Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA-DTG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY FOR THEORIES INVOLVING
`MODIFICATIONS TO DOUBLECLICK OR ENGAGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 2 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Prior Ali at Issue ................................................................................ 1
`
`AlmondNet Was Afforded Eve1y Opportunity but Chose Not to Probe
`Further Dr. Hanson's Opinions Concerning Reasonable Expectation of
`Success ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`vention ............. 2
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Alnazon Meets Its Burden Concerning Reasonable Expectation of
`Success; at Minimum, Factual Disputes Preclude Summaiy Judgment of
`No Invalidity ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`AlmondNet's AI·gument Regarding "Experimentation" and Its
`Mischaracterization of Prior Ali Witness Testimony Only Underscore that
`Factual Disputes Preclude Summaiy Judgment. ...................................................... 7
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CooIT Sys., Inc.,
`Case No. 19-cv-00410-EMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2022) ..........................................................6
`Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`229 F.3d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................4
`Green Edge Enterprises, LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc.,
`LLC, 620 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................4
`In re Longi,
`759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985)................................................................................................4, 7
`KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2022-1127, 2023 WL 2003932 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023) ..............................................5, 6
`Moore v. LaSalle Mgmt. Co.,
`L.L.C., 41 F.4th 493 (5th Cir. 2022) ..........................................................................................4
`Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC,
`2022-1083, 2023 WL 2298768 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2023) ..........................................................4
`Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker-Hannifin Corp.,
`243 Fed. Appx. 592 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .........................................................................................7
`Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................7
`Transtex Inc. v. Vidal,
`2020-1140, 2023 WL 1487425 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2023) ...........................................................5
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .....................................................................................................................1, 2, 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 4 of 14
`
`Table of Exhibits to the Declaration of Christopher L. Larson Submitted Herewith
`
`Eddbit DNeription.
`
`Ex. 1
`
`Ex. 2
`
`Ex. 3
`
`Opening Expert Repo1i of Dr. Ward Hanson, served June 16, 2023
`("Hanson Rep.")
`
`Deposition of Ward Hanson, Ph.D., taken August 15, 2023
`("Hanson Dep. ")
`
`Opening Expe1i Repo1i of Dr. Herny Houh Regarding Invalidity for Lack
`of Enablement and Written Description Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, served
`June 16, 2023 ("Houh Rep.")
`
`Ex. 4
`
`Deposition of Kevin O'Connor, taken March 14, 2023 ("O'Connor Dep.")
`
`lll
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`AlmondNet moves for summary judgment that the asserted patents are not invalid for
`
`obviousness (Dkt. 130), but in doing so addresses only a subset of Amazon’s theories and on the
`
`limited ground that there is purportedly “no evidence” that a skilled artisan would have had a
`
`reasonable expectation of success. AlmondNet’s burden is to show there exists no genuine dispute
`
`of material fact. It cannot do so—there are a bevy of existing disputed facts anchored to Amazon’s
`
`obviousness theories, and not least because that very question of “reasonable expectation of
`
`success,” along with the numerous, subsidiary issues of fact underlying that question, are
`
`fundamentally questions of fact for the jury. And indeed, AlmondNet’s motion disregards swaths
`
`of the record, including substantial portions of the report of Dr. Hanson—which explain why the
`
`simple software modification at issue would have had a reasonable expectation of success—and
`
`for added measure, distorts the testimony of prior art fact witnesses, who Amazon intends to call
`
`at trial. AlmondNet’s motion here is simply an effort to keep live fact disputes from the jury and
`
`should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`The Asserted Prior Art at Issue
`
`The DoubleClick and Engage systems are prior art
`
` Bollay is a prior art patent publication,
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 DoubleClick and Engage systems are prior art systems, and Bollay is a prior art publication.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 6 of 14
`
`Additional asserted prior aii, which Almond.Net does not specifically address in its motion, include
`
`B.
`
`Dr. Hanson opines that a POSIT A would have found it obvious to combine the foundational
`
`teachings of each o
`
`efficiency and lessening the Court's burden in resolving this motion, Amazon does not undertake
`the rote exercise of sepai·ately repeating its argument in these respects.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`AlmondNet Was Afforded Every Opportunity but Chose Not to Probe
`Further Dr. Hanson’s Opinions Concerning Reasonable Expectation of
`Success
`
`AlmondNet’s counsel deposed Dr. Hanson on August 15, 2023. During that deposition,
`
`AlmondNet’s counsel questioned Dr. Hanson at length about the combination of each of
`
`-
`
`combining
`
` AlmondNet’s counsel chose not to ask any questions regarding whether—or why—
`
` would
`
`have had a reasonable expectation of success. (See generally id.)
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Courts “may grant summary judgment on an issue only when [there is] ‘no genuine dispute
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`as to any material fact.’” Moore v. LaSalle Mgmt. Co., L.L.C., 41 F.4th 493, 502 (5th Cir. 2022).
`
`“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying questions of fact.” Green Edge Enterprises,
`
`LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC, 620 F.3d 1287, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). Whether
`
`a person of skill in the art “would have had a reasonable expectation of success” is in and of itself
`
`a “factual issue[].” Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 2022-1083, 2023 WL 2298768, at *4 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Mar. 1, 2023). Evidence of reasonable expectation of success “may flow from the prior art
`
`references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from
`
`the nature of the problem to be solved.’” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris
`
`Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Only a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute
`
`predictability,” is necessary. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 897 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Amazon Meets Its Burden Concerning Reasonable Expectation of Success; at
`Minimum, Factual Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment of No Invalidity.
`
`AlmondNet’s motion is premised on its assertion that Amazon “provides no evidence of
`
`reasonable expectation of success,” and Amazon's expert allegedly “does not use the phrase
`
`‘reasonable expectation of success’ or an equivalent term anywhere in his 488-page report.” (Mot.
`
`at 3.) Such statements are plainly incorrect.
`
`Dr. Hanson discloses
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`...
`
`must preclude summary judgment.
`
` Dr. Hanson’s opinions, at a minimum, present multiple genuine questions of fact that
`
`Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed this year that even “brief” expert testimony
`
`can suffice to establish a reasonable expectation of success, particularly when the proposed
`
`combination involves mere software modifications like those at issue here. See KEYnetik, Inc. v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2022-1127, 2023 WL 2003932, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2023). In
`
`KEYnetik, the patent challenger argued that the claims at issue were obvious, and the challenger’s
`
`expert identified the “function” of the “software modifications needed” for the combination. Id.
`
`While the Federal Circuit acknowledged that the expert’s testimony was “brief,” it nonetheless
`
`affirmed the crediting of the expert testimony below, explaining that “[n]ormally, once the function
`
`
`3 To the extent AlmondNet argues that Dr. Hanson’s testimony is relevant only to a motivation
`to combine, that argument should be rejected, as reasons supporting a motivation to combine may
`be “the same reasons [a POSITA] would expect them to yield predictable results.” Transtex Inc.
`v. Vidal, 2020-1140, 2023 WL 1487425, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 3, 2023).
`4 Notably, AlmondNet has not moved to exclude or limit Dr. Hanson’s testimony under
`Daubert. AlmondNet did not do so, because it knows full well that it could not persuade this Court
`that it has not been given adequate notice under Rule 26 of Dr. Hanson’s opinions.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`to be performed by software has been identified, writing code to achieve that function is within
`
`the skill of the art.” Id. (citing Fonar Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1549 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1997)). The Federal Circuit accordingly affirmed that a patent challenger’s expert testimony,
`
`which identified “the modified function” and explained “that implementing such a modification
`
`would be ‘simple’ and ‘straightforward,’” is evidence “sufficient to establish a reasonable
`
`expectation of success.” Id.
`
`Just as in KEYnetik, and as AlmondNet itself concedes, Dr. Hanson described
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Such testimony, just as in KEYnetik, is
`
`sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of success. See KEYnetik, 2023 WL 2003932, at
`
`*2. Such testimony must be credited at summary judgment—and its ultimate persuasiveness is a
`
`matter for the jury after weighing any competing evidence.
`
`AlmondNet’s reliance on Asetek Danmark A/S v. CooIT Sys., Inc. is unavailing. See Dkt.
`
`131-5 (Case No. 19-cv-00410-EMC, Dkt. 504 at 12-13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2022)). Putting aside
`
`that Asetek is an unpublished, non-binding “Order” issued outside of this District, the patent
`
`challenger there provided no more than “one conclusory sentence” in a plainly half-hearted effort
`
`to address reasonable expectation of success. See id. In contrast, Dr. Hanson here
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`
` Such
`
`testimony is sufficient to show a reasonable expectation of success; and, at minimum, it presents
`
`genuine issues of fact that must be decided by the jury.5 AlmondNet’s motion invites the Court to
`
`err. See Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker-Hannifin Corp., 243 Fed. Appx. 592, 596 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (err
`
`to grant summary judgment where expert would testify that an aspect of prior art was “well-known
`
`in the field generally,” and that a POSITA “would expect a reasonable probability of success”).
`
`B.
`
`AlmondNet’s Argument Regarding “Experimentation” and Its
`Mischaracterization of Prior Art Witness Testimony Only Underscore that
`Factual Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment.
`
`AlmondNet argues that no reasonable juror could find as fact that a reasonable expectation
`
`of success existed on account of the proposition that “experimentation or testing” would be needed.
`
`(Mot. at 5 (arguing no “reasonable expectation . . . absent experimentation or testing”).) But it is
`
`well-settled that the need for testing does not preclude a finding of a reasonable expectation of
`
`success. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claims obvious
`
`despite the need for testing); In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 897 (“absolute predictability” not required).
`
`And, notwithstanding that authority, whether any such “experimentation” would have been
`
`required to confirm a reasonable expectation of success only raises additional issues of fact—e.g.,
`
`how routine, or undue, would that testing have been considered by a person of skill in the art?
`
`Indeed, in advancing its “experimentation or testing” argument, AlmondNet mischaracterizes the
`
`record evidence, in ways that highlight the existence of material disputes. First, AlmondNet
`
`suggests that
`
`
`
`
`5 Dr. Hanson’s testimony stands in stark contrast to the conclusory testimony in AlmondNet’s
`cited cases. (See Mot. at 3; see MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1172 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015) (discussing expert’s conclusory statement that “I don't see evidence for that.”); Autoliv
`ASP, Inc. v. Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd., 552 F. Supp. 3d 1215, 1235 (M.D. Ala. 2021) (discussing
`expert’s conclusory statement “that she would not have suggested the parachute publications ‘if it
`were not expected to be reasonably successful.’”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 12 of 14
`
`(Mot. at 5.) In fact, Dr. Houh testified that
`
`Dr. Houh does not, contraiy to
`
`AhnondNet's arguments, address experimentation with respect to the prior ait.
`
`Similai·ly, AhnondNet ai·gues that the testimony of DoubleClick's founder, Kevin
`
`O'Connor, demonstrates a need for testing to establish a reasonable expectation of success. (Mot.
`
`at 4.) A faithful reading of the record shows Mr. O'Connor discussed
`
`The simplicity-
`
`as opposed to complexity-of the softwai·e modifications to
`
`contemplated under Dr. Hanson's opinions may be disputed, but that dispute only highlights that
`
`smnmaiy judgment is improper. The readily-appai·ent dispute regai·ding the extent, if any, of
`
`experimentation needed is further reason why AlmondNet's motion should be denied.6
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Comi should deny AlmondNet's motion for smnmaiy
`
`judgment of no invalidity for theories involving modifications to DoubleClick or Engage.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 13 of 14
`
`
`
`Dated: September 7, 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/ Christopher L. Larson
`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.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 183 Filed 09/14/23 Page 14 of 14
`
`
`
`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 September 7, 2023, via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV 5(a)(3). Additionally, this document and the
`
`attachments thereto were served via email on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher L. Larson
`Christopher L. Larson
`
`
`
`10
`
`