Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 34239
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motorola Mobility
`LLC f/k/a Motorola Mobility, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert W. Unikel
`Michelle Marek Figueiredo
`John Cotiguala
`Matt Lind
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 449-6000
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi
`Chad J. Peterman
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Tel: (212) 318-6000
`
`Ariell Bratton
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Tel: (858) 458-3000
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 2 of 49 PageID #: 34240
`
`Ginger Anders
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW
`Suite 500E
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel: (202) 220-1100
`
`Dated: March 5, 2021
`7108167 / 40549
`
`Public Version Dated: March 12, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 3 of 49 PageID #: 34241
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. THE ASSERTED ’843 PATENT ............................................................................................ 5
`
`A. Background and the Asserted Claims ............................................................................... 5
`
`B. The Critical Elements of the Asserted Claims Must be Understood in Light of
`the Invalid ’853 Patent ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`III. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS ................................................................................................ 7
`
`IV. THE ANDROID OS FRAMEWORK AND THE ACCUSED FUNCTIONALITIES........... 8
`
`A. The Android OS and the Android OS Framework ........................................................... 8
`
`B. Linkify .............................................................................................................................. 9
`
`C. Smart Text Selection with Text Classifier ...................................................................... 12
`
`D. Smart Linkify .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARD FOR INFRINGEMENT .................................................................... 15
`
`VI. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS WITH THE ACCUSED APPS USING THE
`ACCUSED FUNCTIONALITIES CANNOT AND DO NOT INFRINGE THE
`ASSERTED ’843 PATENT CLAIMS .................................................................................. 16
`
`A. The Bulk of the Accused Products Do Not Use “Document[s]” as Required by
`the ’843 Claims ............................................................................................................... 16
`
`1. The claim elements and the Court’s construction ................................................... 16
`
`2. Seven of eight Accused Apps using Linkify and Smart Linkify cannot
`infringe because the Accused Functionalities do not act on a file “into
`which text can be entered” ...................................................................................... 18
`
`3. The Accused Chrome and News Apps cannot infringe because they do not
`include documents “into which text can be entered” .............................................. 19
`
`4. The Accused Apps using transitory or data entry fields cannot infringe
`because such fields are not “word processing, spreadsheet or similar files” .......... 20
`
`B. The Accused Products Do Not Analyze First Information from the Document to
`Determine if It Is of a Type “That Can Be Searched for in Order to Find Second
`Information” as Required by the ’843 Claims ................................................................ 23
`
`1. The claim element and the Court’s construction ..................................................... 23
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 4 of 49 PageID #: 34242
`
`2. None of the Accused Products using any of the Accused Functionalities
`infringe because none analyze to determine whether identified information
`is of a type that “can be searched for” on a user’s device ....................................... 23
`
`C. The Accused Products and Accused Apps Do Not “Provid[e] an Input Device,
`Configured by the First Computer Program” or Perform an Operation “in
`Consequence of Receipt by the First Computer Program,” as Required by the
`Asserted Claims .............................................................................................................. 27
`
`1. The claim elements and the Court’s constructions .................................................. 27
`
`2. Arendi’s allegations regarding the “first computer program” ................................. 33
`
`3. Twelve of thirteen Accused Apps do not infringe because the alleged “first
`computer program” in each does not set up the input device for use by the
`user .......................................................................................................................... 34
`
`4. Twelve of Thirteen Accused Apps do not infringe because the alleged “first
`computer program” in each does not receive, process and act on the user
`command from the alleged input device ................................................................. 39
`
`VII. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 40
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 5 of 49 PageID #: 34243
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................21
`
`Akamai Techs. Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................16
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC,
`882 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................26
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................15
`
`Finjan v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................16
`
`Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc.,
`450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................15
`
`Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................15
`
`Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`789 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1986)..................................................................................................7
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 10–982–LPS, 2012 WL 3238252 (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2012) ........................................26
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ...................................................................................................................25
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 6 of 49 PageID #: 34244
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`The exhibits referenced in this brief are attached to the declarations of Martin Rinard,
`Edward Fox and Robert Unikel, filed contemporaneously herewith, as indicated below.
`
`Exhibits to the Declaration of Martin Rinard
`
`A. Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Martin Rinard on Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,917,843 dated October 20, 2020.
`
`Exhibits to the Declaration of Edward Fox
`
`B. Expert Report of Edward Fox, Ph.D. On the Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843
`dated August 7, 2020
`
`C. Reply Expert Report of Edward Fox, Ph.D. On the Invalidity of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,917,843 dated December 4, 2020
`
`Exhibits to the Declaration of Robert Unikel
`
`1. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the Expert Report of Dr. Trevor Smedley
`(and Appendix) regarding Google’s purported infringement dated August 7, 2020
`
`2. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the Reply Expert Report of Dr. Trevor
`Smedley regarding Google’s purported infringement dated December 4, 2020.
`
`3. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Dr. Trevor
`Smedley taken on January 19, 2021.
`
`4. A true and correct copy of a document titled “Linkify” found at
`https://developer.android.com/reference/android/text/util/Linkify and produced as
`RINARD_GOOGLE_0000994-0001012.
`
`5. A true and correct copy of
`
`
`
`
`
`6. A true and correct copy of a document titled “Linkify your Text!” produced as
`GOOG101890-91.
`
`7. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
`
`8. A true and correct copy of a document titled “WikiNotes for Android: Routing Intents”
`produced at GOOG00101900.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 7 of 49 PageID #: 34245
`
`9. A true and correct copy of Accelerated Examination Support Document submitted on
`July 22, 2010 during the prosecution of Patent No. 7,921,356, produced as AHL0164696-
`845.
`
`10. A true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 6,323,853 (Hedloy”).
`
`11. A true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (“Miller”).
`
`12. A true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,644,735 (“Luciw”).
`
`13. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
`
`14. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Atle
`Hedloy, taken on October 29, 2019.
`
`15. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Atle
`Hedloy, taken on November 5, 2019.
`
`16. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Atle
`Hedloy, taken on November 6, 2019.
`
`17. A true and correct copy of https://developer.android.com/guide/platform, produced at
`RINARD_GOOGLE_0001242-46.
`
`18. A true and correct copy of the Petition for Inter Partes review IPR2014-00208 for
`U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843, produced at FOX_0009000.
`
`19. A true and correct copy of Exhibit 1006 from IPR petition IPR2014-00208, produced
`at FOX_0009655, and which includes a copy of “From Document to Objects, An
`Overview of LiveDoc” at FOX_0009659 and “Drop Zones, An Extension to LiveDoc” at
`FOX_0009665 (collectively “LiveDoc/DropZones”).
`
`20. A true and correct copy of “Common Intents” from
`https://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-common, produced at
`ARENDI_G329272.
`
`21. A true and correct copy of excerpts from Newton Programmer’s Guide, produced at
`ARENDI-DEFS00003649.
`
`22. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Dr. Martin
`Rinard taken on December 17, 2021.
`
`23. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 8 of 49 PageID #: 34246
`
`24. A true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of the deposition of Dr. Earl
`Sacerdoti taken on January 20, 2021.
`
`25. Email correspondence between counsel for Arendi and Google, dated March 8, 2019,
`confirming that “Arendi is only accusing devices based on use of those applications that
`were preinstalled on the Google . . . devices at the time those devices were delivered to
`users.”
`
`26. A true and correct copy of
`.
`
`
`
`27. A true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No. 5,859,636 (“Pandit”).
`
`28. A true and correct copy of Terminal Disclaimer filed during prosecution of the ’843
`Patent, produced at AHL0134444.
`
`29. A true and correct copy of
`
`30. A true and correct copy of
`
`31. Intentionally Left Blank.
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`32. A true and correct copy of a document titled “Smart Selection, Smart Text Share,
`Linkify Language Detection, and
`the Google Text Classifier,” produced at
`GOOG00133637.
`
`true and correct copy of a document
`33. A
`ARENDI_G330679.
`
`titled “TextView,” produced at
`
`34. A true and correct copy of a document titled “Smart Linkify Overview,” produced at
`GOOG00018112.
`
`35. A true and correct copy of a document titled “Frequently Asked Questions,” produced
`at ARENDI_G329620-630.
`
`36. A true and correct copy of a document titled “CyberDesk: a framework for providing
`self-integrating context-aware services,” produced at AHL0121553.
`
`37. A true and correct copy of a document titled “Apple Internet Address Detectors
`User’s Manual,” produced at ARENDI_DEFS00000591.
`
`38. A true and correct copy of a document titled “The Selection Recognition Agent:
`Instant Access to Relevant Information and Operations,” produced at AHL0122361.
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 9 of 49 PageID #: 34247
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The claims of the lone patent still asserted by Arendi in this case, U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,917,843 (“the ’843 Patent”) (D.I. 1-1), are generally directed to a method and a computer
`
`readable medium for identifying contact information in a document (e.g., a name), searching for
`
`related information in a separate source (e.g., a phone number associated with the name in a
`
`contact database), and using the found information in some way (e.g., to dial the found phone
`
`number).
`
`As of the ’843 Patent’s priority date (September 3, 1998), numerous companies and
`
`academic researchers had already developed and publicly described their own systems and tools
`
`for accomplishing the same contact information identification and retrieval tasks to which the
`
`’843 Patent is directed. These prior art systems and tools, often referred to as “intelligent
`
`assistants”, included at least Apple Computer’s Apple Data Detector and Newton systems (see,
`
`e.g., Ex. 37, Ex. 21), Intel Corporation’s Selection Recognition Agent system (see, e.g., Ex. 38),
`
`and Georgia Institute of Technology’s CyberDesk system. (See, e.g., Ex. 36.) To try to
`
`distinguish its alleged invention from the myriad intelligent assistant systems in existence as of
`
`September 3, 1998, Arendi defined the ’843 Patent’s claimed method and computer readable
`
`medium to require specific tasks to be performed by specifically delineated programs (i.e., by a
`
`specified “first computer program” and “second computer program”).1
`
`1 In fact, to defend against Google’s assertion that the ’843 Patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 101 for claiming an abstract idea, Arendi represented to the Court that the Asserted Claims are
`concrete, limiting and directed to a very specific implementation of the idea of using identified
`contact information in a document to find and use related information. D.I. 139, p. 2, 4, 5 (“The
`asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are directed to a specific way of improving information
`searching and retrieval between two different computer programs without disrupting the user’s
`work or requiring the user to be familiar with and have access to an external information source.
`The specification describes the novel solution as ‘providing a function item,’ such as a button,
`that ‘initiates retrieval of name and addresses and/or other person or company related
`information, while the user works simultaneously in another program, e.g., word processor.’”)
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 10 of 49 PageID #: 34248
`
`Arendi now seeks to disregard the explicit requirements of its asserted ’843 Patent claims
`
`(claims 1, 8, 23 and 30 (the “Asserted Claims”)) – the very requirements that Arendi repeatedly
`
`emphasized to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) and this Court – in order
`
`to accuse certain Google applications (and Google devices running those applications) of
`
`infringement. As will be fully explained herein, however, the undisputed facts establish that
`
`Google cannot, and does not, practice at least five specific ’843 Patent claim elements, thus
`
`entitling Google to summary judgment of non-infringement:
`
`First, nine of the thirteen accused Google Android apps (and the accused devices that use
`
`them) do not satisfy the “document” element of the Asserted Claims because text cannot be
`
`entered into the relevant fields, if any, being displayed or analyzed. According to the Court’s
`
`construction, a “document” in the ’843 Patent claims must be “a word processing, spreadsheet or
`
`similar file into which text can be entered.” (Emphasis added). But, it is indisputable that the
`
`apps accused based on their use in conjunction with so-called Linkify and Smart Linkify
`
`functionalities (i.e., Google Messages, Calendar, Hangouts, Tasks, Docs, Slides, and Sheets) do
`
`not analyze and/or identify information in fields that can be edited or added to by a user. Instead,
`
`text can only be processed by these accused functionalities when that text is in fixed and non-
`
`editable form (e.g., after a text message is sent in Google Messages, or on fixed webpages
`
`displayed using Google Chrome or News). See infra Section VI.A.1-3.
`
`Second, ten of the thirteen accused apps do not utilize “word processing, spreadsheet or
`
`similar file[s]”, as required by the Court’s construction of the “document” claim element.
`
`(Emphasis added). Specifically, the text entry fields accused by Arendi in Google Messages,
`
`Chrome, Calendar, Contacts, Hangouts, Tasks, Docs, Slides, Sheets, and News are not “word
`
`processor, spreadsheet or similar files.” They undeniably are nothing more than transitory, data
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 11 of 49 PageID #: 34249
`
`entry interfaces (e.g., a field in Calendar permitting a user to enter a meeting date and time); and
`
`Arendi’s own expert admits that such transitory data entry fields do not, and cannot, constitute “a
`
`word processing, spreadsheet or similar file” under the Court’s construction. See infra Section
`
`VI.A.4.
`
`Third, none of the accused apps perform the Asserted Claims’ required “analyzing, in a
`
`computer process, first information from the document to determine if the first information is at
`
`least one of a plurality of types of information that can be searched for in order to find second
`
`information related to the first information.” D.I. 1-1, claim 1, 10:43-48; claim 23, 12:47-52. As
`
`Arendi’s own expert admitted, a program cannot be covered by the Asserted Claims if that
`
`program determines only that analyzed text is of a specific type (like an email address or phone
`
`number). Rather, Arendi’s expert acknowledges that the claims explicitly require a further
`
`determination that the identified type of information “can be searched for in order to find second
`
`information related to the first information.” Thus, to use the example provided by Arendi’s
`
`expert, it is not enough for an Accused App to determine that a sequence of numbers (e.g., 555-
`
`1000) in a document is likely a phone number; the ’843 Patent claims require a determination
`
`that a phone number “can be searched for” on the user’s system to find associated second
`
`information (e.g., that the user’s system can access a contact database and/or a network service
`
`that permits a search using a phone number to find additional, associated information). Yet, it is
`
`
`
`, as expressly required by the
`
`Asserted Claims. See infra Section VI.B.1-2.
`
`Fourth, twelve of the thirteen accused apps (and the accused devices that use them) do
`
`not (a) “provid[e] an input device, configured by the first computer program, that allows a user
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 12 of 49 PageID #: 34250
`
`to enter a command to initiate an operation . . .”; and fifth, all accused apps do not (b) “in
`
`consequence of receipt by the first computer program of the user command from the input
`
`device, caus[e] a search for the search term in the information source . . .” D.I. 1-1, claim 1,
`
`10:50-52, 10:61-63; claim 23, 12:54-56, 12:65-67. Arendi identifies each accused Google app as
`
`the claimed “first computer program”; and Arendi identifies hyperlinked text or a pop-up menu
`
`bar as the “input device.” The Court construed “computer program” to mean “a self-contained
`
`set of instructions, as opposed to a routine or library, intended to be executed on a computer so as
`
`to perform some task.” D.I. 144, p. 1. Thus, under the Court’s constructions, the “self-contained
`
`set of instructions” for each Accused App must both (1) “set up” the hyperlinked text or pop-up
`
`menu bar, and (2) receive any user command from that hyperlinked text or pop-up menu bar,
`
`causing a resulting search to be performed. However,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ee infra Section VI.C.1-3. It is further undisputed
`
`from a user’s
`
`click on hyperlinked text or choice of a pop-up menu item; and it is undisputedly
`
`
`
`fires the so-called “intents” that ultimately result in actions being taken in
`
`additional programs as a result of the user click/menu choice. Therefore, the self-contained set of
`
`instructions
`
` See infra Section VI.C.1-2, 4. Notably,
`
`
`
`during prosecution of the ’843 Patent family, during inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings,
`
`and in this litigation, Arendi and its experts expressly distinguished systems like Google’s that
`
`use code and/or instructions outside of those for the “first computer program” to (a) set up the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 13 of 49 PageID #: 34251
`
`input device and/or (b) receive user commands from that input device.
`
`II.
`
`THE ASSERTED ’843 PATENT
`A.
`Background and the Asserted Claims
`The ’843 Patent is part of a family of patents that shares the same specification and has a
`
`long prosecution and IPR history dating back to 1998. The ’843 Patent was filed on July 29,
`
`2008, but claims priority as a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 6,323,853 (“the ’853 Patent,” Ex.
`
`10), which was filed in the U.S. on November 10, 1998. The ’843 Patent issued on March 29,
`
`2011 and expired on November 10, 2018. D.I. 1-1.
`
`The ’843 Patent specification (shared with the ’853 Patent) describes a computer
`
`program, such as a word processor, that includes a “function item, such as a key, button, icon, or
`
`menu,” which, when clicked, “initiates retrieval of name and addresses and/or other person or
`
`company related information, while the user works simultaneously in another program, e.g., a
`
`word processor.” D.I. 1-1, Abstract. The information retrieval is conducted by “a program
`
`connected to the button to search a database or file available on or through the computer,
`
`containing [the relevant information], in order to look up data corresponding to what the user
`
`types, or partly typed.” D.I. 1-1, Abstract. The retrieved information can be “entered into the
`
`word processor, if such related information exists.” D.I. 1-1, Abstract.
`
`Importantly, as a result of IPR proceedings, the PTAB ultimately found the ’853 Patent to
`
`be invalid as obvious over prior art, and the Federal Circuit affirmed that finding. Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, 882 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2018); D.I. 112-4, Ex. 6II, p. 42 [p. 361 of
`
`645]. The presently asserted ’843 Patent narrowly escaped a similar fate. While the PTAB found
`
`the ’843 Patent claims to be invalid as obvious in light of a single prior art reference (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,859,636, Ex. 27), the Federal Circuit ultimately reversed this finding on the basis that the
`
`PTAB improperly relied on “common sense” to find that it would have been obvious to supply
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 14 of 49 PageID #: 34252
`
`the sole claim element missing from that prior art reference. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832
`
`F.3d 1355, 1361-67 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Arendi now asserts literal infringement of claims 1, 8, 23, and 30 of the ’843 Patent, the
`
`full text of which are reproduced in Appendix 1.2 Claims 1 and 23 are independent claims
`
`sharing near-identical elements except that claim 1 is a method claim and claim 23 is a computer
`
`readable medium (CRM) claim. Claims 8 and 30 are identical dependent claims respectively
`
`depending from Claims 1 and 23. The elements of the Asserted Claims require actions performed
`
`by both hardware and software (e.g., display of a document, setting up an input device by the
`
`first computer program, and searching for second information).
`
`B.
`
`The Critical Elements of the Asserted Claims Must be Understood in Light of
`the Invalid ’853 Patent
`Critical to understanding and applying the specific requirements of the ’843 Patent claims
`
`is the fact that, as noted, the ’843 Patent is a continuation of the ’853 Patent, which already has
`
`been found and declared invalid as obvious over prior art. Not only do the patents share the same
`
`specification, they recite very similar claims. In fact, during prosecution of the ’843 Patent,
`
`Arendi filed a terminal disclaimer in order to overcome a double-patenting rejection based on the
`
`similarity between the ’843 and ’853 Patent claims. Ex. 28; ’843 Patent History, Dec. 10, 2010
`
`Response to Office Action, D.I. 112-3, Ex. 6Y, p. 14 [p. 448 of 480].
`
`The differences between the elements of the asserted ’843 Patent claims and the
`
`invalidated ’853 Patent claims thus isolate and define critical elements of the ’843 Patent that
`
`cannot be ignored or minimized as part of an infringement analysis. After all, if the asserted ’843
`
`Patent claims could be applied to cover the subject matter of the invalidated ’853 Patent claims,
`
`then the ’843 Patent claims necessarily would be invalid, in accord with the well-known patent-
`
`2 The Court granted Google’s Motion to Strike Arendi’s theory of infringement under the
`doctrine of equivalents. D.I. 257.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 15 of 49 PageID #: 34253
`
`law adage, “that which infringes if later, anticipates if earlier.” Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak
`
`Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting Peters v. Active Manufacturing Co., 129 U.S.
`
`530, 537, 9 S.Ct. 389, 32 L.Ed. 738 (1889)).
`
`Appendix 2 shows the four substantive differences between the elements of the Asserted
`
`Claims and the elements of the invalid ’853 Patent claims: (1) the Asserted Claims require the
`
`text analysis to occur “while the document is displayed”; (2) the Asserted Claims require not
`
`only that “first information” be determined to be present in the document, but also that the first
`
`information be determined to be of a specific type “that can be searched for to find second
`
`information”; (3) the Asserted Claims require that the input device be “configured by the first
`
`computer program”; and (4) the Asserted Claims mandate that the “first computer program”
`
`receives any user command from the input device. These ’843 Patent claim elements cannot be
`
`ignored or minimized for purposes of analyzing infringement, otherwise the Asserted Claims of
`
`the ’843 Patent would be invalid for covering the same subject matter as the invalid ’853 Patent
`
`claims. And as will be fully explained by this motion, the very elements that Arendi must rely on
`
`to distinguish the Asserted Claims from the invalid ’853 Patent claims are the very elements that
`
`Google’s accused apps (and the devices that use them) undisputedly do not practice.
`
`III.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`In this suit, Arendi accuses of direct infringement (collectively, “the Accused Products”)
`
`(a) thirteen Google apps (running on both Google-branded and non-Google branded Android
`
`devices) – Google Messages, Google Chrome, Google Calendar, Google Contacts, Google
`
`Hangouts, Google Tasks, Google Keep, Google Docs, Google Slides, Google Sheets, Google
`
`News, and Gmail/Inbox (the “Accused Apps”); and (b) various models of Google’s Nexus and
`
`Pixel line of Android devices running preinstalled versions of the Accused Apps (the “Accused
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 16 of 49 PageID #: 34254
`
`Devices”).3 Because Arendi’s device accusations depend on the operation of the preinstalled
`
`Accused Apps, the Accused Devices cannot infringe if the Accused Apps do not infringe.
`
`More specifically, Arendi’s infringement allegations focus on the operation of certain
`
`functionalities provided by the so-called Android OS Framework (which is described in greater
`
`detail below) for use in conjunction with Android apps, including, but not limited to, the
`
`Accused Apps. These functionalities are called Linkify, Smart Text Selection (“STS”), and
`
`Smart Linkify (together the “Accused Functionalities”), and these functionalities generally
`
`operate to: (1) identify text as being one of a small number of likely formats (e-mail address,
`
`phone number, street address, and, in STS and Smart Linkify, flight number); and (2) make the
`
`identified text actionable, such as (a) by turning the identified text into a hyperlink that can be
`
`used to cause a specified action in another program or (b) by presenting a pop-up menu of
`
`assigned options of actions the user can take with the identified text (e.g., cut, copy, dial number,
`
`or send email).4
`
`IV.
`
`THE ANDROID OS FRAMEWORK AND THE ACCUSED FUNCTIONALITIES
`A.
`The Android OS and the Android OS Framework
`The Accused Devices and Accused Apps utilize a modified version of the Android OS.5
`
`All versions of the Android OS, including those running on the Accused Devices, include a
`
`3 Nexus One, Nexus S, Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4, Nexus 5, Nexus 6, Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P, Nexus
`7 (1st generation), Nexus 7 (2nd generation), Nexus 9, Nexus 10, Pixel, Pixel XL, Pixel 2, Pixel
`2 XL, Pixel 3, Pixel 3 XL, and Pixel C. Ex. 1, ¶ 14. Note that “Arendi is only accusing devices
`based on use of those applications that were preinstalled on the Google . . . devices at the time
`those devices were delivered to users.” Ex. 25, p. 2.
`4 The accused Google Chrome app, a web browser app, utilizes additional accused features
`known as Content Detectors and Quick Actions. As will be explained throughout the brief, the
`Chrome app cannot infringe because it fails to meet a number of claimed elements.
`5 The Android OS is a free open source operating system developed by a consortium of
`developers known as the Open Handset Alliance, of which Google is the main contributor and
`marketer. Google, like other handset developers (a/k/a/ Original Equipment Manufacturers or
`“OEM”), modifies the open source version of Android for its respective devices, including the
`Accused Devices. Ex. A, ¶ 93; Ex. 35, ARENDI_G329629-30.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 327 Filed 03/12/21 Page 17 of 49 PageID #: 34255
`
`“Framework,” which is a set of Application Programming Interfaces (“APIs”) and corresponding
`
`services that provide developers of Android-based apps with a range of functionalities that they
`
`can invoke, if they wish, via the provided APIs. Ex. 17, RINARD_GOOGLE_0001245-46. The
`
`Android OS Framework is designed to promote efficient and effective app development by
`
`providing already implemented functionality that app developers can invoke using APIs and
`
`corresponding software classes, rather than developing the functionality themselves. Ex. A ¶ 98.
`
`The Android OS Framework is designed to be modular and usable by multiple apps and helps an
`
`app developer avoid the need to encode the various functionalities provided by the Framework
`
`directly into the app itself. See Ex. 17, RINARD_GOOGLE_0001242-43, 1245-46. The Android
`
`OS Framework thus promotes a consistent user experience across apps while reducing the time
`
`and effort required to build and update an app. See Ex. 17, RINARD_GOOGLE_0001245-46.
`
`Overall, the Android OS Framework provides the s