Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 134

REPLY, filed by Defendant Facebook Inc, TO RESPONSE to #63 MOTION to Dismiss Party or Sever for Misjoinder Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21 (Durbin, Christopher)

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 v. AOL, INC., et al., Defendants. INTERVAL LICENSING LLC, Plaintiff,

HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case No. No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP FACEBOOK'S JOINDER IN DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC. AND YOUTUBE, LLC'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS OR SEVER FOR MISJOINDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 20 AND 21 NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR: November 12, 2010 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Defendant Facebook Inc. ("Facebook") respectfully joins in Defendants Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC's Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss or Sever for Misjoinder Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, submitted concurrently with this joinder. I. ARGUMENT Interval Licensing LLC's ("Interval") actions so far in this litigation severely undermine its unsupported statements regarding the similarity of the defendants' products and its infringement claims. The only commonality Interval can identify among the defendants is that: (1) they operate websites; and (2) they are all accusing of infringing one or more of the asserted patents. By suing different defendants on different patents, Interval has failed to meet the
FACEBOOK, INC.'S JOINDER IN GOOGLE'S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS OR SEVER 2:10 -cv-01385-MJP COOLEY LLP 719 SECOND AVE., STE. 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 /[phone]

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

requirements for permissive joinder under Rule 20. Thus, defendants, and in particular Facebook, will be prejudiced by joinder in this case. Interval's Complaint accuses some, but not all, defendants of infringement of three of its four patents, contradicting its assertion that each of the defendants' websites operate in "nearly identical fashion" and that the defendants "infringe the same claims of the same patents." (Compare Compl., D.I. 1 with Opp., D.I. 122 at 2-3.) Instead, Interval chose to assert four patents against only four of the defendants, two patents against ten of the defendants, and to assert only one patent against Facebook ­ the '682 patent. Interval's illustration of OfficeMax's website's features' alleged infringement of an unspecified claim of the '507 patent actually negates its argument. Interval claims that all eleven defendants infringe the '507 in the same way ­ yet Interval has not even accused Facebook of infringing the '507 patent. Evidently, even Interval cannot keep its infringement cases against each defendant straight. This example further fails to identify any remaining defendants' specific websites and relevant functionality, depriving the Court of the opportunity to make an informed determination as to the actual similarity between defendants. Nor can defendants adequately respond to this unsupported assertion, as Interval has refused to amend its Complaint to set forth which websites, and which features of those websites, it is accusing of infringement. By refusing to provide information as to specific accused products, Interval has entirely failed to show that its cause of action against at least eleven distinct "websites" actually "aris[e] out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. Finally, as Facebook has been accused of infringing only one patent, it will be particularly prejudiced should the cases not be severed. As the vast majority of the issues raised in an unsevered case will have no relevance to Facebook, this case will be "overwhelmed" by issues not relevant to Facebook. See WIAV Networks, Inc. v. 3COM Corp., No. C 10-03448 WHA, 2010 WL 3895047, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010). Similarly, Facebook and each of "the accused defendants ­ who will surely have competing interests and strategies ­ are also entitled to present individualized assaults on questions of non-infringement, invalidity, and claim construction." Id. at *2.
FACEBOOK, INC.'S JOINDER IN GOOGLE'S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS OR SEVER 2:10-cv-01385-MJP

2.

COOLEY LLP 719 SECOND AVE., STE. 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 /[phone]

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

Much of Interval's argument relies on its assertion that, because it believes that the yet unnamed products work in similar ways, claim construction, invalidity, and infringement issues will also be similar. However, this is not a case where the parties are accused of infringing the same industry standard, or of infringing through use of the same computer software program ­ each defendant in this case has different products and services which it has developed independently and which are likely to have been built in, and function in, different ways. While Interval may wish to face one unified set of arguments in opposition to its positions on infringement, claim construction, and invalidity, it forsook this opportunity by choosing to sue eleven distinct, competing defendants on varying combinations of patents. Although Facebook is more than willing to work with the other defendants to maximize judicial efficiency, such efficiency cannot come at the expense of Facebook or any other defendant's ability to fully defend itself in this litigation. Thus Facebook's motion should be granted. DATED this 12th day of November, 2010. COOLEY LLP /s/ Christopher B. Durbin Christopher B. Durbin (WSBA #41159) COOLEY LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Michael G. Rhodes (pro hac vice) Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice) Mark R. Weinstein (pro hac vice) Christen M.R. Dubois (pro hac vice) Elizabeth L. Stameshkin (pro hac vice) 3175 Hanover St. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

FACEBOOK, INC.'S JOINDER IN GOOGLE'S REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS OR SEVER 2:10-cv-01385-MJP

3.

COOLEY LLP 719 SECOND AVE., STE. 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 /[phone]

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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2:10 -CV-01385-MJP

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 12, 2010, I electronically filed the following document(s): FACEBOOK'S JOINDER IN DEFENDANTS GOOGLE INC. AND YOUTUBE, LLC'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO DISMISS OR SEVER FOR MISJOINDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 20 AND 21 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send an email notification of such filing to the attorney(s) of record listed below. Justin A. Nelson Matthew R. Berry Edgar Guy Sargent SUSMAN GODFREY 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Attorneys for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC Eric J. Enger Michael F. Heim Nathan J. Davis HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 6710 Houston, TX 77002 Attorneys for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC Max L. Tribble SUSMAN GODFREY 1000 Lousiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Attorneys for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC By Electronic CM/ECF: Cortney S.Alexander Gerald F. Ivey Robert L. Burns Elliott C. Cook FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20910 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

1.

COOLEY LLP 719 SECOND AVE., STE. 900 SEATTLE, WA 98104 / [phone]

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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2:10 -cv-01385-MJP
COOLEY LLP 719 Second Ave., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 / [phone]

Brian M. Berliner Neil L. Yang O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1050 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc. David Almeling George A. Riley O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc. Jeremy E. Roller Scott T. Wilsdon YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO PLLC 818 Stewart Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Attorneys for Defendant Apple, Inc. J. Christopher Carraway John D. Vandenberg Kristin L. Cleveland Klaus H. Hamm KLARQUIST SPARKMAN 121SW Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 Attorneys for eBay, Inc.; Netflix, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; and Staples, Inc. Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr. Christopher Wion DANIELSON HARRIGAN LEYH & TOLLEFSON 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98104 Attorneys for eBay, Inc.; Netflix, Inc.; Office Depot, Inc.; and Staples, Inc.

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

2.

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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2:10 -cv-01385-MJP

Aneelah Afzali Scott A.W. Johnson Shannon M. Jost STOKES LAWRENCE 800 5th Avenue, Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98104-3179 Attorneys for Defendants Google, Inc. and YouTube LLC Dimitrios T. Drivas John Handy Kevin X. McGann Aaron Chase WHITE & CASE 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Attorneys for Defendants Google, Inc. and YouTube LLC Warren S. Heit Wendy Schepler WHITE & CASE 3000 El Camino Real Bldg. 5, 9th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attorneys for Defendants Google, Inc. and YouTube LLC Kevin C. Baumgardner Steven W. Fogg CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE 1001 4th Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 Attorneys for Defendant OfficeMax Inc. Jeffrey D. Neumeyer OFFICEMAS INCORPORATED 1111 West Jefferson Street P.O. Box 50 Boise, ID 83728 Attorneys for Defendant OfficeMax Inc. 3.

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail]

COOLEY LLP 719 Second Ave., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 / [phone]

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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2:10 -cv-01385-MJP
COOLEY LLP 719 Second Ave., Ste. 900 Seattle, WA 98104 / [phone]

Douglas S. Rupert John L. Letchinger WILDMAN, HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 Attorneys for Defendant OfficeMax Inc. Eric W. Ow Francis Ho Michael I. Kreeger Michael A. Jacobs Richard S. J. Hung MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Defendants Yahoo! Inc. Mark P. Walters Dario A. Machleidt FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP 1191 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Attorneys for Defendants Yahoo! Inc.

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

By Electronic CM/ECF: [e-mail] [e-mail]

/s/Christopher B. Durbin Christopher B. Durbin (WSBA #41159) COOLEY LLP 719 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104-1732 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant FACEOOK, INC.

4.