Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to of No Invalidity Based on the Rejaie Reference

C.D. Cal.March 5, 2019

SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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. 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 INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE 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 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:14753 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 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 Rejaie 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 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:14754 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 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 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:14755 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 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) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE 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 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:14756 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 ........................................................................................... 1 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2 III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................... 2 IV. ARGUMENT................................................................................................... 3 A. No Proof Exists That The Rejaie Reference Was Publicly Available Before The Filing Dates Of The ’213 And ’796 Patents. .... 4 B. Hulu Cannot Cure Or Render Moot Its Failure Of Proof Regarding The Rejaie Reference Via Its Expert’s Cursory Statement That His Opinions Regarding The Rejaie Reference Also “Apply” To Another Document By The Same Author. ............................................ 6 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 11 Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:14757 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 4 Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ..................................................................... 11 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ........................................................................................ 3 Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-cv-05008 NC, 2016 WL 6427850 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016) ..... 2, 6, 7 Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Romeo & Juliette, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-02812-ODW, 2017 WL 2604086 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2017) ..... 4 Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 14-cv-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2016)4, 6, 11 Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Mich. 2003) .......................................................... 6 ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ............................................................. 6 Rubin ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Vista Del Sol Health Servs., Inc., 80 F. Supp. 3d 1058 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................... 10 Schumer v. Lab. Comput. Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................................... 11 SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................... 2, 4 TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................... 4 Statutes 35 U.S.C. § 282 .......................................................................................................... 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) .................................................................................................. 3 Fed. R. Evid. 801 ....................................................................................................... 5 Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:14758 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 Reza Rejaie, et al., “Proxy Caching Mechanism for Multimedia Playback Streams in the Internet,” (the “Rejaie Reference”) (Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3)1 is prior art to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,708,213 (the “’213 Patent”) and 6,757,796 (the “’796 Patent”). Hulu relies on the Rejaie Reference in combination with other references to assert that the ’213 and ’796 Patents are invalid. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Chase Opening Report) §§ VIII.D-E, X.B, X.D; Uncontroverted Fact (“UF”) 2-9. Because Hulu cannot prove that the Rejaie Reference was publicly available, the Court should grant summary judgment that the Rejaie Reference is not prior art and that the ’213 and ’796 Patents are therefore not invalid on the basis of any opinions relying on the Rejaie Reference. In order to use a document as prior art, a defendant must produce evidence that the document was publicly available before the filing date of the asserted patent. SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008). But Hulu failed to produce evidence that the Rejaie Reference was publicly available before the priority dates of the ’213 Patent (December 6, 1999) or ’796 Patent (May 15, 2000). Przybylski Decl. ¶ 5; UF 11-15. Although the document bears a date on its cover- January 22, 1999-Hulu has produced no evidence that shows that the date on the document actually means that the document was publicly available on that date or any other date. See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-cv-05008 NC, 2016 WL 6427850 at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016) (granting summary judgment of no invalidity where defendant did “not put forth any evidence that the date on the document refers to its public dissemination date”). In an attempt to hedge against the possible inadmissibility of the Rejaie Reference, Hulu’s expert mentions in passing, without any analysis, that a later-dated document by the same 1 “Przybylski Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Jennifer Przybylski, concurrently filed. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:14759 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 author (“Rejaie II”) would also support a finding of invalidity. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1 (Chase Opening Rpt.) ¶ 189; UF 16. But Hulu similarly produced no proof of public availability of that document. UF 29-39. And such a conclusory mention of an additional document would be legally insufficient in any case to allow Hulu to meets its burden of proving invalidity. Since Hulu cannot prove public availability of the Rejaie Reference, Hulu cannot use it (alone or in combination with other art) as a basis for invalidity. Thus, summary judgment of no invalidity based on the Rejaie Reference is appropriate. II. BACKGROUND On August 31, 2018, Hulu served the Opening Expert Report of Dr. Jeffrey S. Chase, containing Dr. Chase’s invalidity positions. UF 1. This report contained four opinions relying upon the Rejaie Reference:  Rejaie in view of Vahalia renders obvious ’213 Patent claims 1, 7, and 8;  Rejaie in view of Chou renders obvious ’213 Patent claim 16;  Rejaie in view of Vahalia in further view of Maxemchuk renders obvious all asserted claims of the ’796 Patent; and  Rejaie in view of Vahalia in further view of the knowledge of a POSA renders obvious all asserted claims of the ’796 Patent. (collectively, the “Rejaie Combinations”), Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1 (Chase Opening Rpt.), §§ VIII.D-E, X.B, X.D; UF 5-9. Hulu did not produce any evidence regarding the public availability of the Rejaie Reference. Przybylski Decl. ¶ 5; UF 15. 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 (1986). A patent is presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. “[T]he burden of establishing invalidity as to any claim of a patent rests upon the party asserting such invalidity” by “[c]lear and Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:14760 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 convincing evidence.” Aero Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Whether a reference was published prior to the critical date, and is therefore prior art, is a question of law based on underlying fact questions.” TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2004) To meet its burden to show public availability, a defendant must provide “a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, 511 F.3d at 1194 (citations and quotations omitted). A defendant’s failure to produce evidence of a reference’s availability is grounds for a court to grant summary judgment that the reference is not prior art (i.e., cannot provide a basis for invalidity). See, e.g., Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Romeo & Juliette, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-02812-ODW, 2017 WL 2604086 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2017); Finjan, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc., No. 14-cv-01197-WHO, 2016 WL 2988834, *26 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2016). IV. ARGUMENT The Rejaie Reference is not prior art-and therefore the Rejaie Combinations cannot not render the ’213 or ’796 Patents invalid-because Hulu failed to meet its burden to produce evidence that the Rejaie Reference was publicly available before the filing dates of the ’213 and ’796 Patents. Nor can Hulu cure that problem by relying on Rejaie II instead of the Rejaie Reference because Hulu has produced no evidence that Rejaie II was publicly available before the filing dates of the ’213 and ’796 Patents. Therefore, no reasonable juror could find the Rejaie Reference is prior art to the ’213 or ’796 Patent, and Hulu cannot prove invalidity on the basis of its theories that utilize the Rejaie Reference. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:14761 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 A. No Proof Exists That The Rejaie Reference Was Publicly Available Before The Filing Dates Of The ’213 And ’796 Patents. Neither the Rejaie Reference itself nor any proof extrinsic to that document demonstrates public availability of the Rejaie Reference. First, the Rejaie Reference does not contain any information about a publisher, copyright date, journal, presentation, conference, or distribution. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Rejaie Reference); UF 11-14. Rather, the Rejaie reference simply bears a date of “January 22, 1999” without any explanation of the significance of that date: Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Rejaie Reference) at HULU-SOUNDVIEW-00006170 (highlighting added); UF 10. Such a date, particularly without more, is inadmissible “hearsay when offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that is, that [the Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:14762 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 reference] was accessible to the public as of the date set forth on the document[].” Hilgraeve, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 964, 975 (E.D. Mich. 2003); see Fed. R. Evid. 801. Nowhere does the document indicate that this date was a date of publication or distribution, as opposed to a draft date, let alone whether the document was actually available to the public on that date. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 3 (Rejaie Reference); UF 10-14. Proof of an alleged prior art reference’s public availability is held to the same clear and convincing standard as the overall proof of invalidity. See Core Wireless, No. 15-cv-05008 NC, 2016 WL 6427850 at *2. Hulu bears the burden to establish that the “January 22, 1999” date on the Rejaie Reference is not hearsay, and also establish the date the Rejaie Reference was actually available, yet has come forward with no proof. UF 10-15. Even if Hulu could show that an exception to hearsay applies, a mere date on a document is not sufficient to prove availability. “A date imprinted on a document, without more, does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that [a prior art reference] was known or used by others in this country prior to [the critical date].” Hilgraeve, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 975. In other words, the date itself provides no assertion of what the date represents-date of publication, dissemination, drafting, etc. Rather, in order to meet its burden to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, Hulu must provide specific, admissible evidence that the date on an alleged prior art reference is in fact a date of public availability. See Core Wireless, 2016 WL 6427850 at *2-3 (granting summary judgment of no invalidity where defendant did “not put forth any evidence that the date on the [alleged prior art] refers to its public dissemination date”); Finjan, 2016 WL 2988834 at *26 (granting summary judgment that a reference was not available where defendant provided “no evidence of when exactly” the reference was published); ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 533 F. Supp. 2d 397, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), (following a bench trial, holding prior art reference was Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:14763 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 not a printed publication where “the only evidence that the Flashpoint references were in the public possession prior to the critical date were the dates on the documents themselves”), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Courts have granted summary judgment of no invalidity where a defendant lacks requisite proof to establish public availability of a prior art reference. For example, in Core Wireless, the party seeking to invalidate a patent presented expert testimony that a document “could have been” or “may have been” provided prior to the critical date, based on knowledge of general business practices. Such “evidence” was insufficient to meet the requisite clear and convincing standard, and the Court granted the patentee’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity. See Core Wireless, No. 15-cv-05008 NC, 2016 WL 6427850 at *2-3. Here, Hulu’s expert Dr. Chase provides no information about the Rejaie Reference’s publication or availability, or makes any attempt to even allege that the Rejaie Reference he relies on was publicly available before December 1999. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1 (Chase Opening Rpt.), ¶ 189; UF 50-52. Nor have any other Hulu witnesses provided such information. Przybylski Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7, 9; UF 15. Therefore, as a matter of law, Hulu has failed to meet its burden to prove the public availability of the Rejaie Reference. B. Hulu Cannot Cure Or Render Moot Its Failure Of Proof Regarding The Rejaie Reference Via Its Expert’s Cursory Statement That His Opinions Regarding The Rejaie Reference Also “Apply” To Another Document By The Same Author. In apparent recognition of the lack of proof of public availability of the Rejaie Reference, Hulu’s expert provides a conclusory statement that his opinions regarding the Rejaie Reference “apply fully to” another document purportedly authored by Mr. Rejaie (“Proxy Caching Mechanism for Multimedia Playback Streams in the Internet,” 4th Int’l Web Caching Workship [sic], pp. 1-15, 4/1/99 (“Rejaie II”)): Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:14764 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1 (Chase Opening Rpt.), ¶¶ 189, 220; UF 16-20. But the Rejaie II reference is not asserted as prior art in this case, so its publication date (if any) is irrelevant. And in any event, Rejaie II suffers from the same problems as the Rejaie Reference. As an initial matter, Dr. Chase’s report is unclear as to what document he refers to as “Rejaie II.” The only identifying information is Dr. Chase’s generic statement that “As described in Section IX.2, a version of Rejaie . . . was considered and discussed extensively during the prosecution of the ’796 Patent” without any citation to a specific document. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1 (Chase Opening Rpt.), ¶ 189; UF 16-20. Section IX.2 of Dr. Chase’s report similarly does not identify any production number for Rejaie II or otherwise indicate the particular paper to which Dr. Chase refers, except to cite to Patent Office filings in the ’796 Patent’s File History. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1 (Chase Opening Rpt.) § IX.2; UF 19-20. Appendix A to Dr. Chase’s Report containing his list of materials considered does not list a document by Mr. Rejaie with an “April 1, 1999” date. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 2 (Chase Appendix A); UF 21-25. To the extent that Dr. Chase intends Rejaie II to refer to the document listed as item 12 in his Materials Considered bearing an “April 16, 1999 date,” Hulu faces the same problem as with the Rejaie Reference. Specifically, this document bears a date on its cover page without any publication, journal, copyright, or conference information, and Hulu produced no proof of the public availability of that document: Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #:14765 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 Przybylski Decl. Ex. 4 at HULU-SOUNDVIEW-000076662 (emphasis added); UF 23, 26, 28-33, 40-41. To the extent Hulu relies upon a webpage printout included in the ’796 Patent File History (shown below), that paper is undated, contains no publication, conference, or presentation information, and contains only a handwritten note-by an unknown person-that says “presented at the 4th International Web Caching Workshop on April 1st, 1999”: 2 Dr. Chase does not identify a production number for this document in his Materials Considered, but for purposes of this motion, Sound View assumes Dr. Chase refers to the document bearing production number HULU-SOUNDVIEW-00007666; UF 20, 23, 26. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 14 of 19 Page ID #:14766 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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. 5 at SVI-HULU00001627 (annotation added); UF 27, 34-39, 42. But such a note is inadmissible hearsay. See Rubin ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Vista Del Sol Health Servs., Inc., 80 F. Supp. 3d 1058, 1901 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (an exhibit that was “handwritten, contains no authenticating indicia, and is unsigned” was “inadmissible hearsay”). Furthermore, regardless of which document Dr. Chase intends to refer to as “Rejaie II,” Dr. Chase never actually analyzes the Rejaie II reference, cites to the Rejaie II reference, or compares the two Rejaie references in his analysis of the Rejaie Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:14767 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 Reference to support his conclusory statements that his opinions “apply fully to” both documents. Przybylski Decl. Ex. 1 (Chase Opening Rpt.) at ¶¶ 189, 220; UF 44-48. Thus, even apart from the issue of public availability, Hulu lacks anything more than a conclusory statement referring to Rejaie II, which is legally insufficient to carry Hulu’s burden of clear and convincing evidence. See Schumer v. Lab. Comput. Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]estimony concerning anticipation must be testimony from one skilled in the art and must identify each claim element, state the witnesses’ interpretation of the claim element, and explain in detail how each claim element is disclosed in the prior art reference. The testimony is insufficient if it is merely conclusory.”); Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“It is well established that conclusory statements of . . . a witness that a patent is invalid do[es] not raise a genuine issue of fact.”). Finally, even if Hulu could establish the public availability of Rejaie II, Hulu cannot use that as evidence of the public availability of the Rejaie Reference, which is a separate document. See Finjan, 2016 WL 2988834 at *25 (granting summary judgment that a reference was not prior art where defendant’s sole alleged evidence of public availability was a separate but related reference). Like the defendant in Finjan, Hulu made an informed decision to rely on the Rejaie Reference-as opposed to another document by the same author-when selecting its prior art references. See id. (“Sophos elected to . . . assert the MIMEsweeper Administrator Guide as a prior art reference, not the MIMEsweeper product.”). In Finjan, the defendant chose to assert the MIMEsweeper Administrator Guide as a prior art reference, but then attempted to rely on evidence of public availability of the MIMEsweeper Product. Id. The Court rejected that approach and granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that the evidence of the product’s availability was not evidence of the administrator guide’s Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:14768 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 availability. Id. Similarly, Hulu cannot rely on another Rejaie paper to show that the paper Hulu chose to actually rely upon was publicly available on a particular date. V. CONCLUSION Because Hulu cannot prove that the Rejaie Reference was publicly available before the filing dates of the ’213 and ’796 Patents, the Court should grant summary judgment that the Rejaie Reference is not prior art and that the ’213 and ’796 Patents are therefore not invalid on the basis of the Rejaie Combinations. Case 2:17-cv-04146-JAK-PLA Document 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:14769 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 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 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:14770 SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY BASED ON THE REJAIE REFERENCE 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 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 262 Filed 03/05/19 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:14771