES FOR THE ’189 PATENT
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 2 of 12
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................ iii
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 1
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 1
`A.
`IGT cannot recover any pre-suit damages for failure to mark its products ........... 1
`B.
`There is no infringement under§271(f), and therefore no foreign damages .......... 4
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`III.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 3 of 12
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Arctic Cat I”) .......................................................................2
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`950 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Arctic Cat II”) ........................................................................3
`
`Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co.,
`559 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................1
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990)..................................................................................................4
`
`Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp.,
`580 U.S. 140 (2017) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.,
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................3
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp.,
`550 U.S. 437 (2007) ...............................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, Inc.,
`375 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`TransCore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp.,
`563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................3
`
`WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`No. 4:09–cv–1827, 2012 WL 2568167 (S.D. Tex. June 29, 2012) ...........................................5
`
`Zafer Taahhut Insaat ve Ticaret A.S. v. United States,
`833 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................1
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(f) ....................................................................................................................1, 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) .......................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 4 of 12
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit No.
`Exhibit 1
`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Description.
`8/18/2022 Letter from A. Caridis to J. Kurcz re: DoubleDown
`Relevant excerpts from the August 11, 2022 deposition transcript of
`Stephen Calogero
`Relevant excerpts from a “
`
`
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`Exhibit 7
`Exhibit 8
`
`and produced by IGT (IGT_0004980)
`Relevant excerpts from the August 26, 2022 deposition transcript of Suzy
`Langham
`Relevant excerpts from Exhibit 1045 introduced in the August 26, 2022
`deposition of Suzy Langham and produced by IGT (IGT_0016801)
`Relevant excerpts from the Expert Report of Mr. Stacy Friedman Regarding
`Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,795,064 and 9,159,189
`U.S. Patent No. 9,159,189 (IGT_0000022)
`Relevant excerpts from the August 24, 2022 deposition transcript of Dean
`Tizzard
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 5 of 12
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`
`IGT accuses Zynga of infringing claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,159,189 (the “’189
`
`patent”). Claim 10 is the only system claim asserted in this case. Because IGT is asserting a
`
`system claim, IGT was required to mark any products that practice the ’189 patent. If not, IGT
`
`cannot recover pre-suit damages for any infringement of the ’189 patent.
`
`
`
`capturing Zynga’s foreign revenue by asserting infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). IGT
`
` IGT is also using that system claim as a hook for
`
`cannot show infringement under § 271(f) as a matter of law.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT
`
`“[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).
`
`A. IGT cannot recover any pre-suit damages for failure to mark its products.
`
` Marking was required because IGT is
`
`asserting system claim 10. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d
`
`1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (marking required unless only method claims are asserted).
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) provides that, absent actual pre-suit notice to a defendant, “no
`
`damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement” if the patentee fails to
`
`mark its patented products. Here, there is no evidence that Zynga had pre-suit notice of the ’189
`
`patent, so marking was required to recover pre-suit damages. See Dkt. 70 (Second Amended
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 6 of 12
`
`Complaint) ¶ 99 (alleging Zynga had knowledge of the ’189 patent as of the original complaint).
`
`There is no evidence that any products have ever been marked with the ’189 patent. Just
`
`the opposite. Zynga identified four unmarked products that it believes practice the ’189 patent.
`
`See Ex. 1 (8/18/2022 Caridis Letter to Kurcz). Because Zynga put IGT “on notice that he or his
`
`authorized licensees sold specific unmarked products which the alleged infringer believes
`
`practice the patent,” IGT had to come forward with evidence that it has never made or licensed
`
`any unmarked products that practice the ’189 patent. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational
`
`Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Arctic Cat I”). IGT did not, so summary
`
`judgment of no pre-suit damages is appropriate.
`
`Zynga, as the party asserting failure to mark, bears only an initial burden—a “low bar”—
`
`of merely identifying the “products it believes are unmarked patented articles” subject to the
`
`marking requirement. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The burden then shifts to IGT to
`
`“prove the products identified do not practice the patented invention.” Id. Zynga met that “low
`
`bar” through its letter detailing Zynga’s contention that at least four products were patented
`
`products that were required to be marked. Ex. 1 (8/18/2022 Caridis Letter to Kurcz).
`
`IGT’s Own Failure to Mark: From 2012 to 2017, IGT provided the DoubleDown
`
`Casino game through its subsidiary DoubleDown Interactive LLC. See Ex. 2 (Calogero Dep.
`
`Tr.) at 38:4-23. DoubleDown Casino “appear[s] to exhibit largely the same functionalities that
`
`IGT has alleged are infringing in Zynga’s products in this Action” and thus appears to practice
`
`the ’189 patent. Ex. 1 (8/18/2022 Caridis Letter to Kurcz). There is no evidence that it was ever
`
`marked with the ’189 patent, so “no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for
`
`infringement,” prior to actual notice. 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). It does not matter that IGT no longer
`
`provides DoubleDown Casino, as “once a patentee begins making or selling a patented article,
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 7 of 12
`
`the notice requirement attaches” and “[t]he cessation of sales of unmarked products” does not
`
`“remove [§ 287’s] notice requirement.” Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc.,
`
`950 F.3d 860, 865 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Arctic Cat II”).
`
`Once Zynga identified products that it believes to be subject to the marking requirement,
`
`IGT was required to prove those products do not practice the ’189 patent. IGT has no evidence
`
`(i.e., expert testimony) with which it could make that showing, so IGT has failed to meet its
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 8 of 12
`
`burden and summary judgment of no pre-suit damages for failure to mark is warranted.
`
`B. There is no infringement under
`
`271(f), and therefore no foreign damages.
`
`IGT’s sole basis for capturing foreign revenue is infringement of claim 10 under § 271(f).
`
`Summary judgment of no infringement under § 271(f) is warranted for four reasons.
`
`1. IGT has not established that Zynga supplied any “component” of claim 10. The
`
`“components” identified by IGT are: (1) “server-side software”; (2) various “signals,” and (3)
`
`“Zynga mobile device software.” Ex. 6 (Friedman Report) ¶ 306. None are alleged components
`
`supplied overseas under § 271(f).
`
`
`
` The “signals” IGT identifies are
`
`not components of claim 10. Claim 10 is a system claim “comprising a stationary gaming
`
`terminal communicating with a mobile gaming device” that is “programmed to carry out”
`
`functions includes “receiving” and “transmitting” certain signals. See Ex. 7 (’189 patent), cl. 10.
`
`As a result, the signals are not themselves a component of the claimed system; they are instead a
`
`function the claimed system is “programmed to,” and therefore capable of, creating. See
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
`
`(“[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.”). So even if Zynga
`
`supplied signals overseas, it would be not relevant to infringement because signals are not a
`
`component of the claim. See Pellegrini v. Analog Devices, Inc., 375 F.3d 1113, 1118 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“§ 271(f)(1) clearly refers to physical supply of components” of the patented invention).
`
`With respect to the “Zynga mobile device software,” IGT has failed to identify any
`
`“computer-readable” copies of that software coupled to some “activating medium” that Zynga
`
`supplies for combination outside the U.S. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437,
`
`449 (2007) (“Until it is expressed as a computer-readable ‘copy,’ e.g., on a CD–ROM, Windows
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 9 of 12
`
`software—indeed any software detached from an activating medium—remains uncombinable.”).
`
`Instead, Dr. Friedman merely identifies pieces of source code, e.g., Ex. 6 (Friedman Report) ¶¶
`
`306, 272-73, which cannot be a “component” under § 271(f). See Microsoft, 550 U.S. at 449.
`
`2. IGT has not identified any components that are “combined” outside the U.S. The only
`
`alleged “components” of claim 10 that leave the U.S. are various “signals” and Zynga’s mobile
`
`device software. See Ex. 6 (Friedman Report) ¶ 306. But “signals” are not components of the
`
`claimed invention, so even if Zynga’s mobile device software is allegedly combined with signals
`
`outside the U.S., there is still no infringement. Pellegrini, 375 F.3d at 1117 (“[T]here can be no
`
`liability under § 271(f)(1) unless components are shipped from the United States for assembly.”).
`
`3. IGT cannot show that Zynga has supplied a “substantial portion” of the components of
`
`Claim 10 outside the U.S. as required under § 271(f)(1). Zynga’s mobile device software is, at
`
`most, a single component. See Ex. 8 (Tizzard Dep. Tr.) at 37:17-24 (Zynga players download a
`
`single “payload” from an app store to play a Zynga game). That is not infringement, because
`
`“one component does not constitute ‘all or a substantial portion’ of a multicomponent invention
`
`under § 271(f )(1).” Life Techs. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 580 U.S. 140, 151 (2017).
`
`4. IGT cannot show that Zynga knew, prior to the filing of this lawsuit, (1) of the
`
`existence of the ’189 patent and (2) that the combination of components identified by IGT
`
`infringed the ’189 patent. See Mot. For Summary Judgment of No Willfulness at 1-2. This
`
`precludes a finding of pre-suit infringement of § 271(f)(2). WesternGeco LLC v. ION
`
`Geophysical Corp., No. 4:09–cv–1827, 2012 WL 2568167, at *4 (S.D. Tex. June 29, 2012).
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Zynga’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 10 of 12
`
`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
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 11 of 12
`
`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.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 148 Filed 02/09/23 Page 12 of 12
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby 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
`
`