Brief for Defendants-Appellants

153 Pages·2008·3.19 MB·English

Appeal Nos. 2013-1307, 1313
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Cross Appellant,
.
V
AOL INC., GOOGLE INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., GANNETT
COMPANY, INC., AND TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendants-Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
IN CASE NO. 2:2011-cv-512,
JUDGE RAYMOND A. JACKSON.
BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Dave Nelson David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART Emily C. O'Brien
& SULLIVAN, LLP Antonio R. Sistos
500 West Madison St., Suite 2450 Margaret P. Kammerud
Chicago, IL 60661 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
[phone] & SULLIVAN LLP
[phone] (fax) 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants AOL Inc., Google Inc., IAC
Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., and Target Corporation.
(Continued on next page)
CONFIDENTIAL
Daryl L. Joseffer Adam M. Conrad
KING & SPALDING LLP KING & SPALDING LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 100 N Tryon Street
Suite 200 Suite 3900
Washington, D.C. 20006 Charlotte, NC 28202
[phone] [phone]
[phone] (fax) [phone]

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Google Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., et al.

Appeal Nos. 2013-1307, 1313

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants certifies as follows:
1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:
AOL Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Target
Corporation
2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is
not the real party in interest) represented by me is:
Gannett Co., Inc.
3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me
are:
a) AOL Inc. – AOL has no corporate parent. Filings made with the Securities and
Exchange Commission indicate that Dodge & Cox and FMR LLC each own ten
percent (10%) or more of AOL's stock.
b) Google Inc. – None.
c) IAC Search & Media, Inc. – IAC/InterActiveCorp, a publicly traded company,
owns all of the stock of IAC Search & Media, Inc.
d) Gannett Company, Inc. – None.
e) Target Corporation – None.
4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for
the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are
expected to appear in this court are:
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan: David A. Perlson, David L. Bilsker, Robert
Wilson, David A. Nelson, Jennifer Kash, Emily C. O'Brien, Margaret P.
Kammerud, Antonio R. Sistos, Howard Chen, Jennifer Ghaussy, Jennifer Polse,
Joshua L. Sohn, Sarah Agudo; Kaufman & Canoles: Stephen E. Noona; Finnegan
Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner: Robert L. Burns, II.

Dated July 26, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ David A. Perlson
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd floor
San Francisco, CA 94131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[email protected]
Attorney for Defendants-Appellants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................................... 1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 5
A. The Parties ............................................................................................. 5
B. Technology Background ....................................................................... 6
1. The Asserted Patents ................................................................... 6
2. The Prior Art Combined Content Filtering and
Collaborative Filtering in the Search Context ............................ 8
3. The Accused Systems ............................................................... 10
C. The District Court Denies Summary Judgment Without
Explanation .......................................................................................... 12
D. The Parties' Theories at Trial .............................................................. 12
1. Plaintiff's Infringement Theory and Trial Strategy ................... 12
2. Plaintiff's Damages Theory ....................................................... 15
E. The Jury Verdict .................................................................................. 17
F. Defendants' Post-Trial Motions ........................................................... 17
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 17
STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 21
i
01980.51928/5438436.1
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 21
I. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SHOW INFRINGEMENT .................................. 21
A. The Accused Systems Do Not "Combine" Content and
Feedback Data ..................................................................................... 22
B. Plaintiff Failed to Prove the "Filtering the Combined
Information" and "Demand Search" Limitations ................................ 28
1. No Attempt to Show "Filtering the Combined
Information" Under the Plain Reading of the Limitation ......... 29
2. No Mention of "Demand Search" ............................................. 30
C. Defendants Are Entitled to New Trial ................................................ 32
II. THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ............................................... 34
A. All Asserted Claims Are Obvious As A Matter Of Law .................... 34
1. The Prior Art Discloses Every Element of the Asserted
Claims ....................................................................................... 35
2. The Only Supposed Missing Element Would Have Been
an Obvious Addition as a Matter of Law .................................. 36
3. No Secondary Considerations Rebut the Obviousness
Showing .................................................................................... 39
B. Culliss Anticipates All Asserted Claims ............................................. 43
1. Culliss Discloses Content Analysis .......................................... 45
2. Culliss Discloses Filtering ........................................................ 46
III. JMOL OF NO DAMAGES IS REQUIRED ................................................. 48
A. Because Plaintiff Submitted No Evidence of Post-Complaint
Damages, JMOL of No Damages Should be Granted ........................ 49
B. Plaintiff's Damages Theory Should Have Been Excluded .................. 53
ii
01980.51928/5438436.1
1. Plaintiff's Expert Failed To Properly Apportion The
Royalty Base ............................................................................. 53
2. Dr. Becker's Opinions as to the Royalty Rate and Form
Were Based on Non-Comparable Licenses and Ignored
Real-World Transactions Involving the Asserted Patents ........ 57
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 64

iii
01980.51928/5438436.1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
Cases
Agrizap Inc. v. Woodstream Corp.,
520 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 35, 39
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.,
-- F.3d --, 2013 WL 1810852 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2013) ...................................... 40
Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 48
Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
406 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 46
Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 34
Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC,
601 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 10
Comark Comm'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 29
Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .......................................................................... 39
Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
609 F. Supp. 2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009) ................................................................ 55
Decca Ltd. v. U.S.,
544 F.2d 1070 (Ct. Cl. 1976) .............................................................................. 48
Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Philips Corp.,
363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 22, 30
Eolas Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
270 F. Supp. 2d 997 (N.D. Ill. 2003) .................................................................. 32
In re GPAC Inc.,
57 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 41
iv
01980.51928/5438436.1
Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Ref. Co.,
283 U.S. 494 (1931) ............................................................................................ 63
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
685 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 21
Geo. M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int't LLC,
618 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 40
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................ 34
Gregg v. Ham,
678 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 21
Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,
331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003), vacated on other grounds,
545 U.S. 193 (2005) ............................................................................................ 60
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 (2007) ........................................................................................ 3, 34
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................ 15, 53, 56, 59
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 39
Lucent Tech., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 15, 53
Markman v. Lehman,
987 F. Supp. 25 (D. D.C. 1997) .......................................................................... 43
Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.,
317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 21
Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.,
704 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 25
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 38
v
01980.51928/5438436.1
PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc.,
491 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................. 27, 39, 47
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 57
Scantibodies Lab., Inc. v. Immutopics, Inc.,
374 F. App'x 968 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2010) ......................................................... 27
Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea,
-- F.3d -- 2013 WL 3388454 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2013) ........................................ 39
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 45
Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc.,
705 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 34, 41
Sparks v. Gilley Trucking Co.,
992 F.2d 50 (4th Cir. 1993) ................................................................................ 32
Talkington v. Atria Reclamelucifers Fabrieken BV,
152 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 21
Transclean v. Bridgewood Servs.,
290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 48
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
640 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.R.I. 2009) ............................................................... 32, 33
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................15, 53, 54, 56, 57
United States v. Buck,
324 F.3d 786 (5th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 51
Veritas Operating Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.,
562 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (W.D. Wash. 2008) ......................................................... 42
Weisgram v. Marley Co.,
528 U.S. 440 (2000) .......................................................................... 48, 51, 52, 62
vi
01980.51928/5438436.1