Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corporation

Filing 377

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 11/06/2014. (nkl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§

v.
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:13-cv-259-JRG-RSP

v.
APPLE INC.,

§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:13-cv-258-JRG-RSP

Defendant.

Case No. 2:12-cv-832-JRG-RSP
(Lead Case)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
Noninfringement of the ‘506 and ‘748 Patents (Dkt. 247, the “Motion”).
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment should be granted “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).

Any evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v.
S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). Summary judgment is proper when there is no
genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “By its very
terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the

parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine [dispute] of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 24748. The substantive law identifies the material facts, and disputes over facts that are irrelevant or
unnecessary will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. Id. at 248. A dispute about a
material fact is “genuine” when the evidence is “such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The moving party must identify the basis for granting
summary judgment and evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material
fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323.
DISCUSSION
The Court first observes that Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment is MOOT as to the
‘748 Patent that was dropped from this case pursuant to the parties’ agreement to abide by the
model order limiting claims and prior art. Apple also requests summary judgment as to the ‘506
Patent.
Apple contends that Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
and Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Tech., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2111 (2014) control with regard to
the ‘506 Patent, stating that “the law is clear that there can be no infringement (direct or indirect)
if a single entity does not either perform all of the steps of a method claim or exercise ‘control or
direction’ over the entities that perform all of the steps of a method.” (Mot. at 1.) MTEL does not
dispute this point of law.
Apple states that there is no material fact dispute with regard to the “selecting” step of the
‘506 Patent because:
MTel relies on a single conclusory statement in Dr. Nettleton’s expert report that
“Apple ‘and Apple software’” perform this step … However, following the
service of his expert report, Dr. Nettleton unequivocally testified at his deposition
that it is the user, not the software, performing the selecting step. Thus, MTel’s
argument that the Apple software performs the “selecting” step amounts to
-2-

nothing more than unsupported attorney argument, and (at most) a conclusory,
unsupported expert statement.
(Dkt. 309 at 1.) There are a few issues raised by Apple’s contention. The first, and most
problematic, is that the statement “Dr. Nettleton unequivocally testified at his deposition that it is
the user, not the software, performing the selecting step” is inaccurate. Dr. Nettleton did testify at
his deposition that the user may perform the selecting step, but in the same breath stated “[o]f
course, a user can’t do anything without the phone.” (See, e.g., Mot. at 4.) Further, it does not
appear from the record that Dr. Nettleton ever testified that Apple’s software did not perform the
selecting step. Finally, as Apple correctly notes, Dr. Nettleton’s expert report also contended that
the Apple’s software performed the selecting step.
It is clear from the record that MTEL does contend that Apple itself performs the
selecting steps of the ‘506 Patent. Thus, Muniauction and Akamai bear little resemblance to the
factual allegations in this case. There is evidence in the record to support MTEL’s contentions
which, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, suggests that a reasonable
jury could agree with MTEL’s position.

-3-

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Apple’s Motion for Summary Judgment of
Noninfringement of the ‘506 and ‘748 Patents (Dkt. 247) is hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 6th day of November, 2014.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-