Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 45 PageID #: 44398
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`AREND! S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`GOOGLELLC,
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`Original Version Filed: April 8, 2021
`
`
`Public Version Filed: April 15, 2021
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`SMITH, KA TZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Of Counsel:
`
`Eve H. Onnerod (No. 5369)
`Seth.Ard
`
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`
`Beatrice Franklin
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Max Straus
`(302)652-8400
`SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
`
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`New York, NY 10019
`
`eo1merod@skj law .com
`sard@susmangodfrey.com
`bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`mstraus@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`JohnLahad
`
`lbituroko-Emi Lawson
`Bmion De Witt
`
`
`Robeli Travis Konnan
`Brenda Adimora
`
`
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`j lahad@susmangodfrey.com
`elawson@susmangodfrey.com
`bdewitt@susmangodfrey.com
`tkonnan@susmangodfrey.com
`badimora@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kalpana Srinivasan
`
`
`
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 45 PageID #: 44399
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 45 PageID #: 44399
`
`Kemper Diehl
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
`
`Seattle, WA 98101-3000
`kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Dated: April 8, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 45 PageID #: 44400
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 3 of 45 PageID #: 44400
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`m
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS .............................................................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ l l
`
`1. Each document identified by Arendi is a ‘Wvord processing, spreadsheet, or similar file
`into which text can be entered.” ........................................................................................ 12
`
`A. Evidence supports Arendi’s position that text can be entered into each type of
`document at issue in this case.................................................................................... 13
`
`B. Evidence supports Arendi’s position that each document is a “word processing,
`spreadsheet, or similar file.” ...................................................................................... 16
`
`2. Each of the Accused Apps and Accused Devices perform the required analysis: ............ 23
`
`3. Each Accused App sets up the input device and receives the user command. ................. 29
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 40
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 45 PageID #: 44401
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 4 of 45 PageID #: 44401
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 US. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 11
`
`B01" v. L & L Wings, Inc.,
`160 F.3d 1350 Wed. Cir. 1998).......................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`0sseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc. ,
`No. CV l7-l386—LPS, 2020 WL 6318724 0). Del. Oct. 28, 2020) ........................................ 12
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ...................................................................................................................... 1 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 45 PageID #: 44402
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 5 of 45 PageID #: 44402
`
`Google’s motion for summary judgment rests on misstatements of Arendi’s infiingement
`
`theories, the invention ofnon—existent claim limitations, attempts to relitigate or ignore the Court’s
`
`claim construction order, and repeated oversight of contradictory evidence detailed in the expert
`
`reports of Arendi’s infringement expert, Trevor Smedley. This evidence showing that Google’s
`
`accused mobile apps and devices practice each element of claims 1, 8, 23, and 30 of the ’843 Patent
`
`(“Asserted Claims”) raises a question of material fact and precludes summary judgment.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
`
`Arendi alleges that Google infringes the Asserted Claims. The Court entered its claim
`
`construction order on August 19, 2019, D1. 144, fact discovery closed on December 13, 2019, D1.
`
`174, at 2, and expert discovery closed on January 22, 2021, D.I. 210, at 3.
`
`SUMNIARY OF THE ARGUNIENT
`
`Google has not identified a single limitation of the Asserted Claims for which Arendi lacks
`
`material evidence of infringement. Google’s motion for summary judgment must be denied.1
`
`1.
`
`Evidence shows that each “document” at issue in this case is a “word processing,
`
`spreadsheet or similar file into which text can be entered,” as Dr. Smedley confirms a POSITA
`
`would understand. The weakness of Google’s position is belied by its assertion that even a text
`
`document in Docs or spreadsheet in Sheets—Google’s word processing and spreadsheets apps—
`
`does not qualify as a “document.” Google’s assertion that “transitory interface[]” elements such as
`
`1 The Asserted Claims, moreover, require use of only one “first computer program.” See, e.g.,
`Straus Decl. Ex. 1 (’843 Patent), at 10:41-42 (“displaying the document electronically using the
`first computer program (emphasis added)). To prove infringement by the Accused Devices, Arendi
`only needs to show infringement when one of the Accused Apps serves as the “first computer
`program.” Thus, even were the Court to agree with some of the Google’s arguments, the relief
`requested by Google would be overboard. For example, should the Court find that the Accused
`Apps listed in paragraph 1 of Google’s proposed order do not utilize “documents,” that would not
`mean that “[n]one of the Asserted Claims is directly infringed.” D.I. 275-], at 1. Accused Devices
`would still infringe using a different first computer program, such as Keep.
`
`l
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 6 of 45 PageID #: 44403
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 6 of 45 PageID #: 44403
`
`“url entry bars” and data structures such as “search telms” are not documents is irrelevant. See D.I.
`
`276, at 20-21. Arendi agrees. Arendi has never identified them as docmnents.
`
`2.
`
`Each of the accused instrumentalities analyzes frrst information from the document
`
`to determine ifthat first information belongs to one or more ofthe categories oftelephone munbers,
`
`addresses, email addresses and/or flight numbers. Each of those categories is a type of identifying
`
`or contact information that can be searched. Google’s brief does not dispute these facts. Rather,
`
`reprising the improper efforts of its expert witness, see D.I. 270, at 3-6 (Daubert motion), Google
`
`invents a new claim limitation of analyzing first information to determine its searchability. That
`
`limitation appears nowhere in the claims and is contrary to both the Corut’s Claim Construction
`
`Order and the understanding of a POSITA. Proof of infringement does not require evidence that
`
`Google’s products practice non-existent limitations.
`
`device required by the claims and comprises instructions for processing and responding to the user
`
`command.—
`
`—— .
`
`rests upon Google’s improper and unsupported effort to supplant the Court’s construction of
`
`“computer program” with its own.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Arendi accuses thirteen Google apps (“Accused Apps”) and nineteen Google devices
`
`(“Accused Devices”) of infi‘inging the Asserted Clairns. Claims 1 and 23 are identical, except that
`
`claim 1 is a method claim whereas claim 23 is directed to a computer—readable medium. Claims 8
`
`and 30 depend respectively from claims 1 and 23. The Accused Devices are mobile devices
`
`running versions of the Android operating system.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 7 of 45 PageID #: 44404
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 7 of 45 PageID #: 44404
`
`Elements of the Asserted Claims germane to Google’s present motion require analysis of
`
`text from a document, an input device set up by a first computer program, and receipt of a user
`
`command by the fn‘st computer program. Ex. 1 (’843 Patent), at 10:43-48, 10:50, 10:61-63.2 The
`
`Court issued a Claim Construction Order, construing terms pertinent to these claim elements and
`
`to the argmnents put forward by Google, on August 19, 2019. D1. 144, at 3-4.
`
`On August 7, 2020, Arendi’s infringement expert, Dr. Smedley, submitted his opening
`
`report, opining that each Accused Product and Accused Device infringed the Asserted Claims. See
`
`generally Smedley Decl. Ex. A (Opening Report). That report relied on evidence including testing
`
`of the _Devices, technical documentation, deposition testimony, and Dr. Smedley’s
`
`13S-page analysis of source code. E.g., Id. 1H] 136 et seq. (discussing device testing), 217 et seq.
`
`(discussing deposition testimony), 238 et seq. (discussing docrunentary); see genera/(v id. App’x
`
`(source code analysis). Google served its rebuttal report of Martin Rinard on October 20, 2020.
`
`2 Exhibits accompany the concurrently filed Straus Declaration unless otherwise indicated.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 8 of 45 PageID #: 44405
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 8 of 45 PageID #: 44405
`
`Dr. Smedley submitted his reply report on
`
`December 4, 2020—reaffnming his opinions and responding in detail to each of the arguments
`
`advanced by Dr. Rinard and, now, by Google. E.g. , Smedley Decl. Ex. B (Smedley Reply Report),
`
`1H] 153—89 (confirming each document is “word processing, spreadsheet. or similar file into which
`
`text can be entered” and correcting Google’s misidentification of alleged docmnents), 82-91, 226-
`
`30, 241 (explaining absence of limitation requiring analysis of searchability), 6. 94-115, 119-51,
`
`215-16
`
`Arendi has identified each of the Accused Apps as a qualifying “fn‘st computer proga‘am,’
`
`.5
`
`and it asserts that the Accused Devices infringe when at least one Accused App is preinstalled on
`
`that device. Arendi has identified five general techniques
`
`- The following table reflects the pairs of first computer program and doc1unent identified to
`
`practice the Asserted Claims by Dr. Smedley andArendi.—
`
`A|
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 9 of 45 PageID #: 44406
`
`
`
`
`First Computer
`Document
`Techniques
`Program &
`
`
`Accused App
`
`Messages
`Text Message
`
`
`
`
`Contacts
`
`
`Kee
`
`
`
`
`Docs
`Text Document
`
` Chrome
`
`Calendar
`
`Calendar Entry
`and Reminder
`
`
`
`Contact Ently
`Text Document
`
`_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Task Item
`
`Slide Deck
`
`
` Sheets
`Spreadsheet
`
`
`Text Message
`Hangouts
`
`
`News Item
`News
`
`
`
`
`Gmail and Inbox
`
`b Gmail3
`
`
`
`
`Arendi thus accuses individual apps of infringing the ’843 Patent and also has identified
`
`those apps as the claimed “fn‘st computer program” when preinstalled 011 the Accused Device.
`
`Rather than respond accordingly. Google erects a strawman and sets him ablaze. Google invents
`
`the term “Accused Frmctionalities” in its brief,—
`
`_ Google then leverages this mischaracterization to suggest that these “Accused
`
`Functionalities.”— practice various claim limitations and
`
`that the Accused Apps do not themselves infringe. That is incon‘ect.—
`
`w
`
`U1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 10 of 45 PageID #: 44407
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 10 of 45 PageID #: 44407
`
`In connnon with other programming environments, see e.g., Smedley Decl. Ex. B, 1] 102
`
`(comparing Windows API to Android framework); Ex. 4, Google makes libraries available to
`
`application developers, including its own, to incorporate within their computer programs. These
`
`libraries contain not only code created under the lunbrella ofAndroid, but also third-party libraries.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 5 (.../calendar/Utils.java), at 11. 51, 72 (importing Linkify.java (Android library),
`
`Matcher.java (Java library)). Individual libraries may contain routines and define classes and their
`
`associated methods;
`
`these routines, classes and methods are thereby made available for
`
`incorporation into individual computer programs. See generally, e.g., D.I. 278-1, Ex. 33
`
`(documentation for “public class” TextView): Ex. 6 (. . ./widgetf1'extView.java) (defining public
`
`classes and methods); see also D.I. 278—], EX. 17, at RINARD_GOOGLE_0001245—46. As Dr.
`
`Smedley explains, the use oflibraries (and the routines they contain) “avoid[s] the need to ‘reinvent
`
`the wheel’ each and every time a computer program needs a specific function to be performed”:
`
`Routines and libraries define methods and classes, which may then be
`imported and cross—referenced in the computer program’s code. Sometimes those
`methods are defined by the application developer, but they are often defmed in
`“prefab” libraries known in the context of Android by terms including “Android
`framework,” "framework APIs,” “Android Platform API” or “Android Platform,”
`
`“android,” “native latform libraries,” etc.
`
`Smedley
`
`B, ll —
`
`In its effort to invent non-existent, uniform, and freestanding—
`
`Google misdescribes the characteristics and implementation of the features that
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 11 of 45 PageID #: 44408
`
`Arendi and Dr. Smedley refer to by those names. Google also downplays the parallel feature sets
`
`Men-ed—
`
`\l|
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 12 of 45 PageID #: 44409
`
`Google’s discussion of “Intents” is non-sensical. There is no such thing as an “Intent link” 01‘ an
`
`Fulthelmore,
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 13 of 45 PageID #: 44410
`
`“Intents functionality.” See D1. 276. 11. A11 “Intent” is a data structure that is used. infer (Ilia. to
`
`pass information between computer programs. Eg. EX. 9. at ARENDI_G329817.
`
`If analyzing identifies text belonging to one of those categories. the text is highlighted
`
`and a menu item con‘esponding to the type of information is created. E. g.. Ex. B15.1. at 0:00-03
`
`(phone number): Ex. A124. at 0:00-04 (email address): EX. A10.17. at 0:00-03 (address): Ex.
`
`A145 (flight number). at 0:00-06;—; Ex. 11. at 1:20:20-43.
`
`Selecting the menu item initiates the operation required by the Asserted Claims. E. g.. Ex. A103.
`
`at 0:42-47 (phone number); Ex. A912. at 0:28-29 (email address): Ex. B123. at 0:26-1:13
`
`(address): Ex. A4.5 (flight number). at 0:08-10:—
`
`0|
`
`Even from a user-interface perspective
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 14 of 45 PageID #: 44411
`
`it is evident that STS & TC is not “tumed 011 all the time."
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 15 of 45 PageID #: 44412
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Sunmiaiy judgment is proper only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as
`
`to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. C iv. P.
`
`56(a). In detemlining whether an issue of material fact exists. all ambiguities of fact must be
`
`resolved in favor of the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 US. 242. 256 (1986).
`
`A patent infringement analysis entails two steps: First. the Corut constiues the claims as a matter
`
`of law. Bm' v. L & L Wings, Inc. 160 F.3d 1350. 1- 53 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “The second step. the
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 16 of 45 PageID #: 44413
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 16 of 45 PageID #: 44413
`
`determination of infiingement, .
`
`.
`
`. is a question of fact,” id., and “[s]ummary judgment of
`
`noninfiingement may be granted only if a reasonable fact finder could only conclude that one or
`
`more limitations ofthe claims in question do not read on an element ofthe accused product.” 0sseo
`
`Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., No. CV l7-1386-LPS, 2020 WL 6318724, at *2 0). Del.
`
`Oct. 28, 2020) (citing Chimie v. PPG Indus, Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`1. Each document identified by Arendi is a “wordprocessing, spreadsheet, or similarfile
`into which text can be entered. ”
`
`The Court construed “document” to mean “a word processing, spreadsheet, or similar file
`
`into which text can be entered.” D.I. 144, at 3.4 Google treats this construction as composed of two
`
`separate limitations. D.I. 276, at 18-22. Facts in the record are more than sufficient to show that
`
`each document meets both requirements: text can be entered into each identified document, and
`
`each of those documents is a “word processing, spreadsheet, or similar file.”
`
`Google’s brief does not contest that a text document in Google Keep or an email in Gmail
`
`and Inbox by Gmail qualifies as a “document” and thus that they are both “word processing,
`
`spreadsheet, or similar file[s]” and items “into which text can be entered.” Google’s brief also does
`
`not contest that text messages in Google Messages, calendar entries or reminders in Calendar, text
`
`messages in Hangouts, task list items in Tasks, text documents in Docs, spreadsheets in Sheets, or
`
`slides documents in Slides are items “into which text can be entered” when these items are used in
`
`conjunction with STC & TC. See D1. 276, at 18-21. Thus, Google has not only failed to show its
`
`entitlement to summary judgment with respect to those documents, but it has also failed to provide
`
`a principled basis to distinguish these items from those Google contests.
`
`4 The claims reference “document” four times: “finding data related to the contents ofa document,”
`Ex. 1 (’843 Patent), at 10:38-40, 12:42-43, “displaying the document,” id. at 10:41, and “while the
`document is being displayed, analyzing .
`.
`. first information from the document,” id. at 10:43-44.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 17 of 45 PageID #: 44414
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 17 of 45 PageID #: 44414
`
`A. Evidence supports Arendi’s position that text can be entered into each type of
`document at issue in this case.
`
`Google cannot show as a matter of law that the identified “documents” in the Accused
`
`Apps do not fall within the Court’s construction. To the contrary, the evidence establishes that text
`
`can be entered into each type of “docmnent.”
`
`Tert Documents, Spreadsheets and Slide Decks (Docs, Sheets and Slides): -
`
`—. ms
`
`of
`
`productivity apps are Google’s version ofMicrosoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint and are designed
`
`to provide identical flmctionality. See, e.g., Ex. 21, at ARENDI_G330529, ’32 (advertising ability
`
`to edit Word documents and listing Word as similar app to Docs); Ex. 22, at ARENDI_G33053 7,
`
`’40 (same for Sheets and Excel). Excel spreadsheets and Word documents are put forward by the
`
`specification as exemplary documents. E.g., Ex. 1 (’843 Patent), at 7:30-33, 8:55-5 7. The user can
`
`type text into new documents in these apps, edit text in existing documents, and load previously
`
`composed text into documents by selecting them for display. E.g., Ex. A7.6, at 0:00-16 (Docs);
`
`Ex. B123, at 0:00-23 (Sheets); Ex. B1 1.1, at 0:13—33 (Slides); Ex. 23, at ARENDI_G329803; Ex.
`
`21, at ARENDI_G330529 — 32. These features are equally available in the main body of those
`
`documents as in their connnents section. E.g., Ex. A7.6; Ex. A734; see generally Ex. 24.
`
`Calendar Entries and Reminders (Calendar) and Task List Items (Tasks): The user can
`
`type text into every calendar entry, reminder and task list item at issue in this case. All the user
`
`must do to edit an existing document is tap on the edit icon and an on—screen keyboard appears.
`
`The user can also type out new calendar items, reminders and task items, Ex. B4.1 (Calendar
`
`Entry); Ex. B102 (Calendar Reminder); Ex. 39.] (Tasks); Ex. 25, at ARENDI_G329390—91; Ex.
`
`26, at ARENDI_G329025-26; Ex. 27, at ARENDI_G329022-23, or load previously typed text into
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 18 of 45 PageID #: 44415
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 18 of 45 PageID #: 44415
`
`the Views composing a calendar entry or task item from where a user can then elect to edit it, e.g. ,
`
`— As Dr. Soonesnotet,
`
`Google’s argument requires blindness to the Accused Apps’ functionality:
`
`[A]pparently according to Dr. Rinard [and Google], a calendar entry is not an
`editable document in Calendar, even though the user can edit the docmnent by
`tapping on the edit button; a text document (comment) in Docs is not editable even
`though a user can edit it by tapping on the edit button; [and] a text message in
`Messages is not editable even though the user can type out its full content before
`hitting send.
`
`Smedley Decl. Ex. B, 1] 161. The ability to enter text into calendar entries, reminders, and task list
`
`items is a basic feature of the Calendar and Tasks apps.
`
`Webpages and News Items (Chrome and News): Google discusses these two apps jointly,
`
`declaring the inability to enter text into webpages and news items “Imdeniable.” D.I. 276, at 20.
`
`That assertion has no basis in fact. As the Court presaged in its Claim Constmction Memorandum
`
`when discussing the term document, “the record discloses no reason why the methods taught in
`
`the specification could not be applied to certain other computer programs—for example, a web
`
`browser in which a user is drafting an email.” D.I. 143, at 11-12; see also Smedley Decl. Ex. B, 11
`
`155 (noting ability to type text in many webpages using Chrome, such as Docs.Google.com and
`
`Gmail.com). In addition to typing text into existing webpages, the user can create and edit
`
`webpages in Chrome, typing text into them. Ex. A83, at 0:01 (evidencing use of Chrome to edit a
`
`webpage in Chrome; Ex. 28 (instructions to compose entire websites using browser); see also
`
`Smedley Decl. Ex. B at 1] 160 n.108 (noting “Chrome does permit the user to edit (by typing)
`
`webpages, including third-party webpages loaded from remote servers” and explaining how user
`
`may do so). Moreover, as Dr. Smedley explained, a POSITA would imderstand that text is entered
`
`into a webpage or news item when the user navigates to it—causing the document to be displayed
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 19 of 45 PageID #: 44416
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 19 of 45 PageID #: 44416
`
`and previously typed text to be entered into the pages’ view objects. E.g., Smedley Decl. Ex. B,
`
`1] 153-54; Smedley Decl. Ex. A, 1] 71.
`
`Terr Messages (Messages and Hangouts): Finally, text can be entered into text massages
`
`in both Messages and Hangouts. E.g., Ex. B3.4 (Messages); Ex. A135 (Hangouts), at 0:00-13;
`
`Smedley Decl. Ex. A, 1] 80 (“Hangouts facilitates ently of text into a text message in at least two
`
`ways; first, the content of previously sent or received messages can be loaded to populate a text
`
`message with content; second, the user can compose new textual content (or edit existing textual
`
`content) using, inter alia, an onscreen keyboard”); id. at 1] 98 (same for Messages); see also
`
`Smedley Decl. Ex. A, App’x, 1] 40 and source code cited therein (discussing Messages source code
`
`“used to display the text of the message as it is being drafted”). Those applications also permit the
`
`user to enter previously composed text into the views of a text message. E.g., Id. 1] 39.
`
`Google does not contest that text messages in Messages, calendar entries or reminders in
`
`Calendar, text messages in Hangouts, task list items in Tasks, text documents in Docs, spreadsheets
`
`in Sheets, or slide decks in Slides are items “into which text can be entered”—
`
`—nm is
`
`only common
`
`but, as Dr. Smedley explained, would be a POSITA’s understanding. Smedley Decl. Ex. B, 1]1] 163.
`
`Implicit in Google’s brief is an attempt to rewrite the Coult’s construction of “document.”
`
`For example, rather than apply the Court’s actual construction (“a word processing, spreadsheet
`
`or similar file into which text can be entered”), Google argues, “[t]he C01111 f01md it important that
`
`the document remain editable to allow the user to insert found ‘second infonnation’ back into the
`
`document.” D.I. 276, at 16-17. Not only would a requirement that the user be able to edit the
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 20 of 45 PageID #: 44417
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 20 of 45 PageID #: 44417
`
`document after analysis occurs not entitle Google to summary judgment,5 but Google ignores that
`
`the Court has since refined its understanding of the ’843 Patent not to require the action using first
`
`information to occur in the first computer program or document:
`
`. I
`.
`.
`. have evolved as I have come to understand the technology .
`.
`My thoughts .
`do not believe [any longer] that the improvement to computer technology captured
`by claim 1 .
`.
`. requires that the second information be used to perform an action in
`thefirst program. The second information must be used to perform an action, but
`that action is not required to be performed in thefirst computerprogram.
`
`Ex. 29 (Mem. Order, Arendi v. HTC Com), at 4 (alternations, emphasis and third ellipsis in
`
`original). The question on summaryjudgment is whether Arendi can put forward evidence to show
`
`that the Accused Apps and Devices practice the claim limitations, as actually construed by the
`
`Court; not whether Arendi has put forward evidence to meet Google’s phantom limitations.
`
`Were the Court modify any claim constructions in light of Google’s briefing, which it
`
`should not, Arendi would respectfully request the opportunity to take corresponding discovery and
`
`to supplement its expert reports and infringement contentions accordingly.
`
`B. Evidence supports Arendi’s position that each document is a “word processing,
`spreadsheet, or similar file.”
`
`To read Google’s argument that nine of the eleven types of documents identified by Arendi
`
`are not “Word processing, spreadsheet, or similar file[s]” begs the question of whether Google has
`
`actually read Dr. Smedley’s expert report, taken account of his deposition, or reviewed Arendi’s
`
`infiingement contentions. Google argues, “Arendi accuses only transitory data entry fields (such
`
`as a search bar) of the Accused Apps of being the ‘documents’ into which text can be entered.”
`
`D1. 276, at 20. This is wrong. Arendi has not identified a single “transitory data entry field[]” as
`
`a document, and no “search bar” has figured into Arendi’s infringement theory at all. Contrary to
`
`5 Nonetheless, as shown above, each document permits the user to type additional text into the
`document with the sole exception ofpreviously sent or received text messages and news items.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 21 of 45 PageID #: 44418
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 21 of 45 PageID #: 44418
`
`Google’s assertion, Arendi has not identified a ‘firrl entry bar[]” in Chrome, separate “appointment
`
`data” in Calendar, 3 “contact field[]” in Contacts, “search terms” in News, or “comments” in Docs,
`
`Sheets or Slides as the “document” used to practice the Asserted Claims. Cf D1. 276, at 20-21.
`
`The documents on which Arendi and Dr. Smedley rely are listed in the table on page 5 and
`
`include text documents, emails, spreadsheets, calendar entries, reminders, contact entries, task
`
`items, news items, and webpages. Dr. Smedley’s Opening Report includes similar tables, Smedley
`
`Decl. Ex. A, at 21-23, and he repeatedly references those documents throughout his expert report.
`
`Docs, Sheets & Slides: Google’s assertion that text documents, spreadsheets and slide
`
`docks in these Accused Apps are not “word processing, spreadsheet, or similar files” borders on
`
`the absurd. As Dr. Smedley explained, “[t]he first t[wo] of these are word processing and
`
`spreadsheet documents, and a slide deck is extremely similar to a word processing or spreadsheet
`
`file. For example, presentation programs are frequently bundled with spreadsheet and word
`
`processing programs in a single productivity suite, as is the case with Office (which adds
`
`PowerPoint to Excel and Word) or Google Docs Editors (combining Docs, Sheets and Slides).
`
`Slide documents allow for the entry and formatting of text, including by typing; they can be saved
`
`for retrieval and display.” Smedley Decl. Ex. B, 1] 188; see also Smedley Decl. Ex. A, 1] 118; see
`
`generally Ex. 23; Ex. 30 (word processing-related help topics for Docs) Ex. 31 (spreadsheet help
`
`topics for Sheets); Ex. 32 (same for slide decks in Slides); Ex. 33 (instructions to edit and format
`
`Sheets spreadsheets); Ex. 34 (combined instructions for creating and opening files in Docs, Sheets
`
`or Slides, including files from Word, Excel or PowerPoint).
`
`Google incorrectly suggests that Arendi has identified “comments” as the “document” in
`
`each of these Accused Apps. D.I. 276, at 21. To reiterate, Arendi has identified text documents,
`
`spreadsheets and slide decks as documents. Those may include comments, just as a text document
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 22 of 45 PageID #: 44419
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 22 of 45 PageID #: 44419
`
`may include headers and footers. See, e.g., Ex. 24 (instructions to use cements in Sheets, Docs,
`
`and Slides). Furthermore, when STS & TC is used, Arendi has identified infiingement within the
`
`main body oftext documents, spreadsheets, and slide decks. Ex. B7.21 (Docs); Ex. A123 (Sheets);
`
`Ex. B1 1.1 (Slides). Finally, even were cements considered to be separate documents, Dr.
`
`Smedley explained (when correcting the same error by Google’s expert, Dr. Rinard) that a
`
`POSITA would understand them to be “word processing, spreadsheet, or similar files.” Smedley
`
`Decl. Ex. B, 1] 189 (“[F]or example, they permit the user to type free—form text; they display that
`
`text to the user; they can be saved for subsequent retrieval and display”).
`
`Calendar and Contacts: Arendi identifies calendar entries and reminders as documents in
`
`Calendar, and it identifies contact entries as documents in Contacts. (Arendi has not identified
`
`“appointment data” or “contact fields” as documents and, therefore, Google’s assertion that they
`
`are not documents is irrelevant. D1. 276, a 21.) Dr. Smedley explained some of the ways in which
`
`a POSITA would understand calendar entries, reminders, and contact entries to be like word
`
`processing documents and/or spreadsheets: For example, “[t]hose documents include free-form
`
`text (as opposed to containing defined fields or input lines),” they are “of a type of document
`
`within which the user can alter text,” and each document “can be stored for subsequent access, i.e.,
`
`it can be ‘saved.’” Smedley Decl. Ex. B, 1] 177 (contacts and reminders); see also id. 1] 180 (making
`
`same observations for contact entries); Ex. B102, at 0:00-24 (typing text in reminder); Ex. A2.1,
`
`at 0:23 (accessing saved contact entries). To the extent that Google’s statement that Arendi has
`
`accused a “contact field[]” or “appointment data” is meant to suggest that Dr. Smedley identified
`
`individual sections of a contact entry or calendar entry (e.g., the location or time) as a document,
`
`Google is incorrect. See, e.g., Smedley Decl. Ex. B, 1] 176 (“A calendar entry or a reminder .
`
`.
`
`. is
`
`a collection of related user information, such as a date, location, time, description, etc., that can be
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 23 of 45 PageID #: 44420
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 358 Filed 04/15/21 Page 23 of 45 PageID #: 44420
`
`stored and retrieved”). Dr. Smedley explained that a POSITA would understand the composite
`
`nature of a calendar entry to be similar to the structure of word processing and spreadsheet
`
`documents. Id. (noting “Word documents, too, can have multiple components, including headers,
`
`footers, inserted images and tables, etc.”
`
`and “[l]ike spreadsheets, each of these documents
`
`contain, organize and display components