Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1022

REPLY to Response to Motion re 877 SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] SEALED MOTION [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION] 996 filed by Adobe Systems Incorporated, Amazon.com Inc., CDW Corporation, Citigroup Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Staples, Inc., The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Reines, Edward)

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
<[e-mail]>
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1 Houston Center
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
OF COUNSEL:
Frank E. Scherkenbach
<[e-mail]>
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
One Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02110-1878
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jason W. Wolff
<[e-mail]>
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant Adobe Systems Inc.

-4-

By: /s/ Edward R. Reines
Edward R. Reines
[e-mail]
Jared Bobrow
[e-mail]
Sonal N. Mehta
[e-mail]
Aaron Y. Huang
[e-mail]
Andrew L. Perito
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Doug W. McClellan
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jennifer H. Doan
[e-mail]
Joshua R. Thane
[e-mail]
HALTOM & DOAN
6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
Texarkana, TX 75503
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Bar No. 03895700)
[e-mail]
Deborah J. Race (Bar No. 16448700)
[e-mail]
IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY
6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500
Tyler, TX 75703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
Amazon.com, Inc., and Yahoo! Inc.

-5-

By: /s/ Thomas L. Duston (w/ permission)
Thomas L. Duston
<[e-mail]>
Anthony S. Gabrielson
<[e-mail]>
Scott A. Sanderson (pro hac vice)
<[e-mail]>
MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
6300 Willis Tower
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Eric H. Findlay (Bar No. 00789886)
<[e-mail]>
Brian Craft (Bar No. 04972020)
<[e-mail]>
FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP
6760 Old Jacksonville Highway
Suite 101
Tyler, TX 75703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant CDW LLC

-6-

By: /s/ Edwin R. DeYoung (w/ permission)
Edwin R. DeYoung (Bar No. 05673000)
<[e-mail]>
Roy W. Hardin (Bar No. 08968300)
<[e-mail]>
Roger Brian Cowie (Bar No. 00783886)
<[e-mail]>
M. Scott Fuller (Bar No. 24036607)
<[e-mail]>
Galyn Gafford (Bar No. 24040938)
<[e-mail]>
Jason E. Mueller
<[e-mail]>
LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
Dallas, TX 75201-6776
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Eric L. Sophir (pro hac vice)
<[e-mail]>
KING & SPALDING LLP
1301 K. Street. NW, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3364
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Citigroup Inc.

-7-

By: /s/ Sasha G. Rao (w/ permission)
James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Sasha G. Rao (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Mark D. Rowland
[e-mail]
Brandon Stroy (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Rebecca R. Hermes (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Han Xu (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
Telephone: [phone]
Fascimile: [phone]
Michael E. Jones (Bar No. 10929400)
[e-mail]
Allen F. Gardner (Bar No. 24043679)
[e-mail]
POTTER MINTON
A Professional Corporation
110 N. College, Suite 500
Tyler, TX 75702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC

-8-

By: /s/ Brian Carpenter (w/ permission)
Christopher M. Joe
[e-mail]
Brian Carpenter
[e-mail]
Eric W. Buether
[e-mail]
Buether Joe & Carpenter
1700 Pacific, Suite 2390
Dallas, TX 95201
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc.

-9-

By: /s/ Neil J. McNabnay (w/ permission)
Thomas M. Melsheimer (Bar No.
13922550)
<[e-mail]>
Neil J. McNabnay (Bar No. 24002583)
<[e-mail]>
Carl E. Bruce (Bar No. 24036278)
<[e-mail]>
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice)
<[e-mail]>
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
One Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02110-1878
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.

-10-

By: /s/ Kate Hutchins
Mark G. Matuschak (pro hac vice)
<[e-mail]>
Donald R. Steinberg (pro hac vice)
<[e-mail]>
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Kate Hutchins (pro hac vice)
<[e-mail]>
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Daniel V. Williams, (pro hac vice)
<[e-mail]>
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Michael E. Richardson (Bar No. 24002838)
<[e-mail]>
BECK REDDEN & SECREST
1221 McKinney, Suite 4500
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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-