Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al

MEMORANDUM in Support of IP Bridge's Jury Instructions on Priority Date of the '239 Patent

D. Del.November 6, 2018

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Plaintiff, v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, a Chinese Corporation, TCT Mobile Limited, a Hong Kong Corporation, TCT Mobile (US), Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and TCT Mobile, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. C.A. No. 15-634-JFB-SRF IP BRIDGE’S BENCH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IP BRIDGE’S JURY INSTRUCTIONS ON PRIORITY DATE OF THE ‘239 PATENT YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP Elena C. Norman (No. 4780) Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093) Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816) Rodney Square 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 571-6600 enorman@ycst.com agaza@ycst.com swilson@ycst.com Counsel for Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 Case 1:15-cv-00634-JFB-SRF Document 474 Filed 11/06/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 22308 OF COUNSEL: ROPES & GRAY LLP James R. Batchelder Andrew T. Radsch 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: 650-617-4000 james.batchelder@ropesgray.com andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP Steven Pepe Kevin J. Post Alexander E. Middleton Matthew R. Shapiro 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 Telephone: 212-596-9000 steven.pepe@ropesgray.com kevin.post@ropesgray.com alexander.middleton@ropesgray.com matthew.shapiro@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP Samuel L. Brenner 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: 617-951-7120 samuel.brenner@ropesgray.com Dated: November 6, 2018 Case 1:15-cv-00634-JFB-SRF Document 474 Filed 11/06/18 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 22309 1 IP Bridge has put forth evidence that U.S. Patent No. 8,385,239 (“’239 patent”) is entitled to a priority date based on European Application No. 8008539 (“EP539”), to which the ’239 patent claims priority. TCL appears to contest the priority claim. As such, it is necessary for the jury to decide whether the ’239 patent is in fact entitled to claim priority to EP539. Accordingly, IP Bridge respectfully requests that the final jury instructions include an instruction (attached as Exhibit A) instructing the jury that IP Bridge has the burden of putting forth evidence that EP359 describes and enables the asserted claims of the ’239 patent and that, if IP Bridge meets this burden, TCL then has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the ’239 patent is not entitled to the earlier priority date. IP Bridge’s proposal is consistent with settled law. In order to show that it is entitled to benefit from the filing of an earlier foreign application to antedate prior art, the plaintiff “has the burden of going forward with evidence . . . that it is not prior art because the asserted claim is entitled to the benefit of a filing date prior to the alleged prior art.” Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008). To satisfy this burden, the plaintiff must produce “sufficient evidence and argument to show that an ancestor to the [asserted patent] with a filing date prior to the [alleged prior art’s] date[] contains a written description that supports all the [asserted claims].” Id. See also U.S.C. § 119(a). Once the plaintiff meets its burden, the defendant then has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the patent claims are not entitled to the benefit of the related application filing date. Id. at 1328 (“burden of going forward again shifts to the proponent of the invalidity defense” to persuade the court “by clear and convincing evidence” “that [patentee] is not entitled to the benefit of the earlier filing date”). Here, IP Bridge has put forth uncontested evidence to warrant an instruction on this issue. Where the plaintiff provides evidence that the “specification of the [asserted patent] is nearly Case 1:15-cv-00634-JFB-SRF Document 474 Filed 11/06/18 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 22310 2 identical to that of the [earlier patent application to which patentee is claiming priority],” the plaintiff has adequately shown “why the written description in the earlier application supports the claims at issue,” and thus the “[p]laintiff meets its burden.” Motio, Inc. v. BSP Software, LLC, 2015 WL 9308315, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2015). This result makes sense: An issued U.S. Patent is presumed valid, and is thus presumed to satisfy all statutory requirements including the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See 35 U.S.C. § 282; Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A party asserting invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 112 bears no less a burden and no fewer responsibilities than any other patent challenger … to show by clear and convincing evidence that [an Asserted Patent] was invalid.”); Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Wix Filtration Corp., 2008 WL 1701683, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2008) (“Once issued, patent claims are presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. The presumption of validity includes a presumption that the patent complies with § 112.”). If two disclosures are identical, then, by definition, that common disclosure will either describe and enable claims equally, or it will not. Thus, where an issued U.S. Patent and its foreign priority document share the same disclosure, it follows that the foreign priority document, like the U.S. Patent, is also presumed to contain proper § 112 support for the claims. IP Bridge’s technical expert, Dr. Min, put forth evidence at trial that the EP539 to which the ’239 patent claims priority is “the same” as the ’239 patent specification.1 Trial Tr. (Min) 869:14-23; 1008:20-1009:19. Dr. Min also testified that he “compared” the “specification” of 1 To the extent that TCL asserts that IP Bridge is entitled only to the foreign publication date, and not the foreign application date, this is contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 119, which makes clear that a patent is entitled to the “date on which the application for patent for the same invention was first filed in such foreign country.” 35 U.S.C. § 119(a); see also 35 U.S.C. § 365(a); see also MPEP 1893.03(b)-(c) (9th ed. Rev. Jan. 2018). Case 1:15-cv-00634-JFB-SRF Document 474 Filed 11/06/18 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 22311 3 the earlier priority application to “what ha[d] been claimed” in the ’239 patent. Id., 1009:21-1. From this, Dr. Min concluded that the asserted claims of the ’239 patent are described and enabled by EP539 and therefore entitled to a priority date of May 6, 2008. Trial Tr. (Min) 1009:17-1010:2. Given that the EP359 application is the same as the disclosure in the ’239 patent, “it is clear that the [’239 patent] is supported in [EP359] to the same degree as in its own specification.” Motio, 2015 WL 9308315, at *3. IP Bridge thus respectfully requests that its proposed additional instruction on the priority date of the ’239 patent be included in the final instructions read to the jury. Of Counsel: James R. Batchelder Andrew Radsch ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284 james.batchelder@ropesgray.com andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com (650) 617-4000 Steven Pepe Kevin J. Post Matthew R. Shapiro Alexander E. Middleton ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 steven.pepe@ropesgray.com kevin.post@ropesgray.com alexander.middleton@ropesgray.com matthew.shapiro@ropesgray.com (212) 596-9000 YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP /s/ Anne Shea Gaza _ Elena C. Norman (No. 4780) Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093) Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816) Rodney Square 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 571-6600 enorman@ycst.com agaza@ycst.com swilson@ycst.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 Dated: November 6, 2018 Case 1:15-cv-00634-JFB-SRF Document 474 Filed 11/06/18 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 22312 4 Samuel L. Brenner ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199-3600 samuel.brenner@ropesgray.com (617) 951-7000 Case 1:15-cv-00634-JFB-SRF Document 474 Filed 11/06/18 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 22313 01:17600949.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Anne Shea Gaza, hereby certify that on November 6, 2018, I caused to be electronically filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification that such filing is available for viewing and downloading to the following counsel of record: Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 schladweilerb@gtlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants I further certify that on November 6, 2018, I caused the foregoing document to be served via electronic mail upon the above-listed counsel and on the following: Craig Kaufman, Esquire Kevin Jones, Esquire Michael C. Ting, Esquire Ken K. Fung, Esquire TechKnowledge Law Group LLP 100 Marine Parkway Suite 200 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 ckaufman@tklg-llp.com kjones@tklg-llp.com mting@tklg-llp.com kfung@tklg-llp.com Case 1:15-cv-00634-JFB-SRF Document 474 Filed 11/06/18 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 22314 2 01:17600949.1 Edward Han, Esquire John E. Nilsson, Esquire Nicholas M. Nyemah, Esquire Arnold & Porter LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 ed.han@apks.com john.nilsson@apks.com nicholas.nyemah@apks.com Michael D. K. Nguyen, Esquire Arnold & Porter LLP 3000 El Camino Real Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500 Palo Alto, CA 94306-3807 michael.nguyen@apks.com Nicholas Lee, Esquire Arnold & Porter LLP 44th Floor 777 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 nicholas.lee@apks.com Attorneys for Defendants Dated: November 6, 2018 YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP /s/ Anne Shea Gaza Elena C. Norman (No. 4780) Anne Shea Gaza (No. 4093) Samantha G. Wilson (No. 5816) Rodney Square 1000 N. King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 enorman@ycst.com agaza@ycst.com swilson@ycst.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:15-cv-00634-JFB-SRF Document 474 Filed 11/06/18 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 22315