Slot Speaker Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

MOTION for Summary Judgment

N.D. Cal.October 1, 2017

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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 Mark D. Selwyn (SBN 244180) Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 Nina S. Tallon (pro hac vice) Nina.Tallon@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 Jason H. Liss (pro hac vice) Jason.Liss@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Apple Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION SLOT SPEAKER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. Case No. 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT Hearing Date: November 9, 2017 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: 2, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 1 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) i APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 9, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) will and hereby does move for summary judgment of non-infringement. RELIEF REQUESTED Apple requests that the Court enter a judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,433,483 and 8,457,340. This Motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities; the supporting declaration of Mark D. Selwyn (“Selwyn Decl.”); exhibits thereto; and any written and oral argument and authorities that are presented at or before the hearing of this Motion. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 2 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) ii APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 Dated: October 1, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nina S. Tallon Mark D. Selwyn (SBN 244180) Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 Nina S. Tallon (pro hac vice) Nina.Tallon@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 Jason H. Liss (pro hac vice) Jason.Liss@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Apple Inc. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 3 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) iii APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 TABLE OF CONTENTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ..................................................................................... i I. THE ASSERTED PATENTS............................................................................................2 II. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS ..........................................................................................3 III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................6 IV. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS DO NOT MEET THE “SOUND REFLECTING SURFACE” LIMITATION OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ...............6 A. Introduction ..............................................................................................................6 B. Undisputed Material Facts .......................................................................................7 C. Argument ...............................................................................................................11 1. SST’s “Metal Plate” Infringement Theory Fails As A Matter Of Law ........................................................................................11 2. SST’s “Two-Surface” Infringement Theory Fails As A Matter Of Law ........................................................................................12 V. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS DO NOT HAVE A “STRAIGHT PATH” ................13 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................13 B. Undisputed Material Facts .....................................................................................14 C. Argument ...............................................................................................................20 1. The Accused Products Do Not Have A “Straight Path” ............................20 2. Dr. Elliott’s Infringement Theories Also Fail As A Matter Of Law ........................................................................................23 VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................25 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 4 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) iv APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................6 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................6 HSM Portfolio LLC v. Elpida Memory Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 708 (D. Del. 2016) .........................................................................................24 ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., No. SA CV 04-00689 MRP, 2007 WL 8081360 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2007) ............................24 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................6 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 5 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 1 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Notwithstanding SST’s attempts to save its case by changing its infringement theories, two limitations are dispositive of SST’s entire infringement case any way SST tries to apply them.1 Apple’s iPhones and iPads lack the claimed “sound reflecting surface” and the claimed “straight path.”2 With respect to “sound reflecting surface,” SST contended for four years that a metal plate alone in the Apple speaker modules constitutes the “sound reflecting surface.” SST’s expert now argues that the metal plate and the surrounding plastic surface together constitute a “sound reflecting surface.” But neither the metal plate alone nor the metal plate together with the plastic surface is a “sound reflecting surface,” including because the metal is non-resonant. With respect to “straight path”—which requires a “a sound path along which the sound waves are turned and travel to an output slot, without curves, bends or angles”—SST contended that a sound path along which sound turns and follows a straight line from the drive unit3 to the output constituted a “straight path.” SST’s expert has now abandoned this argument in favor of three new theories, all of which require the planar waves in all or part of the sound path—(1) a straight path exists only if the shape of the sound wavefronts traveling along the path is planar; (2) the sound path should be divided into two discrete parts (a “speaker duct” and “output duct”) in which only a portion of the output duct from the so-called “point of the turn” of the sound4 to the output is relevant to whether the sound path is “straight” and “without curves, bends or angles”; and (3) a sound path is “straight” if planar waves exist at the beginning (i.e., the “point 1 SST’s untimely infringement theories are the subject of Apple’s motion to strike. 2 SST has accused fifteen Apple products—iPhone 5, iPhone 5s, iPhone 5c, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPad Air, iPad Air 2, iPad mini, iPad mini 2, iPad mini 3, iPad mini 4 (“accused products”)—of infringing claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 21, and 31 of the ’483 patent, and claims 1, 5, and 6 of the ’340 patent. 3 The terms “drive unit” and “driver” are used interchangeably in this motion. 4 Although SST identified the “turn” as occurring within the alleged “speaker duct” in its contentions (see, e.g., Ex. 1, ’340 Charts to Infr. Cont. at 49 (iPhone 5s)), SST’s expert now argues that the “point of the turn” occurs within the alleged “output duct.” Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 6 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 2 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 of the turn”) and end of the output portion of the duct, regardless of the shape of the wavefront in between, and if the sound waves travel in the same direction at that beginning and end, even if they travel in different directions in between—a theory SST’s expert apparently developed after reviewing Apple’s non-infringement expert report and 3D CAD files for Apple’s products.5 There is no dispute that the accused products’ sound ducts—and therefore the paths along which sound travels within them—have curves, bends, and angles. SST has offered varying theories in an effort to show that a “straight path” is nevertheless present. But the Court’s construction of “straight path” specifically excludes “curves, bends or angles” and none of SST’s evolving theories satisfies that construction, and—even under those theories—SST cannot demonstrate infringement. I. THE ASSERTED PATENTS The asserted patents are closely related—the ’340 patent is a divisional of the ’483 patent application—and share a specification. The patents generally relate to the structural design of loudspeaker ducts. The asserted patents describe a speaker configuration in which a speaker drive unit is mounted on a surface that forms the top of a sound duct and emits sound into the duct. The duct has a sound output that is narrower than the diameter of the face of the driver, which enables “a larger speaker to be used in a confined installation space,” i.e., a narrow profile speaker. (See Ex. 2, ’483 patent at 5:16-29; id. at 3:21-30.) Annotated Figures 1 and 2 below show the claimed speaker. 5 SST has had access to these files since May 2017. (See Ex. 3, May 5, 2017 Email from Apple counsel to SST counsel re: 3D CAD Files.) Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 7 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 3 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 A speaker driver 107 (orange) is mounted perpendicular to a rectangular sound duct 115 and sits on a baffle or mounting surface 102 (blue). Opposite the drive unit is a “sound reflecting surface”6 103 (green). (Ex. 2, ’483 patent at 5:57-64.) The Court adopted the parties’ agreed construction of “sound reflecting surface”: “a non-resonant surface with low sound absorption, not made of sound damping material.” (See Dkt. 206 at 3.) The rectangular-shaped sound duct—which has flat and parallel (or substantially parallel) top and bottom walls (102 and 103) and flat and parallel (or substantially parallel) side walls (104 and 105)7—redirects sound emitted from drive unit 107 toward sound reflecting surface 103 at a right angle (or substantially right angle), and the sound travels along a “straight path” from the drive unit to an output aperture 106. (See Ex. 2, ’483 patent at 5:64-66, 5:56-6:3, claim 4.) The Court construed “straight path” to require “a sound path along which the sound waves are turned and travel to an output slot, without curves, bends or angles.” (See Dkt. 206 at 26.) II. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS In general, the accused speakers are placed at the bottom of the devices with the speaker output along the bottom edge. (See Ex. 6, Apple iPhone Product Teardown Report (Prismark iPhone Rpt.) at Ex. M-5.) The drive unit includes a diaphragm that oscillates, producing sound waves that travel through the duct and exit via the sound output. (See Ex. 7, Rebuttal Expert 6 All emphases added unless otherwise indicated. 7 The sound duct sidewalls only exist in certain embodiments. (See Ex. 2, ’483 patent at Figs. 4A, 4B, 5, 8, 10B (showing sound ducts without sidewalls).) Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 8 of 32 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 9 of 32 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 10 of 32 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 11 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 7 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 terminates in a sound output aperture. (See Ex. 2, ’483 patent at claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 21, 31; Ex. 13, ’340 patent at 1, 5, 6.) In its contentions, SST alleged that the metal plate opposite the drive unit constitutes a “sound reflecting surface.” To the extent SST maintains that contention, it fails as a matter of law. First, the metal plate does not terminate in a sound output aperture. To the contrary, the metal plate is affixed to one portion of the sound duct and is separated from the sound output aperture by an intervening plastic surface. Second, the claimed “sound reflecting surface” must be “a non-resonant surface.” It is undisputed that the metal plate is resonant. SST’s technical expert, Dr. Stephen Elliott, now argues that the metal plate and the separate plastic surface together constitute the “sound reflecting surface.” (See Ex. 14, Expert Report of Dr. Stephen Elliott (Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt.) ¶ 566.) This new “two-surface” theory fails for the same reason as SST’s original theory—the metal plate is resonant. B. Undisputed Material Facts As explained above, the asserted claims require the presence of a “sound reflecting surface”—which the Court has construed as “a non-resonant surface with low sound absorption, not made of sound damping material”—opposite the speaker drive unit. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, ’483 patent at claim 4; Dkt. 206 at 3.) “Resonance” refers to vibration in response to contact with a sound wave. (Ex. 15, Expert Report of Chris Kyriakakis Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity of the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,433,483 and 8,457,340 (Kyriakakis Op. Rpt.) ¶ 84; Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 33-43.) This vibration can add sound to the speaker’s output, distorting what the listener hears. (See Ex. 15, Kyriakakis Op. Rpt. ¶ 84.) As the parties’ experts agree, the claims further require that the “sound reflecting surface” opposite the driver extend the length of the sound duct and terminate in an output. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, ’483 patent at claim 4; Ex. 16, Deposition of Stephen Elliott (Elliott Dep.) at 171:4-172:3; Ex. 7, Kyriakakis Reb. Rpt. ¶ 433.) In each accused product, two separate materials—a stainless steel metal plate and plastic—make up the surfaces opposite the drive unit. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 12 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 8 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 (See, e.g., Ex. 7, Kyriakakis Reb. Rpt. ¶ 436 (annotated); Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 144.) Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 13 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 9 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 Christopher Struck, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Scientist for the audio and electroacoustics design & consulting firm CJS Labs, tested each accused product and demonstrated that the metal plate is resonant. (See Ex. 18, Apple iPhone and iPad Test Report (Struck Rpt.).) Importantly, SST’s own expert, Dr. Elliott, concedes that the metal plate is resonant:  “[T]he excitation [of the metal plates] . . . is well controlled . . . [they] do not produce significant resonances.” (See id. ¶ 656.)  “The fact that the first resonant modes of a stainless steel plate appear at higher frequencies than the first resonant modes of a plastic plate of similar dimension and thickness moves any contribution of the surface opposite the driver to resonant peaks Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 14 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 10 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 within the sound duct to higher frequencies than should resonances would have if the surface opposing the driver was made of plastic. The higher frequencies are less significant to the overall quality of the sound.” (See id. ¶ 564.)  “Even when stainless steel is used at half the thickness of plastic it first resonates at frequencies that are more than 1.5 times than [sic] the resonances of a plastic surface having the same area but twice the thickness.” (See id. ¶ 659.) Having acknowledged that the metal plate is resonant, Dr. Elliott admits that it is not literally a “sound reflecting surface” but instead “closely approximates” one. (See id. ¶ 656.) SST has advanced two theories of literal infringement with respect to the “sound reflecting surface” limitation. Initially, in its contentions, SST identified the metal plate—and only the metal plate—opposite the drive unit in each of the accused products as the “sound reflecting surface.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1, ’340 Charts to Infr. Cont. at 47 (iPhone 5s).) Dr. Elliott, however, asserts a different theory. He alleges that the metal plate and the adjacent plastic surface together constitute the “sound reflecting surface.” (See, e.g., Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 566.) Neither SST nor Dr. Elliott has alleged that the accused products meet the “sound reflecting surface” limitation under the doctrine of equivalents. (See Ex. 20, July 31, 2015 Infr. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 15 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 11 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 Cont.; Ex. 21, Dec. 8, 2015 Amended Infr. Cont.; Ex. 22, Oct. 5, 2016 Second Am. Infr. Cont.; Ex. 23, Dec. 16, 2016 Third Am. Infr. Cont.; Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 559-575.) C. Argument 1. SST’s “Metal Plate” Infringement Theory Fails As A Matter Of Law In its contentions, SST asserts that the metal plate in the accused products constitutes the “sound reflecting surface.” (See, e.g., Ex. 1, ’340 Charts to Infr. Cont. at 49 (iPhone 5s).) The accused products do not infringe any asserted claim because the metal plate is not a “sound reflecting surface”—it does not terminate in a sound output aperture, and it is not “non-resonant,” as even Dr. Elliott acknowledges. (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 668 (disputing Apple’s “argument . . . that the stainless steel plate in the iPhones is not the entirety of a major surface of the duct and therefore does not define a duct terminating in a sound output aperture” on the basis that “the entirety of the major surface of the duct”—i.e., including the plastic surface—“may be accurately characterized as a sound reflecting surface”); id. ¶ 656 (stating that the metal plate “closely approximates a sound reflecting surface”). First, it is undisputed that the metal plate opposite the drive unit does not “terminat[e] in a first sound output aperture,” as required by the asserted claims. (See Ex. 2, ’483 patent at claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 21, 31; Ex. 13, ’340 patent at claims 1, 5, 6.) As both parties’ experts agree, the “sound reflecting surface” must extend the length of that duct to the output aperture. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, ’483 patent at claim 4; Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 171:4-172:3; Ex. 7, Kyriakakis Reb. Rpt. ¶ 433.) The metal plate, however, ends at or near the edge of the drive unit; it does not extend the length of the sound duct to the output. (See supra Section II.) Second, it is undisputed that the metal plate opposite the drive unit is resonant. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 16 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 12 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 the metal plates in the accused products are not non-resonant and therefore cannot be the claimed “sound reflecting surface.” Even Dr. Elliott concedes that the metal plate is not literally a “sound reflecting surface” but instead “closely approximates” one. (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 656.) Literal infringement requires more than close approximation. 2. SST’s “Two-Surface” Infringement Theory Fails As A Matter Of Law SST asserts, in Dr. Elliott’s report for the first time, that the metal plate and the separate plastic duct surface together constitute a “sound reflecting surface.” (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 566.) To the extent SST is permitted to present this “two-surface” theory, it also fails. As Dr. Elliott acknowledges, the Court’s construction of “sound reflecting surface” requires the entire surface to be non-resonant. (See Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 174:2-25.) But as discussed above, the metal plate—which, under this theory, constitutes a portion of the “sound reflecting surface”—is resonant. Dr. Elliott concedes that the metal plate introduces resonances Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 17 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 13 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 and that those resonances affect the sound output. (See supra Section VI(C)(1).) At most, even according to Dr. Elliott, the metal plate “closely approximates”—but is not—a “sound reflecting surface.”9 Thus, SST’s “two-surface” theory cannot salvage SST’s flawed infringement claims. V. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS DO NOT HAVE A “STRAIGHT PATH” A. Introduction Every asserted claim of the ’483 patent requires a “straight path,” which the Court has construed to mean “a sound path along which the sound waves are turned and travel to an output slot, without curves, bends or angles.” (See Ex. 2, ’483 patent at claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 21, 31; Dkt. 206 at 26.) SST and its expert Dr. Elliott have offered a series of evolving, conflicting theories that the accused products have the claimed “straight path.”  SST has argued that the accused products have a “straight path” because the sound radiation is turned and travels along a straight line from above the drive unit through the entire length of the path within the sound duct;  Dr. Elliott argues that a straight path exists only if the shape of the sound wavefronts traveling along the path is planar;  Dr. Elliott argues the sound path should be divided into two discrete parts (a “speaker duct” and “output duct”) in which only a portion of the output duct from the so called “point of the turn” of the sound to the output is relevant to whether the sound path is “straight” and “without curves, bends or angles”; and  Dr. Elliott argues a sound path is “straight” if plane (or planar) waves exist at the beginning (i.e., the “point of the turn”) and end of the output portion of the duct, regardless of the shape of the wavefront in between, and if the sound waves travel in the same direction at the beginning and end, even if they travel in different directions in between. Each of SST’s “straight path” theories fails as a matter of law. It is undisputed that the accused products’ sound paths are not straight and instead contains numerous curves, bends, and angles under any application of the Court’s claim construction. 9 SST has failed to present any evidence that the plastic surface that SST contends constitutes a portion of the “sound reflecting surface” is non-resonant. Dr. Elliott concedes that he did not test the resonance of that surface in any accused product. (See, e.g., Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 186:22-187:22.) Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 18 of 32 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 19 of 32 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 20 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 16 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 Apple’s engineers and both parties’ experts agree that the curves and bends in the sound paths affect the quality of the sound output. Dr. Elliott’s own test results show that the quality of sound emitted from a duct with an irregularly-shaped sound path (as in the accused products) differs from the quality of sound emitted from a duct with a straight path. (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 110 (equating sound output from a duct with a straight path to sound output from a front firing, or open speaker), 377-79; Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 241:10-243:5.) Dr. Elliott’s tests show that sound 11 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 21 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 17 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 emitted directly from the speaker drive unit in the front-firing (or “open”) position—the configuration that he likens to a straight path—has an acoustically different frequency response from sound emitted from the accused speakers. (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 377-79.) As shown in the iPhone 6 results on the right, the frequency response of the configuration that Dr. Elliott likens to a duct with a straight path (the yellow line labeled “opened speaker”) is much smoother—less extreme peaks and dips—than the ducted speaker (the blue line labeled “intact speaker”). (See id. ¶ 379.) This indicates that the sound output from the “straight duct” speaker will have fewer distortions and an overall improved sound quality, which is particularly important in the audible range (about 20 Hz to 20 kHz). (See Ex. 7, Kyriakakis Reb. Rpt. ¶¶ 319, 451.) In view of these results, Dr. Elliott concedes “the geometry of the sound duct[s]” in the accused products results in “the addition of further resonances” as compared with “straight duct” (or “open”) configurations. (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 377 (“The frequency responses measured without the sound duct were generally much more uniform than those with the sound duct, and showed the expected characteristic of a speaker in a sealed enclosure, with a rising response up to the speaker’s resonance frequency, at about 1 kHz, and a relatively flat response beyond that. For the intact units, with the sound duct present, the speaker resonance is slightly raised but the most significant change in the response was the addition of further resonances, due to the acoustics of the sound duct, typically at about 4 to 5 kHz and 7 to 10 kHz, depending on the geometry of the sound duct . . . .”).) Dr. Elliott performed finite element simulations12 that show the different pressure distribution of the sound waves and the varying shape of those waves depending on the geometry 12 Finite element simulations are computerized models that can simulate the behavior of air within the speaker based on the dimensions, materials, and other characteristics of a speaker. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 22 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 18 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 of the sound duct. (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 388.) Among others, Dr. Elliott modeled a sound duct having measurements purportedly similar to those of the iPhone 5 speaker and a sound duct in which the alleged “output duct” is taller than the alleged “speaker duct,” which he refers to as the “high neck” example. (See id. ¶ 395.) Dr. Elliott claims to have based his iPhone 5 model on the “general shape of the interior of the iPhone 5” sound duct. (See id. ¶ 388.) He did not perform simulations of any other accused products. (See Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 231:24- 232:10.) According to Dr. Elliott, he only performed simulations of an approximation of the iPhone 5 because “[t]he feeling was that the iPhone 5 was probably the most extreme of the geometries . . . the most extreme case of – of deviation from a straight duct . . . and so that if we understood that . . . it would be sufficient in order to understand what was happening.” (Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 22:1-23.)13 Thus, in Dr. Elliott’s view, the results of the iPhone 5 simulation could be “carried over to th[e] other devices.” (See Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 22:16-23.) Similarly, Dr. Elliott likened the “high neck” example, which purportedly simulates “the effect of an output duct with a discontinuity in Z between the speaker portion of the duct and the output portion of the duct,” to the iPhone 5, 5c, 5s, and 6s, and the iPhone 6s Plus, 7, and 7 Plus, (Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 647-48.) The results of Dr. Elliott’s simulation of the “general shape” of the iPhone 5 sound duct are shown to the right. This pressure distribution plot shows curves in the pressure distribution throughout the duct, 13 Apple disputes that the iPhone 5 deviates the most from a “straight duct.” All the accused products have a variety of curves, bends, and angles. (Ex. 7, Kyriakakis Reb Rpt. ¶¶ 260 (“The sound ducts in each of these products contain curves, bends, and/or angles along their side walls (X dimension) and top and bottom walls (Z dimension).”), 255-375.) Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 23 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 19 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 particularly at the transition (see left red box) from the wider area of the duct above the drive unit to the narrower region, and at the output (see right red box). The image also shows curved, i.e., non-planar wavefronts, throughout, including at the sound output on the right of the image. (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 388-413; Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 133:21-134:20.)14 Similarly, the “high neck” example, which Dr. Elliott likens to the accused iPhones (see, e.g., Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 648-650, 700, 704, 707-709), also includes curved wavefronts at the transition area and at the sound output. SST has provided at least four different theories of infringement with respect to the “straight path” limitations. In its contentions, SST argued that the accused products satisfy the “straight path” limitation because the sound path turns and follows a straight line from the drive unit to the output.15 Dr. Elliott has since presented three other theories of infringement—(1) Dr. Elliott alleges that a straight path exists only if the shape of the sound wavefronts traveling along the path is planar (see Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 682, 689, 696, 700, 703, 704, 707, 582, 777-78; see also Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 50:3-19); (2) he claims that the sound path should be divided into two discrete parts (a “speaker duct” and “output duct”) in which only a portion of the output duct from the so-called “point of the turn” of the sound to the output is relevant to whether the sound is “straight” and “without curves, bends or angles” (see Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 577-80, 586, 671-73, 680, 682, 688, 689, 693, 696, 698, 700, 701, 703, 704); and (3) he asserts that a sound path is “straight” if plane (or planar) waves exist at the beginning (i.e., the “point of the turn”) and end of the output portion of the duct, regardless of the shape of the wavefront in between, and if the sound waves travel in the same direction at that beginning and 14 The “plan” view in Dr. Elliott’s simulation plots shows a top-down cross-section of the duct. 15 (See, e.g., Ex. 24, ’483 Charts to Infr. Cont. at 15, 71, 127, 183, 242, 302, 358, 414, 470, 527-28, 588, 644, 700, 756; Ex. 1, ’340 Charts to Infr. Cont. at 6, 28, 49, 69, 89, 109, 129, 149, 169, 189, 210, 231, 251, 271, 291.) Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 24 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 20 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 end, even if they travel in different directions in between (see Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 52:23-53:10 (“[T]he requirement is that there are plane waves to begin with. There are plane waves at the other end of the path and what happens in the middle there, as long as those waves are faithfully transmitted and are not reflected by what goes on in the middle there, then there can be things which going on which don’t interfere with the straight path, but cause locally some interference with plane waves.”), 56:7-24, 58:3-20, 78:14-19, 80:18-23.) C. Argument There is no dispute that sound travels through the space inside the duct of each accused product from the area in front of the speaker driver to the sound output. There is similarly no dispute that the space inside the sound duct—which both parties’ experts agree is the “sound path”—is characterized by curves, bends, and/or angles in each accused product. Because the construction of “straight path” excludes sound paths with such irregularities, the Court should grant summary judgment of non-infringement as to all asserted ’483 patent claims. None of SST’s three newly-disclosed theories—all of which depend, at least in part, on the existence of “planar” waves within the sound path—rescues its infringement case. Indeed, SST bases these theories on a misapplication of the Court’s construction and cannot prove that the accused products meet any “planar” waves requirement. 1. The Accused Products Do Not Have A “Straight Path” The accused products do not infringe any asserted ’483 patent claim because sound waves do not “turn[] and travel to an output slot, without curves, bends or angles.” (See Dkt. 206 at 26.) The path the sound waves travel is influenced by the physical space in which they travel. (See Ex. 7, Kyriakakis Reb. Rpt. ¶ 386.) In a sound duct, sound waves fill the space in which sound travels, and the sound path is the route along which sound waves travel from the driver to the output. (See Dkt. 74 ¶ 42 (Elliott declaration in support of claim construction); Ex. 25, Reply Expert Report of Dr. Stephen Elliott (Elliott Reb. Rpt.) ¶ 102; Ex. 7, Kyriakakis Reb. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 25 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 21 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 Rpt. ¶ 386, Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 57:10-24.) Thus, if there are contours in a sound duct, the sound path will necessarily follow those contours. (Ex. 7, Kyriakakis Reb. Rpt. ¶ 386.) As illustrated above, the sound paths of the accused products have numerous curves, bends, and angles. (See id. at ¶ 325 (annotated); see also Ex. 6, Prismark iPhone Rpt. at Ex. N-23.) Dr. Elliott does not dispute that curves, bends, and angles are in every accused product: Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 26 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 22 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W il m er C u tl er P ic k er in g H al e an d D or r L L P 95 0 P ag e M ill R oa d P al o A lt o, C al if or n ia 9 43 04 Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 27 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 23 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W ilm er C ut le r Pi ck er in g H al e a nd D or r L LP 95 0 Pa ge M ill R oa d Pa lo A lto , C al ifo rn ia 9 43 04 Dr. Elliott attempts to downplay this unequivocal evidence of curves, bends, and angles in the products’ sound paths, asserting that they are not “significant” or “meaningful.” (See, e.g., Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 582, 586, 678, 674, 588, 608, 664, 682, 684, 689, 696, 704, 761, 780.) But the Court’s construction does not allow for any such curves, bends, and angles. Because it is undisputed that the sound path in each accused product has curves, bends, and angles—the very features the construction of “straight path” prohibits—the accused products do not have a “straight path” and do not infringe any asserted ’483 patent claim. 2. Dr. Elliott’s Infringement Theories Also Fail As A Matter Of Law In an effort to overcome the undisputed fact that the sound path of every accused product has curves, bends, and angles, SST has advanced three new theories of infringement with respect to the “straight path” limitation through Dr. Elliott—(1) a straight path exists only if the shape of the sound wavefronts traveling along the path is planar; (2) the sound path should be divided into two discrete parts (a “speaker duct” and “output duct”) in which only a portion of the output duct from the so-called “point of the turn” of the sound to the output is relevant to whether the sound is “straight” and “without curves, bends or angles”; and (3) a sound path is “straight” if plane (or planar) waves exist at the beginning (i.e., the “point of the turn”) and end of the output portion of the duct, regardless of the shape of the wavefront in between, and if the sound waves travel in the same direction at that beginning and end, even if they travel in different directions in between. Each of these new theories requires the propagation of “plane” waves through the sound duct. None of these theories rescues SST’s infringement allegations. As an initial matter, and as explained in Apple’s concurrently-filed motion to exclude opinions of Dr. Elliott, SST’s new theories of infringement misapply the Court’s claim construction of “straight path” for two reasons. First, the Court’s construction of “straight path” explicitly includes the area in front of the speaker drive unit as part of the sound path along which “sound waves are turned and travel . . . without curves, bends or angles.” SST’s two-part duct theory—which does not assess whether the sound waves travel through the complete sound Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 28 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 24 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W ilm er C ut le r Pi ck er in g H al e a nd D or r L LP 95 0 Pa ge M ill R oa d Pa lo A lto , C al ifo rn ia 9 43 04 path without curves, bends, or angles—is thus improper. (See Dkt. 206 at 26.) Second, Dr. Elliott’s theories—all of which rely on the presence of planar wavefronts in the sound path— misapply the Court’s construction, which refers to the path of travel, not the shape of the wavefront, and makes no exception for “curves, bends or angles” in any portion of the sound path. (See id.) A party may not rely on a misapplication of claim construction to demonstrate infringement. See HSM Portfolio LLC v. Elpida Memory Inc., 160 F. Supp. 3d 708, 717 (D. Del. 2016) (summary judgment where “Plaintiffs’ infringement theory is . . . inconsistent with the Court’s claim construction order and fails to create a genuine dispute as to whether Micron literally infringes.”); see also ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., No. SA CV 04-00689 MRP, 2007 WL 8081360, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2007) (summary judgment because expert testimony that “ignores a court’s prior claim construction . . . creates no genuine issue of material fact”). Summary judgment should therefore be granted. Even if SST is permitted to present Dr. Elliott’s belated theories, none of the accused products has a “straight path” under any of these theories. The wavefronts in the sound paths of the accused products are not exclusively planar. Indeed, as Dr. Elliott’s own simulations show, wavefronts throughout the pathway are curved, shown as curves in the color transitions in both the iPhone 5 and “high neck” simulations. (See Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 388-413, 395 (red boxes added); see also Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 133:21-134:20.) Dr. Elliott also admitted at his deposition that all accused products have waves that “deviate from being plane.” (See Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 133:14-134:20.) Thus, summary judgement of non-infringement is Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 29 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 25 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W ilm er C ut le r Pi ck er in g H al e a nd D or r L LP 95 0 Pa ge M ill R oa d Pa lo A lto , C al ifo rn ia 9 43 04 appropriate under SST’s theories that the claimed “straight path” requires the presence of exclusively planar waves in the sound path or the presence of planar waves in the output duct from the so-called “point of the turn” of the sound to the output. Nor can SST demonstrate infringement under Dr. Elliott’s final “straight path” theory offered first at his deposition. The accused products do not have plane waves at both the beginning (i.e., the “point of the turn”) and end of the output portion of the duct. As shown above in the annotated images of Dr. Elliott’s simulation results, the only accused product simulations Dr. Elliott’s performed, the wavefront at the output of the iPhone 5 duct is curved. (Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 395; see also Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 227:18-228:14 (“There is a shallow curve there.”).) Even Dr. Elliott’s simulations for the “high neck” duct show that the wavefront at the output of the duct is curved. (Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶ 395.) According to Dr. Elliott, to determine whether the presence of such curves preclude a “straight path,” he would have to analyze the “pressure” of those curved sound waves to determine if they would have an impact on the sound output. (See Ex. 16, Elliott Dep. at 229:17- 21, 231:5-10.) Dr. Elliott never performed that analysis for any accused product. (See id. at 229:22-230:4, 231:24-232:2.) Nor did SST perform his wavefront simulations on the duct geometries of any other accused products. (See id.; Ex. 14, Elliott Corr. Op. Rpt. ¶¶ 388-413.) Thus, SST cannot demonstrate infringement even under Dr. Elliott’s latest theories. VI. CONCLUSION Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims. Dated: October 1, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nina S. Tallon Mark D. Selwyn (SBN 244180) Mark.Selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 30 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 26 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W ilm er C ut le r Pi ck er in g H al e a nd D or r L LP 95 0 Pa ge M ill R oa d Pa lo A lto , C al ifo rn ia 9 43 04 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 Nina S. Tallon (pro hac vice) Nina.Tallon@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 Jason H. Liss (pro hac vice) Jason.Liss@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Apple Inc. Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 31 of 32 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 4:13-cv-01161-HSG (DMR) 27 APPLE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT W ilm er C ut le r Pi ck er in g H al e a nd D or r L LP 95 0 Pa ge M ill R oa d Pa lo A lto , C al ifo rn ia 9 43 04 CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) ATTESTATION I hereby attest that concurrence in this filing had been obtained from Nina S. Tallon and that records to support this concurrence are on file. Dated: October 1, 2017 /s/ Mark D. Selwyn Mark D. Selwyn CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been served on October 1, 2017 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5-1. Dated: October 1, 2017 /s/ Mark D. Selwyn Mark D. Selwyn Case 4:13-cv-01161-HSG Document 361 Filed 10/01/17 Page 32 of 32