Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

MEMORANDUM in Support Motion for Summary Judgment of No Anticipation

C.D. Cal.March 4, 2019

SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster (SBN 181067) mfenster@raklaw.com Benjamin T. Wang (SBN 228712) bwang@raklaw.com Kent N. Shum (SBN 259189) kshum@raklaw.com 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 826-7474 Fax: (310) 826-6991 DESMARAIS LLP Alan S. Kellman (admitted pro hac vice) Richard M. Cowell (admitted pro hac vice) C. Austin Ginnings (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer M. Przybylski (admitted pro hac vice) 230 Park Avenue New York, New York 10169 Tel: (212) 351-3400 Fax: (212) 351-3401 Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917) 101 California Street, Suite 3070 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HULU, LLC, Defendant. Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) PLAINTIFF SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY THE HOOPER REFERENCE Date: April 15, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt Courtroom: 10B Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:11629 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 15, 2019 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, before the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, located in Courtroom 10B at First Street Courthouse, 350 W. First Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC (“Sound View”) will and hereby moves the Court for an Order granting summary judgment of no invalidity based on Defendant Hulu, LLC’s (“Hulu”) asserted prior art Hooper Reference. Sound View brings the motion following a conference of counsel on February 25, 2019, in accordance with Local Rule 7-3. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum, the concurrently filed Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law, the concurrently filed Declaration of Jennifer M. Przybylski, the exhibits concurrently filed, and any other evidence and argument that may be presented prior to or at the hearing on this matter. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:11630 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Dated: March 4, 2019 By: /s/ Kent N. Shum RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster Benjamin T. Wang Kent N. Shum 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 826-7474 Fax: (310) 826-6991 mfenster@raklaw.com bwang@raklaw.com kshum@raklaw.com Of Counsel: DESMARAIS LLP Alan S. Kellman (admitted pro hac vice) Richard M. Cowell (admitted pro hac vice) C. Austin Ginnings (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer M. Przybylski (admitted pro hac vice) 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Tel: (212) 351-3400 Fax: (212) 351-3401 akellman@desmaraisllp.com rcowell@desmaraisllp.com aginnings@desmaraisllp.com jprzybylski@desmaraisllp.com Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917) 101 California Street, Suite 3070 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 pmagic@desmaraisllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:11631 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 1 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster (SBN 181067) mfenster@raklaw.com Benjamin T. Wang (SBN 228712) bwang@raklaw.com Kent N. Shum (SBN 259189) kshum@raklaw.com 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 826-7474 Fax: (310) 826-6991 DESMARAIS LLP Alan S. Kellman (admitted pro hac vice) Richard M. Cowell (admitted pro hac vice) C. Austin Ginnings (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer M. Pryzbylski (admitted pro hac vice) 230 Park Avenue New York, New York 10169 Tel: (212) 351-3400 Fax: (212) 351-3401 Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917) 101 California Street, Suite 3070 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HULU, LLC, Defendant. Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY THE HOOPER REFERENCE Date: April 15, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt Courtroom: 10B Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:11632 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER i Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... II II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2 III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 2 IV. ARGUMENT................................................................................................... 3 A. Each Asserted Claim Of The ’213 Patent Requires That The Helper Server Receive A Request For An SM Object From A Client. .................................................................................................... 4 B. Dr. Chase Identifies The “Server Segment Cache” And “Video Server” As The Alleged “Helper Server,” And The Request From The CPE To The Gateway Server As The “Request For An SM Object.” ................................................................................................. 4 C. The Components That Dr. Chase Identifies As Helper Servers Do Not Receive Requests For SM Objects As Required By The Claims. ................................................................................................... 7 D. The Patent Trial And Appeal Board Also Concluded That The Video Server And Server Segment Cache Of Hooper Are Not Helper Servers. ...................................................................................... 9 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 12 Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:11633 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER ii Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases ............................................................................................................... Page(s) Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 3 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................................................................ 3 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ........................................................................................ 2 Game & Tech. Co. v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-0499-MLH, 2018 WL 3198435 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2018) ........ 13 Gemstart Dev. Corp. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 12-cv-4756-MRP, 2013 WL 12114626 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) ............ 4 Labyrinth Optical Techs. LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., No. 12-cv-00759- AG, 2015 WL 12681652 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) ........................................ 3 Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc., 537 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................... 4 Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 13 Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 2, 3 Precision Fabrics Grp., Inc. v. TieTex Int’l, Ltd., No. 1:13-cv-645, 2016 WL 6839394 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2016) ................ 12 Statutes 35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 3 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) .................................................................................................. 2 Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:11634 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 1 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC (“Sound View”) moves for summary judgment that Defendant Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”) lacks sufficient proof to establish that U.S Patent No. 5,414,455 (the “Hooper Reference”) (Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2)1 anticipates the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 (the “’213 Patent”) (Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1).2 There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the Hooper Reference does not disclose the “Helper Server” recited in the claims of the ’213 Patent. Hulu points to two components in the Hooper Reference as “helper servers”- the “Video Server” and the “Server Segment Cache.” Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Chase Opening Rpt.) ¶ 98; Ex. 5 (Hulu’s IPR Petition) at 31; Uncontroverted Fact (“UF”) 14. However, there is no genuine dispute that the Video Server and the Server Segment Cache do not “receiv[e] a request for an SM object from one of said plurality of clients” as required by ’213 Patent claim 16(a) or “service a further request for said one of said plurality of SM objects received at said one of said plurality of helper servers” as required by claim 1(c). Instead, as Hulu’s expert admitted, an entirely separate component-the “Gateway Server”-receives the putative requests for an SM object from clients. See Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4 (Chase Deposition Tr.) at 224:15-17 (“Q: You agree that the gateway server is what receives requests from a client? A: That is my recollection.”). The Video Server and the Server Segment Cache never receive such requests; instead, they merely communicate with the Gateway Server separately. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4 (Chase Deposition Tr.) at 226:14-21 (“Q: You agree that the video server receives commands from the gateway server; correct? . . . A: Yes.”); Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Hooper Reference) at HULU-SOUNDVIEW-00007962 col. 12:21-36 (the Server Segment Cache is connected to the Gateway Server “for communicating control signals”). In fact, the Patent Office, in the context of inter 1 “Przybylski Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Jennifer Przybylski, concurrently filed. 2 The ’213 Patent asserted claims are independent claims 1 and 16, and dependent claims 7 and 8. UF 4-8. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:11635 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 2 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 partes review proceedings, rejected the exact same argument Hulu now makes in this case-that the Hooper Reference allegedly discloses “helper servers” that receive a request for an SM object by disclosing a Video Server and a Server Segment Cache. Because the Hooper reference does not disclose all limitations of the asserted claims, summary judgment that the Hooper Reference does not anticipate the asserted claims of the ’213 Patent is appropriate. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding a prior art reference cannot anticipate unless it discloses all limitations of a claim arranged or combined in the same way within the four corners of the document). II. BACKGROUND On August 31, 2018, Hulu served the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Jeffrey S. Chase. UF 1. In that report, Dr. Chase opined that the Hooper Reference anticipates all asserted claims of the ’213 Patent. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Chase Opening Rpt.) §§ VIII.A-B; UF 2-4. On May 17, 2018, Hulu filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) against claims 1, 7-9, and 13-15 of the ’213 Patent, asserting, inter alia, that Hooper in view of another reference (the “Chan Reference”) rendered the ’213 Patent obvious. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 5 (’213 IPR Petition) at 27; UF 27, 29. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denied institution of the IPR, finding the Hooper Reference failed to disclose the claimed helper server. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 6 (’213 PTAB Denial of IPR Institution) at 20-23; UF 28, 32. III. LEGAL STANDARDS “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is “material” only if it might affect the outcome of the case, and a dispute of material fact is only “genuine” if the evidence is such that “a reasonable jury could return a Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:11636 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 3 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 verdict for the nonmoving party.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A patent is presumed valid. See 35 U.S.C. § 282. The “burden of establishing invalidity as to any claim of a patent rests upon the party asserting such invalidity” by “clear and convincing evidence.” Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Under the Patent Act, “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . the invention was . . . patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (2000). “[U]nless a reference discloses within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Labyrinth Optical Techs. LLC v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., No. 12-cv-00759-AG, 2015 WL 12681652, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) (quoting Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371). A court may decide the issue of anticipation on summary judgment if the record reveals no genuine dispute of material fact. Gemstart Dev. Corp. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 12-cv-4756-MRP, 2013 WL 12114626, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) (citing Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc., 537 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). IV. ARGUMENT The Video Server and the Server Segment Cache disclosed in the Hooper Reference-i.e., the components that Dr. Chase identifies as the “helper server”- cannot be the “helper server” required by the claims because they do not receive a request for a streaming media object, let alone from a “client,” as required by both independent claims 1 and 16.3 UF 9-10. Because the Hooper Reference does not disclose each and every element of the asserted claims of the ’213 Patent, no reasonable 3 Because claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 1, those claims are also not met by the Hooper Reference for the same reasons. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:11637 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 4 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 juror could find the Hooper Reference anticipates the ’213 Patent, and summary judgment of no anticipation is appropriate. A. Each Asserted Claim Of The ’213 Patent Requires That The Helper Server Receive A Request For An SM Object From A Client. Independent claims 1 and 16 both require that a “helper server” receive a request for an “SM object,” and that the request come from a “client”: ’213 Patent Claim 1 ’213 Patent Claim 16 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1 (’213 Patent) (emphasis added); see UF 9-10. B. Dr. Chase Identifies The “Server Segment Cache” And “Video Server” As The Alleged “Helper Server,” And The Request From The CPE To The Gateway Server As The “Request For An SM Object.” The relevant components of the Hooper system are depicted by Figures 1 and 2, and described in the specification as follows: Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:11638 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 5 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Hooper Reference) at HULU-SOUNDVIEW- 00007947, -7958 col. 3:8-16 (emphasis added); UF 12. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Hooper Reference) at HULU-SOUNDVIEW- 00007948, -7958 col. 3:64-4:9 (emphasis added); UF 12. Hulu identifies the “Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)” (depicted as 10 in Figure 1) of Hooper as the alleged “clients” of the ’213 Patent claims: Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:11639 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 6 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Chase Opening Rpt.) ¶ 100 (emphasis added); UF 13. Hulu identifies the “Gateway Server” (depicted as 21 in Figure 2) and “Library Server” (depicted as 23 in Figure 2) of Hooper as the alleged “Content Server”: Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4 (Chase Deposition Tr.) at 223:4-7; UF 15. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Chase Opening Rpt.) ¶ 101 (emphasis added); UF 15. Hulu identifies the “Video Server” (depicted as 22 in Figure 2) and/or “Server Segment Cache” (depicted as 24 in Figure 2) of Hooper as the alleged “Helper Server”: Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4 (Chase Deposition Tr.) at 223:18-21. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Chase Opening Rpt.) ¶ 98 (emphasis added). See Ex. 5 (’213 IPR Petition) at 30-31 (identifying the Video Server and Server Segment Cache as helper servers in the IPR Petition); UF 14, 30.4 In Dr. Chase’s analysis of Claim element 1(a), regarding “servicing a first request received from one of said plurality of clients . . . for one of said plurality of SM objects,” 4 Dr. Chase’s annotations of Hooper Figure 2 in his expert report identify the gateway server, library server, and video server as the alleged “content server,” and only the “server segment cache” as a “helper server.” Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Chase Opening Rpt.) at ¶ 101. Elsewhere in his report, he identifies the “library server” as the alleged “content server” and the “server segment cache” and “video server” as helper servers. Id. ¶|¶ 98, 101. At his deposition, Dr. Chase confirmed that his Figure 2 annotations were “misleading,” that he was “confused by [his] own figure,” and that he intended to identify the components as described above. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4 (Chase Deposition Tr.) at 222:13-223:21. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:11640 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 7 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 he identifies the request from the CPE to the IGU of the Gateway Server as a request for the putative SM Object: Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Chase Opening Rpt.) ¶ 110. C. The Components That Dr. Chase Identifies As Helper Servers Do Not Receive Requests For SM Objects As Required By The Claims. Neither the “Video Server” nor the “Server Segment Cache” receive requests for multimedia objects, let alone from a client, as required by the claims. In the Hooper Reference, the Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) (the alleged “client”) sends requests for content (the putative requests for SM objects) to the Interactive Gateway Unit (IGU) contained within the Gateway Server: Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Hooper Reference) at HULU-SOUNDVIEW-00007958 col. 4:14-22 (emphasis added); UF 17-18, 22. Hulu’s expert, Dr. Chase, confirmed that aspect of the Hooper Reference: Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Chase Opening Rpt.) ¶ 110 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4(Chase Deposition Tr.) at 224:15-17 (emphasis added). Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:11641 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 8 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 (emphasis added). See Przybylski Decl. Ex. 5 (’213 IPR Petition) at 38 (same); UF 17-18, 22. Hulu does not identify the Gateway Server-or the IGU contained within the Gateway Server- as an alleged “helper server.” See, e.g., Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4 (Chase Deposition Tr.) at 223:4-7 (identifying the “Gateway Server” as a “content server”); UF 16. No genuine dispute exists that Hooper’s Video Server and Server Segment Cache do not receive the putative requests for SM objects, let alone receive such requests from the putative client (the CPE). Instead, the Video Server receives “commands” from the Gateway Server’s server management unit, or “SMU”: Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Hooper Reference) at HULU-SOUNDVIEW-00007958 col. 4:14-22 (emphasis added). Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4 (Chase Deposition Tr.) at 226:14-21 (emphasis added). See Przybylski Decl. Ex. 6 (’213 PTAB Denial of IPR Institution) at 20-21; UF 17, 19, 23-24. If the optional Server Segment Cache is included in the system, the Server Segment Cache similarly receives control signals-not the requests for an SM object- from the Gateway Server, not the client: Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:11642 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 9 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Hooper Reference) at HULU-SOUNDVIEW- 00007954 (emphasis added). Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Hooper Reference) at HULU-SOUNDVIEW- 00007962 col. 12:21-36 (emphasis added). See Przybylski Decl. Ex. 6 (’213 PTAB Denial of IPR Institution) at 20-21; UF 17, 20- 21, 25. Therefore, the Hooper Reference does not disclose the step of receiving a request for an SM object at the helper server, and cannot anticipate the asserted claims of the ’213 Patent. D. The Patent Trial And Appeal Board Also Concluded That The Video Server And Server Segment Cache Of Hooper Are Not Helper Servers. Hulu presented the Patent Trial and Appeal Board with the same assertions related to the Hooper Reference that Dr. Chase now presents-i.e., that the Video Server and the Server Segment Cache are the “helper servers”-and the PTAB concluded that the Hooper Reference failed to disclose a “helper server.” Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:11643 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 10 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Hulu argued in its IPR petition that the Video Server and Server Segment Cache were helper servers: Przybylski Decl. Ex. 5 (’213 IPR Petition) at 31 (emphasis added); UF 14, 30-31. The PTAB determined that “claims 1 and 13 each require receiving a request for a streaming multimedia (SM) object at a help [sic] server (HS).”5 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 6 (’213 PTAB Denial of IPR Institution) at 20; UF 11. The PTAB found that Hulu’s argument failed to show that Hooper disclosed a helper server that received a request for an SM object, and that under Hulu’s arguments, the Gateway Server was the component that received the putative requests: 5 Although Hulu did not assert the Hooper Reference against claim 16 of the ’213 Patent in its IPR petition, the PTAB’s analysis equally applies to claim 16, which similarly requires receiving a request for an SM object at a helper server, as described above. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:11644 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 11 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 6 (’213 PTAB Denial of IPR Institution) at 20-21 (emphasis added); UF 31-32. Although not binding on this Court, the PTAB’s findings are instructive here because they acknowledge the fact that components of the Gateway Server, not the Video Server or Server Segment Cache, receive requests for the putative SM objects. See Precision Fabrics Grp., Inc. v. TieTex Int’l, Ltd., No. 1:13-cv-645, 2016 WL 6839394, at *9 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2016) (granting summary judgment of no invalidity, considering “the PTAB’s refusal to institute an inter partes review is indicative of the weakness of TieTex’s claim of invalidity . . . as the PTAB will not authorize an inter partes review unless ‘there is a reasonable likelihood’ that a petitioner would prevail in proving invalidity”); c.f., Game & Tech. Co. v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-0499- Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:11645 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 12 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 MLH, 2018 WL 3198435, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2018) (considering PTAB’s reasoning and analysis in denying institution of IPR as persuasive when considering claim construction positions). Moreover, the PTAB holds IPR petitioners-such as Hulu-to a lower burden than the clear and convincing burden of proof of invalidity that a defendant bears in district court. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”); Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 F.3d 829, 840 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (identifying a lower standard of proof for invalidity in IPR compared to in district court). Here, based on Hulu’s identification of components in the Hooper Reference that indisputably do not receive requests for SM objects, let alone from clients, no reasonable juror would be able to find that Hulu has met its burden. Thus, summary judgment of no anticipation based on the Hooper Reference is appropriate. V. CONCLUSION Because the Hooper Reference does not disclose the “helper servers” required by the claims, the Court should grant summary judgment that Hooper Reference does not anticipate the ’213 Patent. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 18 of 20 Page ID #:11646 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 13 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 Dated: March 4, 2019 By: /s/ Kent N. Shum RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Marc A. Fenster Benjamin T. Wang Kent N. Shum 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90025 Tel: (310) 826-7474 Fax: (310) 826-6991 mfenster@raklaw.com bwang@raklaw.com kshum@raklaw.com Of Counsel: DESMARAIS LLP Alan S. Kellman (admitted pro hac vice) Richard M. Cowell (admitted pro hac vice) C. Austin Ginnings (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer M. Przybylski (admitted pro hac vice) 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Tel: (212) 351-3400 Fax: (212) 351-3401 akellman@desmaraisllp.com rcowell@desmaraisllp.com aginnings@desmaraisllp.com jprzybylski@desmaraisllp.com Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917) 101 California Street, Suite 3070 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Fax: (415) 573-1901 pmagic@desmaraisllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 19 of 20 Page ID #:11647 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO ANTICIPATION BY HOOPER 14 Case No. LACV17-04146 JAK (PLAx) 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 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule 5-3.2. Therefore, this document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d) and Local Rule 5-3.2, all other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email on March 4, 2019. ____/s/ Kent N. Shum_________________ Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 242 Filed 03/04/19 Page 20 of 20 Page ID #:11648