Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14375 Page 1 of 57
`
`Juliette P. White, USB #9616
`PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
`201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
`Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
`Telephone: 801.532.1234
`Facsimile: 801.536.6111
`JWhite@parsonsbehle.com
`ecf@parsonsbehle.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`NEARMAP’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO LPR 6.2
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO
`The Honorable Ted Stewart
`Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`
`EAGLE VIEW TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`PICTOMETRY INTERNATIONAL CORP.,
`Plaintiffs,
`vs.
`NEARMAP US, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14376 Page 2 of 57
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS .......................3
`
`STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS .................................................20
`
`ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................29
`
`A.
`
`Nearmap Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the “Moveable” Visual
`Marker Limitation of the ’880 Patent. ...................................................................29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`MapBrowser ...............................................................................................29
`
`Roof Geometry Technology ......................................................................32
`
`NMOS ........................................................................................................33
`
`B.
`
`Nearmap Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Roof Report
`Limitations. ............................................................................................................34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Nearmap’s Roof Measurement Outputs Are Roof Reports. ......................34
`
`Nearmap Is Liable for QuickMeasure Reports, Notwithstanding
`Involvement of Pushpin and/or GAF. ........................................................38
`
`Nearmap Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the “Calibrating”
`Limitations. ............................................................................................................42
`
`Nearmap Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the Aerial Image
`Limitations. ............................................................................................................43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Nearmap 3D and Panorama Are Aerial Images. ........................................43
`
`Nearmap 3D and Panorama Match the Perspectives from Which They
`Were Captured. ..........................................................................................45
`
`Nearmap Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the “Primary Oblique
`Image Including Overlapping Data” Limitations. .................................................45
`
`Nearmap Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the 3D Model
`Limitations. ............................................................................................................46
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14377 Page 3 of 57
`
`G.
`
`Nearmap Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the “Taken Independent
`of Each Other” Limitations. ...................................................................................47
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14378 Page 4 of 57
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................2, 48
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................39, 40
`
`Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC,
`707 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................31, 32
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................31
`
`CNET Networks, Inc. v. Etilize, Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 985 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .....................................................................................38
`
`Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg. Co.,
`285 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..........................................................................................30, 31
`
`Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.,
`857 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................30
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Rsch. In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................38
`
`PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................2
`
`Scripps Clinic & Rsch. Found. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..................................................................................................2
`
`Shure, Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc.,
`No, 17-C-3078, 2018 WL 1371170 (N.D. Ill. March 16, 2018) ..............................................41
`
`Travel Sentry v. Tropp,
`877 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................39
`
`Voda v. Cordis Corp.,
`536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................44
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14379 Page 5 of 57
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ...................................................................................................................30
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(g) .............................................................................................................12, 13, 38
`
`Rules
`
`Local Civil Rules Rule 56-1(b)(3) ...................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14380 Page 6 of 57
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14381 Page 7 of 57
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Nearmap’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement should be denied in its
`
`entirety.
`
`As an initial matter, the vast majority of Nearmap’s arguments turn on its proposed claim
`
`constructions: to the extent the Court does not adopt one or more of Nearmap’s constructions, the
`
`corresponding limitation does not provide a complete defense to infringement, and thus summary
`
`judgment based on that limitation should be denied.1
`
`Moreover, this is not a situation where the nature of Nearmap’s products is undisputed
`
`and Nearmap’s non-infringement is apparent if the Court adopts its claim constructions. Despite
`
`Nearmap’s efforts to improperly narrow the claims through claim construction,2 Nearmap still
`
`could not craft constructions that, if adopted, would exclude the accused products. Instead,
`
`Nearmap’s motion relies on self-serving testimony that mischaracterizes the accused products
`
`and contradicts the evidence, giving rise to factual disputes that warrant denial.
`
`For example, Nearmap would like the term “roof report”—as a matter of claim
`
`construction—to exclude its web interface and saved outputs from that interface, yet Nearmap’s
`
`own proposed construction would encompass such electronic formats so long as they
`
`“graphically show[] a representation of the roof model and/or determined roof measurements.”
`
`As another example, Nearmap would like the term “aerial image” to prohibit any processing of
`
`
`1 As explained within, certain of Nearmap’s motion relates to disputed facts about the products
`that only arose during claim construction and those issues are, thus, raised unfairly early as
`before both expert discovery and post-claim construction fact discovery—which EagleView
`intends to seek under LPR 1.3(b) if Nearmap’s constructions are adopted—and should be
`deferred in the Court’s discretion under the Comment to LPR 6.1.
`2 Addressed in EagleView’s claim construction briefs, Dkts. 245 and 250.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14382 Page 8 of 57
`
`the raw output from a camera, but its proposed construction simply requires a “photograph taken
`
`from the air by a camera,” which is exactly how Nearmap describes its imagery both to
`
`customers and in litigation. NMOB at 8 (citing SJA230). Nearmap’s other non-infringement
`
`arguments are flawed for similar reasons.
`
`At the end of the day, this is a situation where Nearmap’s non-infringement arguments
`
`are factual questions for the jury, not questions of claim scope for the Court. See, e.g., Acumed
`
`LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The resolution of some line-drawing
`
`problems … is properly left to the trier of fact.”); PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d
`
`1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[A] court, under the rubric of claim construction, may [not] give
`
`whatever additional precision or specificity is necessary to facilitate a comparison between the
`
`claim and the accused product. Rather, after the court has defined the claim with whatever
`
`specificity and precision is warranted by the language of the claim and the evidence bearing on
`
`the proper construction, the task of determining whether the construed claim reads on the
`
`accused product is for the finder of fact.”).3 Thus, Nearmap’s motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs EagleView Technologies Inc. and Pictometry International Corp. (collectively,
`
`“EagleView”) assert infringement of eight patents generally relating to displaying imagery
`
`and/or using imagery to obtain roof measurements that may be incorporated into roof reports.
`
`Defendant Nearmap US, Inc. (“Nearmap”) sells various imagery products including Vertical
`
`
`3 It is the Court’s duty to construe the claims in light of the intrinsic evidence—not to construe
`them to say what does or does not infringe. See Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech,
`Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“In ‘claim construction’ the words of the claims are
`construed independent of the accused product.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14383 Page 9 of 57
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14384 Page 10 of 57
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14385 Page 11 of 57
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14386 Page 12 of 57
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14387 Page 13 of 57
`
`10.
`
`Nearmap Panorama.
`
` (Citation.)
`
` (SJA250).
`
` (Citation.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Nearmap’s Panorama is comprised of aerial images. Ridley DT
`
`25:18-23
`
`
`
`. Panorama provides “
`
`.” ESJA818. The
`
`QuickMeasure website itself advertises delivery of “roof measurements and high-resolution
`
`imagery,”
`
`. https://www.gaf.com/en-us/quickmeasure;
`
`Pushpin DT at 173:25-174:6 (ESJA675-76); 12/16/2022 Celinski DT 125:11-25 (ESJA186)
`
`; see also ESJA1047-48.
`
`12.
`
` (SJA230).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The witness went on to agree that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`whether it is a “new” image or the old image “no longer exists” is irrelevant. In addition,
`
`. Millin DT 76:7-21 (ESJA024). The distinction of
`
`(ESJA017)
`
`. See Millin DT 46:18-21
`
`
`
`; see also 12/16/2022 Celinski DT 128:9-11
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14388 Page 14 of 57
`
`(ESJA186)
`
`.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`“To find the pitch and aera of a roof or structure from an Oblique photo, we need
`
`to understand where each measurement point exists in real world coordinates—
`
`RESPONSE: The document is misquoted; it should read:
`
` (SJA006).
`
`
`
`
`
` SJA006 (emphasis added).
`
`21.
`
` (SJA240).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
` (SJA239).
`
` (SJA240).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14389 Page 15 of 57
`
`22. MapBrowser’s “Drop a Pin” feature “is the location marker, that the user needs to
`
`manually place.” (SJA209). This manually placed location marker can be moved; it can only be
`
`deleted. (SJA209).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The location marker can be deleted and placed in a new location,
`
`just as one physically pulls a pin out of a bulletin board in order to pin it in a new location. In
`
`this manner, the marker is moved. 12/15/2022 Celinski DT 106:25-107:5 (ESJA085)
`
`
`
`.
`
`23. MapBrowser includes a “marker” that “gets dropped automatically when a user
`
`searches for a location.” (SJA209). “[T]he search marker is a special marker that just appears
`
`where the search points to. (SJA209).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The “search marker” provides an option to “Add Marker,”
`
`which converts the “search marker” into an ordinary location marker. ESJA1306-07.
`
`25.
`
`The location marker cannot be moved. If a user wants to move the location
`
`marker, “they would need to place a new marker.” (SJA209).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. See RSUMF ¶22.
`
`26. MapBrowser’s Polygon and line tools allow a user to manually draw multiple
`
`polygons on multiple roof facets. (SJA244). “Each [polygon] would be a separate 3D area tool.”
`
`(SJA221, 244). These are “generic tool[s] for area or line measurement of any object or item of
`
`interest that’s 11 viewable in [Nearmap’s] imagery.” (SJA220–221). “[U]sing a 3D [polygon]
`
`area tool they [i.e., users] would mark the points of interest, so four corners of a facet in one
`
`image.” (SJA241). And “the line tool allows the user make a line measurement to measure
`
`anything” rather than corresponding to a first location data. (SJA220–221).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14390 Page 16 of 57
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (SJA398).
`
`29.
`
`(SJA397).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed and immaterial. Nearmap’s projects feature is a method of saving
`
`and retrieving a file. For example, Nearmap instructs customers to think of projects as individual
`
`documents. SAMF ¶6; see also Zevaka DT 153:3-8 (ESJA459)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14391 Page 17 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
` In addition,
`
`Nearmap admitted that its proposed construction of “roof report” encompasses electronic formats
`
`and does not require the roof report to be a single file. Dkt. 249 at 7-8.
`
`31.
`
`“[T]here’s no way to kind of print out everything in [a] project.” (SJA398).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. To print the project, a user could simply “
`
`
`
`160:6-8 (ESJA305); ESJA914 (“To print the map area of the screen, take a Snapshot and print
`
`” Ridley DT
`
`that.”).
`
`32.
`
`Roof Geometry Technology has
`
` “backend services”
`
`referred to as “roof geometry API” that “allows the customers to submit jobs to the roof
`
`geometry application and retrieve the completed tasks” and a
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Roof Geometry Technology
`
` (SJA246).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14392 Page 18 of 57
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14393 Page 19 of 57
`
`39.
`
` (SJA256). From the
`
`perspective of an engineer, the outputs are
`
` (SJA258).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed.
`
` SJA454. The
`
`specifications for the XML standard provided that one of the “design goals for XML” is that
`
`“XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably clear.” https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-
`
`xml/; https://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210.html; see also Millin DT 184:23-185:7
`
`(ESJA051-52) (
`
`41.
`
`).
`
` (SJA168).
`
`
`
` Id.
`
` (SJA168).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed and immaterial. QuickMeasure roof reports are now and were
`
`previously made in the United States. Pushpin DT 99:21-100:23 (ESJA657). See also RSUMF
`
`¶33. Moreover, importation, and sale and use in the United States, of “a product which is made
`
`by a process patented in the United States” give rise to liability for infringement, regardless of
`
`where the product is produced. 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).
`
`42.
`
`Nearmap is a supplier to Pushpin and is independent from Pushpin. (Citation.) It
`
`supplies XML and JSON outputs to Pushpin. (Citation.) Nearmap is not responsible for
`
`Pushpin’s actions. (Citation.)
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. EagleView also objects to the assertion that Nearmap is “not
`
`responsible” for Pushpin’s actions as a legal conclusion. Pushpin is not a “customer” of Nearmap
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14394 Page 20 of 57
`
`as that term is normally understood.
`
`43.
`
`Pushpin is a supplier to GAF. (Citation.)
`
`
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed.
`
` (Citation.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14395 Page 21 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Further,
`
`(Citation.)
`
`(Citation.)
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed and immaterial. EagleView also objects to reliance on the cited
`
`testimony from Mr. Milbert (Pushpin’s corporate representative), which was improperly elicited
`
`by leading questions, which were objected to, from Nearmap’s counsel,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14396 Page 22 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46.
`
`The GAF website includes a pin on an image and states, “If the pin is not in the
`
`correct location, please remove the pin, adjust the map, and place a new pin.” GAF
`
`QuickMeasure, https://quickmeasure.gaf.com/guest-home-page (last visited Jan. 23, 2023).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Although currently true, before and at the time of the filing of
`
`the complaint, GAF’s website contained a draggable marker. ESJA888 (10/11/2019)
`
`.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14397 Page 23 of 57
`
`
`
` ESJA925.
`
`47.
`
`The express agreement by Nearmap to supply Pushpin is not a joint enterprise; it
`
`is a supply agreement. (Citation.)
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The characterization of Nearmap’s relationship with Pushpin as
`
`“not a joint enterprise” is a legal conclusion. Moreover, the evidence shows that the relationship
`
`is a joint enterprise. See, e.g., RSUMF ¶42.
`
`48.
`
`Nearmap does not have an express agreement with GAF. (SJA398).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14398 Page 24 of 57
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Nearmap does not have an implied agreement with GAF. (SJA398).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Nearmap and GAF have
`
` They also have an understanding (i.e., an implied agreement)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`50.
`
`Nearmap and Pushpin do not have an equal right to a voice and an equal right to
`
`control any enterprise. (Citation.)
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. Whether Pushpin and Nearmap have an equal right to a voice
`
`and an equal right to control any enterprise is a legal conclusion. Moreover, the evidence shows
`
`they do.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14399 Page 25 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`51.
`
`GAF decides what to include in GAF’s QuickMeasure product. (SJA115).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed.
`
` See also RSUMF ¶50.
`
`52.
`
`“Nearmap on OpenSolar is a product designed and developed by OpenSolar.”
`
`(SJA176). “OpenSolar by itself is a solar design software—software that allows its users who are
`
`exclusively solar installers to design solar systems—rooftop solar systems.” (SJA176).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed and immaterial. NMOS is a Nearmap product. ESJA915
`
`
`
`regardless of who designed it,
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`. And,
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14400 Page 26 of 57
`
`55.
`
`NMOS includes a “Panel Groups” feature. The features are placed on an image by
`
`a user: “the roofer dr[a]w[s] a polygon outlining the roof facet.” (SJA209). The polygon itself is
`
`not dragged, but instead it is shaped point-by-point to align with an area of interest. (SJA209).
`
`RESPONSE: Disputed. The polygon can be dragged after it is drawn, for example to
`
`better align it with the roof. ESJA1308.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`In MapBrowser,
`
`
`
`ESJA1308.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14401 Page 27 of 57
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14402 Page 28 of 57
`
`5.
`
`MapBrowser Projects are saved and loaded electronically. Zevaka DT 153:6-8
`
`(ESJA459)
`
`ESJA1310-11.
`
`6.
`
`Nearmap instructs its users to think of Projects as “individual documents.”
`
`Agresta DT at 173:20-22 (ESJA389)
`
`(ESJA305); Ridley Ex. 9 ESJA1283.
`
`7.
`
`; ESJA1030; Ridley DT 158:20-21
`
`
`
`8.
`
`In NMOS,
`
` as shown in the example below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14403 Page 29 of 57
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14404 Page 30 of 57
`
`
`
`ESJA1315.
`
`11.
`
`, as in the example shown below.
`
`
`
`ESJA1316.
`
`12.
`
`NMOS enables a user to save Projects. ESJA896 (“No need to go searching for
`
`your latest projects. Keep track of your proposals and projects all in one place and start a new
`
`project with just an address.”); ESJA904 ; ESJA920 (“Save: it is important that you save before
`
`switching to a different project or sending the Online Proposal to the customer.”); ESJA1317.
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14405 Page 31 of 57
`
`13.
`
`In Nearmap’s Roof Geometry Technology, “roof geometry” is stored in JSON
`
`format. Millin DT 181:4-8 (ESJA051); ESJA922
`
`14.
`
`GAF provides XML files (
`
`
`
`) to customers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` GAF, Support & FAQs,
`
`https://quickmeasure.gaf.com/faqs (“Can I get an XML file for my report? Yes, click the orders
`
`link and then download the XML file for the desired address.”).
`
`15.
`
`EagleView provides XML format data to customers and considers them roof
`
`reports. Kumar DT 7:10-8:18, 19:1-14.
`
`16.
`
`Nearmap’s witness admitted that
`
` (ESJA018).
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`(ESJA051).
`
`19.
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14406 Page 32 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See also RSUMF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See also RSUMF ¶42.
`
`20.
`
`¶¶42, 43, 48-51.
`
`21.
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14407 Page 33 of 57
`
`
`
`22.
`
`The metadata for Nearmap’s aerial imagery includes
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Nearmap displays 3D Mesh to look like aerial imagery, as shown below.
`
`ESJA722
`
`
`
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14408 Page 34 of 57
`
`26.
`
`Nearmap touts its 3D Mesh as
`
` Sample 3D images in Nearmap’s advertising are often even
`
`indistinguishable from Nearmap’s other aerial imagery. See ESJA714; ESJA716; ESJ775.
`
`27.
`
`Nearmap Panorama
`
` ESJA818. Nearmap markets its Panorama imagery
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Nearmap’s internal documentation refers to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ESJA820.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30.
`
`The QuickMeasure website advertises delivery of “roof measurements and high-
`
`resolution imagery,”
`
`. https://www.gaf.com/en-
`
`us/quickmeasure; Pushpin DT at 173:25-174:6 (ESJA675-76); Celinski Dec. 16, 2022 DT
`
`125:11-22 (ESJA186).
`
`
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14409 Page 35 of 57
`
`31.
`
`Nearmap’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Nearmap Is Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on the “Moveable” Visual
`Marker Limitation of the ’880 Patent.
`
`Even under Nearmap’s proposed construction, it infringes. Nearmap’s arguments rely on
`
`(1) replacing the term “moveable” with the narrower word “draggable” in its proposed
`
`construction and (2) the requirement that the visual marker “initially corresponds to the first
`
`location data input by the user.” Neither of these requirements distinguish the accused
`
`instrumentalities.
`
`1.
`
`MapBrowser
`
`MapBrowser infringes under even Nearmap’s proposed construction. First, the accused
`
`Polygon and Line features provide a marker that is “draggable” as required by Nearmap’s
`
`construction—which Nearmap does not dispute. And, contrary to Nearmap’s assertion, the
`
`Polygon and Line annotations correspond to the first location data, as explained below. Second,
`
`
`
`29
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14410 Page 36 of 57
`
`even under Nearmap’s construction, a factfinder can conclude that the “drop a pin” feature
`
`infringes under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`As to the Polygon and Line features, Nearmap does not dispute they are “draggable” but
`
`argues that they do not correspond to first location data. NMOB at 21. However,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As to the “drop a pin” feature, such feature infringes under Nearmap’s construction under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents as set forth in EagleView’s contentions. Even when an accused
`
`product does not meet each and every claim element literally, it may nevertheless be found to
`
`infringe the claim “if there is ‘equivalence’ between the elements of the accused product or
`
`process and the claimed elements of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton
`
`Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997) (quoting Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air
`
`Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950)). Equivalence can be determined by “whether the accused
`
`product or process is substantially different from what is patented.” Mylan Institutional LLC v.
`
`Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., 857 F.3d 858, 866 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Infringement under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents requires an intensely factual inquiry.” Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. Hickory Springs Mfg.
`
`Co., 285 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, Nearmap has not shown an absence of evidence
`
`to support EagleView’s case—it simply (and incorrectly) ignored EagleView’s explanation in
`
`EagleView’s infringement contentions:
`
`Deleting and replacing a pin meets the portion of the claim limitation that requires
`a moveable marker at least under the doctrine of equivalents because
`MapBrowser allows a marker to be moved from the original position
`corresponding to the first location data to a final location on top of the building
`that more precisely identifies the location of the roof. The difference between
`deleting and replacing a pin, and moving a marker around, is insubstantial at least
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14411 Page 37 of 57
`
`because both enable the user to change the position of the marker and more
`precisely identify the roof.
`
`ESJA0954; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (“[A] conclusory assertion
`
`that the nonmoving party has no evidence is insufficient. … [The moving party] must
`
`affirmatively show the absence of evidence in the record.”). The equivalence is shown by the
`
`fact that GAF substituted one technique (dragging the pin) with another technique (deleting and
`
`re-placing the pin) on its website, with no apparent internal difficulty or external impact on users.
`
`RSUMF ¶46. On summary judgment, where the court must “draw reasonable inferences in favor
`
`of … the non-movant,” the “difficult factual determinations” of the doctrine of equivalents
`
`should not be conclusively resolved in Nearmap’s favor. Leggett, 285 F.3d at 1360.
`
`Nearmap’s conclusory assertion that EagleView’s equivalence theory would vitiate the
`
`claim language (NMOB at 20) does not eliminate the factual dispute. “[T]he vitiation test cannot
`
`be satisfied by simply noting that an element is missing from the claimed structure or process
`
`because the doctrine of equivalents, by definition, recognizes that an element is missing that
`
`must be supplied by the equivalent substitute.” Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC,
`
`707 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In addition, the question of whether the “drop a pin”
`
`feature constitutes a moveable marker (as the claim language specifies), as opposed to a
`
`“draggable” marker (a term used in the specification but not in the claims), is in dispute. RSUMF
`
`¶22.
`
`Thus, even under Nearmap’s proposed construction, MapBrowser infringes based on the
`
`Polygon and Line features and also the “drop a pin” feature.
`
`
`
`31
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14412 Page 38 of 57
`
`2.
`
`Roof Geometry Technology
`
`EagleView identifies two different markers relating to Roof Geometry that infringe even
`
`under Nearmap’s proposed construction: (1) the QuickMeasure ordering interface, and (2) the
`
`marker in
`
`.
`
`As to the QuickMeasure ordering interface, the factual disputes are two-fold. First, it
`
`cannot be disputed that, within the damages period, the QuickMeasure ordering interface
`
`provided a self-proclaimed draggable marker (“Drag and drop the pin to confirm the location of
`
`the property”), such that the QuickMeasure ordering interface squarely infringes even under
`
`Nearmap’s improperly narrowed construction. RSUMF ¶46. While Nearmap attempted to
`
`change the functionality of that marker (e.g., similar to MapBrowser’s “drop a pin” feature), a
`
`factfinder could further conclude that the new implementation, involving deleting and re-placing
`
`a pin, infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. See Section V.A.1 supra (argument regarding
`
`MapBrowser’s “drop a pin” feature). Second, as discussed in Section V.B.2 infra, there are
`
`factual disputes about whether GAF’s actions are attributable to Nearmap. The ordering website
`
`is part of a single workflow or “architecture” for QuickMeasure, even though split across
`
`Nearmap, Pushpin, and GAF. See ESJA922-24.
`
`As to the marker in
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, a factfinder could conclude that, even though the marker does not move relative to
`
`the screen, the fact that it moves relative to the roof renders it moveable within the meaning of
`
`the claims. See also RSUMF ¶36.
`
`
`
`32
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00283-TS-DAO Document 258 Filed 02/24/23 PageID.14413 Page 39 of 57
`
`Thus, even under Nearmap’s proposed construction, there remain factual disputes about
`
`whether Roof Geometry and QuickMeasure include the claimed visual marker.
`
`3.
`
`NMOS
`
`EagleView identifies two different markers relating to NMOS that infringe even under
`
`Nearmap’s proposed construction: (1) similar to
`
`, a “polygon frame” under which the user
`
`can pan the image, and (2) as in MapBrowser, polygon and line annotations that a user can add to
`
`the map.
`
`With respect to the “polygon frame,” the image is draggable underneath the frame (i.e.,
`
`marker), so, like for
`
`, a factfinder could conclude that, even though the marker does not
`
`move relative to the screen, the fact that it moves relative to the roof renders it movable within
`
`the meaning of the claims. Nearmap’s additional assertion that the polygon frame does not
`
`function to “more precisely identify” the roof (NMOB at 22) is belied by the operation of the
`
`product, where
`
`
`
` SAMF ¶8.
`
`With respect to the Polygon and Line features, Nearmap’s argument regarding “first
`
`location data” fails for the same reason as discussed above for MapBrowser—that is, the
`
`annotations are drawn in an area of the map that is shown upon typing in an address and thus
`
`“correspond” to the address (i.e., first location data). Further, Nearmap’s assertion that “[t]he
`
`polygon itself is not dragged” is visibly inaccurate just upon a simple review of the features. See
`
`SAMF ¶10.
`
`Thus, even under Nearmap’s proposed construction, there remain factual disputes about
`
`whether NMOS includes t