Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1022


Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Eolas Technologies Incorporated, Plaintiff, vs. Adobe Systems Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Apple Inc.; Argosy Publishing, Inc.; Blockbuster Inc.; CDW Corp.; Citigroup Inc.; eBay Inc.; FritoLay, Inc.; The Go Daddy Group, Inc.; Google Inc.; J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; New Frontier Media, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; Perot Systems Corp.; Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.; Rent-A-Center, Inc.; Staples, Inc.; Sun Microsystems, Inc.; Texas Instruments Inc.; Yahoo! Inc.; and YouTube, LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 6:09-cv-00446-LED (filed Oct. 6, 2009) DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS A. B. C. Eolas Misconceives The Legal Issue Presented...................................................... 1 There Is No Support in the Written Description Suggesting The Inventors Possessed A Non-Tag “Embed Text Format” — And Eolas Cites None............... 2 Eolas Concedes There Is No Support For An “Embed Text Format” At A Location Other Than Where The Object Is Displayed ........................................... 3 -i- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Ariad Pharm., Inc., v. Eli Lilly & Co. 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)....................................................................................... 1, 2 Atl. Research Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy Nos. 2011-1002, -1003 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2011)................................................................. 1 Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. 635 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................... 2 Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 1 PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. 522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 3 -ii- Eolas’s response brief fails to offer any evidence—not a single citation to the specification of the patents-in-suit—to establish to one of ordinary skill that the inventors possessed the full scope of the “embed text format” that Eolas now claims. Instead, Eolas’s opposition is built upon the misguided notion that this Court’s claim construction order has resolved written description ipso facto. But claim construction is merely a predicate that frames the written description question, it does not answer it. A. Eolas Misconceives The Legal Issue Presented Contrary to Eolas’s assertions, Defendants’ motion does not “attempt to limit” the Court’s construction of “embed text format.” See D.I. 996 (“Resp.”) at 6-7. Rather, Defendants’ motion presents an entirely separate inquiry. Now that the claims have been construed broadly at Eolas’s urging, is there sufficient disclosure in the specification to convey to one skilled that the inventors had possession of the full scope of the claims? See Mot. at 1-2 (citing cases); Atl. Research Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy, Nos. 2011-1002, -1003, slip op. at 12-16 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2011) (construing claim first before incorporating that construction into the written description analysis). A claim may be construed to define a genus, “yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to a genus.” Ariad Pharm., Inc., v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “[M]erely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.” Id. at 1350.1 1 Eolas’s quotation of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005), merely reiterates the non-controversial statement that claims may be construed more broadly than the embodiment disclosed. But it does not address whether that narrower disclosure is in turn sufficient to show possession of the broader claim for purposes of Section 112. -1- B. There Is No Support in the Written Description Suggesting The Inventors Possessed A Non-Tag “Embed Text Format” — And Eolas Cites None It is uncontested that the phrase “embed text format” does not appear in the specification but is a made-up term added during prosecution. See Mot. at 1. Here, Eolas has urged the Court to construe “embed text format” very broadly to include any kind of “coded information.” See D.I. 914 (“Order”) at 15. Its claim to all “coded information” capable of embedding content amounts to a functional claim for which the written description concern is “especially acute.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. Yet, Eolas essentially acknowledges that the specification fails to disclose an “embed text format” that is not a tag, much less all of the unlimited types of coded information claimed to be covered. Indeed, Eolas does not dispute that during prosecution (and subsequent legal proceedings) the patentees repeatedly relied on the “embed text format” being a “special tag” to distinguish prior art that did not use tags. See Mot. at 1-2, 5 (attaching and quoting file history).2 Thus, after reading the specification, one skilled in the art would not understand Eolas to have invented species sufficient to support a claim to the broad genus including unlimited kinds of “coded information.” See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. Unable to point to any disclosure in the specification, Eolas submits the declaration of David Martin to attempt to create a factual dispute. First, Dr. Martin cites the so-called “IMAGE3D tags” buried in source code appendices. Martin Decl. at ¶ 7. Yet he admits this is merely another example of a tag. Id. (“[T]he specification teaches the use of an IMAGE3D tag.”). Thus, it provides no support for use of any other type of coded information. Second, Dr. Martin cites an example 2 of an external application type, Eolas’s reliance on Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. is therefore misplaced, as that case acknowledges that ICU, Lizard, and Tronzo properly invalidated claims where, as in this case, “the specification discloses only one specific method” and the patentee used that to distinguish prior art that used a different method. 635 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011). -2- “application/postscript,” that “may be used with the invention.” Id. ¶ 8. As the quotation from the specification makes perfectly clear, this is simply an example of an “application” type “to be used to handle the object.” ’906 Patent at 13:2–7. That is, it is given as an example of the “executable application,” which is an entirely separate and distinct limitation from the “embed text format.” The phrase “application/postscript” is given as an example “value” of the type “element” within the EMBED tag example, so one of ordinary skill would not understand it to disclose the use of “postscript,” or any other scripting language for that matter, as the “embed text format” itself. The rest of the declaration consisting of lawyer argument and conclusory assertion also cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact. See PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008). C. Eolas Concedes There Is No Support For An “Embed Text Format” At A Location Other Than Where The Object Is Displayed This Court has declared that the claim limitations “logically demonstrate[] that the embed text format location in the document is where the displayed object will appear.” Order at 17 (emphasis added). Eolas does not dispute that there is no support in the written description for an “embed text format” at a location other than where the “object” is displayed.3 The Court’s construction has resolved Defendants’ motion in this respect. However, if Eolas were to contend that the embed text format need not be so located, such a construction would lack written description support. See, e.g., PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1309 (finding embodiments disclosing co-located elements insufficient to support claim covering elements at different locations). For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ respectfully request that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Lack of Written Description be GRANTED. 3 Eolas merely asserts the Court “rejected” the requirement that the “embed text format” be at the same location. This is plainly wrong, as the Court’s Markman order makes clear. -3- DATED: October 11, 2011 By: /s/ Jason W. Wolff (w/ permission) David J. Healey <Healey@fr.com> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1 Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 654-5300 Facsimile: (713) 652-0109 OF COUNSEL: Frank E. Scherkenbach <Scherkenbach@fr.com> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-1878 Telephone: (617) 542-5070 Facsimile: (617) 542-8906 Jason W. Wolff <Wolff@fr.com> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 678-5070 Facsimile: (858) 678-5099 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Adobe Systems Inc. -4- By: /s/ Edward R. Reines Edward R. Reines edward.reines@weil.com Jared Bobrow jared.bobrow@weil.com Sonal N. Mehta sonal.mehta@weil.com Aaron Y. Huang aaron.huang@weil.com Andrew L. Perito andrew.perito@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Doug W. McClellan doug.mcclellan@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 546-5000 Facsimile: (713) 224-9511 Jennifer H. Doan jdoan@haltomdoan.com Joshua R. Thane jthane@haltomdoan.com HALTOM & DOAN 6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100 Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 255-1000 Facsimile: (903) 255-0800 Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Bar No. 03895700) fedserv@icklaw.com Deborah J. Race (Bar No. 16448700) drace@icklaw.com IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Facsimile: (903) 581-1071 Attorneys for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., and Yahoo! Inc. -5- By: /s/ Thomas L. Duston (w/ permission) Thomas L. Duston <tduston@marshallip.com> Anthony S. Gabrielson <agabrielson@marshallip.com> Scott A. Sanderson (pro hac vice) <ssanderson@marshallip.com> MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 6300 Willis Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-6357 Telephone: (312) 474-6300 Facsimile: (312) 474-0448 Eric H. Findlay (Bar No. 00789886) <efindlay@findlaycraft.com> Brian Craft (Bar No. 04972020) <bcraft@findlaycraft.com> FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP 6760 Old Jacksonville Highway Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 534-1100 Facsimile: (903) 534-1137 Attorneys for Defendant CDW LLC -6- By: /s/ Edwin R. DeYoung (w/ permission) Edwin R. DeYoung (Bar No. 05673000) <edeyoung@lockelord.com> Roy W. Hardin (Bar No. 08968300) <rhardin@lockelord.com> Roger Brian Cowie (Bar No. 00783886) <rcowie@lockelord.com> M. Scott Fuller (Bar No. 24036607) <sfuller@lockelord.com> Galyn Gafford (Bar No. 24040938) <ggafford@lockelord.com> Jason E. Mueller <jmueller@lockelord.com> LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 Telephone: (214) 740-8000 Facsimile: (214) 740-8800 Eric L. Sophir (pro hac vice) <esophir@kslaw.com> KING & SPALDING LLP 1301 K. Street. NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005-3364 Telephone: (202) 626-8980 Facsimile: (202) 626-3737 Attorneys for Defendant Citigroup Inc. -7- By: /s/ Sasha G. Rao (w/ permission) James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice) james.batchelder@ropesgray.com Sasha G. Rao (pro hac vice) sasha.rao@ropesgray.com Mark D. Rowland mark.rowland@ropesgray.com Brandon Stroy (pro hac vice) brandon.stroy@ropesgray.com Rebecca R. Hermes (pro hac vice) rebecca.wight@ropesgray.com Han Xu (pro hac vice) han.xu@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284 Telephone: (650) 617-4000 Fascimile: (650) 617-4090 Michael E. Jones (Bar No. 10929400) mikejones@potterminton.com Allen F. Gardner (Bar No. 24043679) allengardner@potterminton.com POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Facsimile: (903) 593-0846 Attorneys for Defendants Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC -8- By: /s/ Brian Carpenter (w/ permission) Christopher M. Joe Chris.Joe@BJCIPLaw.com Brian Carpenter Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPLaw.com Eric W. Buether Eric.Buether@BJCIPLaw.com Buether Joe & Carpenter 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 95201 Telephone: (214) 466-1270 Attorneys for Defendant J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc. -9- By: /s/ Neil J. McNabnay (w/ permission) Thomas M. Melsheimer (Bar No. 13922550) <txm@fr.com> Neil J. McNabnay (Bar No. 24002583) <njm@fr.com> Carl E. Bruce (Bar No. 24036278) <ceb@fr.com> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 747-5070 Facsimile: (214) 747-2091 Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice) <pvm@fr.com> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-1878 Telephone: (617) 542-5070 Facsimile: (617) 542-8906 Attorneys for Defendant The Go Daddy Group, Inc. -10- By: /s/ Kate Hutchins Mark G. Matuschak (pro hac vice) <mark.matuschak@wilmerhale.com> Donald R. Steinberg (pro hac vice) <donald.steinberg@wilmerhale.com> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 Kate Hutchins (pro hac vice) <kate.hutchins@wilmerhale.com> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 Daniel V. Williams, (pro hac vice) <daniel.williams@wilmerhale.com> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 Michael E. Richardson (Bar No. 24002838) <mrichardson@brsfirm.com> BECK REDDEN & SECREST 1221 McKinney, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-6284 Facsimile: (713) 951-3720 Attorneys for Defendant Staples, Inc. -11- SIGNATURE ATTESTATION I hereby certify that concurrence in the service of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories shown above. /s/ Aaron Y. Huang Attorney for one of the Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on October 11, 2011. /s/ Danielle Delorio -12-

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?