throbber
Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 514 Filed 05/01/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 52382
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ARENDI’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER
`OF LAW OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Daniel Taylor (No. 6934)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`dtaylor@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`Seth Ard (pro hac vice)
`Max Straus (pro hac vice)
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`sard@susmangodfrey.com
`mstraus@susmangodfrey.com
`
`John Lahad (pro hac vice)
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`jlahad@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kalpana Srinivasan (pro hac vice)
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kemper Diehl (pro hac vice)
`401 Union Street, Suite 3000
`Seattle, WA 98101-3000
`kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Dated: May 1, 2023
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 514 Filed 05/01/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 52383
`
`
`
`The Court should deny Google’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of willful
`
`infringement because there is substantial evidence of willfulness in the trial record.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`THERE IS STRONG EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT FOR ARENDI’S
`WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT CLAIM.
`
`The willfulness of Google’s infringement of the ’843 Patent is abundantly supported by
`
`the trial evidence. The trial evidence makes clear that Google knew about the ’843 Patent no later
`
`than the filing of Arendi’s complaint in 2013 and nonetheless introduced the infringing Smart Text
`
`Selection functionality in 2017, while this case was stayed. Strikingly, despite its knowledge of
`
`the patent, the trial evidence shows that Google made no effort to design around it and made no
`
`effort to inform the engineers working on Smart Text Selection about it. Trial Tr. 762:10-12
`
`(Toki) (“Q. No one told you about the patent while you were working on Smart Text Selection,
`
`right? A. No.”); 796:12-797:1 (Choc) (“When STS was developed -- again, I think this is where
`
`Toki is certainly more the expert than I -- that was 2017, and I didn’t know about this patent until
`
`2019 when I was deposed.”); 797:2-17 (Choc) (“At the time that Google initiated its allegedly
`
`infringing conduct in 2017, Google had knowledge of the ’843 patent, correct? A. That’s right.
`
`Google legal would have known.”).
`
`Google’s own corporate representative could not identify a single thing Google did to avoid
`
`infringing the patent, despite its express knowledge of it. Trial Tr. 797:21-799:19 (Choc) (“So
`
`what does Google do to avoid infringing intellectual property? A. I don’t actually know.”); id.
`
`(“You don’t know -- if there are policies, you don’t know whether or not Google undertook them
`
`in this case with respect to the '843 patent? A. While -- I mean, I know that Google was aware of
`
`this. But, again, I don’t know what the policies are, so I think I -- I don’t want to speculate.”). He
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 514 Filed 05/01/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 52384
`
`
`
`also could not identify any facts to show Google had a reason to think the patent was invalid at the
`
`time it launched STS.
`
`This evidence is more than sufficient to establish willfulness. The Federal Circuit held as
`
`much three weeks ago. In Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., the Federal Circuit concluded
`
`that strikingly similar evidence to what exists here fully supported the jury’s finding of willfulness.
`
`64 F.4th 1274, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Federal Circuit stated: “The jury heard Mr.
`
`Quackenbush’s admission that he never provided the ’525 patent to Valve’s designers, a point
`
`which the designers confirmed in their testimony, and learned that Valve did not attempt to design
`
`around the patent. All of this provided the jury with substantial evidence to support a finding that
`
`Valve ‘recklessly’ disregarded Ironburg’s patent rights and, therefore, willfully infringed.” Id.
`
`Given the similarity of the evidence the jury has heard in this case, there is no basis for Google’s
`
`claim that a reasonable juror could not find Google’s infringement willful.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Google’s motion for judgment of no
`
`willful infringement.
`
`Dated: May 1, 2023
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`Seth Ard (pro hac vice)
`Max Straus (pro hac vice)
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`sard@susmangodfrey.com
`mstraus@susmangodfrey.com
`
`John Lahad (pro hac vice)
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`
`
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`
`/s/ Neal C. Belgam
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Daniel Taylor (No. 6934)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`dtaylor@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 514 Filed 05/01/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 52385
`
`jlahad@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kalpana Srinivasan (pro hac vice)
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kemper Diehl (pro hac vice)
`401 Union Street, Suite 3000
`Seattle, WA 98101-3000
`kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket