Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 1 of 43
`
`
`
`The Honorable James L. Robart
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, a
`Delaware Company; KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS
`N.V., a Company of the Netherlands; and
`PHILIPS INDIA, LTD., an Indian Company,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`SUMMIT IMAGING INC., a Washington
`Corporation; LAWRENCE R NGUYEN, an
`individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`
`NO.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`ON:
`
`(1) PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AND
`SECOND CAUSES OF ACTION FOR
`VIOLATIONS OF THE DMCA;
`
`(2) DEFENDANTS’ THIRD
`COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR
`COPYRIGHT MISUSE;
`
`(3) DEFENDANTS’ SECOND
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR
`UNCLEAN HANDS; AND
`
`(4) DEFENDANTS’ NINTH
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR
`LACHES, ACQUIESCENCE AND/OR
`ESTOPPEL
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`April 30, 2021
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 43
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................. 3 
`
`A. 
`
`Summit’s Violations of the DMCA .................................................................... 3 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Philips’ ultrasound systems and software. .............................................. 3 
`
`Philips’ software are copyrighted works. ............................................... 5 
`
`Philips’ protection mechanisms. ............................................................. 6 
`
`Adepto’s methods of accessing Philips’ CSIP Software bypasses
`Philips’ protection mechanisms. ............................................................. 8 
`
`Summit’s other methods of accessing Philips’ CSIP Software
`bypass Philips’ protection mechanisms. ............................................... 11 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Philips’ Copyright Infringement Claim. ........................................................... 12 
`
`Defendants’ Copyright Misuse Affirmative Defense and Counterclaim ......... 14 
`
`The August 2014 Meeting. ............................................................................... 15 
`
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER AS A MATTER OF LAW ......... 16 
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED ON PHILIPS DMCA
`CLAIMS ....................................................................................................................... 17 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Relevant Law Prohibits Circumvention Of Technological Measures
`That Control Access To Copyright Protected Works. ...................................... 17 
`
`The Undisputed Facts Demonstrate Numerous Independent
`Circumventions. ................................................................................................ 17 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Philips’ CSIP Software are copyrighted works. ................................... 17 
`
`Philips’ protection mechanisms effectively control access to the
`Philips’ CSIP Software. ........................................................................ 18 
`
`Summit circumvents these access controls to access Philips’
`copyright protected works. ................................................................... 20 
`
`C. 
`
` intentionally alter copyright
`Summit’s modifications
`management information. ................................................................................. 21 
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - i
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue, Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 3 of 43
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED ON SUMMIT’S
`COPYRIGHT MISUSE COUNTERCLAIM AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. ...... 23 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Summit’s Copyright Misuse Claim Is Not Cognizable As A Matter Of
`Law. .................................................................................................................. 23 
`
`The Undisputed Factual Record Confirms That Summit Has No Misuse
`Claim. ............................................................................................................... 26 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Philips agreements do not include unduly restrictive terms. ................ 27 
`
`No material dispute of fact exists regarding Philips’ right to
`enforce its copyrights in its copyrighted system software. ................... 28 
`
`C. 
`
`Copyright Misuse Is Not a Defense to Philips’ DMCA Claims. ...................... 31 
`
`VI. 
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED ON SUMMIT’S SECOND
`AND NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ............................................................... 32 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Defendants Have No Unclean Hands Defense. ................................................ 32 
`
`Defendants’ Ninth Affirmative Defense for Laches, Acquiescence, and
`Estoppel Fail as a Matter of Law. ..................................................................... 33 
`
`VII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 35 
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - ii
`(No. 2:12-cv-01109-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 4 of 43
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`321 Studios v. MGM Studios, Inc.,
`307 F. Supp. 2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004) .................................................................................. 31
`A&M Records v. Napster, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................... 24, 25
`Aardwolf Indus., LLC v. Abaco Machs. United States, Inc.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222669 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2017) ................................................... 26
`Actuate Corp. v. Intl. Bus. Machines Corp.,
`2010 WL 1340519 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010) .......................................................................... 19
`Aecon Bldgs., Inc. v. Zurich N. Am.,
`572 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (W.D. Wash. 2008) ............................................................................. 33
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................................................................................................... 16
`Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................. 23, 24, 25, 30
`Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,
`673 F. Supp. 2d 931 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................................. 27, 29
`Avia Group Int’l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California,
`853 F.2d 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................................................. 16
`Bounce Exch., Inc. v. Zeus Enter., Ltd.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165073 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2015) ...................................................... 22
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................................................... 16
`Computer Associates Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc.,
`982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................... 17
`Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 34
`Disney Enters. v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69103 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2018) ...................................................... 26
`Dolores Press v. Robinson,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156200 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2020) ...................................................... 28
`DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank v. Connect Ins. Agency, Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18614 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 14, 2016) ................................................. 34
`Ellenburg v. Brockway, Inc.,
`763 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................ 33
`Exec. Corp. v. Oisoon, LLC,
`2017 WL 4310113 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 28, 2017) ..................................................................... 5
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - iii
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 5 of 43
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`969 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020) ................................................................................... 25
`Granite State Ins. Comp. v. Smart Modular Techs., Inc.,
`76 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................. 35
`In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig.,
`191 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................................................. 23
`IQ Group v. Wiesner Publ'g, Inc.,
`409 F. Supp. 2d 587 (D.N.J. 2006) ......................................................................................... 22
`JCW Software, LLC v. Embroidme.com, Inc.,
`2012 WL 13015051 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2012) ................................................................. 18, 20
`Kassa v. Selland Auto Transport, Inc.,
`2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62390 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 31, 2006) ................................................. 16
`MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc.,
`629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 31
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`518 F.Supp.2d 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................... 32
`MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`454 F. Sup. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ................................................................................ 25, 28
`Microsoft Corp. v. EEE Bus. Inc.,
`555 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................. 21
`Oldcaste Precast, Inc. v. Granite Precasting & Concrete, Inc.,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20977 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 2, 2011) ................................................... 30
`Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155893 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) ..................................................... 31
`Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`776 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 23, 25, 26, 28
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ 17, 18
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 663 (2014) ............................................................................................................... 34
`Pollstar v. Gigmania, Ltd.,
`170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Cal. 2000) .................................................................................... 31
`Pom Wonderful LLC v. Welch Foods, Inc.,
`737 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................................. 33
`Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass’n,
`121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................ 23, 24, 26, 27
`Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle Int’l Corp.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89295 (D. Nev. July 9, 2015) ..................................................... 25, 28
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - iv
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 6 of 43
`
`
`
`Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. For Real Estate Educ., Inc.,
`621 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 34
`Stockwire Research Group, Inc. v. Lebed,
`577 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2008) ................................................................................... 19
`Taylor Holland LLC v. MVMT Watches, Inc.,
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187379 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016) ............................................. 33, 35
`Triad Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co.,
`64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................. 24
`Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
`111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .................................................................................... 19
`Webcaster All., Inc. v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc.,
`2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11993 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2004) .................................................. 25, 28
`Statutes 
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A) ................................................................................................ 1, 17, 21
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A) .......................................................................................................... 17
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(B) .................................................................................................... 17, 19
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(c)(1) ............................................................................................................... 21
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(c)(6) ............................................................................................................... 21
`Rules 
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ................................................................................................................... 16
`Treatises 
`3 Nimmer on Copyright § 12A.03[A][1][a] ............................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - v
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 7 of 43
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Philips brought this action because Summit threatens the security and integrity of
`Philips’ life saving ultrasound systems in order to access and copy Philips’ copyright protected
`software.
`Philips ultrasound systems are complex pieces of medical equipment that include
`copyright-protected software necessary to the operation of the ultrasound systems as well as
`copyright-protected software that facilitates the service and repair such systems. To control
`access to portions of such software that are sensitive, Philips categorizes its software into
`numerical access levels (called CSIP levels), then uses various authentication mechanisms to
`determine a particular user’s CSIP level and permit the authenticated user to access software at
`that level. Summit bypasses these authentication mechanisms and instead uses access methods
`based on physically removing an ultrasound hard drive, which allows Summit
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`. Upon reinserting the tampered hard
`drives into an ultrasound machine, Summit is able to access Philips’ CSIP-protected software.
`By accessing Philips’ copyright-protected software while bypassing Philips’ authentication
`mechanisms, Summit has violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C.
`§ 1201(a)(1)(A), which provides that “[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure
`that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.”
`Trying to evade liability on their clear and intentional violation of Philips’ intellectual
`property rights, including infringement of Philips’ Copyrighted System Software1, Summit has
`asserted both a counterclaim and affirmative defense for copyright misuse. But no aspect of
`Summit’s shifting theory of misuse resembles a cognizable claim. The Ninth Circuit and
`district courts in the Ninth Circuit have limited misuse to instances where a copyright owner (i)
`
`1 The Copyrighted System Software includes: Voyager Platform Versions 1.5, 1.7, 1.8, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0.2, 5.0.1; CX50
`Versions 1.0, 5.0; CX30 Versions 1.0, 2.0; ClearVue 350 Versions 2.0, 3.2; ClearVue 550 2.0, 3.2; ClearVue 580
`Version 2.0; ClearVue 650 Versions 1.0, 3.2; ClearVue 850 Versions 3.1, 3.2; HD15 Versions 1.0, 3.0; SPARQ
`Versions 1.0, 3.0; VISIQ Version 1.0; XPERIUS Versions 1.1, 2.0; HD11 Versions 1.0, 1.2; STS; CRC Tool
`2014; CRC Tool 2018. See Declaration of Carla Wirtschafter (“Wirtschafter Decl.”), ¶ 7, Ex. H.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 8 of 43
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`conditions licensees’ use of the copyright on not dealing with competitors, or (ii) asserts an
`unenforceable copyright infringement claim to control access to an otherwise uncopyrightable
`product. Here, Summit’s misuse claim boils down to a complaint about Philips’ choice not to
`provide Summit with a license to Philips’ Copyrighted System Software on Philips ultrasound
`systems. But a copyright holder’s ability to control access to the work is an essential right
`under the copyright laws, and Summit’s theory can never constitute misuse.
`Summit also alleges that Philips commits misuse because the access controls within the
`Copyrighted System Software restrict access to certain parts of the ultrasound system that
`Summit claims are not protected by copyright. This misdirection fails for at least two reasons.
`First, misuse is only a blocking maneuver to claims of infringement—and it cannot be
`reasonably disputed that Philips’ infringement claim only concerns Philips’ lawful, enforceable
`copyrights in Philips’ Copyrighted System Software. Second, the fact that certain aspects of
`Summit’s circumvention methods modify parts of the embedded Windows operating system
`does not nullify Philips’ infringement and DCMA claims nor provide Summit with a
`cognizable a misuse defense. Indeed, the very intent and purpose of Summit’s circumvention
`methods is to obtain unauthorized access to Philips’ proprietary, trade secret and copyright-
`protected materials. Accordingly, both legal precedent and the undisputed factual record
`confirm that Summit has no viable copyright misuse claim, and summary judgment for Philips
`should be granted.
`Defendants also assert two affirmative defenses (for Unclean Hands – 2nd Affirmative
`Defense, and for Laches, Acquiescence and Estoppel – 9th Affirmative Defense) in which they
`attempt to cloud the intentional nature of their wrongful conduct by claiming reliance on
`statements made in a single, one hour meeting, between Defendants and non-party AllParts
`Medical, LLC – a subsidiary of Philips. Although Defendants state in their Answer (Dkt. 108)
`that this meeting was with “Plaintiffs’ representatives” who “stated” “on behalf of Plaintiffs
`that Defendants’ Adepto software . . . w[as] legal”, the undisputed factual record—including
`the testimony from Defendant and CEO of Summit, Lawrence Nguyen—confirms that (i)
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 9 of 43
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ representatives were not at this meeting between Summit and non-party AllParts; (ii)
`the subject of the meeting had nothing to with Philips ultrasound systems, or even Philips
`medical imaging devices, rather, the focus of the meeting was purchasing parts for GE devices;
`and (iii) no demonstration of Adepto on a Philips ultrasound system was provided during the
`meeting. As a matter of law, no statement made in the 2014 meeting can support Defendants
`2nd or 9th affirmative defenses, and summary judgment for Phillips should be granted.
`For all of the foregoing reasons and for the reasons detailed below, both the law and the
`undisputed factual record confirm that summary judgment for Philips should be granted.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Summit’s Violations of the DMCA
`1.
`Philips’ ultrasound systems and software.
`An ultrasound system generally consists of at least a transducer probe, which generates
`and receives the sound waves, special purpose processors for handling probe signals, as well as
`a computer with typical components including a CPU, RAM, display/monitors, keyboard, and
`at least one hard drive.2
`At issue in this DMCA claim are two types of Philips ultrasound systems. The first,
`known as iU/iE systems, include the iU22 and iE33.3 The second, known as EPIQ systems,
`include the EPIQ 5 and EPIQ 7.4 The iU/iE software platform is known as “Boris,” whereas the
`EPIQ software platform is known as “Voyager.”5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 See Declaration of Adam Sorini (“Sorini Decl.”) Ex. S ¶¶ 54, 84-85; Wirtschafter Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. K (“Rubin
`Opening Report”) ¶¶ 31-32.
`3 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 84; Rubin Opening Report, ¶ 41.
`4 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 84; Rubin Opening Report, ¶ 31.
`5 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 91; Rubin Opening Report, ¶ 86.
`6 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 96; Rubin Opening Report, ¶¶ 33, 42.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 10 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`35.)
`8 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 83; Rubin Opening Report, ¶¶ 36, 43.
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 120; Rubin Opening Report, ¶
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.; see also
`
`
`
` (Sorini
`
`
`
`10 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 115-119; see Declaration of Kevin Bradley (“Bradley Decl.”), ¶ 2, Ex. V at
`PhilipsSummit_00004937; Rubin Opening Report, ¶¶ 35-36, 43.
`11 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 95.
`12 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 99.
`13 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 113, 162.
`14 See Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 150, 163-165, 290; Wirtschafter Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. L (“Rubin Rebuttal Report”) ¶ 89
`); id. ¶ 130
`
`Bradley Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. W at PhilipsSummit_00167238 (
`”); id. at PhilipsSummit_00167244 (showing
`
`15 “
`Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 87-89; Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶¶ 81-82.)
`” (Id.)
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 11 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`.17
`
`
`
`Philips’ software are copyrighted works.
`2.
`That the Philips ultrasound software on its iU/iE and Epiq systems are copyrighted
`works is not in dispute.18 In particular, in the opening report of Philips’ technical expert, Dr.
`Adam Sorini (Sorini Ex. A), Dr. Sorini explained
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` In the opening report
`of Summit’s technical expert, Dr. Aviel Rubin (Wirtschafter Ex. K), Dr. Rubin challenges the
`eligibility to copyright protection of certain Philips’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to error logs, there is no dispute that Philips wrote the logging software
`
`
`
` (Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶¶ 85-
`16
`(Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 93-94, 221-222.)
`87.)
`17 (Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 112, 157-161; Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 177.)
`18 Although Philips has registered the copyright in its EPIQ/Voyager software, registration of a copyright is not a
`prerequisite for a DMCA claim. See, e.g., Exec. Corp. v. Oisoon, LLC, 2017 WL 4310113, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. Sept.
`28, 2017) (“registration is not required to pursue a DMCA claim”).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 12 of 43
`
`
`
`that generates the error logs, and that in so doing, Philips made numerous design choices in the
`selection and arrangement of the content to include in each log file, as well as the way to
`express that content.19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Philips’ protection mechanisms.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19 Sorini Decl., Ex. T ¶¶ 18-19, 23, 43-44.
`20 Wirtschafter Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. M (“Bradley Individual Depo.”), pp. 62:12-23.
`21 Sorini Decl., Ex. T ¶ 19.
`22 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 143-145; Wirtschafter Ex. K ¶¶ 92-93; Bradley Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. X at
`PhilipsSummit_00156919
`
`
`
`
`
`
` id. at PhilipsSummit_00156920 (
`
`23 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 143; Bradley Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. X at PhilipsSummit_00156919; Bradley Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. Y at
`
`PhilipsSummit_00003464 (describing
`24 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 144; Bradley Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. X at PhilipsSummit_00156919; Bradley Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. Y at
`
`PhilipsSummit_00003464 (describing
`).
`25 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 145; Bradley Decl., ¶ 4, Ex X at PhilipsSummit_00156919; Bradley Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. Y at
`
`PhilipsSummit_00003464 (describing
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 13 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 146; Bradley Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. Y at PhilipsSummit_00003465
`
`Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. X at PhilipsSummit_00156919
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Bradley
`
`
`
`27 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 109.
`28 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 111.
`29 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 110.
`30 Rubin Opening Report, ¶ 94; see also Wirtschafter Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. N (“Rubin Depo.”), pp. 78:8-79:1, 89:4-17.
`31 See, e.g., Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 112-113 (describing
`
`
`
` Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 89
`
` id. ¶ 84
`
`32 Bradley Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. X at PhilipsSummit_00156920
` Bradley Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. Z at PhilipsSummit_00003532;
`
`
`Sorini Decl., Ex. U ¶¶ 96-97
`
`33 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 130
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 14 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35
`
`4.
`
`Adepto’s methods of accessing Philips’ CSIP Software bypasses Philips’
`protection mechanisms.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`34 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 124.
`35 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 134-135.
`36 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 73; see also Rubin Depo., pp. 93:7-16.
`37 Wirtschafter Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. O at 1; Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 95.
`38 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 96.
`39 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 171, 174; Wirtschafter Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. P at 1-2.
`40 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 175-176; Wirtschafter Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. P at 1-2.
`41 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 177-178.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 8
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 15 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 199-201.
`43 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 179.
`44 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 180-184; Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 107.
`45 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 185-187; Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 108.
`46 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 196.
`47 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 198.
`48 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 262.
`49 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 94, 262; Bradley Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. AA at PhilipsSummit_00158507
`
`(“
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 9
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`); Bradley Decl., ¶ 2,, Ex. V at PhilipsSummit_00004957
`); id. at PhilipsSummit_00004962
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 16 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`50 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 196, 225.
`51 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 110.
`52 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 221-222; Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 112.
`53 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 93-94.
`54 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶ 234; Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 133.
`55 Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 263-265; Wirtschafter Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. Q Deposition of James Taylor, (“Taylor Depo.”),
`pp. 89:23-93:10.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 10
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 17 of 43
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Summit’s other methods of accessing Philips’ CSIP Software bypass
`Philips’ protection mechanisms.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. ¶ 129.
`
`
`
`
`
`56 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶¶ 90, 129.
`57 Id. Summit also ha
`
`58 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶¶ 131-132.
`59 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 131; see also Sorini Decl., Ex. S ¶¶ 80-81 (
`
`60 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 132.
`61 Rubin Rebuttal Report, ¶ 130.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 11
`(No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR)
`
`
`
`
`
`SAVITT BRUCE & WILLEY LLP
`1425 Fourth Avenue Suite 800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-2272
`(206) 749-0500
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 139 Filed 04/05/21 Page 18 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`64
`
`B.
`
`Philips’ Copyright Infringement Claim.
`Philips also owns copyrights in the software installed in certain models of its ultrasound
`systems, and Philips has registered particular versions of that software (“the Copyrighted
`System Software”).65 The Copyrighted System Software is the software that runs on Philips
`ultrasound systems, including system models EPIQ5, EPIQ7, Affinity 30, Affinity, 50, Affinity
`70, CX, HD, SPARQ, VISIQ, and XPERIUS.6