1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
` James R. Asperger (Bar No. 83188)
` jamesasperger@quinnemanuel.com
` 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
` Los Angeles, CA 90017
` Telephone: (213) 443-3000
` Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
` Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
` kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
` 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
` Redwood Shores, CA 94065
` Telephone: (650) 801-5000
` Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION
` Edward R. McGah, Jr (SBN 97719)
` Vice President, Deputy General Counsel
`– Litigation
`41 Ticknor Place
`Laguna Niguel, California 92677
`Telephone: (+1) 650-581-4750
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`BlackBerry Limited
`
`* Redacted version for
`filing with PTAB as exhibit
`in IPR2019-00516 and
`IPR2019-00528
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED, a
`Canadian corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, WHATSAPP INC., a
`Delaware corporation, and
`INSTAGRAM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, and INSTAGRAM,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS
`LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`Related Case: 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT OF
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NOS. 8,677,250,
`8,279,173, AND 9,349,120
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-i-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`001
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment of Infringement of
`the ’250 Patent......................................................................................... 1
`A. Defendants Do Not Dispute that Limitations 9.c through
`9.e, 12, 13, and 14 are Met By the Accused Systems .................. 1
`Defendants Fail to Raise A Genuine Issue of Material Fact
`With Respect To Limitations 9.a or 9.b. ...................................... 1
`The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment of Infringement of
`the ’173 Patent....................................................................................... 12
`A.
`The Accused Systems Include “Tag Type Indicators” As
`Claimed ....................................................................................... 12
`The Accused “Tag Type Indicators” Indicate “Tag
`Sources” ...................................................................................... 15
`III. The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment of Infringement OF
`the ’120 Patent....................................................................................... 17
`A. Defendants Do Not Dispute That All But Two Limitations
`of Claims 1 and 13 are Met By the Accused Systems ................ 17
`Defendants Fail To Raise A Genuine Issue Of Material
`Fact With Regard To The Accused Systems’ Silencing
`“Notifications” ............................................................................ 17
`Defendants Fail To Raise A Genuine Issue Of Material
`Fact With Regard To The Accused Products’ Use Of A
`“Flag” To Silence A Message Thread ........................................ 23
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-ii-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`002
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`No table of authorities entries found.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-iii-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`003
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Summary judgment on the issue of infringement of the asserted claims of U.S.
`Patent Nos. 8,677,250 (“the ’250 patent”), 8,279,173 (“the ’173 patent”), and
`9,349,120 (“the ’120 patent”) is appropriate because there are no material issues of
`fact. BlackBerry has proven a prima facie case of infringement, and Defendants have
`failed to raise any relevant factual disputes, including concerning BlackBerry’s source
`code analysis, expert testimony, or how the experts declare that the accused systems
`operate. Instead, Defendants use a smoke and mirrors approach to try to distract the
`Court from the plain meaning of the claims and what is clearly performed by the
`accused systems. For example, Defendants do their best to attack the credibility of
`BlackBerry’s expert witnesses by pointing to questioning during depositions about
`limitations that appear nowhere in the claims. Defendants also raise untimely claim
`construction arguments that seek to improperly inject limitations into the claims.
`Defendants then try to use their improper, and overly restrictive claim constructions
`to manufacture non-infringement positions with irrelevant declarations from their fact
`witnesses which, in many cases, directly contradict the witnesses’ deposition
`testimony and/or Defendants’ engineering documents. None of these efforts raises a
`genuine issue of material fact, and accordingly, the Court should grant partial
`summary judgment of infringement of the asserted claims.
`ARGUMENT
`THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’250 PATENT
`A. Defendants Do Not Dispute that Limitations 9.c through 9.e, 12, 13,
`and 14 are Met By the Accused Systems
`For the ’250 Patent, Defendants do not dispute that all of the limitations of the
`asserted claims are met by the accused systems except for limitations 9.a and 9.b. As
`explained in detail below, even with respect to limitations 9.a and 9.b, the disputes
`are narrow and not tied to the claim language.
`B. Defendants Fail to Raise A Genuine Issue of Material Fact With
`
`I.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-1-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`004
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Respect To Limitations 9.a or 9.b.
`1.
`Limitation 9.a: enabling a game application on the electronic
`device to utilize a contact list for an instant messaging
`application for playing games with contacts in the contact list by
`identifying game play in the contact list;
`Defendants attempt to make new, unfounded claim construction arguments and
`attack the credibility of BlackBerry’s expert, Dr. Schonfeld, based on lines of
`questioning during his deposition that were completely unrelated to a plain and
`ordinary reading of the asserted claims. Tellingly Defendants failed to cite any expert
`of their own to support their arguments.
`Defendants do not dispute that the Facebook “Instant Games” feature, as
`implemented in both Messenger and the Facebook Website, enables various game
`applications for playing games with the user’s contacts on a user’s electronic device.
`Defendants also do not dispute that, when a user is in the process of playing an Instant
`Game with a contact, game play is identified by including a visual identifier next to
`the contact with whom the user is playing, and that the particular contact appears in a
`Chat list that contains other contacts. Thus, Defendants’ non-infringement arguments
`for this limitation rely entirely on an over-parsing of the claim language—specifically
`(1) whether the “Chat list” meets the “contact list” requirement and (2) whether the
`contact list is “utilize[d]” for identifying game play as claimed.
`(a) The “Chat List” Satisfies The “Contact List”
`Requirement
`BlackBerry identifies a “Chat list” as the “contact list” required by this
`limitation. Put simply, the “Chat list” is a “list” that contains “contacts,” and
`Defendants do not contend otherwise. Thus, under any ordinary reading of the term
`“contact list,” the Facebook “Chat list” meets the limitations.
`In an effort to show that the “Chat list” is not a “contact list” as claimed,
`Defendants are forced to raise an untimely claim construction argument and try to
`improperly add limitations into the claim. But Defendants’ belated claim construction
`arguments are waived. Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 640-
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-2-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`005
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`41 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Like in Bettcher Industries, Defendants “had ample opportunity
`1
`to seek construction of [this] limitation;” there was an agreed upon schedule of
`2
`disclosures; the Court “issued a Markman order premised on the express belief that
`3
`there were no other claim construction disputes [and Defendants] said nothing;” and
`4
`then “after the Markman hearing, after submitting a new joint schedule that contained
`5
`nothing about claim construction, [Defendants] ask for a new construction.” Id.
`6
`While Defendants’ interrogatory responses
`
`7
`
`8
`, BlackBerry had no
`9
`notice of these new claim construction arguments that Defendants now attempt to
`10
`raise. This is prejudicial. For instance, BlackBerry has already taken the 30(b)(6)
`11
`depositions and engaged in months of source code analysis based on its understanding
`12
`that “contact list” would receive its plain and ordinary meaning. With only a couple
`13
`of weeks left in discovery, which has already been extended, BlackBerry is entitled
`14
`to rely on the plain and ordinary meaning of “contact list.”
`15
`Defendants’ newfound limitations on the “contact list” also fail on their own
`16
`merits. Defendants argue that the list of contacts identified by BlackBerry, i.e., the
`17
`Chat list of contacts, does not meet this requirement because
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`. But none of those items are requirements of
`23
`a “contact list” under its plain and ordinary meaning. Defendants’ offer no support
`24
`25
`for their argument that a “contact list” must include only a user’s contacts, that the
`26
`“contact list” must include all of a user’s contacts, that any particular contact can only
`be listed once, or that a “list” must be “oriented’ around “contacts” (whatever that
`27
`means). Vulcan Eng'g Co. v. FATA Aluminium, Inc., 278 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-3-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`006
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`2002) (“[I]nfringement is not avoided ‘if a claimed feature performs not only as
`shown in the patent, but also performs an additional function.’”) (quoting Northern
`Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931, 945 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Defendants
`do not dispute that the “Chat list” is a list that contains contacts with whom the user
`is playing games on the application. This is all the claim requires, and Defendants
`offer no persuasive reason to the contrary to limit the plain and ordinary meaning.
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC, 824 F.3d 999, 1007 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016) (holding that to limit a claim’s otherwise plain and ordinary meaning, “the
`court would need to find ‘that the specification [or prosecution history] make[] clear
`that the invention does not include a particular feature, or is clearly limited to a
`particular form of the invention.’”)
`The limitations that Defendants seek to impose on the “contact list” term also
`improperly exclude a preferred embodiment in the ’250 Patent specification. In the
`Patent, an embodiment of the “contact list” shows that it can similarly contain more
`than just “individual contacts,” does not need to contain all of the user’s contacts, can
`contain duplicate contacts, can contain groups, and can
`include “current
`conversations.”1 ’250 Patent at FIG. 4. See also ’250 Patent at 8:16-24 (teaching
`that “contact list” entries may include “entries for current conversations” and “group
`entries for organizing individual contacts”), at 9:3-6 (“Contacts may comprise
`individual user contacts 308 or group contacts 310 (e.g. FridayLunchGroup) for
`assisting with the organization of contacts within the IM application.”
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`1 In footnote 4 of the Opposition, Defendants argue that “Mike’s Contact List,”
`24
`shown as a preferred embodiment in the specification, is different than the accused
`Chat list because it “contains a specific section (308) that provides an actual listing of
`25
`contacts.” Opp. at 5 n.4. But, Figure 4 plainly labels the entire list (including “current
`conversations”), and not merely the expandable “contacts” sub-part, “Mike’s Contact
`26
`List.” In fact, the specification states that “[c]ontacts may comprise individual user
`contacts 308 or group contacts 310….” ’250 Patent at 9:3-4. Further, nowhere in the
`27
`specification does it say that “Mike’s Contact List” must contain all of Mike’s
`28
`contacts, even in section 308.
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-4-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`007
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`
`If the Chat list identified by BlackBerry does not qualify as the claimed “contact list,”
`neither would the preferred embodiment, which is nonsensical. EPOS Techs., 766
`F.3d at 1347 (“[A] claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment . . . is
`rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.”).
`Defendants go on to argue that there is, at a minimum, a dispute as to whether
`the “Chat list” identified by BlackBerry qualifies as the “contact list” under the plain
`and ordinary meaning of that term. BlackBerry, however, offered expert testimony
`that the accused systems meet the plain and ordinary meaning of a “contact list,” and
`Defendants have offered no relevant evidence to the contrary. Although Defendants’
`
`offer a declaration from their fact witness, Kun Chen,
`
` Mr. Chen admitted at
`
`his deposition that
` and therefore, any “opinions” that Mr. Chen purports to offer regarding how
`Defendants’ “Chat list” compares to the claimed “contact list” cannot create a genuine
`issue of fact. Properly applied, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the
`accused systems satisfy the “contact list” requirement.
`(b) The Accused Systems Enable The Game Application
`“To Utilize” The “Chat List” By “Identifying Game
`Play”
`The next disputed limitation is whether the game application is enabled “to
`utilize a contact list for an instant messaging application for playing games with
`
`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-5-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`008
`
`

`

`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`contacts in the contact list by identifying game play in the contact list.” Again,
`
`Defendants attempt to overcomplicate the analysis. All the claim requires is for the
`
`“game application” to “utilize” the “contact list” by “identifying game play in the
`
`contactlist.” A commonsense observation of the accused systems demonstrate that
`
`this limitation is satisfied. Indeed, Dr. Schonfeld conducted first-hand testing of the
`
`accused products and demonstrated how they enable a “game application”to utilize
`
`the Facebook “Chatlist” by “identifying game play” with visual icons indicating a
`
`game-in-progress with a particular contact:
`
`Dkt. 249-17 (Schonfeld Decl.) § 33 (annotations added); see also id. 4§ 41, 54.
`
`Defendants do not contest that a ““game application” uses the Chat list to display these
`
`icons to indicate game play. This alone demonstrates infringement.
`
`In an effort to overcomplicate the analysis and impose limitations to the
`
`otherwise plain claim language, Defendants argue that a game application “does not
`
`utilize the Chats list” becauseit “cannot accessit.” Opp. at 5 (emphasisin original).
`This assertion is unsupported by Defendants’ evidence.’
`In fact,PF
`
`.at 5. But that
`> Defendants cite to Paragraph 10 of the Chen Declaration.
`| cannotaccess
`paragraph merelystates that the
`the Chat list. Chen never onceasserts that the “game application” is incapable of
`accessing the Chatlist.
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-
`
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`009
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENTFILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Po Mr. Chen confirmed that
`
`the very same
`
`ee. Mt. Ex. 22 (ChenDep.Tr. at 140:2-140:14,
`144:6-149:17). Mr. Chen further confirmed thatPO
`
`Pe Thus, Defendants’ own corporate testimony
`concedesinfringement of this limitation, and it is binding on Defendants. Snapp v.
`
`United Transp. Union, 889 F.3d 1088, 1104 (9th Cir. 2018).
`
`At bottom, Defendants’ argument boils downto the unsupportedassertion that
`
`the game application must directly access the Chats list in order to result in the
`
`appearance of the visualidentifier identifying game play. But, this overlyrestrictive
`
`reading of the claimis untenable. See, e.g., Mitutoyo Corp. v. Cent. Purchasing, LLC,
`
`499 F.3d 1284, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claim language did not require
`
`calculation of phase angle through direct comparison between supply signal and
`
`received signal; rather claim“merely require[d] the phase angle to be calculated based
`
`on some comparisonof those two signals, even an indirect one”). There is no genuine
`ssue ofmateria eccr
`Pe. and that this accessing of contact information ultimately results
`in the display of game play indicators in the accused Chat list.* Thisis all that the
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`> Defendants’ attack on BlackBerry’s expert, Dr. Schonfeld,is also without merit.
`Thedeposition testimony relied on by Defendants1in their
`
`osition is not about an
`
`
`-7-
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT
`
`010
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`
`
`

`

`tN
`
`we
`
`an
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`UNREDACTED DOCUMENTFILED UNDER SEAL
`
`claim requires.
`
`Defendants are also wrong that BlackBerry treats the “utiliz[ing] a contactlist
`
`for an instant messaging application,” and “identifying gameplay in the contactlist,”
`
`as two separate and independent requirements. Opp. at 5-6. As discussed above, the
`
`visual identifiers of “game play” that the accused systems display in the accused
`“contact lst” are therest
`
`
`_ Ezzx:_
`
`
`Sc:
`
`then results in Facebook-provided code rendering visualicons “identifying gameplay
`
`in the contactlist. Schonfeld Decl. §§ 40-41, 53-54.* Again, Defendants’ argument
`
`appears to require direct utilization, by a single function, of the “contactlist” to result
`
`in “identifying game play.” But, Defendants provide no basis forlimiting the claims
`
`in this manner. Ruckus Wireless, 824 F.3d at 1007.
`
`Defendants rely on the declaration of their fact witness, Mr. Chen, to support
`
`their arguments. But Mr. Chen’s declaration contradicts his own deposition testimony
`
`and should be disregarded underthe “sham affidavit” rule, which provides “that a
`
`party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition
`
`testmony.” Russell v. Pac. Motor Trucking Co., 672 Fed. Appx. 629, 630 (9th Cir.
`
`2016) (quoting Kennedyv. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir. 1991)).
`
`For instance, in his declaration in support of Defendants’ Opposition, Mr. Chen
`
`claim 9 becausethe claim does not require a contactlist that contains “all contacts.”
`
`
`-8-
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`011
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
` In other words, Mr. Chen admits that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`contends that
`
`
`
`
`
` Yet, during his deposition, Mr. Chen directly contradicts this assertion,
`stating that
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Facebook should not be
`allowed to create a factual dispute by using a declaration to contradict Mr. Chen’s
`deposition testimony in this manner. Besides, Mr. Chen’s “opinions” cannot be read
`
`as opinions regarding whether the accused systems read on the claims, because
`
`
`
` There is no genuine
`issue of material fact that the accused systems enable the game application to utilize
`the chat list by identifying game play as required by the claim.
`(c) The Claim Does Not Require Evidence Of Game
`Application Code
`Defendants’ final attack on Dr. Schonfeld is that he did not review the source
`
`code for a particular Instant Game, even though
`
`
`
`
` But as Dr. Schonfeld explained in his deposition,
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-9-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`012
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`1
`
`2
` The
`3
`4
`asserted independent claim is directed to a computer-implemented interface between
`an “instant messaging application” and a “game application.” ’250 Patent at 1:50-52
`5
`6
`(“A game may be invoked . . . from within an IM application providing an interface
`to a game application.”) (emphasis added). In other words, the claim is not written to
`7
`read, either in whole or in part, on a “game application.” Rather, the claim is directed
`8
`to an API for interfacing with a “game application” (i.e., exactly the type of API that
`9
`
`Facebook offers for enabling its instant game feature).
`10
` While
`11
`the claim mentions a “game application” and a “game in progress user interface,” it
`12
`does so only in the context of describing the functionality that the API must have.
`13
`Thus, BlackBerry has met its burden to show that this limitation is met, and
`14
`Defendants have failed to offer any evidence that would create any issue of fact.
`15
`2.
`Limitation 9.b: during a game in progress with a particular
`16
`contact in the contact list, preparing game messages to be sent to
`17
`the particular contact by including game progress data in an
`instant messaging message and an identifier to associate the
`18
`data with the game application;
`19
`For limitation 9.b, Defendants again fail to raise any issue of fact that this
`20
`limitation is met. Instead, Defendants once more try to use irrelevant deposition
`21
`testimony to distract and convince the Court that there is some kind of credibility issue
`22
`with BlackBerry’s expert, Dr. Schonfeld. For instance, it is irrelevant to the analysis
`23
`of this claim that when asked
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
` That is because the limitation
`27
`simply requires “an identifier” to be sent to a contact as part of an instant messaging
`28
`.
`message, not a specific type of “identifier,”
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-10-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`013
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Defendants do not dispute that the Instant Games feature in both Messenger
`and the Facebook Website prepares “game messages” to be sent to a contact that
`includes game progress data in an instant messaging message. Thus, the only issue
`before the Court for this limitation is whether an “identifier to associate the data with
`the game application” is also sent to the contact.
`Defendants purely try to attack the credibility of BlackBerry’s expert, Dr.
`Schonfeld. But Dr. Schonfeld clearly identifies in his declaration in support of
` which is in fact an “identifier” that satisfies
`BlackBerry’s Motion
`this claim limitation. Schonfeld Decl. ¶¶ 42, 55. This was confirmed by Defendants’
` This
`corporate witness Mr. Chen. David Decl., Ex. A
`alone shows infringement, and Defendants do not contend otherwise.5
`When questioned during his deposition about what qualifies as the claimed
`“identifier” for this limitation, Dr. Schonfeld pointed out repeatedly that there was
`something—
`
`
`
`Despite Dr. Schonfeld’s clear recollection that
`
`, Counsel for Defendants did not show Dr. Schonfeld
`the transcript of Mr. Chen to help refresh his recollection as to
`
` A deposition is not a memory test. Hsingching, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`103353, at *29. Thus, on redirect, counsel for BlackBerry showed Dr. Schonfeld the
`transcript that
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`5 In their Opposition, Defendants make meaningless arguments about
`26
` discussed by Dr. Schonfeld in his declaration in support of BlackBerry’s Motion.
`But Dr. Schonfeld never says that
` is an “identifier,” as required by
`27
`this claim limitation, nor does BlackBerry’s Motion. Instead, Dr. Schonfeld simply
`28
`discusses
` to give background for how the accused system operates.
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-11-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
` With that refresher, Dr. Schonfeld pointed out that
`
`
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`014
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`i.e., associates the game progress data with the game application and gets sent to a
`contact in an instant messaging message.
`
` Defendants do not contend otherwise. Thus, there is no dispute that
` would each satisfy the “identifier” that gets
`both
`sent to a contact in an instant messaging message, as required by this limitation.
`There is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Defendants’ infringement
`of the claims of the ’250 Patent. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate.
`II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’173 PATENT
`For the ’173 Patent, Defendants do not dispute that any of the limitations are
`met by the accused systems except for limitation 13.b. Claim element 13.b requires:
`code for displaying a tag type indicator for each tag appearing in the tag list, said tag
`type being indicative of a tag source associated with the tag. The only questions
`raised by Defendants center on the meaning of the “tag type indicator” language and
`the “tag source” language of this element.
`A. The Accused Systems Include “Tag Type Indicators” As Claimed
`For this limitation, Defendants again try to create factual issues where none
`exist by improperly attempting to narrow the claims in ways that are not contemplated
`by the patent specification. In their Opposition, Defendants argue that the “tag type
`indicator” identified by BlackBerry for Facebook friends and unverified Instagram
`profiles does not qualify as an “indicator” because nothing is displayed for those tags,
`and the claim requires “displaying a tag type indicator for each tag.” Opp. at 13.
`But, the ’173 Patent provides no restriction on the type of visual indicator that
`must be provided. All that is required for “displaying a tag type indicator” is showing
`a user a visual distinction, on a tag-by-tag basis, between different tag types. In their
`Opposition, Defendants even admit that the claimed “tag type indicator” must merely
`“clearly indicate [the tag’s] type, and allow[] the user to quickly distinguish between
`different types of tags.” Opp. at 14 (citing Mot. at 18).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-12-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`015
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Theindicator for Facebook friends and unverified Instagram profiles identified
`
`by BlackBerry provides exactly the type of visual distinction that the claims require.
`
`Particularly in contrast to the other tag types in these systems, the absenceofa visual
`
`icon for Facebook friends and unverified Instagram profiles provides a clear visual
`
`distinction for these types of tags, allowing users to quickly distinguish them from
`
`other tag types. The visual distinction is readily apparent from the screenshots below
`
`(disputed “tag type indicators” are noted with red arrows):°
`
`Mike's ao Inc
`Mike = Aviation
`
`a=
`
`ae
`
`S
`
`Mike Senith Homes
`
`Even if the Court disagrees that users are shown a visual indicator that
`
`distinguishes Facebook friends or unverified Instagram profiles from other tag types,
`
`Defendants do not dispute that there can be other tag lists that do not contain these
`
`“blank indicators.” For example, on the Facebook Website, a tag list might include
`
`° Defendants’ argumenthereis inconsistent with their positions taken during their
`Section 101 challenge of the ’173 Patent. For instance, in Defendants’ Section 101
`briefing, they argue that “two different ‘types’ of tags” can be “a star or asterisk” for
`those individuals that signed the Declaration of Independence andthe other “type” of
`tag is for those individuals that did not sign the document“who. ..are not so denoted.”
`Dkt. 267-1 at 8-9. In other words, Defendants argue that the absenceofstar is a tag
`type indicator because it showsa distinction between the two tag types.
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-13-
`BLACKBERRY’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`016
`
`Facebook's Ex. 1022
`IPR2019-00516
`
`05710-00015/11024193 4
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`

`

`UNREDACTED DOCUMENT FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`tags from all of the sources shown above except for Facebook friends. Thus, this
`alternative situation demonstrates that, at a minimum, the Facebook Website is
`capable of displaying a “tag list” with a “tag type indicator” for each tag, even
`according to Defendants’ artificially narrowed definition of “tag type indicator.”
`
`
` Thus, even putting aside the
`“blank indicator” issue, this limitation is met for the Facebook Website. Hilgraeve
`Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[A]n accused device
`may be found to infringe if it is reasonably capable of satisfying the claim limitations,
`even though it may also be capable of non-infringing modes of operation.”).
`Recognizing this flaw in their logic, Defendants go on to fabricate a new claim
`construction argument that a “tag type indicator” cannot consist of “contextual
`information” or offer “additional information” about the tags.7 Opp. at 14-15. But
`there is absolutely no basis in any intrinsic or extrinsic evidence for limiting the claims
`in this manner.8 Ruckus Wireless , 824 F.3d at 100. In fact, showing “additional
`information” about a tag is perfectly consistent with the specification, which teaches
`that the “tag type indicator” is intended to “clearly indicate [the tag’s] type, and
`allow[] the user to quickly distinguish between different types of tags.” Opp. at 14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`05710-00015/11024193 9
`
`
`
`
`7 Defendants should not be allowed to ignore limitations and try to reduce the
`claims as a whole down to an “abstract idea” for purposes of a Section