Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 10
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA-DTG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`AMAZON’S OPPOSITION TO ALMONDNET’S MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT AMAZON’S SIXTEENTH
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 2 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`PERTINENT FACTS ..........................................................................................................1
`
`RELEVANT LAW ..............................................................................................................2
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 3 of 10
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Barragan v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc.,
`No. 5:15-CV-854-DAE, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214369 (W.D. Tex. July 24, 2017) ..............2
`
`Culwell v. City of Fort Worth,
`468 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Eagle Pharms. Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC,
`958 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................3
`
`Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger,
`581 U.S. 101 (2017) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Navarro v. FedEx Ground Package Sys.,
`No. M:19-CV-00052-DC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247751 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2020) .............2
`
`PSC Comput. Prods., Inc. v. Foxconn Int'l,
`355 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................3
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................3
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc.,
`383 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................2, 3
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 .................................................................................................1
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) .............................................................................................2
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) .............................................................................................2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 4 of 10
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND DOCKET CITES
`
`tiilbff/ ~·
`
`•DoeketNo.
`
`Dkt. 68
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement Against Amazon.com,
`Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc., filed
`November 18, 2022
`
`Dkt. 120 Amended Scheduling order, filed August 9, 2023
`Plaintiff AlmondNet, Inc. 's Motion For Summa1y Judgment of Defendant
`Amazon's Sixteenth Affmnative Defense of Dedication to the Public
`
`Dkt. 125
`
`Omnibus Supplemental Objections and Responses of Defendants
`Dkt. 125-2 Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.Com Services LLC and Amazon Web
`Services, Inc. to Plaintiff AlmondNet, Inc.'s Inten ogatories (Nos. 1-27),
`
`Ex. 1
`
`Ex.2
`
`Ex. 3
`
`Ex.4
`
`Ex. 5
`
`Ex. 6
`
`Plaintiffs' Fomth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Defendants'
`First Set of Intenogatories (Nos. 1 and 9), served April 11, 2023
`
`Plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC's Disclosme of Final
`Infringement Contentions, served Januaiy 26, 2023
`
`Exhibit A-8 ('586 patent) to Plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ,
`LLC's Disclosme of Final Infringement Contentions, served Januaiy 26,
`2023
`
`Exhibit A-10 ('639 patent) to Plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ,
`LLC's Disclosme of Final Infringement Contentions, served Januaiy 26,
`2023
`Expe1t Repo1t of Dr. Eric Koskinen Regarding Infringement, served June
`16, 2023
`
`Supplemental Expe1t Repo1t of Dr. Eric Koskinen Regarding Infringement,
`se1ved August 9, 2023
`
`111
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`AlmondNet’s motion on Amazon’s affirmative dedication-disclosure defense (Dkt. 125)
`
`
`
`to infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents (“DOE”) should be denied, or at least deferred
`
`to post-trial proceedings. This is a jury trial; Amazon does not object to AlmondNet advancing
`
`DOE at trial; and the dedication defense to DOE is an issue of law, reserved to the Court, and thus
`
`particularly amenable to resolution post-trial. AlmondNet’s real complaint is the defense should
`
`be barred for insufficient Rule 26 notice. In truth, AlmondNet caused any alleged deficiency and
`
`AlmondNet is on notice of Amazon’s defense and its contours. AlmondNet suffers no prejudice
`
`if its Motion is denied or deferred. Amazon respectfully requests the Court decide it accordingly.
`
`I.
`
`PERTINENT FACTS
`
`During discovery, Amazon sought the full “basis for [AlmondNet’s] claim, if any, of
`
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.” (Menist Decl. Ex. 1 at 147.) In response,
`
`AlmondNet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(See Dkt. 68; Menist Decl. Exs. 2-4.) AlmondNet’s infringement expert, Dr. Koskinen,
`
`-
`
`. (Menist Decl.
`
`Ex. 5.) Amazon’s non-infringement expert, Dr. Houh, responded with his own report (Dkt. 120 at
`
`3), rebutting Dr. Koskinen’s opinions
`
`. Two months after
`
`Amazon served its final interrogatory responses, however, and weeks after Dr. Houh issued his
`
`rebuttal, AlmondNet noticed, for the very first time, new DOE theories via “supplemental” expert
`
`report from Dr. Koskinen. (Menist Decl. Ex. 6 ¶¶ 17, 25.) Supplemental reports are not permitted
`
`under the Scheduling. (See Dkt. 120.) Nonetheless, Dr. Koskinen offered the opinion that, in the
`
`event the asserted claims are not literally infringed, they alternatively infringe under the DOE
`
`because certain components of the accused products are legal equivalents of, and thus read on,
`
`otherwise unmet elements recited in those claims. (See infra, III).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`
`
`Summary judgment is only appropriate upon a showing by the movant that there exists no
`
`disputed question of fact material to the motion that properly must be considered and resolved by
`
`the trier of fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A Court’s authority to grant summary judgment is, under
`
`certain circumstances, permissive, not compulsory. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Rule 56(d) permits
`
`the Court to defer ruling on the motion, deny the motion, or “issue any other appropriate order.”
`
`Id. “Such motions are broadly favored and should be liberally granted.” Culwell v. City of Fort
`
`Worth, 468 F.3d 868, 871 (5th Cir. 2006). “Rule 56(d) functions as a safe harbor … so that
`
`summary judgment is not granted prematurely.” Navarro v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., No.
`
`M:19-CV-00052-DC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 247751, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2020) (citation
`
`omitted) (denying without prejudice summary judgment filed after close of discovery to allow
`
`plaintiffs time to develop case). In all events, on consideration of any grant of summary judgment,
`
`a court should be postured such that it can “state on the record the reasons for granting or denying
`
`the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). It is existential, moreover, that “[f]ederal courts possess certain
`
`‘inherent powers,’ not conferred by rule or statute, ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve
`
`the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581
`
`U.S. 101, 107 (2017) (citation omitted); see Barragan v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc., No. 5:15-CV-854-
`
`DAE, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214369, at *12-16 (W.D. Tex. July 24, 2017) (using inherent
`
`authority to manage docket and efficiently address the merits by denying summary judgment
`
`motions and granting leave to refile after resolving other issues).
`
`The dedication-disclosure doctrine is in essence a legal exception to a legal exception,
`
`operating as an equitable bar to recovery for infringement proved under the DOE. See Toro Co.
`
`v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 383 F.3d 1326, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The rule bars recovery for
`
`infringement under the DOE where the accused equivalent (in typical practice, i.e., alleged
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`equivalent(s) of one or more claim elements recited, but not literally present in, the accused
`
`
`
`product) is disclosed as an embodiment of the invention in a patent’s specification but ultimately
`
`was not claimed by its inventors. See id. at 1334. This serves the fundamental policy underlying
`
`the patent laws that what is disclosed but not claimed is thereby dedicated to the public. See PSC
`
`Comput. Prods., Inc. v. Foxconn Int'l, 355 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Whether the
`
`dedication-disclosure rule applies is, as AlmondNet acknowledges (Mot. at 2), generally a pure
`
`matter of law. Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, 653 F.3d 1296, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is
`
`because, like claim construction, the only evidence generally required by a court to undertake its
`
`determination is the patent itself. See Eagle Pharms. Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC, 958 F.3d 1171,
`
`1177-78 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In the rare case where there arguably exists issues of fact underlying
`
`the legal question of whether dedication-disclosure applies, such issues of fact are thus limited to
`
`resolving any alleged ambiguity as to how a skilled artisan would interpret the specification,
`
`specifically in terms of what embodiments of the invention described in the specification at issue
`
`were disclosed, but not claimed, by the inventors. See PSC Comput. Prods., Inc., 355 F.3d at 1359.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`There are three possible scenarios to play out at trial, AlmondNet: (1) ultimately elects not
`
`to try a DOE case; (2) fails to prove infringement under the DOE; or (3) successfully proves
`
`infringement under the DOE. Under the first two scenarios, the entire issue here becomes moot.
`
`Only the third scenario necessitates consideration of AlmondNet’s motion. If and when that comes
`
`to pass, Amazon respectfully requests, in the interests of fairness and efficiency, the parties and
`
`the Court take up the purely legal question of Amazon’s defense in the normal course of post-trial
`
`briefing. At this time, accordingly, the Court can and should deny AlmondNet’s motion for
`
`summary judgment, without prejudice, or alternatively, defer its decision until after trial.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`AlmondNet’s contention that it is entitled to summary judgment on the sole basis that
`
`Amazon did not “support its dedication defense” is contrived and unavailing. Notwithstanding
`
`that AlmondNet deprived Amazon the opportunity to take discovery probing AlmondNet’s belated
`
`DOE theories, Amazon does not complain of notice, and will not object to AlmondNet advancing
`
`it at trial. Amazon similarly will not proffer any evidence in support of dedication-disclosure at
`
`trial. It is unnecessary, and dedication-disclosure is not an issue for the jury. The entire matter is
`
`reasonably simple and contained: AlmondNet intends to proffer evidence at trial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` If successful, the question of dedication-disclosure may be decided post-
`
`trial. Then, as now, AlmondNet feigns ignorance of what “evidence” Amazon will rely upon at
`
`that time, or the “basis” of Amazon’s defense. AlmondNet of course knows that the only evidence
`
`-
`
`will be the patent documents themselves, and that Amazon’s basis will be that the
`
`
`
`. The Court is certainly
`
`capable of reading those text; deciding the issue should entail nothing more complicated than that.
`
`Amazon does not contend that there is anything ambiguous about the specifications in these
`
`respects. If AlmondNet contends otherwise at that time, the parties could submit supplemental
`
`expert declarations on this limited issue as a reasonable solution, and one fair to AlmondNet.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should deny or defer AlmondNet’s motion. If AlmondNet presents it DOE
`
`theories at trial, the Court should permit Amazon to present its dedication defense if necessary,
`
`and in the normal course of post-trial briefing.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`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/ Eric A. Menist
`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.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 184 Filed 09/14/23 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 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/ Eric A. Menist
`Eric A. Menist
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`