Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FITBIT LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11586-FDS
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT FITBIT LLC’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,277,377
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Pages
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ............................2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Facts Pertinent To Both Grounds 1 and 2 ................................................................3
`
`Facts Pertinent To Ground 1 ....................................................................................5
`
`Facts Pertinent To Ground 2 ....................................................................................8
`
`IV.
`
`FITBIT IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NONINFRINGEMENT BECAUSE THE ACCUSED METHODS DO NOT
`MEET ’377 PATENT CLAIM 1 .......................................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards For Noninfringement ...................................................11
`
`Ground 1: No Infringement Because Fitbit Uses
` In The Method Accused Of Practicing ’377
`Claim Elements 1.g And 1.h ..................................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Argument ...................................................................................................12
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................14
`
`Ground 2: No Infringement Because Fitbit’s Calculation Of RHR Cardio
`Fitness Score And Cardio Fitness Level Is Not “Based On The Exercise-
`Related Information” .............................................................................................15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Argument ...................................................................................................16
`
`Conclusion .................................................................................................19
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`i
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages
`
`Cases
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd.,
`216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Automed Techs., Inc. v. Microfil, LLC,
`244 F. App’x 354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................... 13
`
`Brita Wasser-Filter-Systeme v. Recovery Eng’g, Inc.,
` 243 F.3d 560 (Fed. Cir. 2000).......................................................................................... 11
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`Cognex Corp. v. ITC,
`550 F. App’x 876 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Mosey,
`476 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 11
`
`Ferring B.V. v. Watson Lab’ys, Inc.-Fla.,
`764 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.,
` 572 U.S. 915 (2014) ......................................................................................................... 11
`
`Litton Sys. Inc. v. Honeywell Inc.,
` 140 F.3d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1998)........................................................................................ 12
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Fam. Ventures, LLC,
`571 U.S. 191 (2014) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 13
`
`Quest Licensing Corp. v. Bloomberg L.P.,
`No. 14-CV-561(GMS), 2017 WL 239345 (D. Del. Jan. 19, 2017) .................................. 15
`
`Quest Licensing Corp. v. Bloomberg LP,
` 726 F. App’x 819 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 15
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Smith v. Garlock Equip. Co.,
` 658 F. App’x 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 19
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........................................................................................... 2
`
`Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP,
`15 F.4th 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................... 2
`
`UltimatePointer, L.L.C. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
` 816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016).......................................................................................... 15
`
`Wisconsin Alumni Res. Found. v. Apple Inc.,
` 905 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2018).................................................................................. 14, 19
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Local Rule 56.1 ............................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Fitbit moves for summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,277,377 (the
`
`“’377 patent”) on two grounds: (1) the accused methods do not practice elements 1.g and 1.h of
`
`the asserted method claims; and (2) the accused method of providing Resting Heart Rate (RHR)
`
`Cardio Fitness Score (and associated Cardio Fitness Level) does not practice claim element 1.h
`
`because RHR Cardio Fitness Score is not calculated “based on the exercise-related information.”
`
`For the first ground, the parties’ technical experts agree that claim elements 1.g and 1.h
`
`must be performed by the same server or the same server array. However, there is no dispute that
`
`Fitbit’s systems purportedly perform elements 1.g and 1.h using
`
`
`
`. Thus, no reasonable juror could find that the accused methods infringe claim 1.
`
`For the second ground, claim element 1.h requires “a calculation performed by the server
`
`based on the exercise-related information.” A user’s RHR Cardio Fitness Score is calculated from
`
`an equation whose inputs are
`
`
`
` do not comprise “exercise-related information.” Fitbit’s technical expert, Dr.
`
`. It is undisputed that the
`
` and
`
`Joseph Paradiso, explained that resting heart rate is not “exercise-related information” under
`
`element 1.h, while Philips’ expert, Dr. Thomas Martin, did not contradict this opinion despite being
`
`repeatedly asked about the point at his deposition. Therefore, no reasonable juror could find that
`
`a user’s RHR Cardio Fitness Score (and associated Cardio Fitness Level) is calculated “based on
`
`the exercise-related information,” and thus, the accused method does not infringe claim 1.
`
`Because these methods do not infringe claim 1, they also do not infringe the other asserted
`
`claims 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12, all of which depend from claim 1.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
`
`dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 56(a). The movant can succeed by citing to affirmative evidence or by showing that the
`
`non-movant cannot establish a genuine dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When the party seeking
`
`summary judgment demonstrates the absence of a genuine dispute over any material fact, the
`
`burden shifts to the non-movant to show that there is a genuine factual issue for trial. Celotex
`
`Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
`
`“Summary judgment of noninfringement is appropriate where the patent owner’s proof is
`
`deficient in meeting an essential part of the legal standard for infringement, since such failure will
`
`render all other facts immaterial.” Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316,
`
`1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Conclusory expert testimony and attorney argument cannot establish a
`
`genuine issue of fact. See, e.g., Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Sprint Commc’ns Co. LP, 15 F.4th 1121,
`
`1130-32 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd., 216 F.3d 1042, 1046 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2000). The patentee carries the ultimate burden of persuasion to show infringement by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Fam. Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191,
`
`203 (2014). Summary judgment of noninfringement should be entered where no reasonable jury
`
`could find that the patent owner (here, Philips) has met that burden. See Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986) (“[I]n ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge
`
`must view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.”).
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`Fitbit presents the following numbered statement of undisputed material facts pursuant to
`
`Local Rule 56.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). Fitbit may present additional
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`undisputed material facts or reply to Philips’ allegations regarding Fitbit’s statement of undisputed
`
`material facts in its reply brief, if appropriate.
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Facts Pertinent To Both Grounds 1 and 2
`
`The ’377 patent is the only remaining, non-stayed, asserted patent in this case. (See,
`
`e.g., Dkt. 112 (Second Amended Complaint, asserting ’007, ’233, and ’377 patents); Dkt. 212 at
`
`12-21 (finding asserted ’007 claims invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112); Dkt. 251
`
`(stipulating to stay proceedings with respect to ’233 patent given PTAB’s final written decision
`
`that all asserted claims of the ’233 patent are unpatentable).)
`
`2.
`
`’377 patent claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12 are the only remaining asserted claims in
`
`this case. (See, e.g., Ex. 2,1 ¶ 2.)
`
`3.
`
`’377 patent claim 1 is a method claim and the only remaining asserted independent
`
`claim in this case. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, ¶ 2 (listing asserted claims); Ex. 3 at cls. 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12.)
`
`4.
`
`’377 patent claims 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12 are each method claims that depend, directly
`
`or indirectly, from claim 1. (Ex. 3 at cls. 4, 5, 6, 9, 12.)
`
`5.
`
`Philips and Dr. Martin maintain two specific infringement theories regarding
`
`claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12 of the ’377 patent: (1) Fitbit directly infringes via “divided” or “joint”
`
`infringement and (2) Fitbit indirectly infringes by inducing its users’ underlying acts of direct
`
`infringement. (Ex. 1 at 159:24-163:2; see also, generally, Ex. 2.)2
`
`6.
`
`Dr. Martin alleges that the use of a Fitbit wearable in combination with a
`
`smartphone running the Fitbit application is required to infringe the claims. (Ex. 2, ¶ 45.) The
`
`
`1 All cited exhibits are attached to the Declaration of David J. Shaw, filed concurrently herewith.
`2 Philips agreed to withdraw its allegations of contributory infringement on March 1, 2022.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`nine accused Fitbit wearables are the Fitbit Alta HR, Blaze, Charge 2, Charge 3, Inspire HR, Ionic,
`
`Versa, Versa 2, and Versa Lite. (Ex. 2, ¶ 45 and Ex. A.)3
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Martin opines that direct infringement of ’377 patent claim 1 requires all of the
`
`following: (1) downloading the Fitbit application onto a smartphone (element 1.a), (2) pairing the
`
`accused Fitbit wearable to a smartphone (element 1.b), (3) syncing the accused Fitbit wearable
`
`with the Fitbit application while the accused Fitbit wearable is worn by the user during exercise
`
`(elements 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h), and (4) displaying the user’s Cardio Fitness Score page (which
`
`includes Cardio Fitness Score and Cardio Fitness Level) on the Fitbit application on the user’s
`
`smartphone (elements 1.c and 1.i). (Ex. 2, ¶¶ 188; see also Ex. 1 at 149:13-150:1.)
`
`8.
`
`Claim elements 1.g and 1.h of ’377 patent claim 1 recite:
`
`g. sending the exercise-related information to an internet server via
`a wireless network;
`
`h. receiving a calculated response from the server, the response
`associated with a calculation performed by the server based on the
`exercise-related information…
`
`(Ex. 3 at cl. 1.)
`
`9.
`
`Dr. Martin alleges that element 1.g “is met when the [accused Fitbit wearable] syncs
`
`with the Fitbit [application],” which transfers data collected by the accused Fitbit wearable to the
`
`Fitbit application and then to “Fitbit servers” on the back-end. (Ex. 2, ¶¶ 125-131.)
`
`10.
`
`Dr. Martin alleges that element 1.h “is met when the Fitbit [application] receives a
`
`Cardio Fitness Score or Cardio Fitness Level calculated response from the Fitbit server.” (Ex. 2,
`
`¶ 132; see also id. at ¶¶ 133-135, 165-167, 188.)
`
`
`3 Dr. Martin refers to the nine accused Fitbit wearables as “the ’377 Devices” (see Ex. 2, ¶ 45 and
`Ex. A) and refers to the Fitbit application as “the Fitbit App” (see, e.g., Ex. 2, ¶¶ 50-56).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Dr. Martin identifies the calculation of both (1) RHR Cardio Fitness Score and
`
`Cardio Fitness Level and (2) Run Cardio Fitness Score and Cardio Fitness Level as satisfying
`
`element 1.h. (Ex. 2, ¶¶ 132-167.)
`
`12.
`
`“Cardio Fitness Score” and “Cardio Fitness Level” are the only accused “calculated
`
`response[s]” under element 1.h. (Ex. 2, ¶ 134; see also Ex. 1 at 127:21-128:18, 200:20-201:3.)
`
`13.
`
`A Cardio Fitness Score is an estimate of a user’s VO2max. (Ex. 4, ¶ 6; Ex. 5 at
`
`65:19-25; see also Ex. 12 at 49489 (formulas to calculate RHR and Run Cardio Fitness Score).)
`
`14.
`
`A Cardio Fitness Level is a qualitative ranking (i.e., “Excellent,” Good,” etc.)
`
`determined by comparing a user’s Cardio Fitness Score to those of other people in the user’s age
`
`and gender cohort. (Ex. 4, ¶ 10; see also Ex. 11 at 16598 (“How does Fitbit calculate my cardio
`
`fitness level?” and “What do the cardio fitness levels represent?”).)
`
`15.
`
`According to Philips and its purported economic expert, Dr. Akemann, damages
`
`accrued from August 29, 2016 through January 16, 2021. (Ex. 6, ¶ 58; Ex. 7 at 86:12-87:5; see
`
`also Ex. 2, ¶ 134 n.5 (Dr. Martin noting that Fitbit launched accused Cardio Fitness feature by
`
`August 29, 2016).)4
`
`B.
`
`16.
`
`Facts Pertinent To Ground 1
`
`Originally submitted claim 1 referenced “sending the exercise-related information
`
`to an internet server via a wireless network” and “receiving a calculated response from a server.”
`
`(Ex. 8 at PNA-FB0001495 (emphasis added).)
`
`
`4 The parties dispute whether the ’377 patent expired on January 18, 2020 or January 16, 2021.
`Fitbit maintains that the ’377 patent expired on January 18, 2020, but for purposes of the present
`motion, Fitbit will address the entire period claimed by Philips through January 16, 2021.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`17.
`
`The originally submitted claim element “receiving a calculated response from a
`
`server” was later amended to “receiving a calculated response from the server” during prosecution.
`
`(Ex. 8 at PNA-FB0001598 (emphasis added).)
`
`18.
`
`Dr. Martin admits that practicing ’377 patent claim 1 requires using the same server
`
`or the same server array to perform elements 1.g and 1.h. (Ex. 1 at 144:1-145:1; Ex. 9, ¶ 286 (“…a
`
`POSITA would understand that the server referred to in limitation 1(h) is the same server that
`
`limitation 1(g) referred to…”).)
`
`19.
`
`Dr. Martin has not put forth any opinion that ’377 patent claim 1 can be practiced
`
`using different server arrays to perform the functions of elements 1.g and 1.h, respectively:
`
`Right. And that’s all I’m asking, is you haven’t offered an
`Q.
`infringement opinion based on the interpretation that elements 1.g.
`and 1.h. can use different arrays of servers. Right?
`
`A.
`
`No, I have not offered an opinion of it that way.
`
`(Ex. 1 at 145:2-9.)
`
`20.
`
`Dr. Martin opines that using the Fitbit application on a mobile phone is required to
`
`perform the methods accused of infringement. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, ¶¶ 45, 50-56.)
`
`21.
`
`Dr. Martin does not identify any specific Fitbit server(s) that are allegedly used to
`
`perform claim element 1.g; he intimates that the servers responsible for practicing element 1.g are
`
`those that receive synced data from the Fitbit application. (See generally Ex. 2, ¶¶ 125-131 (Dr.
`
`Martin’s full discussion of element 1.g, repeatedly referring generally to “Fitbit[’s] server(s)”).)
`
`22.
`
`Continuously from August of 2016 until the summer of 2021, when a user’s
`
`accused Fitbit wearable synced data to the Fitbit application on the user’s mobile phone, the data
`
`was sent to and received by
`
`
`
` (Ex. 4, ¶ 12; see also Ex. 10, ¶ 256.)
`
`23.
`
`The
`
` is a server array. (Ex. 4, ¶ 13.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Dr. Martin does not identify any specific Fitbit server(s) that are allegedly used to
`
`perform claim element 1.h; he intimates that the servers responsible for practicing element 1.h are
`
`those that send a user’s Cardio Fitness Score or Cardio Fitness Level to the Fitbit application. (See
`
`generally Ex. 2, ¶¶ 132-167 (Dr. Martin’s full discussion of element 1.h, repeatedly generally
`
`referring to “Fitbit[’s] server(s)”).)
`
`25. When a user opens the Cardio Fitness Score page on the Fitbit application on their
`
`mobile phone, the Fitbit application makes an API call requesting that
`
`¶ 14.)
`
`26.
`
`Continuously since at least August of 2016, there have been
`
` that respond to API calls from the Fitbit application:
`
` (Ex. 4, ¶ 15; see also Ex. 10, ¶ 257.)
`
`27.
`
`The
`
` is a server array. (Ex. 4, ¶ 16.)
`
`28.
`
`Continuously since at least August of 2016, the
`
`
`
`. (Ex. 4,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Ex. 4, ¶ 17; see
`
`also Ex. 10, ¶ 257.)
`
`29.
`
`The
`
` is a server array. (Ex. 4, ¶ 18.)
`
`30.
`
`Continuously since at least August of 2016, the
`
`(Ex. 4, ¶ 19; see also Ex. 10, ¶ 257.)
`
`31.
`
`Continuously from August of 2016 through January 16, 2021,
`
`. (Ex. 4, ¶ 20; see also Ex. 10, ¶¶ 257-258.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`C.
`
`32.
`
`is:
`
`Facts Pertinent To Ground 2
`
`The formula that Fitbit uses to calculate a Resting Heart Rate Cardio Fitness Score
`
`.
`
`(Ex. 4, ¶ 8; Ex. 5 at 110:2-114:19 (describing Fitbit_19-11586_00049489 as “…a description of
`
`how the cardio fitness score is computed…”); Ex. 12 (Fitbit_19-11586_00049489) at 49489
`
`(“RHR Model” formula for calculating VO2max); see also Ex. 1 at 208:12-209:6 (Dr. Martin
`
`confirming that the formula in ¶ 141 of his opening expert report is used to calculate RHR Model
`
`VO2max); Ex. 2, ¶ 141 (Dr. Martin excerpting formula for RHR Model Cardio Fitness Score); Ex.
`
`10, ¶ 269 (Dr. Paradiso excerpting formula for RHR Model Cardio Fitness Score).)
`
`33.
`
`In the above formula that Fitbit uses to calculate Resting Heart Rate Cardio Fitness
`
`Score,
`
`34.
`
`, not data. (Ex. 4, ¶ 9.)
`
` are not “exercise-related information” in the context
`
`of claim 1. (See Ex. 2, ¶¶ 132-167 (Dr. Martin’s entire discussion of how RHR Cardio Fitness
`
`Score and Cardio Fitness Level allegedly meet element 1.h); Ex. 10, ¶ 266 (Dr. Paradiso opines
`
`that “the utilized
`
`, none of
`
`which are exercise related information”).)
`
`35.
`
`Resting heart rate is not “exercise-related information” as that phrase is used in
`
`’377 patent claim element 1.h. Dr. Paradiso opined that “resting heart rate is not ‘exercise-related
`
`information’” (Ex. 10, ¶ 264; see also id. at ¶¶ 265-278) and Dr. Martin did not dispute this point
`
`despite being asked, no fewer than nine (9) different times during his deposition, whether or not
`
`resting heart rate is “exercise-related information” as that term is used in element 1.h:
`
`So is it your opinion that a user’s resting heart rate is
`Q.
`exercise-related information, as that term is used in the ’377, claim
`element 1.h.?
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`A. Well, as I just said, I mean, this resting heart rate calculation
`as performed by Fitbit
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`And the other thing is, the resting heart rate is an indication
`of fitness, you know, as a secondary thing.
`
`***
`
`Q.
`
`Right. And what I’m asking you is: The result of all that
`, which is the user’s resting heart rate, is that resting heart
`rate exercise-related information under claim element 1.h., in your
`opinion?
`
`MR. CUSTER: Objection.
`testimony.
`
` Mischaracterizes
`
`the witness’s
`
`(Document[s] reviewed.) So, again, the exercise-related
`A.
`information is sent in 1.g. It’s all of that data. And then the
`calculation is performed. You’re -- I mean, sorry.
`
`You’re talking about an intermediate step that’s performed
`on the exercise-related information, but that’s still part of the
`calculation for the response from the server.
`
`It’s going through all that data to
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`***
`
`Q. …But right now, what I want to ask you about is the VO2
`max RHR Model formula in paragraph 141 of your report.
`
`So in this RHR Model VO2 max formula, the inputs or the
`formula is
`
`
`.
`
`Did I read that right?
`
`A.
`
`Yes, you read that formula correctly.
`
`In your opinion, are any of those direct inputs to the formula
`Q.
`for calculating RHR Model VO2 max that I just read exercise-
`related data, as that term is used in claim element 1.h. of the ’377
`patent?
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`MR. CUSTER: Objection. Mischaracterizes the document.
`
`Again, the resting heart rate that you’re pointing to in that
`A.
`formula is derived from the exercise-related information. So I think
`your question is ignoring how that resting heart rate value is found.
`
`No. I think you actually just put your finger on the
`Q.
`distinction that I’m trying to understand.
`
`So I understand it’s your opinion that resting heart rate is
`derived based on exercise-related information. My question is: Is it
`your opinion that resting heart rate, itself, is exercise-related
`information?
`
`MR. CUSTER: Objection. Asked and answered.
`
`Again, in the way that the claim is stated, what’s being sent
`A.
`over is all this exercise-related information.
`
`And then the calculation
`
`that, you get this
`
`
`. And from
` of the resting heart rate
`
`
`.
`
`And I believe actually in your earlier question, you used the
`final calculation yourself as your terminology. So even there, you're
`distinguishing, you know, steps of a calculation.
`
`It’s not done all at one time. It starts with the exercise -- all
`the exercise-related information that is sent over.
`
`***
`
`So just so we’re clear, Dr. Martin: If this case gets in front
`Q.
`of a jury and I cross-examine you, I’m going to ask you: In your
`opinion, is a user’s resting heart rate exercise-related information
`under claim element 1.h.?
`
`When I ask you that in front of the jury, are you going to
`refuse to just say yes or no?
`
`MR. CUSTER: Objection. Asked and answered.
`
`A.
`
`
`Again, as the way I understand
`this resting heart rate in this part of
`the calculation comes from exercise-related information.
`
`BY MR. SHAW:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`So it’s your opinion that resting heart rate is exercise-related
`Q.
`information under claim element 1.h. True?
`
`MR. CUSTER: Objection. Mischaracterizes the testimony. Asked
`and answered.
`
`Again, as I’ve said before, for the Resting Heart Rate Model,
`A.
`the way the
`
`. The server goes
`, and then
`.
`
`through,
`finds the resting heart rate
`
`So the basis of the calculation of the resting heart rate is the
`exercise-related information.
`
`***
`
`(Ex. 1 at 206:4-217:5.)
`
`36.
`
`Dr. Martin opines that because a user’s Cardio Fitness Level “is calculated by
`
`comparing [] a user’s Cardio Fitness Score to the Cardio Fitness Scores of other people in the
`
`user’s age and gender demographic,” the Cardio Fitness Level calculation is “based off of the
`
`[same] exercise related data” as the Cardio Fitness Score calculation. (Ex. 2, ¶ 162; see also Ex.
`
`11 at 16598 (“How does Fitbit calculate my cardio fitness level” and “What do the cardio fitness
`
`levels represent?”).)
`
`IV.
`
`FITBIT IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT
`BECAUSE THE ACCUSED METHODS DO NOT MEET ’377 PATENT CLAIM 1
`
`A.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards For Noninfringement
`
`A method claim “is not infringed unless all the steps [of the method] are carried out.”
`
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., 572 U.S. 915, 921 (2014); see also, e.g., Dippin’
`
`Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (literal infringement of method claim
`
`requires practicing each and every step of claimed method exactly as recited in properly construed
`
`claim); Brita Wasser-Filter-Systeme v. Recovery Eng’g, Inc., 243 F.3d 560, 2000 WL 1375170, at
`
`*6 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“To show literal infringement, each and every claim limitation must be present
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`in the accused device exactly as claimed, and therefore ‘any deviation from the claim precludes a
`
`finding of literal infringement.’”) (quoting Litton Sys. Inc. v. Honeywell Inc., 140 F.3d 1449, 1454
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`“[A] dependent claim necessarily cannot be infringed if the independent claim [from which
`
`it depends] is not infringed….” Cognex Corp. v. ITC, 550 F. App’x 876, 881 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see
`
`also Ferring B.V. v. Watson Lab’ys, Inc.-Fla., 764 F.3d 1401, 1411 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`B.
`
`Ground 1: No Infringement Because Fitbit Uses
` In The Method Accused Of Practicing ’377
`Claim Elements 1.g And 1.h
`
`The parties’ experts agree that practicing claim 1 requires practicing elements 1.g and 1.h
`
`using the same “server.” Fitbit moves for summary judgment of noninfringement because the
`
`undisputed evidence shows that the accused Fitbit methods have only been performed by
`
` for element 1.g and the
`
`
`
`
`
` for element 1.h—during the entire alleged damages period.
`
`Thus, there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the accused Fitbit methods do not practice
`
`elements 1.g and 1.h under Philips and Dr. Martin’s reading of claim 1. Because these methods
`
`do not infringe independent claim 1, they also do not infringe dependent claims 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12.
`
`1.
`
`Argument
`
`Claim elements 1.g and 1.h are as follows:
`
`g. sending the exercise-related information to an internet server via
`a wireless network;
`
`h. receiving a calculated response from the server, the response
`associated with a calculation performed by the server based on the
`exercise-related information…
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`(Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SUF”), ¶ 8.) Dr. Martin admits that practicing ’377
`
`patent claim 1 requires that the same server or server array is used to perform elements 1.g and
`
`1.h. (SUF, ¶¶ 18-19.) The intrinsic record of the ’377 patent supports Dr. Martin’s understanding.
`
`For example, originally submitted claim 1 referenced “sending the exercise-related
`
`information to an internet server via a wireless network” and “receiving a calculated response from
`
`a server.” (SUF, ¶ 16.) But the latter claim element was amended to “receiving a calculated
`
`response from the server” during prosecution. (SUF, ¶ 17.) This use of the definite article “the”
`
`demonstrates that the server in element 1.h is not a new server, but rather, a server that was already
`
`disclosed in a previous claim element. See, e.g., Automed Techs., Inc. v. Microfil, LLC, 244 F.
`
`App’x 354, 359 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[C]laim term employing definite article ‘the’…require[es] an
`
`antecedent basis.”) (citing NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1306 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005))). According to Dr. Martin, “the server” in element 1.h refers back to the “internet server”
`
`of element 1.g. (SUF, ¶ 18.) In other words, Dr. Martin admits that “the server” in element 1.h
`
`must be the same as the “internet server” in element 1.g.5 (SUF, ¶¶ 18-19.)
`
`On the contrary, continuously over the entire infringement period alleged by Philips from
`
`August 29, 2016 through January 16, 2021, Fitbit has used
`
`
`
`to perform the steps that Dr. Martin identifies as corresponding to claim elements 1.g and 1.h.
`
`Specifically, the servers responsible for practicing element 1.g (according to Dr. Martin) are those
`
`that receive synced data from the Fitbit application. (See SUF, ¶¶ 9, 21.) Continuously over the
`
`entire infringement period alleged by Philips from August 29, 2016 through January 16, 2021,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 Dr. Martin opines that these two “server” elements can be met by a server array, but he admitted
`that elements 1.g and 1.h would still need to use the same server array. (SUF, ¶¶ 18-19.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 330 Filed 03/02/22 Page 18 of 25
`
`
`
` (SUF, ¶¶ 22-23.) On the other hand, the servers responsible for practicing
`
`element 1.h (according to Dr. Martin) are those that send a user’s Cardio Fitness Score or Cardio
`
`Fitness Level to the Fitbit application. (See SUF, ¶¶ 10, 24.) Continuously over the entire
`
`infringement period alleged by Philips from August 29, 2016 through January 16, 2021,
`
`
`
`
`
` (SUF, ¶¶ 25-30.) Finally, continuously over the
`
`entire alleged infringement period from August 29, 2016 through January 16, 2021,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`infringe under Philips and Dr. Martin’s own infringement theory and admitted scope of claim 1.
`
`. (SUF, ¶ 31.) Thus, Fitbit cannot and does not
`
`2.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Philips’ own expert, Dr. Martin, admits that the machine that meets “the server” in element
`
`1.h must be the same as the machine that meets the “internet server” in element 1.g. (SUF, ¶¶ 18-
`
`19.)6 But then, Dr. Martin ignores this requirement in opining that the accused Fitbit system
`
`infringes claim 1, despite the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact that, over the entire
`
`alleged infringement period, Fitbit used
`
` in the method
`
`steps Dr. Martin accuses of practicing ’377 claim elements 1.g and 1.h. (SUF, ¶¶ 21-31.)
`
`Fitbit is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement in spite of Dr. Martin’s
`
`unsupported contrary opinion. See, e.g., Wisconsin Alumni Res. Found. v. Apple Inc., 905 F.3d
`
`1341, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirming summary judgment of no anticipation because expert’s
`
`
`6 The Court need not address Fitbit’s previous request for construction of the “server” terms of
`claim 1 (Dkt. 275, 276) in order to decide this request for summary judgment, because Dr. Martin
`and Philips do not dispute, and in fact agree, that claim elements 1.g and 1.h must be performed
`by the same server or the same server array. (SUF, ¶¶ 18-19.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:1