Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
663
REPLY BRIEF re 628 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law of No Direct Infringement filed by Facebook Inc.(a Delaware corporation). (Caponi, Steven)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and Counterclaimant.
)
) CIVIL ACTION
)
)
) No. 1:08-cv-00862-LPS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC.’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER
OF LAW (JMOL) OF NO INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
[MOTION NO. 3 OF 4]
Steven L. Caponi (DE Bar #3484)
BLANK ROME LLP
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-425-6400
Fax: 302-425-6464
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant Facebook, Inc.
OF COUNSEL:
Michael G. Rhodes (pro hac vice)
Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice)
Mark R. Weinstein (pro hac vice)
Jeffrey Norberg (pro hac vice)
Elizabeth L. Stameshkin (pro hac vice)
COOLEY LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dated: September 27, 2010
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.,
498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................1
DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc)..................................................................................1
Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc.,
No. 2010-1045, ___ F.3d ____, 2010 WL 3619797 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2010) ........................1
STATUTES
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(a) ...........................................................................................1
35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ...........................................................................................................................1
35 U.S.C. § 271(c) ...........................................................................................................................1
-i-
Leader’s opposition identifies no reason to deny judgment as a matter of law as to its
indirect infringement claims.1 The Court refused to submit this issue to the jury because Leader
failed to produce sufficient evidence of indirect infringement. Facebook respectfully submits
that the Court implicitly granted Facebook’s pre-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), and should make its ruling explicit by granting this renewed motion.
Leader’s claim that this motion is improper is unsupported by any authority. Facebook is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Leader’s claims of indirect infringement.
Leader’s opposition identifies no evidence that could sustain its indirect infringement
claims. D.I. 644 at 2. Leader points to a portion of Dr. Vigna’s testimony regarding third party
applications as “sufficient evidence that Facebook indirectly infringes the ’761 Patent.”2 This
testimony is insufficient to show indirect infringement. For example, none of this testimony
suggests that Facebook had knowledge of the patent, that Facebook specifically intended to
induce infringement, or that the accused Facebook website lacks any substantial non-infringing
use, which are essential elements of proof to sustain inducement or contributory infringement,
respectively. See DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en
banc) (liability for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires knowledge of the
patent and the specific intent to induce infringement); Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., No. 20101045, ___ F.3d ____, 2010 WL 3619797, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2010) (liability for
contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) requires, among other things, knowledge of
the patent and a showing that the accused product has no substantial non-infringing use).
Leader also failed to demonstrate how each step of any asserted claim is performed by a
single third party actor. See BMC Res., Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (“Indirect infringement requires, as a predicate, a finding that some party amongst the
Leader complains at length in its opposition about “unnecessary litigation costs,” but that issue
is irrelevant to the briefing on this motion.
1
This portion of Dr. Vigna’s testimony went well beyond the scope of his expert report, against
both the Federal Rules and this Court’s specific orders. See D.I. 633 at 15-17.
2
-1-
accused actors has committed the entire act of direct infringement.”) (emphasis added). The
testimony of Dr. Vigna that Leader relies upon, in fact, identifies at least three separate parties
necessary to perform the steps of the asserted claims – Facebook, a third party application
developer and a Facebook user. See D.I. 637, Ex. 1 at 695:19-21 and 697:21-698:9 (noting that
“somebody uploads a picture” (the user), “that context information is captured and stored as
metadata” (Facebook), and “a subset of that metadata can be directly accessed by a third-party
application” (the third party application)).
For the reasons set forth above and in Facebook’s opening brief, Facebook respectfully
requests the Court grant judgment as a matter of law of no indirect infringement as to all asserted
claims of the ’761 patent.
Dated: September 27, 2010
By: /s/ Steven L. Caponi
OF COUNSEL:
Steven L. Caponi (DE Bar #3484)
BLANK ROME LLP
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-425-6400
Fax: 302-425-6464
Attorneys for Defendant-Counterclaimant
Facebook, Inc.
Michael G. Rhodes (pro hac vice)
Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice)
Mark R. Weinstein (pro hac vice)
Jeffrey Norberg (pro hac vice)
Elizabeth L. Stameshkin (pro hac vice)
COOLEY LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square, 4th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?