Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 1 of 11
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC; and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY FOR
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC,
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC; and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY FOR
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 2 of 11
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
`
`II. Legal Standards .......................................................................................................................1
`
`III. Dr. Hanson provides no evidence that
`
`
`
`
` ..........................................................................................3
`
`IV. There is no evidence that a POSITA would have reasonably expected to
`
`. ..................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 3 of 11
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CooIT Systems, Inc.,
`Case No. 19-cv-00410-EMC, Dkt. 504 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2022) .......................................... 4
`
`Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis Co.,
`552 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (M.D. Ala. 2021) .................................................................................... 2
`
`Duffy v. Leading Edge Prods.,
`44 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................... 2, 4, 6
`
`Guangzhou Yucheng Trading Co. v. Dbest Prod., Inc.,
`No. CV214758JVSJDEX, 2022 WL 17886016 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2022) ................................ 2
`
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Pat. Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Schumer v. Lab’y Computer Sys., Inc.,
`308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 4 of 11
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 4 of 11
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Dr. Hanson’s invalidity theories rely, in part, 0)3
`
`ES which ace purported prior art targeted
`
`advertising, systems.[lls
`
`MEE Sec 0°Connor Dep. (Ex. 2) 63:18-24
`
`a P
`
`S); ic. at 99:10-21
`
`SES); Jaye Dep. (Ex. 3) 28:8-29:14ee
`
`eer
`
`ee)
`
`Hanson Report (Ex. 1) {101 (acknowledging that
`
`eee
`
`a a
`
`s part of his obviousness theories Dr. Hanson proposes
`
`. A
`
`ee
`
`es. 2x. | | 308.
`
`Despite|
`
`however, Dr. Hanson does not providejars
`
`| As such, Amazon cannot
`
`meetits burden of establishing obviousness by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`IL.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`Obviousness requires a showing not only of motivation to combine, but also of a
`
`reasonable expectation of success. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc., 876
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 5 of 11
`
`F.3d 1350, 1360–61 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We have held that where a party argues a skilled artisan
`
`would have been motivated to combine references, it must show the artisan ‘would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success from doing so.’”) (quoting In re Cyclobenzaprine
`
`Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Pat. Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
`
`Thus, a finding of obviousness with no corresponding finding of reasonable expectation of
`
`success constitutes reversible error. See OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375, 1385
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (reversing obviousness determination where there was no substantial evidence
`
`of reasonable expectation of success). It is a defendant’s burden to establish reasonable
`
`expectation of success with “clear and convincing evidence.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva
`
`Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`As the Federal Circuit has explained, “to accept confusing or generalized testimony as
`
`evidence of invalidity is improper.” Schumer v. Lab’y Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1316
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2002); MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(“Conclusory statements by an expert . . . are insufficient to sustain a jury’s verdict.”). Thus,
`
`“[a]n expert’s conclusory assertion does not give rise to a genuine issue of material fact.”
`
`Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis Co., 552 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1235 (M.D. Ala. 2021); Duffy v.
`
`Leading Edge Prods., 44 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Conclusory allegations unsupported
`
`by concrete and particular facts will not prevent an award of summary judgment.”); Guangzhou
`
`Yucheng Trading Co. v. Dbest Prod., Inc., No. CV214758JVSJDEX, 2022 WL 17886016, at
`
`*21 n.13 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2022) (“incomplete and conclusory opinions cannot create a
`
`disputed issue of material fact”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 6 of 11
`
`III. Dr. Hanson provides
`
`Dr. Hanson explicitly
`
`
`
`. See generally Hanson Report ¶ 308
`
`”); see generally id. ¶¶ 778-810 (
`
`); id. at ¶¶ 958-988 (
`
`However, Dr. Hanson provides
`
`initial matter, Dr. Hanson
`
`. And with regard to his
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`).
`
`. As an
`
`
`
`
`
`, Dr. Hanson provides only two conclusory sentences regarding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1 ¶ 308. To the extent the above testimony can be understood as addressing reasonable
`
`expectation of success, it is wholly conclusory, and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Indeed, Dr. Hanson’s testimony in this regard is no more detailed than the conclusory
`
`allegation of reasonable expectation of success rejected in Asetek Danmark A/S v. CooIT
`
`Systems, Inc. See Ex. 5, Case No. 19-cv-00410-EMC, Dkt. 504 at 12-13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11,
`
`2022). There, defendant’s expert testified that “the combination or modification is also based on
`
`conventional or known methods that would have yielded predictable results and been
`
`reasonably expected to be successful by a POSITA.” Id. (internal alteration omitted). The court
`
`evaluated that testimony, but concluded that “[t]his conclusory assertion is insufficient [to]
`
`show reasonable expectation of success,” and granted motion for summary judgment of no
`
`invalidity. Id.
`
`
`
`Because Dr. Hanson’s opinion regarding
`
` is unexplained and conclusory, it
`
`is insufficient to avoid summary judgment on an issue where Amazon bears the burden of proof
`
`by clear and convincing evidence. See Duffy, 44 F.3d 308 at 312. Although no other evidence
`
`need be considered to grant summary judgment on this issue, here there is a wealth of evidence
`
`suggesting that a POSITA would not have reasonably expected to succeed in
`
`For instance, AlmondNet’s validity expert, Jason Frankovitz, testified that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Frankovitz Report (Ex. 6) ¶¶ 281, 369. As Mr. Frankovitz
`
`explained after reviewing the deposition testimony of DoubleClick’s founder Kevin O’Connor,
`
`¶¶ 283, 370. Thus, Mr. Frankovitz provided the reasoned opinion that “
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`. Id. at
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 8 of 11
`
`” and there is no evidence of record that a POSITA would have
`
`
`
`
`
`reasonably expected to succeed in such experimentation or testing. Id. at ¶¶ 283-284, 370-371.
`
`Likewise, even Amazon’s own expert, Dr. Houh, opines that “
`
`.” Houh Opening Report ¶ 93 (Ex. 7). Dr. Houh goes on to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. ¶ 94. These types of real-time bidding
`
`systems that
`
`. See Ex. 1 ¶¶ 790, 970; Ex. 6 ¶¶ 277, 366 (“
`
`”); see also Hanson Dep. (Ex. 8) 124:19-125:8 (“
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`).
`
`
`
`Especially given that the evidence of record shows there would be numerous challenges
`
`and difficulties involved in implementing a real-time bidding system in a combination involving
`
`, Dr. Hanson’s conclusory opinions that his combination
`
`involved only a
`
`
`
` cannot establish a genuine issue of material fact as to reasonable expectation
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 9 of 11
`
`of success. Duffy, 44 F.3d 308 at 312. Accordingly, the Court should grant summary judgment
`
`of no invalidity in view of the theories raised by Dr. Hanson in paragraphs 773-843 and 953-
`
`1029 of his report, which rely on
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`There is no evidence that a POSITA would have reasonably expected to succeed in
`making
`.
`
`Other than
`
`does not identify any specific modifications to
`
`, Dr. Hanson
`
` in his
`
`report, much less explain why any such unidentified modifications would had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success. Normally, this would be the end of the inquiry. However, Dr. Hanson
`
`made clear at his deposition that he intended to testify that “
`
`
`
`” Ex. 8 43:16-
`
`44:4.
`
`Of course, one cannot show that a POSITA would have reasonably expected to succeed
`
`in making modifications to
`
`without even
`
`explaining what those modifications might entail. And Dr. Hanson’s report fails to
`
`
`
`reasonable expectation of success for any other modifications to
`
`
`
`, and Amazon should be prevented from asserting obviousness at trial based on
`
`. Accordingly, Amazon cannot show a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 23, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 10 of 11
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`Marc A. Fenster
`Benjamin T. Wang
`Adam Hoffman
`James A. Milkey
`Amy E. Hayden
`James S. Tsuei
`Jonathan Ma
`Daniel B. Kolko
`Jason M. Wietholter
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Tel: 310-826-7474
`Fax: 310-826-6991
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`bwang@raklaw.com
`ahoffman@raklaw.com
`jmilkey@raklaw.com
`ahayden@raklaw.com
`jtsuei@raklaw.com
`jma@raklaw.com
`dkolko@raklaw.com
`jwietholter@raklaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff ALMONDNET, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 146 Filed 08/30/23 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on August 23, 2023, counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served with
`
`a copy of the foregoing via email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Reza Mirzaie
`
`
`
` 1
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
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
