Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 42
`
`
`
`HON. JAMES L. ROBART
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE 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,
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT IMAGING INC., a Washington
`Corporation; LAWRENCE R. NGUYEN,
`an individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’
`MEMORANDUM IN
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 42
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
`BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................2
`The Parties Substantially Agree About the Technical Background of
`A.
`the Philips-Branded Ultrasound Systems and the Operation of
`Summit’s Adepto Software ...................................................................................2
`The Record Evidence Does Not Support Philips’ Positions on the
`Matters Disputed by the Parties ............................................................................5
`Interactions Between Summit and Philips ............................................................9
`C.
`LEGAL STANDARD .....................................................................................................12
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................13
`A.
`Philips’ DMCA Claims Fail ...............................................................................13
`Philips’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Claim Under
`1.
`Section 1201 of the DMCA Should Be Denied ......................................13
`Philips’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Claim Under
`Section 1202 of the DMCA Should be Denied .......................................22
`Summit’s Copyright Misuse Claim Is Viable and Well-Grounded in
`the Undisputed Facts of This Case......................................................................24
`Summit’s Copyright Misuse Claim Fits Squarely Within
`1.
`Ninth Circuit Jurisprudence ....................................................................24
`Philips’ Motion Is Based on an Overly Narrow Understanding
`of the Scope of a Copyright Misuse Claim. ............................................27
`Copyright Misuse Is a Defense
`to Philips’ DMCA
`Infringement Claims ...............................................................................29
`Summit’s Other Affirmative Defenses Are Viable and Supported by
`Evidence ..............................................................................................................29
`Plaintiffs Have Not Shown That Summit’s Equitable Estoppel
`1.
`Defense Should Be Dismissed ................................................................30
`Plaintiffs Have Not Shown That Summit’s Laches and
`Acquiescence Defenses Should Be Dismissed .......................................32
`Plaintiffs Have Not Shown That Summit’s Unclean Hands
`Defense Should Be Dismissed ................................................................34
`Request to Strike Supplemental Report of Adam Sorini From Record
`.............................................................................................................................34
`CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................36
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ..... i
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................... 24, 27
`Actuate Corp v. International Bus. Machines Corp.,
`2010 WL 1340519 (N.D. Cal. April 5, 2010) ......................................................................... 19
`Acuson Corp. v. Aloka Co.,
`257 Cal. Rptr. 368 (Ct. App. 1989) ........................................................................................ 16
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. A&S Elecs., Inc.,
`No. C 15-2288 SBA, 2015 WL 13022288 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2015) ............................. 18, 19
`Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.,
`658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... 24, 29
`Assessment Techs. Of WI, LLC v. WIREdata, Inc.,
`350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 27
`Bounce Exch., Inc. v. Zeus Enter., Ltd.,
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165073 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2015) ...................................................... 24
`Buell v. Bremerton,
`80 Wn.2d 518, 495 P.2d 1358 (1972) ..................................................................................... 32
`Burroughs Payment Sys. v. Symco Grp.,
`No. 1:10-cv-03029-JEC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170619 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 13, 2011) ...... 18, 19
`Chamberlain Group., Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc.,
`381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................. 16, 28, 29
`Couveau v. Am. Airlines,
`218 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................ 32
`Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................................ 32, 33
`Disney Enters. v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC,
`336 F. Supp. 3d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .................................................................................. 25
`Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP,
`401 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005) .................................................................................. 20, 22
`Far Out Prods. v. Oskar,
`247 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 13
`Fischer v. Forrest,
`286 F. Supp. 3d 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), aff'd, 968 F.3d 216 (2d Cir. 2020) ............................ 23
`Ground Zero Museum Workshop v. Wilson,
`813 F. Supp. 2d 678 (D. Md. 2011) ........................................................................................ 22
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT .... ii
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 4 of 42
`
`
`
`HSS Enters., LLC v. AMCO Ins. CO.,
`No. C06-1485-JPD, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31659 (W.D. Wash. April 16, 2008) ................ 31
`I.M.S. Inquiry Mgmt. Sys., Ltd. v. Berkshire Info. Sys., Inc.,
`307 F. Supp.2d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ..................................................................................... 18
`IG Grp. v. Wiesner Publ’g, Inc.,
`409 F. Supp. 2d 587 (D.N.J. 2006) ......................................................................................... 24
`JCW Software, LLC v. Embroidme.com, Inc.,
`2012 WL 13015051 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2012) ....................................................................... 17
`Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds,
`911 F.3d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................ 25, 28
`Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
`253 F. Supp. 2d 943 (E.D. Ky. 2003) ..................................................................................... 22
`Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,
`387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22
`MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc.,
`629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 1, 15, 16, 17, 24, 28, 29
`Mueller v. Auker,
`576 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 13
`Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155893 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011), aff’d, 776 F.3d 692
`(9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................................. 24, 25, 26
`Pers. Keepsakes, Inc. v. Personalizationmall.com, Inc.,
`2012 WL 414803 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2012) ........................................................................ 23, 24
`Petrella v. MGM,
`572 U.S. 663 (2014) ................................................................................................................ 30
`Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass’n,
`121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997), amended, 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................ 25
`Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co.,
`324 U.S. 806 (1945) ................................................................................................................ 34
`R.C. Olmstead, Inc. v. CU Interface, LLC,
`657 F. Supp. 2d 878 (N.D. Ohio 2009)................................................................................... 22
`Schroeder v. Excelsior Mgmt. Grp., LLC,
`177 Wn.2d 94, 297 P.3d 677 (2013) ...................................................................................... 30
`Sega Enters. v. Accolade, Inc.,
`977 F.3d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................ 17
`Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc.,
`621 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................ 32, 33
`Stockwire Research Group, Inc. v. Lebed,
`577 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (S.D. Fla. 2008) ................................................................................... 19
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ... iii
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 5 of 42
`
`
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Innogrit, Corp.,
`2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171487 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019) ................................................. 19, 20
`Trident Seafoods Corp. v. Commonwealth Ins. Co.,
`850 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (W.D. Wash. 2012) .............................................................................. 30
`United States v. Washington,
`20 F. Supp. 3d 899 (W.D. Wash. 2008) .................................................................................. 33
`Universal Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
`111 F. Supp. 2d 294 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .................................................................................... 17
`
`STATUTES
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a) ....................................................................................................... 13, 28, 29
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A) .......................................................................................................... 13
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A) .................................................................................................... 13, 22
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(B) .................................................................................................... 13, 21
`17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1) ................................................................................................................ 29
`17 U.S.C. § 1202 ............................................................................................................. 22, 23, 24
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(1) ............................................................................................................... 22
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(c) ........................................................................................................ 22, 23, 24
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(c)(2) ................................................................................................................ 24
`17 U.S.C. § 602 ........................................................................................................................... 25
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Mitchell, R., A Holistic Approach to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 2010
`Syracuse Sci. & Tech. L. Rep. 1, 55 (Fall 2010) .................................................................... 29
`
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ........................................................................................................................ 34
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ........................................................................................................................ 34
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ................................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ... iv
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 6 of 42
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In this action, Philips seeks to hold Summit liable for accessing certain portions of Philips
`
`system software on Summit-owned ultrasound machines that Philips does not want Summit to
`
`access. Philips attempts to control access to this restricted software through its
`
`
`
`
`
`. And so, Philips claims that Summit violates the DMCA by bypassing the IST to get
`
`access to the restricted software.
`
`Philips’ case fails completely because the
`
` leaves wide open an alternative method of
`
`accessing Philips restricted software that Summit uses, namely, removal of the hard drive from
`
`the Philips-branded ultrasound system that Summit owns. Under binding Ninth Circuit precedent
`
`that Philips fails to even cite in its motion – MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d
`
`928 (9th Cir. 2010) – this alternative access path prevents Philips’
`
` from qualifying as a
`
`technological measure that effectively controls access to Philips’ restricted software. While the
`
` locks the front door to Philips’ house, Philips leaves the side door wide open. Thus, the
`
`question of “bypassing” the
`
` does not even arise because the
`
` cannot qualify as a
`
`technological measure that effectively controls access to Philips’ software in the first place.
`
`Summit owns its Philips-branded ultrasound machines and the copies of Philips system
`
`software that run on those machines. The DMCA confers no right on Philips to prevent an owner
`
`of a Philips-branded ultrasound system from removing components of that system, making
`
`modifications to files contained on that system, or using the copy of the Philips software that
`
`Summit has purchased. Philips’ attempt to use the DMCA to prevent these lawful actions rips the
`
`DMCA from its moorings. Based on the undisputed factual record, Summit has not violated the
`
`DMCA and is entitled to summary judgment dismissing these claims.
`
`In its motion for partial summary judgment, Philips also seeks dismissal of a number of
`
`Summit’s affirmative defenses, including copyright misuse. All of these defenses are viable and
`
`supported by evidence in the record. As such, these defenses should not be dismissed.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT .... 1
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`24
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 7 of 42
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 7 of 42
`
`IL.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Parties Substantially Agree About the Technical Background of the
`Philips-Branded Ultrasound Systems and the Operation of Summit’s Adepto
`Software
`
`This case involves Philips-brandedultrasound systems and Summit’s tools and methods
`
`for repairing parts for those systems. Theparties in large part agree about the operation of the
`
`Philips-branded ultrasound systemsin this litigation. For example, the parties agree that the two
`
`types of Philips-branded ultrasound machinesat issue are the 1U22/1E33 brand of ultrasound
`
`systems and the EPIQ brand of ultrasound systems. See Pls.’ Mot. for Partial S.J. (Dkt. 138)
`
`(hereinafter, “Pls.” Mot.”), 3)
`
`The partiesalso agreehs
`
`MEME See, cc, Pls.’ Mot, 4-5.rs
`
`SS
`
`The parties further agree to a large extent on the operation of Summit’s Adepto software.
`
`For example,the partes agreethat
`
`. See Declaration ofMarc Levy (“Levy Decl.””) Ex. A (Brown Dep.), 28:6-13. See Levy Decl., Ex. B (Dickson Dep.), 147:12-150:1, Ex. 5.
`eS
`
`>
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT....2
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`>
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GRouP LLP
`701 Frm AVENE SUTES4OD
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ww
`
`nN
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 8 of 42
`
`also Ex. 8, Dkt. 177, 171; Ex. L, Dkt. 165, [99aa
`
`3 See Pls.’ Mot. at 8: see
`
`I ee Ps.” Mot. 8-9: sce also Ex.
`
`S, Dkt. 177, $199; Ex. L, Dkt. 165, $9] 102-04.|
`
`Sec Pls.” Mot. a 9: see
`
`also Ex. S, Dkt. 177, $179; Ex. L, Dkt. 165, 107.aaa
`
`EE. P's.” Mot., 9-10; Ex. L, Dkt. 165, 49110, 112, 113; Levy
`
`Decl., Ex. C, (Bradley Dep.), 151:2-17, 153:1-5.
`
`See, e.g, Pls.” Mot.ot|
`
`. See id.
`
`Finally, the parties agreetht
`
`LN See Pls." Mot. at 8, 1.39,
`
`See Ex. L, Dkt. 165, 4107.
`
`COEee
`
`. Because
`
`the parties substantially agree on the actions taken, this disagreement appears to be one of semantics, not substance.
`
`
`
`>
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT....3
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`9
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GRouP LLP
`7M FemAvees. Gare san
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 9 of 42
`
`
`
`. See id., 6-7.
`
` See id., 8; Ex. L, Dkt. 165, ¶ 94.
`
`
`
`
`
` See Levy Decl., Ex. B,
`
`65:4-15, 98:6-20, Ex. 3 at PhilipsSummit_00000031
`
`also Levy Decl., Ex. D.,(Bradley (30(b)(6)) Dep.), 53:5-23, Ex. 51 at row 44.
`
` See id.
`
`Philips does not dispute that
`
` see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. According to Mr. Kevin Bradley, a senior Philips’
`
`engineer,
`
`. See Levy Decl., Ex. C , 31:23-33:1
`
`Mr. Bradley further testified that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See id., 33:8-24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Philips’ technical expert, Dr. Adam Sorini, confirmed that
`
`Decl., Ex. E (Sorini Dep.), 98:20-99:3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See Levy
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT .... 4
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 10 of 42
`
`
`
`; 101:7-11
`
` 99:12-19
`
`
`
`
`
`Philips also does not dispute that the
`
`
`
`85:22-25 (
`
`. See Levy Decl., Ex. C, 59:11-15;
`
` see also Levy Decl. Ex. E, 130:16-20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See Levy Decl., Ex. C, 151:2-17, 153:1-5.
`
` Pls.’ Mot. at 7,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See id.,
`
`33:8-24; see also Levy Decl., Ex. E., 98:20-99:3, 99:12-19, 101:7-11.
`
`B.
`
`The Record Evidence Does Not Support Philips’ Positions on the Matters
`Disputed by the Parties
`
`Although the parties agree to a large extent on the way in which the ultrasound machines
`
`and Summit’s Adepto software function, there are significant disputes between the parties on a
`
`number of key topics. In each of these cases, however, Philips has not cited relevant, record
`
`evidence to support its positions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT .... 5
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 11 of 42
`
`
`
`. See Levy Decl., Ex. C, 33:8-24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See Levy Decl., Ex E., 98:20-99:3, 99:12-19, 101:7-11.
`
`. See Pls.’ Mot. at 21. Without such
`
`authorization, Philips maintains that Summit’s actions in accessing this content and these files
`
`amount to per se violations of the DMCA and trade secret laws. Philips’ argument ignores the
`
`undisputed fact that Summit owns its Philips-branded ultrasound systems. See Nguyen Decl.,
`
`Dkt. 145, ¶ 4. Philips has cited no evidence that an owner of the physical components of the
`
`ultrasound systems needs Philips’ authorization to physically access the hard drives on the
`
`ultrasound system that it owns, nor has Philips cited any evidence that the owners of the
`
`ultrasound systems need permission from Philips to connect those hard drives to an external
`
`computer. Further, Philips does not cite any record evidence supporting a position that Summit
`
`needs authorization from Philips to load other software or other programs onto the hard drives of
`
`the ultrasound systems that Summit owns. Indeed, the testimony from Philips’ own witnesses
`
`would contradict that Philips’ authorization is needed to perform these actions. See Levy Decl.,
`
`Ex. C, 33:8-24; see also Levy Decl., Ex. B, 51:11-52:10, Ex. 2 at PhilipsSummit_00156214
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. The record evidence, however, shows that Summit owns the
`
`copies of the software running on its ultrasound systems. See Declaration of Lawrence Nguyen,
`
`¶¶ 3-10, Exs. 1-8, see also Dkt. 145, ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. 2. These copies were purchased, mostly from
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT .... 6
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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
`
`

`

`aA&WwWN
`oOoOoNINDW
`
`27
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 12 of 42
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 12 of 42
`
`AllParts Medical, a Philips’ subsidiary, and were delivered without any licensing agreement or
`
`terms being presented or agreed to by Summit. Jd.
`
`There is no record evidence that Summit agreed to any of the ‘standard’ license terms
`
`that Philips submitted along with its motion. See Pls.’ Mot., 12-14. In fact, the Philips Standard
`
`Terms and Conditions of Sale states that the license agreement is provided to a customeras part
`
`of a quotation and applies to “[t]he products and serviceslisted in the quotation.” See Dickson
`
`Decl., Ex. J (Dkt. 173), at 1. Philips has produced no quotation that covers the copies of the
`
`system software sold to Summit. This is because Summit purchased the software from AllParts,
`
`not Philips. See Nguyen Decl., §§ 3-10, Exs. 1-8; Dkt. 145, 49 5-6, Ex. 2. According to Philips,
`
`AllParts is a “nonparty.” See, e.g., Pls.” Mot. at 15-16 (emphasis in original). Thus, Ms.
`
`Dickson’s testimony regarding Philips’ license agreements is immaterial. Summit does not need
`
`Philips’ authorization to access or use any portion of the copies of the system softwareit
`
`purchased from AllParts or others.
`
`Accessing Diagnostics Software Using a Philips-Provided User Name and Password:
`
`Onefurther dispute between the parties involves Summit’s ability to access testing and
`
`diagnostic capabilities on iU/iE ultrasound machines using a user name and password provided
`
`by Philips. In particular, for most 1U/iE machines (Level 5 software version and below), Summit
`
`accesses the testing and diagnostic features using a Philips-provided user name and password
`
`that is displayed on the screen when the system software is loaded onto an 1U/iE machine, as
`
`shown atthe red line in the following picture:
`
`eo ar
`eaaga RPPRle
`ent or east set to <nul
`
`to
`
`group ite
`
`s =
`
`heen set to
`Users
`
`dees not ex
`
`+e Pettit.
`
`PT tke
`
`See Levy Decl., Ex. F, (Nguyen 30(b)(6) Dep. (cont.), 196:10-197:12, 198:22-24): see also
`
`Nguyen Decl. § 11, Ex. 9 (red line added). As Summit explained in its own Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment(Dkt. 140, at 6-7), it gains access to almost all of the diagnostics functionality on 1U/iE
`
`ultrasound systems using this user name and passwordprovided byPhilips.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT....7
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SeeDeaneSeno
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 13 of 42
`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 13 of 42
`
`In its openingbrief, Philips glosses over this important fact,
`
`See Pls.’ Mot. at 11-12. Philips fails to note that this
`
`combination is set once Summit gains accessto the diagnostic features using the Philips-
`
`provided information highlightedin the abovepicture.° Jd. Thus, the record evidence supports
`
`Summit’s position on how it accesses the diagnostic and servicing capabilities on 1U/iE systems.
`
`MIME. 1.Dit. 165, 244: Levy Decl, Ex. C,576-1
`
`I 1+ Dect. ££, 206:22-207:
`
`Ex. L. Dkt. 165, 99145, 149. There is no dispute that theJ is
`
`very well known and can be performed using widely available third party software tools. Ex. L,
`
`*Ttis possible that Philips remainedsilentonthis issue in its motion becauseit would face a conundrumwhendeciding
`whetherto seal this information. Onthe one hand,ifit tried to seal the user name-password information, it would need
`to explain why a combinationthat is publicly displayed should remainconfidential. A ruling on such a sealing motion
`would likely become a defacto ruling on a numberof Philips’ DMCAandtrade secret claims. On the other hand, if
`Philips did nottry to seal this information, it would be admitting that this combinationis publicly available and, thus,
`would not be an effective access control. Philips avoided both outcomes by omitting any discussion onthis issue in
`its brief.
`
`2 .
`
`See Ex. S, Dkt. 177, 9124; Ex. L, Dkt. 165, 991.
`
`>
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT....8
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`>
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GRouP LLP
`701 Frm AVENE SUTES4OD
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`24
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-01745-JLR Document 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 14 of 42
`
`
`
`Dkt. 165, ¶¶ 133-35.
`
`
`
`. See Ex. S, Dkt. 177, ¶ 326,
`
`n.46; see also Ex. L, Dkt. 165, ¶ 151. Even Mr. Bradley, Philips’ 30(b)(6) witness on technical
`
`matters, admitted that
`
`Ex. C, 56:21-57:5.
`
` See Levy Decl.,
`
`The record evidence also does not support Philips contention that
`
`
`
`
`
`. See Ex. L,
`
`Dkt. 165, ¶¶ 133-34, 244; Levy Decl., Ex. G, (Taylor Dep.), 134:19-135:5, 136:7-11; Ex. S, Dkt.
`
`177, ¶¶ 238-44.
`
`C.
`
`Interactions Between Summit and Philips
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Summit started business in 2006 and has been repairing Philips’ branded ultrasound
`
`system parts and components since at least 2008. Levy Decl., Ex. H, (Nguyen (30(b)(6)) Dep.),
`
`12:18-23, 32:6-11. The parties first crossed paths in 2014 when Summit sought a meeting with
`
`Philips Multi-Vendor Service (“MVS”) group to discuss the possibility of Summit providing
`
`repair services for GE ultrasound equipment on behalf of Philips MVS. Id., 151:21-153:4.
`
`Summit also desired to meet with representatives from AllParts which Summit had understood
`
`worked with Philips MVS. Id. 154:13-155:10. The parties agreed to the meeting which took
`
`place on August 5, 2014, at AllParts’ facility in Nashville, Tennessee. Id. at 160:1-4. The parties
`
`agree that Jim Salmons, the leader of Philips MVS who also had responsibilities for AllParts,
`
`was present at this meeting. See Pls.’ Mot. at 15, Levy Decl., Ex. I., (Salmons Dep.), 53:19-54:4.
`
`Mr. James Akins, who was a logistics manager for AllParts, was also present at the meeting. See
`
`id., 53:14-17.
`
`Mr. Nguyen of Summit has testified that during the meeting he demonstrated a version of
`
`Adepto for GE brand ultrasound systems. Levy Decl., Ex. H, 161:10-18.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT .... 9
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 15 of 42
`
`
`
` Id. at 161:19-162:2.
`
`. Id.
`
` Id., 162:7-15.
`
` Id., 162:19-163:12.
`
` Id., 163:12-17.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s. Id.,
`
`164:4-14. Someone else from Philips or AllParts at the meeting questioned whether this was
`
`legal, and Mr. Salmons jumped in to defend the practice
`
` Id., 164:24-165:21.
`
` Id. at 166:19-167:6; see also Nguyen Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. 10.
`
` Id.
`
`Ex. I, 58:20-59:12
`
` 67:11-22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.
`
`. See Levy Decl.,
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT .. 10
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
`701 F FTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
`SEATTLE, WASH NGTON 98104-7092
`(206) 622-4900
`
`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 230 Filed 04/26/21 Page 16 of 42
`
`
`
`. See Levy Decl., Ex. J, (Akins Dep.), 8:25-9:1,
`
`
`
`61:20-62:18, Ex. 70 (PhilipsSummit_00158740).
`
`. Id., 62:19-23.
`
` Id., 63:5-64:25.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The method of mounting a GE ultrasound hard drive to laptop and using Adepto to view
`
`files on the hard drive such as error logs that Mr. Nguyen demonstrated to Philips in August
`
`2014 is the same process that Summit uses for mounting the hard drives from Philips-branded
`
`. See id., 64:23-66:8.
`
`machines to a laptop. See Pls.’ Mot. at 8
`
`
`
`;
`
`Ex. S, Dkt. 177, ¶ 171; Ex. L, Dkt. 165, ¶ 99; Levy Decl., Ex. H, 97:8-16. In other words, the
`
`method that that Summit demonstrated to Philips of mounting a hard drive from a GE ultrasound
`
`machine to a laptop is the same method used for accessing the contents of the hard drives on
`
`Philips-branded machines and corresponds to some of the same actions that underlie Philips’
`
`causes of action in this case. See Pls.’ Third Am. Compl., Dkt. 99, ¶¶ 42 (Adepto “hacking” tool
`
`used by removing hard drive from ultrasound and attaching it to a separate computer), 84
`
`(DMCA claim based on circumventing access controls using Adepto “hacking tool”), 161 (trade
`
`secret misappropriation claim based on use of Adepto “hacking” tool), 190 (false advertising
`
`claim based on slaving a hard drive). According to Mr. Nguyen, Mr. Salmons stated at this
`
`meeting that these methods were “[a]bsolutely . . . legal.” See Levy Decl., Ex. H, 164:22-165:5.
`
` See Levy Decl., Ex. K, (Williams 30(b)(6) Dep.), 15:23-16:8, 22:1-22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT .. 11
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01745-JLR
`
`SEED INTELLECTUAL