`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`FIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`AlmondNet failed to identify evidence of willful infringement
`during discovery. ......................................................................................................1
`
`Amazon developed the accused products independently years
`before learning of AlmondNet’s patents. .................................................................2
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................5
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 3 of 10
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................3, 4
`
`Global eTicket Exch. Ltd. v. TicketMaster L.L.C.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00399-ADA, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75009 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30,
`2023) (Albright, J.) ....................................................................................................................4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ...........................................................................................................3, 5
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`234 F. Supp. 3d 601 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................4
`
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc.,
`549 F. Supp. 3d 362 (D. Del. 2021) ...........................................................................................3
`
`MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects, S.A.,
`429 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................5
`
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................5
`
`Xiamen Baby Pretty Prods. Co. v. Talbot's Pharm. Fam. Prods., LLC,
`No. 3:21-CV-00409, 2022 WL 509336 (W.D. La. Feb. 18, 2022)............................................4
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ........................................................................................................................1, 3, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) ....................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`In this case, AlmondNet asserts a claim for willful infringement, and intends to seek
`
`enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. But its only identified basis for this claim is the
`
`. Indeed, after having taken full fact
`
`discovery for over 10 months, AlmondNet has put forward no evidence to support its claim of
`
`willful infringement other than
`
`
`
`. Under Federal Circuit law, evidence of
`
`pre-suit notice alone cannot establish the requisite specific intent to infringe required to support a
`
`finding of willful infringement. Nor has AlmondNet identified any evidence that Amazon engaged
`
`in any egregious conduct. AlmondNet failed to identify any such evidence during fact discovery
`
`because it cannot: the undisputed facts show that Amazon i
`
`
`
`. AlmondNet thus cannot show willful
`
`infringement as a matter of law, and no reasonable jury could find otherwise. Amazon is entitled
`
`to summary judgment of no willful infringement.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`AlmondNet failed to identify evidence of willful infringement during
`discovery.
`
`AlmondNet mailed a first letter to Amazon on July 24, 2019. (Decl. of Eric A. Menist
`
`(“Menist Decl.”) Ex. 1.)
`
`
`
`2019,
`
`AlmondNet’s counsel replied,
`
`. (Id. at 266.) Amazon responded by email on August 13,
`
`. (Menist Decl. Ex. 2.)
`
` (Id. Ex. 3.) On October 25, 2019, AlmondNet sent a second letter,
`
`. (Id. Ex. 4.)
`
`. (See id. Ex. 5 (“
`
`.”) 19:6-24:23.)
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`AlmondNet’s complaint alleges the parties “communicated, e.g., in the 2019 time frame,
`
`regarding AlmondNet’s patent portfolio, including the Asserted Patents. In these discussions,
`
`AlmondNet notified Defendant of the asserted patents.” (Dkt. 68 ¶¶ 13, 44, 55.) AlmondNet also
`
`alleges Amazon “continued” its alleged infringement after it received notice. (Id.)
`
`
`
` (See Menist Decl. Exs. 6-9.)
`
`During discovery, Amazon served an interrogatory requesting that AlmondNet disclose
`
`“the full factual and legal basis” for its contention Amazon willfully infringes the patents and to
`
`identify “the alleged egregious conduct of each Defendant.” (Id. Ex. 10 at 146 (interrogatory 13).)
`
`AlmondNet responded as follows: “
`
` (Id. at 146-47.) AlmondNet also identified
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (See id.; id. at 142-43 (Interrogatory 10).)
`
`B.
`
`Amazon developed the accused products independently years before learning
`of AlmondNet’s patents.
`
`It is undisputed that Amazon developed the accused products independently, years before
`
`AlmondNet sent its demand letters. In fact,
`
`
`
` (Menist Decl. Ex. 11 (“
`
`.”) 28:7-8.) AlmondNet accuses
`
`
`
`
`
` (See id. Ex. 12 (“Bergman Rep.”) p. 2, ¶ 165; id. Ex. 13 (“Koskinen Rep.”)
`
`at p. i, ¶ 43.) Amazon released
`
`(“
`
`”) 213:12-214:25). Amazon released
`
`. (Id. Ex. 14
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 6 of 10
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 6 of 10
`
`BD)) 90:200cheI (en'sDeck Bx 15
`¢ 28:5-6, 31:2-4, 40:16-21.) Thus, Amazon’s developmentofthese products could
`
`have no possible connection to AlmondNetorits patents.’
`
`Il.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Supreme Court has explained that willfulness, and the resulting enhanced damages
`
`under Section 284, should be limited to “egregious cases of misconduct beyond typical
`
`infringement” found “in garden-variety cases,” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct.
`
`1923, 1935 (2016),
`
`i.e., conduct
`
`that
`
`is “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate,
`
`consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” See Jd. at 1932. “To
`
`establish willfulness, the patentee must show the accused infringerhad a specific intent to infringe
`
`at the time of the challenged conduct.” Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Baxalta Inc., 989 F.3d 964, 987
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933). Moreover, “[k]nowledgeof the asserted patent
`
`and evidence of infringementis necessary, but not sufficient, for a finding of willfulness.” Jd. at
`
`988. Willfulness requires something more, such as “deliberate or intentional infringement.” Jd.
`
`The evidence AlmondNetidentified in this case comes nowhere close to the exacting
`
`standard for willfulness and enhanced damages. That evidence shows, at most, that AlmondNet
`
`providednotice to Amazonofthe asserted patents before filing this lawsuit. This is not sufficient.
`
`Id. Courts grant summary judgment of no willfulness where the plaintiffs claim rests solely on
`
`pre-suit notice. See Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc., 549 F. Supp. 3d 362, 378 (D. Del.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`2021) (no willful infringement where plaintiff’s interrogatory response explained “its willfulness
`
`theory was based on [defendant]’s pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents”); see Global eTicket
`
`Exch. Ltd. v. TicketMaster L.L.C., No. 6:21-cv-00399-ADA, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75009, at *3
`
`(W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2023) (adopting report and recommendation of no willful infringement and
`
`granting summary judgment) (Albright, J.); id. Dkt. 91 at 6 (Feb. 3, 2023) (arguing, inter alia, that
`
`plaintiff had insufficient evidence showing a specific intent to infringe). This case is no different,
`
`and the result should be the same.
`
`Indeed, AlmondNet should not be permitted to argue willfulness to the jury when it has put
`
`forward no evidence whatsoever of the required specific intent to infringe and “willful, wanton,
`
`and malicious conduct.” The Federal Circuit’s opinion in Bayer HealthCare makes that clear. The
`
`court there affirmed judgment as a matter of law of no willful infringement despite evidence that
`
`the defendant’s development efforts failed, and it copied the patent by “consciously redirect[ing]
`
`its own research to” develop its product “after learning about Bayer’s invention.” See id. at 988.
`
`The court held even that record did not “establish that [defendant]'s ‘conduct rose to the level of
`
`wanton, malicious, and bad-faith behavior required.” Id. (citation omitted).
`
`Here, AlmondNet has put forward far less evidence than the Federal Circuit held
`
`insufficient as a matter of law in Bayer. Not only is there no evidence of copying in this case, but
`
`the undisputed record evidence shows that Amazon
`
`,
`
`long before the notice letters. Moreover, merely continuing to produce and sell the accused products
`
`after the lawsuit was filed does not establish willfulness. See Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
`
`Corp., 234 F. Supp. 3d 601, 612 (D. Del. 2017) (finding no willfulness as a matter of law); accord,
`
`Xiamen Baby Pretty Prods. Co. v. Talbot's Pharm. Fam. Prods., LLC, No. 3:21-CV-00409, 2022
`
`WL 509336, at *3 (W.D. La. Feb. 18, 2022).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`AlmondNet also failed to identify evidence showing that any of Amazon’s conduct,
`
`including its alleged willful infringement, is “wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously
`
`wrongful, flagrant, or characteristic of a pirate,” and beyond “garden-variety” infringement that
`
`this Court could hold as egregious. Halo Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. at 1932, 1935. As described
`
`above, AlmondNet cannot prove willful infringement on the current record. And Amazon
`
` long before AlmondNet launched this litigation
`
`campaign. Nor did AlmondNet identify any
`
`
`
`.
`
`AlmondNet thus cannot show Amazon acted with egregious conduct, which it must show to obtain
`
`enhanced damages under § 284. Because AlmondNet is not entitled to enhanced damages, the
`
`issue of willfulness need not, and should not, go to the jury at all.
`
`Nor can AlmondNet cure its failure of proof at this stage because it cannot “supply
`
`evidence on a motion” it was required to provide during discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); see
`
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366–69 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`(affirming exclusion of supplemental evidence in response to summary judgment); MicroStrategy
`
`Inc. v. Bus. Objects, S.A., 429 F.3d 1344, 1353, 1356-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (upholding exclusion for
`
`failure “to [timely] supplement discovery interrogatories” seeking facts and legal theories). The
`
`undisputed record above shows that AlmondNet cannot prevail on its claims for willful
`
`infringement. Thus, there is no basis to submit the question of willfulness to the jury. The Court
`
`should therefore grant Amazon’s motion for summary judgment.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Amazon’s motion and enter summary
`
`judgment of no willful infringement.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 9 of 10
`
`Dated: August 23, 2023
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Deron R. Dacus (TX Bar #00790553)
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: (903) 705-1117
`Fax: (903) 581-2543
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ravi Ranganath
`J. David Hadden (CA Bar No. 176148)
`Email: dhadden@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov (CA Bar No. 215636)
`Email: sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ravi R. Ranganath (CA Bar No. 272981)
`Email: rranganath@fenwick.com
`Johnson K. Kuncheria (TX Bar No. 24070092)
`Email: jkuncheria@fenwick.com
`Johnathan L. Chai (CA Bar No. 339315)
`Email: jchai@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Tel: (650) 988-8500
`Fax: (650) 938-5200
`
`Eric B. Young, (CA Bar No. 318754)
`Email: eyoung@fenwick.com
`Dargaye Churnet (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: dchurnet@fenwick.com
`Christopher L. Larson (CA Bar No. 308247)
`Email: clarson@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Tel: (415) 875-2300
`
`Jeffrey A. Ware (WA Bar No. 43779)
`Email: jware@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`401 Union Street, 5th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Tel: (206) 389-4510
`
`Jessica Lin (NY Bar No. 5035860)
`Email: jessica.lin@fenwick.com
`Eric Menist (NY Bar No. 5721568)
`Email: emenist@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`902 Broadway, 18th Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Tel: (212) 921-2001
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM SERVICES
`LLC, and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 143 Filed 08/30/23 Page 10 of 10
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served with a true and correct copy of this document on August 23, 2023, via the
`
`Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV 5(a)(3) and that this document was served via email
`
`on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Ravi Ranganath
`Ravi Ranganath
`
`
`
`7
`
`