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
3:15-cv-00154-JD
DEFENDANTS’ OPP. TO MOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
GREGORY P. STONE (Bar No. 78329) gregory.stone@mto.com PETER A. DETRE (Bar No. 182619) peter.detre@mto.com ERIC P. TUTTLE (Bar No. 248440) eric.tuttle@mto.com BENJAMIN J. HORWICH (Bar No. 249090) ben.horwich@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 COURTLAND L. REICHMAN (Bar No. 268873) creichman@mckoolsmithhennigan.com MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C. 255 Shoreline Drive, Suite 510 Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 394-1400 Facsimile: (650) 394-1422 MIKE MCKOOL, JR. (
pro hac vice
) mmckool@mckoolsmith.com DOUGLAS A. CAWLEY (
pro hac vice
) dcawley@mckoolsmith.com MCKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-1000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
Attorneys for Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA APPLE INC., Plaintiff, vs. TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON and ERICSSON, INC., Defendants. Case No. 3:15-cv-00154-JD
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,445,917 AND 8,023,990 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Judge: Hon. James Donato Date: Nov. 18, 2015 Time: 10:00 a.m. Ctrm.: 11
Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 134 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 23
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
-i-
3:15-cv-00154-JD
DEFENDANTS’ OPP. TO MOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
I.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
II.
LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................... 1
A.
Presumption of Validity ............................................................................................ 1
B.
Summary Judgment ................................................................................................... 2
C.
Patent-Eligibility ....................................................................................................... 2
III.
’917 PATENT ....................................................................................................................... 5
A.
The Subject Matter and Claims of the ’917 Patent ................................................... 5
B.
The Claims of the ’917 Patent Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea ....................... 9
C.
The Claims of the ’917 Patent Recite an Inventive Concept .................................. 12
IV.
’990 PATENT ..................................................................................................................... 14
A.
The Subject Matter and Claims of the ’990 Patent ................................................. 14
B.
The Claims of the ’990 Patent Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea ..................... 16
C.
The Claims of the ’990 Patent Recite an Inventive Concept .................................. 17
V.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 18
Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 134 Filed 10/28/15 Page 2 of 23
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)
-ii-
3:15-cv-00154-JD
DEFENDANTS’ OPP. TO MOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
F
EDERAL
C
ASES
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l
, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................................................................... 1, passim
Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada
, 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................1, 2
Bilski v. Kappos
, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) .............................................................................................................3, 4, 5
buySAFE v. Google Inc.
, 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................................4
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................................2
Contentguard Holdings Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
, Nos. 2:13-cv-1112, 2:14-cv-61, 2015 WL 5853984 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2015) ............................5
DataTern, Inc. v. Microstrategy, Inc.
, Nos. 11-11970-FDS, 11-12220-FDS, 2015 WL 5190715 (D. Mass. Sept. 4, 2015) .........................................................................................................................................2, 5
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.
, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................1, 4, 5
Diamond v. Diehr
, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) ...................................................................................................................18
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)
, 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................12, 13, 18
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.
, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) .....................................................................................................................2
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.
, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .............................................................................................................3, 4
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship
, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) .............................................................................................................1, 2
SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc.
, No. 2:14-cv-11, 2015 WL 5675281 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2015) ..................................3, 9, 13, 18
Smartflash LLC v. Apple, Inc.
, 2015 WL 661174 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2015) .............................................................................12
Case 3:15-cv-00154-JD Document 134 Filed 10/28/15 Page 3 of 23