PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
CALDARELLI HEJMANOWSKI PAGE & LEER LLP
William J. Caldarelli (SBN #149573)
Ben West (SBN #251018)
12340 El Camino Real, Suite 430
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 720-8080
[email protected]; [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc. Additional counsel for Plaintiff listed below.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE: AMERANTH PATENT LITIGATION
Lead Case No. 11cv1810 DMS (WVG) PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S
MEMORANDUM OF
CONTENTIONS OF FACT AND
LAW [LR 16.1(f)(2)-(3)] [PIZZA GROUP DEFENDANTS]
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.70995 Page 1 of 82
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
FABIANO LAW FIRM, P.C.
Michael D. Fabiano (SBN #167058)
12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (619) 742-9631
OSBORNE LAW LLC
John W. Osborne (Appointed Pro Hac Vice)
33 Habitat Lane
Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567
Telephone: (914) 714-5936
WATTS LAW OFFICES
Ethan M. Watts (SBN #234441)
12340 El Camino Real, Suite 430
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 509-0808
Facsimile: (619) 878-5784
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.70996 Page 2 of 82
1
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc. (“Ameranth”) provides this Memorandum of
Contentions of Fact and Law pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(f)(2)-(3) and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3).
A. Material Facts
1. Ameranth is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 (“the ‘077
Patent”).
2. The ‘077 Patent issued from an application which was a continuation
of the application which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733 ("the ‘733 Patent"),
which was a continuation-in-part of the application which issued as U.S. Patent
No. 6,384,850 ("the ‘850 Patent"), which application was filed on September 21,
1999. Ameranth’s U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325 ("the ‘325 Patent"), the application
for which was filed on November 1, 2001, also issued from an application which
was a continuation of the ‘850 Patent.
3. The ‘850 Patent issued on May 7, 2002. The ‘325 Patent issued on
March 22, 2005.
4. The ‘077 Patent issued on March 27, 2012.
5. The USPTO issued the ‘077 Patent over hundreds of identified
references.
6. The ‘077 Patent is entitled to a priority date of at least as early as
September 21, 1999.
7. Keith McNally, and his co-inventors, first conceived of the core
inventive ideas claimed in the ‘077 Patent in September of 1998 while working on
products for use in the restaurant and hospitality industry. These ideas solved
problems that had not yet been recognized by anyone else, prior to September
1998. The inventors exercised continued diligence from the conception date to and
through the constructive patent application filing date of September 21, 1999.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.70997 Page 3 of 82
2
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
8. Ameranth first publically demonstrated products practicing the
claims of the ‘077 Patent at the FSTEC trade show in November of 1998, and
again at the National Restaurant Association trade show in May of 1999 and at the
High Tech Hotel show in June of 1999.
9. Until some period in 2008, Ameranth developed, licensed and
deployed software products and systems in the hospitality industry that practiced
the claims of the ‘077 Patent.
10. Ameranth’s products won numerous technology and hospitality
industry awards and recognition.
11. Ameranth’s patents, including the ‘077 Patent, have been licensed to
approximately 45 licensees in the hospitality industry.
12. Despite the fact that several of the defendants in these consolidated
patent infringement lawsuits, including Pizza Hut, have filed multiple covered
business method (“CBM”) petitions against Ameranth with the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (“PTAB”) challenging the validity of the claims of the ‘077 Patent,
the PTAB has rejected each petition and refused to institute CBM proceedings
against any claim of the ‘077 Patent on any grounds.
13. QuikOrder provides an online and mobile pizza ordering system to
Pizza Hut, and provides online and mobile ordering systems to other restaurant
customers.
14. Ameranth sued both Pizza Hut and QuikOrder for infringement of the
‘077 Patent in March of 2012 immediately after the issuance of the ‘077 Patent.
15. Pizza Hut, Inc. subsequently merged with Pizza Hut, LLC. Neither
Pizza Hut, Inc. nor Pizza Hut of America, Inc., exist post-merger, and Pizza Hut,
LLC is the successor in interest and proper party.
16. Ameranth sued Domino’s for infringement of the ‘077 Patent in
March of 2012 immediately after the issuance of the ‘077 Patent.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.70998 Page 4 of 82
3
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
17. Ameranth sued Papa John’s for infringement of the ‘077 Patent in
March of 2012 immediately after the issuance of the ‘077 Patent.
18. Neither Pizza Hut nor QuikOrder had a non-infringing alternative on
the market when they were sued by Ameranth for infringement of the ‘077 Patent.
Neither Pizza Hut nor QuikOrder have brought a non-infringing alternative to the
market today.
19. Domino’s did not have a non-infringing alternative on the market
when it was sued by Ameranth for infringement of the ‘077 Patent. It has not
brought a non-infringing alternative to the market today.
20. Papa John’s did not have a non-infringing alternative on the market
when it was sued by Ameranth for infringement of the ‘077 Patent. It has not
brought a non-infringing alternative to the market today
21. At the time of the filing of the suit for infringement of the ‘077
Patent (March 2012), the accused Pizza Hut ordering system utilized "mobile
apps" developed, in part, by third parties (first IMC2 and then Chaotic Moon).
Evidence, including documents produced by Pizza Hut and QuikOrder, shows that
Pizza Hut first deployed iOS and Android “hybrid” mobile apps for online
ordering in October 2013 and that non-hybrid versions of the Pizza Hut mobile
apps were still in use with the Accused System at that time and later.
22. At the time of the filing of the suit for infringement of the ‘077 Patent
(March 2012), all Pizza Hut restaurants did not use a uniform point of sale
(“POS”) system. Thus, the accused online and mobile Pizza Hut Ordering System
had to integrate and work with different POS systems for different stores.
23. IPDEV Co., an affiliate of QuikOrder, licenses to Pizza Hut, and
other clients of QuikOrder, patents that purportedly cover the operation of the
online ordering systems provided by QuikOrder.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.70999 Page 5 of 82
4
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
24. On August 22, 2012, IPDEV filed a patent application with the
USPTO seeking issuance of claims that copied the claims of Ameranth’s ‘077
Patent, that eventually issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,738,449 (“the ‘449 Patent”).
IPDEV’s application was based on the specification of U.S. Patent No. 5,991,739
(“the ‘739 Patent”) that IPDEV had acquired from the bankruptcy estate of
Food.com.
25. IPDEV did not file any Information Disclosure Statements (“IDS”)
with the Patent Office in connection with its application for and prosecution of the
application for the ‘449 Patent. The failure to file any IDS was a representation
by IPDEV under 37 CFR §1.56 that there was no material art predating the
application date of the ‘739 Patent that anticipated or rendered obvious the claims
being applied for in connection with the application for the ‘449 Patent.
26. George Yu, one of the lawyers representing QuikOrder and Pizza Hut
in this action, conceived of the idea of having QuikOrder’s affiliate, IPDEV, file a
patent application with the USPTO copying the claims of Ameranth’s ‘077 Patent
based on the specification of the ‘739 Patent.
27. On May 27, 2014, the USPTO issued to IPDEV U.S. Patent No.
8,738,449 (“the ‘449 Patent”), which substantially copied claims 1-18 of
Ameranth’s ‘077 Patent.
28. On May 27, 2014, IPDEV, represented by George Yu, one of the
lawyers representing QuikOrder and Pizza Hut in this action, filed a priority of
inventorship complaint against Ameranth in this Court alleging that there was an
interference in fact between the claims of the ‘449 Patent and the claims of
Ameranth’s ‘077 Patent.
29. Following the issuance of the ‘449 Patent, both QuikOrder and Pizza
Hut marked their websites with the ‘449 Patent. After Ameranth asserted that
such marking was an acknowledgement that QuikOrder’s and Pizza Hut’s accused
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71000 Page 6 of 82
5
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
systems practiced the claims of the ‘449/’077 Patents, those markings were
removed from the websites.
30. On March 27, 2018, this Court issued an Order granting Ameranth’s
Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘449 Patent [14-cv-01303 Dkt.
No. 86] on the grounds that the specification of the ‘449/ ‘739 Cupps Patent did
not provide sufficient written description support for the claims of the ‘449/ ‘077
Patents.
31. On March 28, 2018, this Court entered a Judgment in Ameranth’s
favor and against IPDEV in the priority of invention matter [14-cv-01303 Dkt.
No. 86].
32. On May 18, 2003, QuikOrder (National Systems Corporation) issued
a press release in which James Kargman of QuikOrder announced introduction of
a new product—TMS1—designed to maintain consistency (i.e., synchronization)
of touch screen Point of Sale (“POS”) units with the supporting desktop computer
(i.e., master database).
33. Between 2006 and 2009, representatives of Ameranth and
representatives of QuikOrder had several communications regarding the
possibilities of the companies working together.
34. In 2006, Ameranth provided presentations of its technology to Pizza
Hut in connection with discussions about the parties working together.
35. In 2006, Ameranth provided presentations of its technology to
Domino’s in connection with discussions about the parties working together.
36. In 2006, Ameranth provided presentations of its technology to Papa
John’s in connection with discussions about the parties working together.
37. On September 27, 2007, Domino’s issued a press release stating that
“Domino’s Pizza First in Industry to Offer Mobile Ordering,” explaining that the
systems was designed “for the small screen of a cell phone,” and “automatically
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71001 Page 7 of 82
6
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
adapts to the size of any cell phone screen, no matter what service carrier
customers use.”
38. On December 12, 2007, in San Diego, James Kargman of QuikOrder
and IPDEV admitted to Keith McNally of Ameranth that Kargman and his patent
counsel had concluded that Ameranth’s patents trumped IPDEV’s, including the
‘739 Patent, and admitted that QuikOrder would be in serious trouble if Ameranth
ever sued QuikOrder for infringement.
39. The claims of the ‘077 Patent are valid and enforceable for the
reasons set forth in the expert report of Dr. Michael Shamos.
40. Pizza Hut’s and QuikOrder’s accused systems infringe the asserted
claims of the ‘077 Patent for the reasons set forth in the expert report of Dr. Sam
Malek.
41. Domino’s accused system infringes the asserted claims of the ‘077
Patent for the reasons set forth in the expert report of Dr. Sam Malek.
42. Papa John’s accused system infringes the asserted claims of the ‘077
Patent for the reasons set forth in the expert report of Dr. Sam Malek.
43. A reasonable royalty rate, and the amount of damages owed by Pizza
Hut and QuikOrder to Ameranth for infringement of the claims of the ‘077 Patent,
is described in the expert report of Dr. Jeff Brown.
44. A reasonable royalty rate, and the amount of damages owed by
Domino’s to Ameranth for infringement of the claims of the ‘077 Patent, is
described in the expert report of Dr. Jeff Brown.
45. A reasonable royalty rate, and the amount of damages owed by Papa
John’s to Ameranth for infringement of the claims of the ‘077 Patent, is described
in the expert report of Dr. Jeff Brown
B. Points of Law
1. An issued patent is presumed to be valid. 35 U.S.C. §282.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71002 Page 8 of 82
7
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
2. A party challenging the validity of a patent bears the burden of
proving each invalidity assertion by clear convincing evidence. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed. Cir.
2000); Park v. CAS Enterprises, 2010 WL 1948228 *3 (S.D. Cal. 5-13-2010)(J.
Sabraw).
3. A patent claim is invalid as anticipated only if each and every claim
element is founds within a single “prior art” reference. 35 U.S.C. § 102; VirnetX.
Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Sanofi-Synthelabo
v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
4. “The doctrine of claim differentiation create[s] a presumption that
each claim in a patent has a different scope.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex
Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
5. Claims should be constructed so that each word in the claim has
meaning.” Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Z & J Techs. GmbH, 563 F.
Supp. 2d 1109, 1119 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
6. When construing claims, the intrinsic evidence of the meaning of the
claims are the primary resources; while helpful, extrinsic sources like dictionaries
and expert testimony cannot overcome more persuasive intrinsic evidence. Finisar
Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Phillips
v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). “Extrinsic evidence
consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including
expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1317.
7. To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple,
distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed
invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2008); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“The [prior art]
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71003 Page 9 of 82
8
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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 must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or
direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking,
choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by
the teachings of the cited reference”).
8. Further, an anticipation rejection must establish that a reference not
only discloses all elements of the claim within the four comers of the document,
but that the reference also discloses those elements arranged as in the claim. Net
Moneyln, 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
9. An anticipatory reference must both describe each and every claim
limitation and enable one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the
claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Chudik, 851 F.3d 1365,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
10. “Invalidation on this ground [anticipation] requires that every
element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art
reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in
possession of the invention.” Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 550 F.3d 1075,
1082 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
11. "[D]ifferences between the prior art reference and a claimed
invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not anticipation.").
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
12. To anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple,
distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed
invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
2008); see also In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“The [prior art]
reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or
direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking,
choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71004 Page 10 of 82
9
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
the teachings of the cited reference”). Further, an anticipation rejection must
establish that a reference not only discloses all elements of the claim within the
four comers of the document, but that the reference also discloses those elements
arranged as in the claim. Net Moneyln, 545 F.3d at 1369.
13. With respect to assertions of “inherency,” an expert is required to
provide evidence demonstrating that the “missing elements” were “necessarily
present” in each individual asserted prior art reference and/or combination of
references. “A party must, therefore, meet a high standard in order to rely on
inherency to establish the existence of a claim limitation in the prior art in an
obviousness analysis— the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the
natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.”
Par Pharmaceutical v. TWI Pharmaceuticals Inc., 773 F.3d 1186 (Dec. 3, 2014)
“The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in
the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). However, inherency requires that the missing
descriptive material is necessarily present in the thing described. Continental Can
Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not
sufficient to show that the element was possibly or probably present in the
reference.
14. An asserted prior art reference must disclose particular relationships
between the claim limitation at issue and the results achieved by the limitation.
Crown Operations Intl, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
15. To be considered prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the application for
the asserted prior art patent must have been filed before the effective date of the
patent-in-suit. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d).
16. With respect to asserted prior art references for which a defendant is
attempting to use the filing date of a provisional application as its priority date: (a)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71005 Page 11 of 82
10
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
The material being relied upon as teaching the subject matter of the challenged
claims must be in the provisional application itself, as well as in the issued patent
being used against the challenged claims. In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383
(Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Illumina, Inc., IPR 2014-
01093, Paper No. 69 (Jan. 7, 2016) (citing and relying upon both Giacomini and
Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2015)); and (b) the disclosure of the provisional application must provide support
for the claims of the purported prior art reference patent. Dynamic Drinkware,
800 F.3d at 1382 ("reference patent is only entitled to claim the benefit of the
filing date of its provisional application if the disclosure of the provisional
application provides support for the claims in the reference patent in compliance
with § 112, ¶ 1" and a "provisional application's effectiveness as prior art depends
on its written description support for the claims of the issued patent of which it is
a provisional").
17. “In determining that quantum of prior art disclosure which is
necessary to declare an applicant’s invention ‘not novel’ or ‘anticipated’ within
section 102, the stated test is whether a reference contains an ‘enabling
disclosure’... .” In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968).
The disclosure in an asserted anticipating reference must provide an enabling
disclosure of the claimed subject matter. Mere naming or description of the
subject matter is insufficient if it cannot be produced without undue
experimentation. Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. For Med. Educ. & Research,
346 F.3d 1051, 1054, 68 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
18. A reference contains an “enabling disclosure” if the public was in
possession of the claimed invention before the date of invention. “Such possession
is effected if one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the publication’s
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71006 Page 12 of 82
11
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed
invention.” In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 226 USPQ 619 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
19. Whether prior art renders a patent claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is a question of law that relies on factual findings, including: (1) the scope and
content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claim(s) at
issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention; and (4)
any relevant secondary considerations. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678
F.3d 1280, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2012). KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
427 (2007)(“The ultimate judgment of obviousness is a legal determination.”); see
also Dippin' Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
20. “[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in
the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
21. “An invention may be a combination of old elements disclosed in
multiple prior art references.” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
22. “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction
manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the
claimed invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).
23. “That which may be made clear and thus ‘obvious' to a court, with
the invention fully diagrammed and aided . . . may have been a breakthrough of
substantial dimension when first unveiled.” Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil,
774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
24. “[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches
together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”
Metalcraft v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71007 Page 13 of 82
12
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
25. “The inventor’s own path itself never leads to a conclusion of
obviousness; that is hindsight.” Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d
1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
26. “[T]he [obviousness] determination is made not after observing what
the inventor actually did, but in light of the state of the art before the invention
was made.” Outside the Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 695 F. 3d 1285,
1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
27. An invention will not be held obvious “where vague prior art does
not guide an inventor toward a particular solution” for a known problem. Bayer
Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Labs., Inc., 575 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
28. In attempting to establish obviousness, one must avoid the temptation
to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue and guard against
slipping into the use of hindsight. The prior art itself, and not the applicant's
achievement, must establish the obviousness of the combination. Interconnect
Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
29. An invention is obvious if one of ordinary skill in the art, faced with
the wide range of needs created by developments in the field, would have found it
obvious to employ the solution tried by the applicant to meet such needs. See
KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007); In re CHERC
Patent Lit., 676 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Application of Ludwig, 353
F.2d 241, 244 (CCPA 1965).
30. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
presumed to be aware of all of the pertinent art. A person of skill in the art is
ordinary, not extraordinary, and is deemed to follow conventional wisdom.
Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also presumed to be one who thinks along
the line of conventional wisdom in the art and is not one who undertakes to
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71008 Page 14 of 82
13
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
innovate, whether by patient, and often expensive, systematic research or by
extraordinary insights, it makes no difference which.”). The person of ordinary
skill in a written description analysis is thus a person who would apply
conventional wisdom in the art to discern whether the specification supports the
claimed subject matter.
31. “It is elementary that the claimed invention must be considered as a
whole in deciding the question of obviousness.” Litton Indus. Products, Inc. v.
Solid State Systems Corp., 755 F.2d 158 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
32. “It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and
choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position,
to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such
reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Hedges, 783
F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d 238, 241
(CCPA 1965)). See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1051 n.15
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (identifying motivation to combine and teaching away
as “two discrete bases” supporting district court’s denial of JMOL); see also Star
Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
33. A patent may only be found invalid for obviousness if the party
seeking to invalidate the patent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious as the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. The question of obviousness is analyzed by looking at
four factors, all of which must be considered before reaching a conclusion: (1) the
scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the claims and the
prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective indicators of
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71009 Page 15 of 82
14
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 16 (1966); KSR
Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007).
34. A party seeking to invalidate a patent on obviousness grounds must
prove by clear and convincing evidence both: (1) that a person of ordinary skill
would have had some reason or motivation to combine the teachings of the prior
art references; and (2) that the person of ordinary skill would have had a
reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Thus, it is insufficient for the
purposes of proving obviousness to show only that each element of a patent claim
was independently known in the prior art. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009); KSR Intern. Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-420 (2007);
35. In assessing the prior art, we “consider[] whether a [person of
ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to combine the prior art to
achieve the claimed invention.” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (citing In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
36. “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could
have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or
modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” See Belden Inc. v.
Berk–Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
37. When evaluating a combination of teachings, we must also
“determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements
in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441, F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
38. A POSA would be motivated to combine separate items of prior art
to achieve a particular result only if the POSA firs recognized the problem to be
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71010 Page 16 of 82
15
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
solved by such result. See Leo Pharmaceutical Products., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
39. It is improper to combine references “like separate pieces of a simple
jigsaw puzzle” without “explain[ing] what reason or motivation one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had to place these pieces
together.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2014).
40. “That which may be made clear and thus ‘obvious' to a court, with
the invention fully diagrammed and aided . . . may have been a breakthrough of
substantial dimension when first unveiled.” Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil,
774 F.2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
41. Where a proposed modification would render a prior art invention
being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed modification
would not have been obvious. See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan Inc., 192
F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir.
1984); In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959).
42. “The factual inquiry whether to combine references must be thorough
and searching.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See also
ActiveVideo Networks v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2012)(“ The expert failed to explain how specific references could be combined,
which combination(s) of elements in specific references would yield a predictable
result, or how any specific combination would operate or read on the asserted
claims”).
43. Obviousness must be determined as of the date of the invention (i.e.,
the effective filing date or priority date of the patent). 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty and Closures, Inc., 731 F.3d 1258, 1263-
64 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71011 Page 17 of 82
16
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
44. In assessing motivation to combine, the following may be
considered: (i) whether the combination or modification was merely the
predictable result of using prior art element according to their known functions;
(ii) whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a known
problem in the art; (iii) whether the claimed invention applied a known technique
that had been used to improve a similar device or method in a similar way; (iv)
whether the prior art teaches or suggests making the combination or modification
claimed in the patent; (v) whether the prior art teaches away from combining
elements in the claimed invention; (vi) whether it would have been obvious to try
the combination or modification, such as when there is a design need or market
pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions; and (vii) whether the combination or modification resulted more from
design incentives or other market forces. Allergan v. Sandoz, 796 F.3d 1293,
1303-04 (Fed. Cir. 2015); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-420
(2007).
45. Common sense, common wisdom, and common knowledge may be
used to support a motivation to combine, so long as the use of common sense in
the analysis is explained with sufficient reasoning. But, common sense can only
be used to supply a limitation missing from the prior art where the technology is
unusually simple and straightforward. DSS Technology Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
885 F.3d 1367, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
46. Not all references may be considered for determining obviousness.
A reference must be either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or be
reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in
order to be considered prior art under an obviousness inquiry. In re Klein, 647
F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71012 Page 18 of 82
17
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
47. An obviousness combination must be enabling of that which it claims
to render obvious. In Re Application of Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 314-15 (CCPA
1979); Beckman Instrs., Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (“In
order to render a claimed apparatus or method obvious, the prior art must enable
one skilled in the art to make and use the apparatus or method”).
48. Where the PTO has considered the arguments made by a defendant
as to the asserted patent’s validity, the Court may defer to the PTO’s expertise
when making a decision. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
49. “When an attacker simply goes over the same ground travelled by the
PTO, part of the burden is to show that the PTO was wrong in its decision to grant
the patent.” See Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. Sowa & Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1360
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
50. A prima facie showing of obviousness may be overcome by a
showing of “secondary considerations of non-obviousness,” which include:
a. commercial success or lack of commercial success of the
invention;
b. whether the invention taught away from the technical direction
followed by those skilled in the art;
c. the existence of a long-felt but unsatisfied need for the
invention while the needed implementing arts and elements had long been
available;
d. whether the invention achieves results that are unexpected to
those skilled in the art and superior to the current state of the art;
e. whether the invention rapidly replaced prior-art devices in the
industry.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71013 Page 19 of 82
18
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
f. prompt copying of the invention by competitors as
distinguished from their independent development;
g. unsuccessful attempts by those skilled in the art to make the
invention.
h. acquiescence by the industry to the patent's validity by
honoring the patent through taking licenses or not infringing the patent, or both;
i. skepticism, disbelief in, or incredulity on the part of those
skilled in the art concerning the patentee’s approach; and
j. recognition of invention’s advancement over the part by
technically competent peers.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); In re Rouffett,
149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810
F.2d 1561, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 717 F.2d
1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consol. Rubber Tire Co.,
220 U.S. 428, 440-41 (1911); Amstar Corp. v. Envirotech Corp., 730 F.2d 1476,
1483 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
51. The impact of secondary considerations is part of an obviousness
determination and, when they are present, they must be considered as part of that
determination. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins, 776 F.2d 281, 306 (Fed. Cir.
1985).
52. A patent owner may introduce evidence of secondary factors to rebut
a defendant’s assertion that the claims of a patent are supposed obvious and
invalid. Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 464 F.3d 1286, 1293 (Fed.Cir.2006)
(secondary considerations are available for a patentee to use in rebutting a prima
facie case of obviousness); Syntex LLC v Apotex, 407 F.3d 1371, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2005). A patent holder properly addresses secondary considerations in a rebuttal
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71014 Page 20 of 82
19
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
expert report regarding patent validity. See Sanofi-Aventis v. Barr Labs., Inc., 598
F.Supp.2d 632 (D. N.J. 2009).
53. Secondary factors must bear a nexus to the claimed invention. Wyers
v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
54. There is a “presumption of a nexus” when a product is “coextensive”
with a patent claim. Teva Pharm., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 723 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2013).
55. A prima facie case of nexus is established when the patentee shows
both commercial success, and that the product that is commercially successful is
the invention disclosed and claimed. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580
(Fed. Cir. 1995).
56. A showing that specific products are embodiments of the claimed
invention and that the proffered objective evidence relates to such products is
sufficient to establish the presumption of nexus for the considerations of non-
obviousness. WBIB, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
57. Advertising the benefits of the claimed invention links the invention
to commercial success. See Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110
F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“The prominence of the patented technology in
. . . advertising creates an inference that links the . . . invention to this success”);
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2012).
58. Objective evidence of licensing is relevant and compelling if the
licensing “arose out of recognition and acceptance of the subject matter claimed”
in the patents. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
59. “[L]icenses showing industry respect for the invention” is objective
evidence of nonobviousness. In re Roufett, 149 F.1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
see also CBS v. Sylvania., Inc., 415 F.2d 719, 728 (1st Cir. 1969) (“the leader in
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71015 Page 21 of 82
20
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
color television development chose to license”), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1061
(1970).
60. Praise from others, particularly competitors in the industry, is strong
evidence of the non-obviousness of an invention. See Power-One v. Artesyn
Techs, Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Gambro Lunda AB v. Baxter
Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Allen Archery,
Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co., 819 F.2d 1087, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (praise in the
industry for a patented invention, specifically praise from a competitor tends to
indicate that the invention was not obvious).
61. “Copying may indeed be another form of flattering praise for
inventive features.” Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See
also Heidelberger v. Hantscho Prods., 21 F.3d 1068, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
("litigation argument that an innovation is really quite ordinary carries diminished
weight when offered by those who had tried and failed to solve the same problem,
and then promptly adopted the solution that they are now denigrating") and Wyers
v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
62. Technology awards for an invention are a very compelling category
of objective evidence demonstrating nonobviousness. See Eli Lilly & Co. v.
Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(finding that the record evidence established non-obviousness; secondary
considerations included numerous awards given for olanzapine, a pharmaceutical
compound claimed in the patent-at-issue). See also Rambus, 731 F.3d at 1256-
1257.
63. “Where the allegedly obvious patent claim is a combination of prior
art elements, we have explained that the patent owner can show that it is the
claimed combination as a whole that serves as a nexus for the objective evidence;
proof of nexus is not limited to only when objective evidence is tied to the
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71016 Page 22 of 82
21
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
supposedly “new” feature(s).” Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (citation omitted); WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 2016 WL 3902668 at 15 (Fed.
Cir. July 19, 2016).
64. “An invention may be praised or commercially successful for reasons
other than the claimed invention but a nexus may still exist as long as it can be
shown that such praise or success is also due in part to the claimed invention.”
Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 725 F.3d 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
65. “Objective evidence of non-obviousness need only be ‘reasonably
commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248,
1256-57 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
66. "The significance of a new structure is often better measured in the
marketplace than in the courtroom." Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto
Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
67. Testimony that a product was successful due to the patented features
supports a finding of nexus. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013). See also, e.g.,
Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 679 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(reversing district court finding of obviousness and lack of nexus to commercial
success where the patented invention’s “commercial success was due, at least in
part, to one of the four advantages set forth in the patent specification”);
Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(“It is not necessary that [] the patented invention be solely responsible for the
commercial success, in order for this factor to be given weight appropriate to the
evidence, along with other pertinent factors”).
68. Corroboration can be by independent circumstantial evidence.
Lacotte v. Thomas, 758 F.2d 611, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71017 Page 23 of 82
22
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
69. “[A] patentable invention may lie in the discovery of the source of a
problem." In Re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578,832 (CCPA 1969). “[A]n invention can
often be the recognition of a problem itself.” Leo Pharmaceutical Prods., Ltd. v.
Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St.
Jude Med., Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
70. In order for the claims of a patent to be valid, they must be supported
by the specification of the patent in which they are recited. Tobinick v. Olmarker,
753 F.3d 1220, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
71. To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶
1, “the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled
artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
72. “[T]he written description requirement does not demand a particular
form of disclosure, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec
verba.” Id. at 1352 (internal citation omitted). Nor does it demand “either
examples or an actual reduction to practice.” Id. “[I]t is unnecessary to spell out
every detail of the invention in the specification; only enough must be included to
convince a person of skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention.”
Falkner v. Inglis, 448 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also LizardTech, Inc.
v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“it is
unnecessary to spell out every detail of the invention in the specification”).
Indeed, “[n]o length requirement exists for a disclosure to adequately describe an
invention.” Id. at 1365-66.
73. “Because the specification is viewed from the perspective of one of
skill in the art, in some circumstances, a patentee may rely on information that is
‘well-known in the art’ for purposes of meeting the written description
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71018 Page 24 of 82
23
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
requirement.” Boston Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
74. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is
presumed to be aware of all of the pertinent art. A person of skill in the art is
ordinary, not extraordinary, and is deemed to follow conventional wisdom.
Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 454 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
75. “To be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled
in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without
undue experimentation.” ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940
(Fed. Cir. 2010); AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1238-39 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
76. Factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would
require undue experimentation include “(1) the quantity of experimentation
necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or
absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the
prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or
unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.” In re Wands, 858
F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
77. Because a person of skill in the art already possesses substantial
knowledge about the field of the invention, the disclosure need not explain how to
make and use the invention from the beginning. Falko–Gunter Falkner v. Inglis,
448 F.3d 1357, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] patent need not teach, and preferably
omits, what is well known in the art.”); Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc.,
198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[I]t makes no sense to encumber the
specification of a patent with all the knowledge of the past concerning how to
make and use the claimed invention”).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71019 Page 25 of 82
24
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
78. To be sufficiently enabling, the disclosure need only describe what is
novel about the invention in sufficient detail so that one of skill in the art would
be able combine the disclosure with the knowledge already known in the field and
have enough information to practice the invention without undue experimentation.
See Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1071 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (“Enablement does not require the inventor to foresee every means of
implementing an invention at pains of losing his patent franchise.”).
79. A claim is invalid for indefiniteness only if, read in light of the
specification and the prosecution history, it fails to inform, with reasonable
certainty, those skilled in the art at the time the patent was filed as to the scope of
the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrs., Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2123 (2014).
80. A patent holder need not define his or her invention with
mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness requirement.
Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publications Intern., Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
2017).
81. The terms of claims of a patent are generally given their “ordinary
and customary meaning” as understood by a person of “ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention.” Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1358
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The ordinary meaning of a claim term is its
meaning “to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Id.
82. In order to show reduction to practice, a party “must demonstrate that
the invention is suitable for its intended purpose.” Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058,
1061 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Reduction to practice, however, does not require actual
use, but only a reasonable showing that the invention will work to overcome the
problem it addresses.” Id. at 1063. See also Scott v. Finney, 34 F.3d 1058, 1061
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71020 Page 26 of 82
25
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
83. “The purpose of claims is not to explain the technology or how it
works, but to state the legal boundaries of the patent grant.” S3 Inc. v. nVIDIA
Corp., 259 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
84. Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not amenable to bright-line
categorical rules. See Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3229-30 (2010).
85. It has been especially difficult to apply § 101 properly in the context
of computer-implemented inventions. CLS Bank Intl v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717
F.3d 1269, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc).
86. “[I]nventions with specific applications or improvements to
technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override
the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act.” Research Corp. Tech.,
Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
87. In determining the eligibility of [a] claimed process for patent
protection under § 101, ... claims must be considered as a whole. It is
inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore
the presence of the old elements in the analysis. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,
188 (1981); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3230.
88. While satisfaction of either prong of the machine or transformation
test confers patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the machine or
transformation prong is not the only means by which a Court can conclude that
claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct.
3218, 3227 (2010). See also SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC, 601 F.3d 1319, 1332-1333
(Fed. Cir. 2010).
89. “Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or
thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular
machines.” Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3227 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v.
Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972). “Transformation of electronic data has been
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71021 Page 27 of 82
26
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
found when the nature of the data has been changed such that it has a different
function or is suitable for a different use.” MPEP 2106(II)(B)(1)(b) (citing In re
Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962-63 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (aff'd sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 130
S. Ct. 3218 (2010)); see also MPEP §2106(II)(B)(1)(b).
90. The Supreme Court’s decision in Alice explicitly requires analysis of
all the elements of each claim, “both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’
to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’
into a patent-eligible application.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl., 134 S. Ct. 2347,
2355 (2014). The first step of the Alice inquiry is “a meaningful one,” such that
“a substantial class of claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept.”
Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also
Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp., No, 2016-2254, (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2017).
91. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014), “did not
alter the governing law of § 101. In Alice, the Court applied the same two-step
framework it created in Mayo [Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77–79 (2012)] in its § 101 analysis.” Voter Verified, Inc. v.
Election Sys. & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
92. Claims reciting computers, networks and the internet are patent
eligible where the claimed solution overcomes problems in such environment.
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
See also Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300-01.
93. The claims must be considered as a whole in a § 101 analysis. See,
e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain
whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71022 Page 28 of 82
27
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
(quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Networks, Inc., 790 F.3d at 1343, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2015)). The Alice inquiry ends if the claims, as a whole, are not
“directed to” an abstract idea. McRO v. Bandai, 837 F.3d at 1312.
94. The Federal Circuit has cautioned against oversimplifying claims by
ignoring specifically-recited requirements in a § 101 analysis. McRO. v. Bandai,
837 F.3d at 1313. See also Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc., Case
No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss at 13-14 (N.D. Cal.
April 6, 2018).
95. Even if claims are directed towards an abstract idea, they may still be
patent eligible if they consist of unique and unconventional combinations of
elements. See Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1304; Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348-1349.
96. While patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 is ultimately a question
of law, there are underlying factual questions on which the section 101 inquiry
turns. “Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a
skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination. Whether a
particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond
what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed
in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine,
and conventional.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
97. The plain meaning of “predetermined” in a claim meant “to
determine beforehand.” Homeland Housewares v. Whirlpool Corp., 865 F.3d
1372, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
98. Claims are to be interpreted as a whole. See Cat Tech LLC v.
TubeMaster, Inc., 528 F.3d 871, 885 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that “[c]laims are
interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim”) (quotation
omitted).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71023 Page 29 of 82
28
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
99. The patent holder must prove infringement by a preponderance of the
evidence, i.e., more likely than not. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA,
Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1341, n.15 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp.
of Am., 975 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
100. The acts giving rise to direct infringement are the making, using,
selling or offering to sell, or importing of the patented invention. 35 U.S.C. §
271(a).
101. An accused product or system literally infringes a claim of a patent if
every requirement of the claim is included in the product or system. Strattec Sec.
Corp. v. General Automotive Specialty Co., Inc., 126 F.3d 1411, 1418 (Fed. Cir.
1997)
102. Under the doctrine of equivalents, the product or system infringes a
patent claim if it includes parts that are either identical to or equivalent of the
requirements of the claim. Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical
Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997).
103. A patentee can invoke the doctrine of equivalents to maintain a claim
of infringement against a party that produces a product if it performs substantially
the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result. The
theory on which the doctrine is based is that if two devices do the same work in
substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the same result, they are
the same, even though they differ in name, form or shape. Graver Tank & Mfg.
Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950).
104. A part of the product or system is equivalent to the requirement of a
patent claim if a person of ordinary skill in the art would think the differences
between the part and the claim requirement were not substantial as of the time of
the alleged infringement. Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., Inc., 983 F.2d
1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71024 Page 30 of 82
29
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
105. If an accused product practices the elements of a patent claim, a
defendant does not avoid infringement by adding additional elements or functions
to its product that are not claimed by the patent, even if those additional elements
or functions are improvements to the product. Amstar Corp. v. Envirotech Corp.,
730 F.2d 1476, 1482 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Hunter Douglas Corp. v. Kwik-Kleen
Venetian Blind Laundries, 128 F.Supp. 252, 255 (S.D. Cal. 1955); Johns-Manville
Co. v. R. V. Aycock Co., 45 F.2d 817, 821 (W.D. Mo. 1927); Mills Novelty Co. v.
Monarch Tool & Mfg. Co., 76 F.2d 653, 654 (6th Cir. 1935); Solex Laboratories,
Inc. v. Graham, 165 F.Supp. 428, 437 (S.D. Cal. 1958).
106. Infringement is not avoided merely because a non-infringing mode of
operation is possible for an otherwise infringing product. VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco
Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1321–22 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing z4 Techs., Inc. v.
Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
107. A finding of infringement can be rest on as little as one instance of
the claimed method being performed during the pertinent time period. Convolve,
Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 527 F. App’x 910, 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
108. Marking a system with a patent number can function as an estoppel
to deny that the marked system practices the claims of the patent. Gridiron Steel
Co. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 361 F.2d 791, 797 (6th Cir. 1966); Canaan
Products, Inc. v. Edward Don & Co., 273 F.Supp. 492, 502 (N.D. Ill. 1966).
109. In order to rely on a non-infringing alternative, the alternative must
be shown to be “acceptable” to customers; “[m]ere existence of a competing
device does not make that device an acceptable substitute.” TWM Mft. Co. v.
Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 901 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
110. After-arising technology can be captured by broadly drafted patent
claims. See, e.g., Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Laboratories, 512 F.3d 1363, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our case law allows for after-arising technology to be captured
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71025 Page 31 of 82
30
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
within the literal scope of valid claims that are drafted broadly enough.”); id. at
1370 (“[A]s is well established, an applicant is not required to describe in the
specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment of his
invention.”); SuperGuide Corp. v. DIRECTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 878-880
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“regularly received television signal” broad enough to
encompass digital signals even though no television signals could receive digital
signals as of the filing date).
111. A patent infringement defendant that did not have an actual non-
infringing alternative on the market at the relevant time bears the burden of
overcoming the inference that there was no available non-infringing alternative.
DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F. 3d 1314, 1331-32
(Fed. Cir. 2009).
112. Experts are not permitted “to render any conclusions regarding the
scope of the patents-in-suit or particular claim limitations that deviate from the
Court’s claim constructions. See, e.g., ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 2:13-CV-1112-JRG, 2015 WL 4944514, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug.
19, 2015), aff’d sub nom. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 701 Fed.
Appx. 957 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575
F.3d 1312, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Once a district court has construed the relevant
claim terms, and unless altered by the district court, then that legal determination
governs for purposes of trial. No party may contradict the court's construction to a
jury.”); Personalized User Model, L.L.P. v. Google Inc., CV 09-525-LPS, 2014
WL 807736, at *1 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2014) (“[E]xpert testimony inconsistent with
the Court’s claim construction is unreliable and unhelpful to the finder of fact”).
113. A defendant is liable for inducing infringement if the defendant: (a)
intentionally took action that actually induced direct infringement; (b) was aware
of the patent; and (c) knew that the acts it was causing to incur would infringe the
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71026 Page 32 of 82
31
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
patent. 35 U.S.C. § 271(b); Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct.
1920, 1928-31 (2015).
114. The knowledge requirement of induced infringement may be satisfied
by the doctrine of willful blindness where the defendant is aware that a high
probability that its acts may induce infringement of the patent and took deliberate
action to avoid learning of the fact. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563
U.S. 754, 769-70 (2011); Trading Technologies Intern., Inc. v. BCG Partners,
Inc., 2011 WL 3946581 *3 (N.D. Ill. 9-2-11); Weiland Sliding Doors and
Windows, Inc. v. Panda Windows and Doors, LLC, 2012 WL 202664 *4 (S.D.
Cal. 1-23-12).
115. Intent to induce infringement may be proven by circumstantial
evidence. Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1322 (Fed.
Cir. 2009).
116. Evidence of active steps taken to induce infringement, such as
advertising an infringing use, can support a finding of an intention for the product
to be used in an infringing manner. Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
580 F.3d 1301, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
117. “To show the intent to induce infringement, it is sufficient that the
plaintiff establish that a defendant's asserted belief in non-infringement was
unreasonable.” Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 824 F.3d 1344, 1351
at n. 2 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
118. A defendant is liable for contributory infringement if the defendant:
(a) supplied an important component of the infringing system; (b) the component
is not a common instrumentality suitable for non-infringing use; and (c) the
defendant supplied the component with knowledge that the component was
especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner. 35 U.S.C. §271(c);
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71027 Page 33 of 82
32
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1356-58 (Fed.
Cir. 2007).
119. The doctrine of willful blindness can satisfy the knowledge element
of a claim for contributory infringement. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive,
Inc., 824 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Biosonix, LLC v. Hydrowave, LLC,
2016 WL 9229848 *4 (E.D. Tex. 8-10-16).
120. If a defendant is found liable for infringement of a claim of patent,
the patent holder is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate for
such infringement, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use of the
patented invention made by the infringing defendant. 35 U.S.C. § 284.
121. A reasonable royalty is “merely the floor below which damages shall
not fall.” Bandag, Inc. v. Gerrard Tire Co., 704 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
122. Factors to be considered when determining the amount of a
reasonable royalty for infringement include:
1. The royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in
suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty.
2. The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to
the patent in suit.
3. The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive; or as
restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the
manufactured product may be sold.
4. The licensor's established policy and marketing program to maintain his
patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting
licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly.
5. The commercial relationship between the licensor and licensee, such as,
whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business; or
whether they are inventor and promoter.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71028 Page 34 of 82
33
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
6. The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other
products of the licensee; that existing value of the invention to the licensor as a
generator of sales of his non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or
convoyed sales.
7. The duration of the patent and the term of the license.
8. The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its
commercial success; and its current popularity.
9. The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or
devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results.
10. The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial
embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those
who have used the invention.
11. The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention; and any
evidence probative of the value of that use.
12. The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in
the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the
invention or analogous inventions.
13. The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the
invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing
process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the
infringer.
14. The opinion testimony of qualified experts.
15. The amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a licensee (such as
the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both
had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the
amount which a prudent licensee— who desired, as a business proposition, to
obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71029 Page 35 of 82
34
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
patented invention— would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able
to make a reasonable profit and which amount would have been acceptable by a
prudent patentee who was willing to grant a license.
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D. N.Y.
1970)
123. “An established royalty is usually the best measure of a ‘reasonable’
royalty for a given use of an invention because it removes the need to guess at the
terms to which parties would hypothetically agree.” Monsanto Co. v.
McFarling, 488 F.3d 973, 978–79 (Fed.Cir.2007) (citation omitted).
124. A patent owner is not required to prove its damages with
mathematical precision. Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10,
31 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Radware, Ltd. v. F5 Networks, Inc., 2016 WL 410017 *4
(N.D. Cal. 2-3-16); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. BMW North America, LLC, 783
F.Supp. 891, 901 (E.D. Tex. 2011).
125. When the amount of the damages cannot be ascertained with
precision, any doubts regarding the amount must be resolved against the infringer.
Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 718 F.2d 1056, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing
Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co., 282 U.S. 555, 563
(1931)).
126. Under the “book of wisdom” doctrine, factual developments
occurring after the date of the hypothetical negotiation can inform the damages
calculation, and the court can consider events and facts that occurred after the
hypothetical negotiation date. Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580
F.3d 1301, 1333-34; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co., 289
U.S. 689, 698 (1933).
127. Royalty rates based on fixed per unit dollar amounts are not derived
from an accused product’s revenues or profits and thus do not implicate the entire
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71030 Page 36 of 82
35
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
market value rule. See Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple, Inc., 2012 WL 5873711
*6 (S.D. Cal. 11-20-2012). (The “entire market value rule” provides that a patent
holder may base its reasonable royalty calculation upon the entire market value of
the accused product where it is economically justified. This may be the case
where use of the entire market value is the industry standard or where the
comparable licenses are based on the entire market value of the product. See
Mondis Technology, Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 2011 WL 2417367 *2 (E.D. Tex.
2011); Multimedia Patent Trust v. Apple, Inc., 2012 WL 5873711 *6 (S.D. Cal.
11-20-2012).)
128. To be admissible as evidence in connection with a determination of
damages for patent infringement, an alleged non-infringing alternative must be
both available and acceptable. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1315
(Fed. Cir. 2014); Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics
& Plastics, Inc., 637 F.3d 1269, 1288-89 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
129. In order to rely on a non-infringing alternative, the alternative must
be shown to be “acceptable” to customers; “[m]ere existence of a competing
device does not make that device an acceptable substitute.” TWM Mft. Co. v.
Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 901 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
130. To be an acceptable substitute or alternative, an alleged substitute
must have been available during the period when the infringing product was sold.
A substitute may be considered available as a substitute if it was actually
demonstrably available at the relevant time during the infringement period or, if,
during that period, it is shown that a competitor or accused infringer had all the
necessary equipment, materials, know-how, and experience to design and
manufacture a non-infringing substitute and sell it to its customers. See, e.g.,
Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 702 F.3d 1351, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 2012); Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152,
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71031 Page 37 of 82
36
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
1162 (6th Cir. 1978); Grain Processing Corp. v. Am. Maize-Prods. Co., 185 F.3d
1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
131. The Federal Circuit has expressly rejected the assertion that evidence
of a non-infringing alternative, even if admissible, must be accepted as the
measure of damage. See Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 527 F.3d 1359 (Fed.
Cir. 2008)(“ [E]ven if Coinco had shown that it had an acceptable noninfringing
alternative at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, Coinco is wrong as a matter
of law to claim that reasonable royalty damages are capped at the cost of
implementing the cheapest available, acceptable, noninfringing alternative. We
have previously considered and rejected such an argument. . . . To the contrary, an
infringer may be liable for damages, including reasonable royalty damages, that
exceed the amount that the infringer could have paid to avoid infringement”). See
also M2M Solutions LLC v. Enfora, Inc., 167 F.Supp.2d 665, 682 (D. Del. 2016)
(“[W]hile the existence of a non-infringing alternative ‘is a factor relevant to the
determination of a proper royalty during hypothetical negotiations,’ it remains just
that, a factor, and does not conclusively establish an upper limit on a reasonably
[sic] royalty”).
132. Prejudgment interest should normally be awarded to a prevailing
patent holder in an infringement action from the date that royalty payments would
have been received in order to make the patent holder whole. General Motors
Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 655-56 (1983); 35 U.S.C. §284.
133. The Court has broad discretion to determine the appropriate interest
rate to apply. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin–Wiley Corp., 939 F.2d 1540, 1545
(Fed. Cir. 1991). The prime interest rate is commonly used. See Illinois Tool
Works, Inc. v. MOC Products Company, Inc., 2013 WL 12064544 * 8 (S.D. Cal.
10-25-2013).
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71032 Page 38 of 82
37
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
134. 35 U.S.C. § 284 gives the District Court discretion to award
enhanced damages against those liable for patent infringement. Such enhanced
damages should be limited to egregious cases of willful misconduct beyond
typical infringement. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S.Ct.
1923, 1933-1935 (2016); Polara Eng., Inc. v. Campbell Co., 237 F.Supp.3d 956,
980-81 (C.D. Cal. 2017).
135. Subjective willfulness alone can support an award of enhanced
damages. A patentee seeking enhanced damages must show subjective
willfulness by a preponderance of the evidence. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs.
Co., Ltd., 258 F.Supp.3d 1013, 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2017)(citing Halo Electronics,
Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S.Ct. 1923 (2016)).
136. To determine whether a court should exercise its discretion to award
enhanced damages, courts consider nine factors described in Read Corp. v.
Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
The Read factors include: (1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas
or design of another; (2) whether the infringer, when he knew of the other's patent
protection, investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good-faith belief that
it was invalid or that it was not infringed; (3) the infringer's behavior as a party to
the litigation; (4) defendant's size and financial condition; (5) closeness of the
case; (6) duration of defendant's misconduct; (7) remedial action by the defendant;
(8) defendant's motivation for harm, and (9) whether defendant attempted to
conceal its misconduct. Read, 970 F.2d at 827.
137. If a patent claim is determined to be valid and infringed by a
defendant, the Court may order post-trial injunctive relief to prohibit further
infringement or may grant an ongoing royalty for the defendants’ continuing use
of the patented invention. Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293,
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71033 Page 39 of 82
38
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007); SCA Hygiene Prod. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby
Prod., LLC, 807 F.3d 1311, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2015), vacated in part on other
grounds, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017).
C. Abandoned Issues
Ameranth is not asserting any claims for willful infringement of the ‘077
Patent against defendants, but reserves the right to assert such claims if their use
of the patent continues after a finding of validity and infringement.
The ‘850, ‘325 and ‘733 Patents are no longer at issue.
The defendants are no longer asserting any claim for unenforceability of the
‘077 Patent based on the alleged commitment of “inequitable conduct” in its
prosecution.
D. Exhibits
Pursuant to Local Rule 16(f)(2)(2), a list of the exhibits Ameranth’s
presently intends to offer at trial is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
E. Witnesses1
Percipient Witnesses:
1. Keith McNally
2. Richard Bergfeld
3. Kathie Sanders
4. Betsy Eicherly
5. Vern Yates
6. John Harker
7. James Kargman
8. David Kargman
9. Nella Ludlow
1 To the extent any listed witness was deposed in this matter and is not available
to testify in person at trial, Ameranth reserves the right to introduce portions of such witness’s deposition testimony at trial and to include such deposition transcripts as exhibits.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71034 Page 40 of 82
39
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
10. Douglas Dedo
11. Judd Goldfeder (deceased- by deposition transcript only)
12. Rule 30(b)(6) designees of the Defendants deposed herein
Expert Witnesses:
1. Michael Shamos, Ph.D. Dr. Shamos is a Distinguished Career
Professor in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University, and
holds several technical degrees and a law degree, and is admitted to the Bar of the
U.S.P.T.O. Dr. Shamos has submitted expert reports in this matter detailing the
substance of his anticipated testimony at trial, and those reports are incorporated
by reference herein. In summary, Dr. Shamos will testify that the claims of the
‘077 Patent are valid and enforceable and further supported by secondary factors
of non-obviousness. Dr. Shamos will also testify in rebuttal to the testimony of
the defendants’ expert witnesses on such topics.
2. Sam Malek, Ph.D. Dr. Malek holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science
from the University of Southern California. He is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Informatics at the University of California, Irvine, and the Director
of the Software Engineering and Analysis Laboratory. He has worked as software
engineer and architect. Dr. Malek has submitted expert reports in this matter
detailing the substance of his anticipated testimony at trial, and those reports are
incorporated by reference herein. In summary, Dr. Malek will testify that the
defendants’ accused systems infringe valid and enforceable claims of Ameranth’s
‘077 Patent. Dr. Malek will also testify in rebuttal to the testimony of the
defendants’ expert witnesses on such topics.
3. Jeff Brown, Ph.D. Dr. Brown holds a Ph.D. in economics from the
University of California, Los Angeles. He is a partner at Bates White Economic
Consulting. He has over 20 years’ experience as an economist and in providing
empirical analysis. Dr. Brown has submitted expert reports in this matter
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71035 Page 41 of 82
40
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
detailing the substance of his anticipated testimony at trial, and those reports are
incorporated by reference herein. In summary, Dr. Brown will testify as to the
reasonable royalty rate for use, practice and infringement of the claims of the ‘077
Patent and the amount of damages owed by the defendants to Ameranth for
infringement of such claims. Dr. Brown will also testify in rebuttal to the
testimony of the defendants’ expert witnesses on such topics.
F. Patent Specific Issues [Local Rule 16.1(f)(3)(e)]
a. The Teachings of the Asserted Claims of the ‘077 Patent
The ‘077 Patent teaches, and each claim describes, an information
management and synchronous communications system in which specific
hospitality-related functions are enabled through synchronizing certain operations
of "back end" or "server side" computers with “client side” computers including
“wireless handheld computing devices” such as smartphones and tablets, as well
as (for claims 13-18) other computers, such as desktops and laptops, that may be
used by consumers in, e.g., making online orders, reservations, or event ticket
purchases. Each claim further describes that the system is enabled to transmit, to
wireless handheld computing devices, menus or other hospitality information that
is then displayed on the wireless handheld computing devices in a graphical user
interface (“GUI”) display interface tailored to the handheld device screen size and
other display characteristics of the wireless handheld computing devices.
Additional novel features of the ‘077 Patent claims include integrations
with/between multiple hospitality applications and other specific functionality.
b. How the Asserted Claims are Infringed
As to Pizza Hut/ QuikOrder: Ameranth is asserting claims 1, 6, 8, 13 and
17 of the ‘077 Patent against Pizza Hut and QuikOrder.
Pizza Hut and QuikOrder infringe the asserted claims by making and using
the Accused Pizza Hut System, through which consumers may order pizza and
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71036 Page 42 of 82
41
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
other food items on their mobile phones, tablets and other mobile devices through
Pizza Hut's mobile apps. When a consumer opens a Pizza Hut mobile app and the
consumer's location is identified, the Accused System's “back end” sends a menu
configuration for the selected location to the consumer's mobile device. The
Accused Pizza Hut System enables a restaurant menu to be shown to the
consumer in a display tailored to the screen size and other display characteristics
of the mobile device. The system further enables a consumer's selections from the
menu to be synchronously transmitted to the Accused Pizza Hut System’s “back
end” and enables additional information, such as confirmation of order or
payment, to be synchronously transmitted from the “back end” to the consumer's
mobile device, and enables orders to be fulfilled and consumer payments to be
processed. Additionally, with respect to infringement of claims 13 and 17, the
Accused Pizza Hut System also enables consumers to see the same menu
information and place orders on larger, “non-handheld” consumer computers such
as desktops and laptops, as well as on consumer mobile devices such as mobile
phones and tablets. Further with respect to infringement of claims 13 and 17, the
Accused Pizza Hut System enables consumers to see other information related to
hospitality functions– for example, their ordering history and loyalty rewards
status on mobile phones, tables, desktop computers, and laptops.
As to Domino’s: Ameranth is asserting claims 1, 6, 9, 13 and 17 of the ‘077
Patent against Domino’s. Domino’s infringes the asserted claims by making and
using the Accused Domino’s System, through which consumers may order pizza
and other food items on their mobile phones, tablets and other mobile devices
through Domino’s mobile apps. When a consumer opens a Domino’s mobile app
and identifies the location the consumer wishes to order from, the Accused
System’s “back end” sends a menu configuration for the selected location to the
consumer’s mobile device. The Accused Domino’s System enables a restaurant
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71037 Page 43 of 82
42
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
menu to be shown to the consumer in a display tailored to the screen size and
other display characteristics of the mobile device. The system further enables a
consumer’s selections from the menu to be synchronously transmitted to the
Accused Domino’s System’s “back end” and enables additional information, such
as confirmation of order or payment, to be synchronously transmitted from the
“back end” to the consumer’s mobile device, and enables orders to be fulfilled and
consumer payments to be processed.
Additionally, with respect to infringement of claims 13 and 17, the Accused
Domino’s System also enables consumers to see the same menu information and
place orders on larger, “non-handheld” consumer computers such as desktops and
laptops, as well as on consumer mobile devices such as mobile phones and
tablets. Further with respect to infringement of claims 13 and 17, the Accused
Domino’s System enables consumers to see other information related to
hospitality functions– for example, their ordering history and loyalty rewards
status on mobile phones, tables, desktop computers, and laptops.
As to Papa John’s: Ameranth is asserting claims 1, 6, 9, 13 and 17 of the
‘077 Patent against Papa John’s.
Papa John’s infringes the asserted claims by making and using the Accused
Papa John’s System, through which consumers may order pizza and other food
items on their mobile phones, tablets and other mobile devices through Papa
John’s mobile apps. When a consumer opens a Papa John’s mobile app and the
consumer's location is identified, the Accused System's “back end” sends a menu
configuration for the selected location to the consumer's mobile device. The
Accused Papa John’s System enables a restaurant menu to be shown to the
consumer in a display tailored to the screen size and other display characteristics
of the mobile device. The system further enables a consumer's selections from the
menu to be synchronously transmitted to the Accused Papa John’s System’s “back
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71038 Page 44 of 82
43
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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
end” and enables additional information, such as confirmation of order or
payment, to be synchronously transmitted from the “back end” to the consumer's
mobile device, and enables orders to be fulfilled and consumer payments to be
processed. Additionally, with respect to infringement of claims 13 and 17, the
Accused Papa John’s System also enables consumers to see the same menu
information and place orders on larger, “non-handheld” consumer computers such
as desktops and laptops, as well as on consumer mobile devices such as mobile
phones and tablets. Further with respect to infringement of claims 13 and 17, the
Accused Papa John’s System enables consumers to see other information related
to hospitality functions– for example, their ordering history and loyalty rewards
status on mobile phones, tables, desktop computers, and laptops.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: July 6, 2018 CALDARELLI HEJMANOWSKI & PAGE LLP
By: /s/ William J. Caldarelli
William J. Caldarelli
FABIANO LAW FIRM, P.C.
Michael D. Fabiano
OSBORNE LAW LLC
John W. Osborne
WATTS LAW OFFICE
Ethan M. Watts
Attorneys for Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71039 Page 45 of 82
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71040 Page 46 of 82
-1-
EXHIBIT 1
AMERANTH, INC. V. PIZZA HUT, INC., et al. Case No. 3:11-cv-01810-DMS
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
1. U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
2. U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077 Patent File History
3. Patent Assignment Documents – U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
4. Notice of Allowance – U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
5. U.S. Patent No. 8,738,449
6. Examiner’s Amendment - U.S. Patent No. 8,738,449, dated 12/16/11
7. Transmittal cover pages for Application No. 09/400,413 for U.S. Patent 6,384,850, dated 9/21/99
8. U.S. Patent No. 6,384,850
9. U.S. Patent No. 6,982,733
10. U.S. Patent No. 6,871,325
11. Six Continents Hotels, Inc., and Ameranth Wireless, Inc., eHost Agreement, dated 6/1/05
12. 2010 Compromise and Settlement Agreement and General Release, dated 6/9/10
13. U.S. Patent Application No. 11/112,990 “Secondary Factors” Nexus Overview Summary
14. Declaration of Keith R. McNally Under 37 C.F.R. §1.131, including exhibits, dated 1/22/09, regarding U.S. Patent Application No. 11/112,990 (AMER0180370-AMER0180435)
15. Declaration of Kathie Sanders Under 37 C.F.R. §1.132, including exhibits, dated 8/6/09, regarding U.S. Patent Application No. 11/112,990 (AMER0180763-AMER0180768)
16. Declaration of Keith McNally Under 37 C.F.R. §1.132, dated 8/19/09, including exhibits, regarding U.S. Patent Application No. 11/112,990 (AMER0180572-AMER0180755)
17. Supplemental Declaration (of Keith McNally) Under 37 C.F.R. §1.131, including exhibits, dated 8/19/09 re U.S. Patent Application No. 11/112,990 (AMER0180756-AMER0180761)
18. Declaration of Keith McNally Under 37 C.F.R. §1.111, dated 8/21/09, including exhibits, regarding U.S. Patent Application No. 11/112,990 (AMER0180512-AMER0180571)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71041 Page 47 of 82
-2-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
19. Supplemental Declaration of Keith McNally Under 37 C.F.R. §1.132,
including exhibits, dated 5/12/10, regarding U.S. Patent Application no. 11/112,990
20. Supplemental Declaration of Keith McNally Under 37 C.F.R. §1.132,
including exhibits, dated 12/13/10, regarding U.S. Patent Application No. 11,112,990
21. Supplemental ‘Nexus’ Declaration of Keith McNally Under 37
C.F.R. §1.132, including exhibits, dated 12/13/10
22. Supplemental Response And Amendment Of Claims, including
exhibits, dated 12/14/10, submitted by Michael D. Fabiano U.S. Patent Application No. 11,112,990
23. Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary, Claims discussed: 103-127,
dated 10/14/11 – U.S. Patent Application No. 11,112,990
24. ‘Non Obviousness’ Nexus Timeline Chart – ‘990
25. Articles Of Incorporation of Ameranth Technology Systems, Inc.,
filed 6/19/96
26. Certificate of Incorporation of Ameranth Technology Systems, Inc.,
filed 11/26/96
27. Agreement Of Merger Of Ameranth Technology Systems, Inc. (a
California corporation) And Ameranth Technology Systems, Inc. (a Delaware corporation), dated 7/28/97
28. Certificate Of Amendment Of Certificate Of Incorporation Of
Ameranth Technology Systems, Inc., changing name to Ameranth Wireless, Inc., dated 2/23/01
29. Restated Certificate of Incorporation – Ameranth, Inc., dated 6/20/06
30. IPDEV Co.’s Complaint For Determination Of Priority Of Invention
Among Interfering Patents Under 35 U.S.C. §291 (pre-AIA), dated 5/27/14
31. Order (1) Granting Ameranth’s Motion For Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Due To Inadequate Written Description and (2) Denying IPDEV’s Motion For Summary Judgment Re: Written Description Support And Enablement, IPDEV v. Ameranth, Inc., Southern District of California Case No. 14-cv-1303 DMS (WVG)
32. Judgment In A Civil Case, dated 327/18 , in IPDEV v. Ameranth, Inc., Southern District of California Case No. 14-cv-1303 DMS (WVG)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71042 Page 48 of 82
-3-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
33. Amended Judgment In A Civil Case, dated 3/27/18 , in IPDEV v. Ameranth, Inc., Southern District of California Case No. 14-cv-1303 DMS (WVG)
34. Transcript and video of deposition of David Kargman (30(b)(6)), including exhibits, taken 8/3/17 (IPDEV v. Ameranth)
35. Transcript and video of deposition of David Kargman, including exhibits, taken 7/17/17 (IPDEV v. Ameranth)
36. Transcript and video of deposition of James Kargman, including exhibits, taken 7/17/17 (IPDEV v. Ameranth)
37. Ameranth 21st Century Restaurant Brochure – Wireless Systems
Integration
38. UltraPad 2700/Spectrum24 Characteristics Brochure
39. Ameranth 21st Century Restaurant Brochure – UltraPad 2700 and
AmPrint 2100
40. Ameranth 21st Century Restaurant Brochure – UltraPad 2700 and
AmPrint 2100 (with redlining)
41. Ameranth Brochure Wireless Systems Integration – 5/22/99 – Chicago NRA Show
42. Ameranth PadLink Brochure (AMER0037397-AMER0037398)
43. Ameranth Technology Systems – Introducing the 21st Century Restaurant System – November 1998 (AMER2018000006359-AMER2018000006366)
44. Ameranth 21st Century Restaurant – Increase Efficiency With Wireless Ordering (AMER2018000006362-AMER2018000006363)
45. 21st Century Restaurant (AMER0035094-AMER0034095)
46. TransPad SL (AMER0037249-AMER0037250)
47. QuikOrder – API Collated Brochure – 7/2018
48. Case Study: Ameranth/The Improv Comedy Club – Fall 2000 (AMER2018000000018853-AMER2018000000018854)
49. 2000 Improv Award
50. ComputerWorld Honors Program Award– Improv Ticketing System - 2001
51. Photo of Microsoft 8th
Annual RAD Award plaque & physical exhibit (AMER2018000000018847)
52. Hostalert - Microsoft 8th
Annual RAD Awards (20 pages) and physical exhibit
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71043 Page 49 of 82
-4-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
53. Hospitality Solutions 99 Awards – Innovation Of The Year Award – 4/10/99 (AMER2018000000018849) & physical exhibit
54. Computerworld Honors Laureate (AMER2018000000018850) and physical exhibit
55. HostAlert System plaque photo (8/29/03 Union-Tribune Article) AMER2018000019237 and physical exhibit
56. San Diego Union-Tribune article dated 3/24/06 (AMER2018000000018851-AMER2018000000018852)
57. N.Y. Times article dated 11/25/01, “RESPONSIBLE PARTY/KEITH McNALLY; Holding the Mayo, Efficiently”
58. Wall Street Journal article, “Wireless Ordering Spreads In Busy U.S. Restaurants,” dated 8/6/01 (AMER2018000019233-AMER2018000019235)
59. Ameranth News announcement – Ameranth Technology Systems And Symbol Technologies Reach Agreement On Formation Of Strategic Alliance, dated 4/19/99 (AMER0180784 – AMER0180785)
60. Ameranth News announcement – Ameranth Technology Systems And Comtec Information Systems Announce The Formation Of A Strategic Alliance, dated 5/17/99 (AMER0180787 – AMER0180788)
61. NSC – QuikOrder – Article entitled “Admitting that Maintaining ‘Consistency’ Was Difficult, Even in 2003, dated 5/18/03”
62. Snoeren NIA Related Article entitled “Remote Control: Distributed Application Configuration, Management, and Visualization with Plush,” 2007
63. 2009 FS Tech Awards video
64. eHost Conceptual Relationship with Pizza Hut - 2/15/06 (AMER0040421-27)
65. Ameranth-Pizza Hut Yahoo meeting agenda package - 2/15/06 (AMER0039785-852)
66. Ameranth-QO Strategic Meeting 3-28 to 3-29-06
67. E-mail exchange between Jim Kargman and Keith McNally, dated 11/28/07 (AMER0206029)
68. E-mail re modification of agreement between Ameranth and Wingstop, dated 2/19/14 (AMER20180000000779)
69. Memo re Licensing Agreement with Food.com dated 9/13/99
70. QuikOrder Product Demonstration For Pizza Hut 2001 (10560-10577)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71044 Page 50 of 82
-5-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
71. QuikOrder Product Demonstration For Pizza Hut 2000 (10578-10595)
72. New! Intrapad – A “No-Wait System” Product from Ameranth – AMER0037383-AMER0037396
73. 21st Century Restaurant System Chart – AMER0037398
74. 2005 eHost system overview chart
75. 2006 eHost system overview chart
76. 2006 Magellan product system diagram
77. 2007 Starbucks vision proposal
78. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Biteheist, entered into on 2/27/17 (AMER20180000000399-410)
79. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and BJ’s Restaurants, entered into on 8/27/14 (AMER20180000000411-423)
80. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Brink Software, entered into on 9/30/11 (AMER2018000000035-AMER2018000000046)
81. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Cardfree, entered into on 7/22/14 (AMER20180000000424-434)
82. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and ChowNow, entered into on 6/22/12 (AMER20180000000946-958)
83. First Amended License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and ChowNow, entered into on 12/20/13 (AMER20180000000435-447)
84. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and CircleShout, entered into on 8/26/15 (AMER20180000000448-459)
85. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Cognizant, entered into on 1/28/14 (AMER20180000000460-470)
86. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Comcash, entered into on 3/18/13 (AMER20180000000471-482)
87. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Compel Cart, entered into on 5/24/12 (AMER20180000000802-814)
88. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Data Hawk, entered into on 12/18/15 (AMER20180000000483-495)
89. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Embedded Processor Designs, entered into on 8/28/15 (AMER20180000000496-507)
90. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and EMN8, entered into on 7/1/13 (AMER20180000000371-385)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71045 Page 51 of 82
-6-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
91. Distribution and License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Infogenesis/Agilsys, entered into on 4/4/01 (AMER0050055-70)
92. Amendment No. 1 Distribution and License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Infogenesis/Agilsys, entered into on 4/4/01 (AMER0050071-79)
93. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Jersey Mike’s, entered into on 9/9/14 (AMER20180000000532-543)
94. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Malevia, entered into on 2/3/16 (AMER20180000000544-555)
95. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and MenuSoft, entered into on 11/2/11 (AMER20180000000213-214)
96. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Meplus 1, entered into on 1/21/14 (AMER20180000000556-567)
97. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Mobi2go, entered into on 9/18/15 (AMER20180000000568-579)
98. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and MonkeyMedia, entered into on 6/5/13(AMER20180000000580-592)
99. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and MunchAway, entered into on 1/19/12(AMER20180000000215-231)
100. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and My Check, entered into on 10/29/13(AMER20180000000593-605)
101. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and NetWaiter, entered into on 9/30/11(AMER2018000000047-60)
102. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Nu Order, entered into on 5/16/13 (AMER20180000000606-617)
103. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and One Loyalty. entered into on 4/4/14 (AMER20180000000618-628)
104. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and OrderBee, entered into on 10/24/13 (AMER20180000000629-640)
105. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and ORDRIT, entered into on 8/9/13 (AMER20180000000508-519)
106. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Par, entered into on 12/31/12 (AMER20180000000332-347)
107. Undertaking Regarding Consent To Assignment Of Patent License Agreement - Par, dated 10/30/15
108. Restated License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Par, entered into on 11/5/15
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71046 Page 52 of 82
-7-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
109. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc. and Profitstreams, entered into on 10/24/06 (AMER20180000000124-144)
110. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Profitstreams, entered into on 12/6/06 (AMER20180000000145-166)
111. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Profitstreams, entered into on 3/15/07 (AMER20180000000167-187)
112. Amended And Restated License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Profitstreams, entered into on 12/20/07 (AMER2018201800000000959-980)
113. Second Amended And Restated License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Profitstreams, entered into on 8/27/08 (AMER20180000000188-212)
114. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Radiant, entered into on 11/29/07 (AMER20180000000821-848)
115. Sublicense Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Subtledata & Red-Fork, entered into on 4/11/13 (AMER20180000000770-775)
116. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc. and RRT USA, entered into on 4/5/13 (AMER20180000000666-677)
117. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Savory, entered into on 2/22/12 (AMER20180000000249-259)
118. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Skywire, entered into on 5/10/12 (AMER20180000000281-291 + 303)
119. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and SMS, entered into on 11/5/15 (AMER20180000000641-665)
120. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and SnapFinger, entered into on 1/20/12 (AMER20180000000304-319)
121. Special Terms Commitment Letter – SnapFinger, entered into on 6/10/13 (AMER20180000000776-777)
122. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Splickit, entered into on 7/31/12 (AMER20180000000780-790 & 801))
123. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Squirrel, entered into on 9/21/15 (AMER20180000000739-750)
124. ParTech Limited License Agreement, dated 2/19/08 (AMER20180000000815-820)
125. Letter Agreement – Steak n Shake, entered into on 4/29/13 (AMER20180000000751-752)
126. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Subtledata, entered into on 8/7/12 (AMER20180000000933-945)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71047 Page 53 of 82
-8-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
127. Amendment to License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Subtledata, entered into on 9/27/12 (AMER20180000000778)
128. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Taco Bell, entered into on 3/20/14 (AMER20180000000358-370)
129. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Tap to Eat, entered into on 5/1/13 (AMER20180000000753-764)
130. Memorandum Of Settlement –TicketMob / Laughstub, Abstrakt, Symfonee and Ameranth, entered into on 5/16/12
131. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Tillster Inc., entered into on 7/1/13
132. 21 CR Distribution And License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and Xpient, entered into on 3/7/07 (AMER20180000000320-331)
133. Amended License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc. and Xpient, entered into on 4/21/14 (AMER20180000000348-357)
134. License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc. and Fork, entered into on 9/30/13 (AMER2018000000520-531)
135. 1st Amended License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc. and
Splickit, entered into on 11/19/13 (AMER20180000000703-713)
136. 1st Addendum to License Agreement between Ameranth, Inc., and
Cardfree (AMER20180000000765-766)
137. EMN8 – Special Deal Terms, dated 8/5/13
(AMER20180000000767-768)
138. Ameranth/EMN8/Settlement/License
(AMER20180000000769)
139. Press Release: “Ameranth Technology Systems & Symbol Technologies Reach Agreement …,” dated 4/19/99
140. Press Release: “Ameranth Technology Systems & Comtec Information Systems …,” dated 5/17/99
141. Press Release: “Food.com and Ameranth Technology Announce Partnership…,” dated 7/16/99
142. Press Release: Ameranth Technology Systems Awarded Innovation Of The Year Award At European Hospitality Solutions Technology Awards, dated 10/4/99
143. Press Release: Ameranth Technology Systems Changes Name To Ameranth Wireless, dated 3/6/01
144. Press Release: Domino’s Pizza - “Domino’s Pizza First in industry to Offer Mobile Ordering,” dated 9/27/07
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71048 Page 54 of 82
-9-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
145. Press Release: Taco Bell Licenses Ameranth Patents, dated 4/1/14
146. Press Release: BJ’s – dated 8/29/14
147. Press Release: Jersey Mike’s – dated 11/4/15
148. 2006 Ameranth-SCH press release
149. Expert Report of Jeffrey F. Brown, Ph.D., and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 4/4/18 – Domino’s
150. Expert Report of Jeffrey F. Brown, Ph.D., and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 3/26/18 – Papa John’s
151. Expert Report of Jeffrey F. Brown, Ph.D., and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 3/28/18 – QuikOrder & Pizza Hut
152. Expert Report of Sam Malek, Ph.D., Concerning Infringement By Domino’s Pizza, LLC and Domino’s Pizza, Inc., and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 3/28/18
153. Expert Report of Sam Malek, Ph.D., Concerning Infringement By Papa John’s USA, Inc., and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 3/26/18
154. Expert Report of Sam Malek, Ph.D., Concerning Infringement By Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 3/28/18
155. Expert Report of Sam Malek, Ph.D., Concerning Infringement By QuikOrder, Inc., and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 3/28/18
156. Domino’s Android Mobile App Version History
157. Domino’s IOS Mobile App Version History
158. Papa John’s Android Mobile App Version History
159. Papa John’s IOS Mobile App Version History
160. PowerPoint Entitled HTML5 vs Native Apps - 4-19-13 (Pizza Hut – Shamos)
161. Videos of examples of infringing sets of screens – Pizza Hut-QuikOrder (Malek)
162. Videos of examples of infringing sets of screens – Domino’s (Malek)
163. Videos of examples of infringing sets of screens – Papa John’s (Malek)
164. Expert Report Of Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D. To Expert Report Of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg Regarding Non-Infringing Alternatives To U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077, and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 5/4/18 (Domino’s)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71049 Page 55 of 82
-10-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
165. Expert Report Of Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D. In Rebuttal To Expert Report Of Stephen Gray Concerning Validity Of U.S. Patent No.8,146,077, and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 5/4/18 (Domino’s)
166. Expert Report Of Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D. In Rebuttal To Expert Report Of Steven R. Kursh, Ph.D., Concerning Validity Of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077, and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 5/4/18 (Pizza Hut)
167. Expert Report Of Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D. In Rebuttal To Expert Report Of Dr. Hugh M. Smith As To Patentability And Invalidity Of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077, and all exhibits/sources cited therein dated 5/4/18 (Pizza Hut)
168. Expert Report Of Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D. In Rebuttal to Expert Declaration Of Alex C. Snoeren, Ph.D. On Invalidity Of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077, and all exhibits/sources cited therein, dated 5/4/18 (Papa John’s)
169. Expert Declaration of Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D. Concerning Claim Construction re: 8,146,077 B2 Patent, dated 10/20/17
170. Claim Construction Order, dated 12/28/17
171. PowerPoint Charts – Claim Construction Presentation, 12/11/17
172. Claim Construction Order, dated 8/10/12, in Ameranth v. Par, Eastern District of Texas Case No. 2:10-cv-00299
173. Notice Of Abandonment of Dr. Hugh M. Smith’s patent application, dated 5/17/18
174. Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Domino’s Pizza LLC And Domino’s Pizza, Inc. and exhibits, dated 3/24/17
175. Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Papa John’s USA, Inc. and exhibits, dated 3/24/17
176. Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. and Pizza Hut Of America, Inc. and exhibits, dated 3/24/17
177. Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendant QuikOrder, Inc. and exhibits, dated 3/24/17
178. Amended Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Domino’s Pizza LLC And Domino’s Pizza, Inc. and exhibits, dated 7/5/17
179. Amended Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Papa John’s USA, Inc. and exhibits, dated 7/5/17
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71050 Page 56 of 82
-11-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
180. Amended Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. and Pizza Hut Of America, Inc. and exhibits, dated 7/5/17
181. Amended Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendant QuikOrder, Inc. and exhibits, dated 7/5/17
182. Amended Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Domino’s Pizza LLC And Domino’s Pizza, Inc. and exhibits, dated 8/7/17
183. Amended Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Papa John’s USA, Inc. and exhibits, dated 8/7/17
184. Amended Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. and Pizza Hut Of America, Inc. and exhibits, dated 8/7/17
185. Amended Disclosure Of Asserted Claims And Infringement Contentions As To Defendant QuikOrder, Inc. and exhibits, dated 8/7/17
186. Google Analytics Reports—Pizza Hut
187. Google Analytics Reports—Domino’s
188. Google Analytics Reports—Papa Johns
189. PHI iPhone App Wireframe (PH007607)
190. PHI iPhone/Android App Wireframe/Workflow (PH007685)
191. PHI Mobile Framework iPad/iPhone/Android (PH007957)
192. PHI iPad App Wireframe (PH007985)
193. PHI Chaotic Moon Mobile App wireframe (PH008426)
194. SOW contract for complete redesign of Website and app (PH010301)
195. YUM Mobile ref. Architecture Document (PH010865)
196. YUM Mobile Use case document (PH010888)
197. WebTrends Web Analytics (PH011032)
198. QuikOrder External API Implementation (PH012260)
199. Expedia, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM 2014-00014 Petition, Paper 1, 10/15/13, U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077
200. Expedia, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM 2014-00014 Amended Petition, Paper 8, 11/8/13
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71051 Page 57 of 82
-12-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
201. Expedia, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM 2014-00014 Patent Owner Preliminary Response and exhibits, Paper 10, 1/14/14
202. Expedia, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM 2014-00014 Decision Denying Institution, Paper 19, 3/26/14
203. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00081 Petition, Paper 1, 2/1/15
204. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00081 Patent Owner Preliminary Response and exhibits, Paper 9, 6/4/15
205. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00081 Decision Denying Institution, Paper 13, 8/20/15
206. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00081 Petitioner’s Request For Hearing, Paper 14, 9/21/15
207. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00081 Decision Denying Request For Hearing, Paper 15, 11/1915
208. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00095 Petition, Paper 2, 3/3/15
209. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00095 Patent Owner Preliminary Response and exhibits, Paper 9, 6/8/15
210. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00095 Decision Denying Institution, Paper 11, 8/20/15
211. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00095 Petitioner’s Request For Rehearing, Paper 12, 9/21/15
212. Apple, Inc., et al. v. Ameranth. Inc., CBM 2015-00095 Decision Denying Request For Rehearing, Paper 13, 11/19/15
213. Starbucks Corporation v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM 2017-00053 Petition, Paper 1, 5/25/17
214. Starbucks Corporation v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM 2017-00053 Patent Owner Preliminary Response and exhibits, Paper 6, 9/5/17
215. Starbucks Corporation v. Ameranth, Inc., CBM 2017-00053 Decision Denying Institution, Paper 7, 12/4/17
216. Transcript and video of deposition of John Harker, including exhibits, taken 5/3/10 in Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft, et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,
Case No. 2:07-CV-271-TJW-CE
(AM-PAR0186795 – AM-PAR0186997)
217. Transcript and video of deposition of John Harker, including exhibits, taken 5/22/18
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71052 Page 58 of 82
-13-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
218. Transcript and video of deposition of of Judd Goldfeder, including exhibits, taken 4/22/10 in Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft, et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:07-CV-271-TJW-CE (AM-PAR0186429 – AM-PAR0186486)
219. Death Certificate of Judd Goldfeder, dated 12/20/13
220. Transcript and video of deposition of Richard Bergfeld, including exhibits, taken 3/7/18
221. Transcript and video of deposition of Richard Bergfeld, including exhibits, taken 3/16/18
222. Declaration of Richard Bergfeld, dated 12/11/12, Ameranth, Inc. v. Par Technology Corp., et al.
223. Transcript and video of deposition of Jeff Brown, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 5/23/18
224. Transcript and video of deposition of Jeff Brown, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 5/24/18
225. Transcript and video of deposition of Jeff Brown, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 5/25/18
226. Transcript and video of deposition of John Harker, including exhibits, taken 5/22/18
227. Transcript and video of deposition of Nella Ludlow, including exhibits, taken 5/14/18
228. Transcript and video of deposition of Sam Malek, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 4/23/18
229. Transcript and video of deposition of Sam Malek, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 4/25/18
230. Transcript and video of deposition of Sam Malek, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 5/14/18
231. Excerpts from the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Sam Malek, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 5/14/2018 (filed under seal).
232. Transcript and video of deposition of Sam Malek, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 5/21/18
233. Transcript and video of deposition of Sam Malek, Ph.D., including exhibits, taken 6/29/18
234. Transcript and video of deposition of Keith McNally, including exhibits, taken 3/12/18
235. Transcript and video of deposition of Keith McNally, including exhibits, taken 3/13/18
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71053 Page 59 of 82
-14-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
236. Transcript and video of deposition of Keith McNally, including exhibits, taken 3/14/18
237. Transcript and video of deposition of Keith McNally, including exhibits, taken 3/15/18
238. Transcript and video of deposition of William Roof, including exhibits, taken 3/5/18
239. Transcript and video of deposition of Kathie Sanders, including exhibits, taken 5/24/18
240. Transcript and video of deposition of Michael Shamos, including exhibits, taken 5/29/18
241. Transcript and video of deposition of Michael Shamos, including exhibits, taken 5/30/18
242. Transcript and video of deposition of Vern Yates, including exhibits, taken 3/8/18
243. Transcript and video of deposition of Vern Yates, including exhibits, taken 4/24/18
244. Transcript and video of deposition of Vern Yates, including exhibits, taken 6/29/18
245. Transcript and video of deposition of Marc Asher (PH-QO), including exhibits, taken 3/6/18
246. Transcript and video of deposition of Michael Diamond (PH-QO), including exhibits, taken 3/23/18
247. Transcript and video of deposition of Ivan Hofmann (PH-QO), including exhibits, taken 6/1/18
248. Transcript and video of deposition of Jeff Keumpel (PH-QO), including exhibits, taken 3/8/18
249. Transcript and video of deposition of Steven Kursh (PH-QO), including exhibits, taken 5/22/18
250. Transcript and video of deposition of Rachel Meyer (PH-QO), including exhibits, taken 3/20/18
251. Transcript and video of deposition of Todd Bos (DOM), including exhibits, taken 3/22/18
252. Transcript and video of deposition of Joseph Devereaux (DOM), including exhibits, taken 3/30/18
253. Transcript and video of deposition of Dennis Maloney (DOM), including exhibits, taken 3/30/18
254. Transcript and video of deposition of Christine Meyer (DOM), including exhibits, taken 5/22/18
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71054 Page 60 of 82
-15-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
255. Transcript and video of deposition of John Redding, including exhibits, taken 5/30/18
256. Transcript and video of deposition of Russell Turner (DOM), including exhibits, taken 3/22/18
257. Transcript and video of deposition of Timothy Wise (DOM), including exhibits, taken 3/22/18
258. Transcript and video of deposition of David Ziemba (DOM), including exhibits, taken 3/22/18
259. Transcript and video of deposition of Sarika Attal (PJ), including exhibits, taken 3/20/18
260. Transcript and video of deposition of Steve Coke (PJ), including exhibits, taken 3/21/18
261. Transcript and video of deposition of Justin Falciola (PJ), including exhibits, taken 3/20/18
262. Transcript and video of deposition of Anne Fischer (PJ), including exhibits, taken 3/21/18
263. Transcript and video of deposition of Benjamin Goldberg (PJ), including exhibits, taken 5/29/18
264. Transcript and video of deposition of Ryan Holomshek (PJ), including exhibits, taken 3/21/18
265. Transcript and video of deposition of Willie James (PJ), including exhibits, taken 3/20/18
266. Transcript and video of deposition of Keith Ugone (PJ), including exhibits, taken 5/30/18
267. Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s Responses To Ameranth, Inc. And QuikOrder, Inc.’s Responses To Ameranth’s First Set Of Requests For Admission Regarding Authenticity To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc., Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., And QuikOrder, Inc., dated 5/24/18
268. Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s Responses To Ameranth, Inc. And QuikOrder, Inc.’s First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth’s First Set Of Requests For Admission Regarding Authenticity To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc., Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., And QuikOrder, Inc., dated 5/24/18
269. Pizza Hut’s Objections And Responses To Plaintiff’s Requests For Admission, dated 5/6/13
270. Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Second Set Of Requests For Admission To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., dated 5/14/18
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71055 Page 61 of 82
-16-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
271. Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Second Set Of Requests For Admission To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., dated 5/24/18
272. Defendant QuikOrder, Inc.’s Objections And Responses To Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s First Set Of Requests For Admissions To Defendant Quikorder, dated 5/6/13
273. Defendant QuikOrder, Inc.’s Objections And Responses To Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s Second Set Of Requests For Admissions To Defendant Quikorder, Inc., dated 5/14/18
274. Defendant QuikOrder, Inc.’s First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Second Set Of Requests For Admissions To Defendant Quikorder, Inc., dated 5/24/18
275. Domino’s Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Requests For Admission, dated 5/6/13
276. Domino’s Responses To Plaintiff’s Second Set Of Requests For Admission, dated 5/29/18
277. Defendant Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Response To Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s First Set Of Requests For Admission, dated 9/26/12
278. Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Objections And Responses To Plaintiff’s Requests For Admission, dated 5/6/13
279. Defendant Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Objections And Responses To Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s Second Set Of Requests For Admission, dated 5/21/18
280. Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Interrogatories Re Source Code Organization, dated 7/18/13
281. Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Interrogatories, dated 1/9/12
282. Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s Supplemental Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Interrogatories, dated 4/15/13
283. Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Third Set Of Interrogatories To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., dated 1/25/18
284. Second Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Third Set Of Interrogatories To Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. and Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., dated 2/21/18
285. Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc.’s And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories to Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., dated 4/30/18
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71056 Page 62 of 82
-17-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
286. Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc.’s And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories to Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., dated 5/22/18
287. Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc.’s And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc.’s Amended First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories to Defendants Pizza Hut, Inc. And Pizza Hut Of America, Inc., dated 5/24/18
288. Defendant QuikOrder, Inc.’s Responses To Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s Interrogatories Re Source Code Organization, dated 7/18/13
289. Defendant QuikOrder’s Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Interrogatories To QuikOrder, Inc., dated 1/9/12
290. Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Third Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant QuikOrder, Inc., dated 1/25/18
291. First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Third Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant QuikOrder, Inc., dated 2/7/18
292. Second Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Third Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant Quikorder, Inc., dated 2/21/18
293. QuikOrder, Inc.’s Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant QuikOrder, Inc., dated 4/30/18
294. QuikOrder, Inc.’s First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant QuikOrder, Inc., dated 5/22/18
295. QuikOrder, Inc.’s Amended First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant QuikOrder, Inc., dated 5/24/18
296. QuikOrder, Inc.’s Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fifth Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant, QuikOrder, Inc., dated 5/14/18
297. QuikOrder, Inc.’s First Supplemental Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fifth Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant, QuikOrder, Inc., dated 5/24/18
298. Domino’s Responses To Plaintiff’s Interrogatories (Regarding Source Code Organization), dated 7/17/13
299. Domino’s Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Interrogatories, dated 1/9/12
300. Domino’s First Amended Responses To Plaintiff’s First Set Of Interrogatories, dated 4/15/13
301. Domino’s Responses To Plaintiff’s Third Set Of Interrogatories, dated 1/25/18
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71057 Page 63 of 82
-18-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
302. Domino’s First Supplemental Responses To Plaintiff’s Third Set Of Interrogatories, dated 2/23/18
303. Domino’s Responses To Plaintiff’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories, dated 4/27/18
304. Domino’s Responses To Plaintiff’s Fifth Set Of Interrogatories, dated 5/29/18
305. Defendant Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Responses To Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s First Set Of Interrogatories To Papa John’s USA, Inc., dated 1/9/12
306. Defendant Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Supplemental Responses To Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.’s First Set Of Interrogatories To Papa John’s USA, Inc., dated 4/17/12
307. Defendant Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Objections And Responses To Plaintiff’s Second Set Of Interrogatories, dated 7/18/13
308. Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s First Supplemental Objections And Responses To Plaintiff’s Second Set Of Interrogatories, dated 5/25/18
309. Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Objections And Responses To Plaintiff’s Third Set Of Interrogatories, dated 1/25/18
310. Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Objections And Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories, dated 4/27/18
311. Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s First Supplemental Objections And Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories, dated 5/25/18
312. Papa John’s USA, Inc.’s Objections And Responses To Ameranth, Inc.’s Fifth Set Of Interrogatories, dated 5/24/18
313. QuikOrder Online Order Agreement For Pizza Hut Franchisees, last updated 10/23/13 (QO 261851 – QO 261865)
314. Online Order Agreement Pizza Hut Franchisees, revised 3/8/10 (QO 261925 – QO 261940)
315. License agreement between IPDEV and QuikOrder, dated 1/1/02 (QO262067 – 262073)
316. Screen shot of Pizza Hut website with ‘449 patent marking (one page) - 2017
317. 2014 Screen shot of Pizza Hut website with ‘449 patent marking (four pages)
318. 2016 Master Services Agreement & SOW between Pizza Hut, LLC And National Systems Corporation (QO 261965 – 262066)
319. Mutual Confidentiality Agreement between Ameranth, QuikOrder and IPDEV, dated 3/1/06 (QO 275466 - QO 275470)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71058 Page 64 of 82
-19-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
320. Ameranth Wireless Overview (with Pizza Hut), Jan. 2006 AMER0030361-370
321. Pizza Hut site with ‘449 screen shot dated 5/28/14
322. Pizza Hut site with ‘449 screen shot dated 2/26/17
323. Pizza Hut site with ‘449 screen shot dated 7/9/17
324. Pizza Marketplace.com press release entitled “NSC launches multiple-touchscreen technology.”
325. Domino’s link to 2013 Windows phone app
326. Domino’s video transcript regarding CEO, Jim Cramer, dated 3/15/16
327. PRWeb Press release entitled “Domino’s Pizza Selects Riversand Technologies MDMCenter for Worldwide Multi-domain Master Data Management, dated 4/2/14
328. Video of Domino’s.com TV Commercial: ‘Phone Orders’ – iSpot.tv:
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/72SF/dominos-com-phone-orders
329. Pizza Hut Franchise Disclosure Document, dated 2015
330. Exhibits to Franchise Disclosure Document, dated 2015
331. Franchise Disclosure Document, dated 2012
332. Franchise Disclosure Document, dated 2013
333. Franchise Disclosure Document, dated 2014
334. Franchise Disclosure Document, dated 2016
335. Franchise Disclosure Document, dated 2017
336. Franchise Disclosure Document, dated 2018
337. Screen shots taken 5/9/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 1230 N. Mississippi Avenue, ADA, Oklahoma 74820
338. Screen shots taken 5/9/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at1636 E. State Road 44, Shelbyville, Indiana 46176
339. Screen shots taken 5/9/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 8210 Windfall Lane, Camby, Indiana 46113
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71059 Page 65 of 82
-20-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
340. Screen shots taken 5/9/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 1275 Boardman Road, Jackson, Michigan 49202
341. Screen shots taken 5/9/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 6141 Windhaven Parkay, Plano, Texas 75083
342. Screen shots taken 5/9/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 320 S. Seventh Street, Indiana, Pennsylvania 19120
343. Screen shots taken 5/9/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 5675 Rising Sun Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19120
344. Screen shots taken 5/9/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 3137 Erie Boulevard, Syracuse, New York 13214
345. Screen shots taken 5/18/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 400a N. Sepulveda Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, California 90266
346. Screen shots taken 5/18/18 using Pizza Hut mobile app on a Galaxy smartphone while the Pizza Hut mobile app was localized to the Pizza Hut store located at 25 Main Street, Westbrook, Maine 04092
347. Excerpt from the Modern Dictionary of Electronics by Rudolf Graf
348. “Ecommerce Services Agreement” between Pizza Hut and QuikOrder, Inc., dated 8/14/02, produced by Pizza Hut in this action
349. “Statement of Work” agreement between Yum, Inc./Pizza Hut, Inc. and National Systems Corp., dated 6/1/08, produced by Pizza Hut in this action
350. Article entitled “Tracker Search for Order – Track Your Order With The Domino’s Tracker,” https://www.dominos.com/en/pages/tracker/#/track/order/.
351. Article entitled”Of Course You Can Track Domino’s Pizza On Your Smartwatch Now,” https://gizmodo.com/of-course-you-can-track-dominos-pizza-on-your-smartwatch=1658323565.
352. Excerpts from the Declaration of Dr. Don Turnbull in CBM2015-00081, Petition Exhibit 1002
353. Article entitled “Papa John’s Creative Approach To Out-of-Stocks,” dated 10/9/08
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71060 Page 66 of 82
-21-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
354. A thumb drive containing true and correct electronic copies of exhibits to the QuikOrder Infringement Report (which include, for example, videos, screen capture videos, photographs, voluminous documents and large files) in a zip file named “Malek Report Exhibits.” The same exhibits were cited in Dr. Malek’s expert infringement report concerning infringement by Pizza Hut. The file names of the electronic copies of exhibits on the thumb drive in the “Malek Report Exhibits” zip file correspond to the exhibit numbers cited in the QuikOrder Infringement Report (e.g., 46, 47, 48, etc.). The electronic copies of exhibits on the thumb drive do not include hard copy source code printouts cited and discussed in the QuikOrder Infringement Report. Additional exhibits are on the thumb drive as described below.
355. Screen capture video of the usage of the Pizza Hut mobile app on a Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge on the thumb drive submitted under seal as Exhibit 2 with the file name “Exh 2(A)”. Exhibit 2(A) is discussed in the concurrently filed declarations of Dr. Malek and Michel Cardinal in support of Ameranth’s Opposition to the MSJ.
356. Screen capture video of the usage of the Pizza Hut mobile app on an iPhone 4S on the thumb drive submitted under seal as Exhibit 2 with the file name “Exh 2(B)”. Exhibit 2(B) is discussed in the concurrently filed declarations of Dr. Malek and Mr. Cardinal in support of Ameranth’s Opposition to the MSJ.
357. Screen shots of the usage of the Pizza Hut website, mobile site and mobile apps on different smartphones on the thumb drive submitted under seal as Exhibit 2 with the file name “Exh 2(C)”. Exhibit 2(C) is discussed in the concurrently filed declarations of Dr. Malek and Mr. Cardinal in support of Ameranth’s Opposition to the MSJ.
358. Screen capture video of the usage of the Pizza Hut mobile app on a Samsung Galaxy S9 on the thumb drive submitted under seal as Exhibit 2 with the file name “Exh 2(D)”. Exhibit 2(D) is discussed in the concurrently filed declarations of Dr. Malek and Mr. Cardinal in support of Ameranth’s Opposition to the MSJ.
359. Excerpts from the deposition transcript of the 4/23/18 deposition of Dr. Malek.
360. Excerpts from the deposition transcript of the 4/25/18 deposition of Dr. Malek
361. Excerpts from the deposition transcript of the 3/6/18 deposition of QuikOrder’s CTO, Marc Asher, as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on behalf of QuikOrder
362. Excerpts from the deposition transcript of the 3/21/18 deposition of Pizza Hut’s technical Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Ryan Holomshek, on behalf of Pizza Hut
363. Excerpts from the deposition transcript of the 5/22/18 video-conference deposition of one of Pizza Hut’s and QuikOrder’s experts, Steven R. Kursh
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71061 Page 67 of 82
-22-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
364. Excerpts from the deposition transcript of the 5/30/18 deposition of one of Ameranth’s experts, Dr. Michael I. Shamos
365. Excerpts from one of Pizza Hut’s and QuikOrder’s experts’, Dr. Kursh, expert report “Regarding Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077” and dated 5/4/18
366. Excerpts from one of Pizza Hut’s and QuikOrder’s experts’, Dr. Kursh, expert report “Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,146,077” and dated 3/26/18
367. Document produced by Pizza Hut in this action titled, “Pizza Hut Mobile Apps – Users Overview Jan. 1, 2013- Dec. 31, 2013,” with bates no. PH0185221
368. Document produced by Pizza Hut in this action titled, “WBR Report” with bates nos. PH0177920-177924
369. Document produced by Pizza Hut in this action titled “Delivery Tracker 2.0 / DD Replacement Architecture” with bates nos. PH0193066-193067
370. Document produced by Pizza Hut in this action titled, “New Order Status Page,” with bates no. PH0193068
371. Document produced by Pizza Hut in this action titled, “Project – Tracker Re-architecture Home,” with bates nos. PH0193069-193070
372. Excerpts from the deposition transcript of the 10/25/17 deposition of one of Ameranth’s experts, Dr. Michael I. Shamos
373. E-mails produced by third party Chaotic Moon, one of Pizza Hut’s mobile app developers, in this action with bates no. 2NDCHAOTICMOONPRODUCTION000013
374. Document produced by Pizza Hut in this action titled “QuikOrder External API Implementation Version 2.1.14” with bates nos. PH009074 - 9194
375. Document produced by QuikOrder in this action titled, “QuikOrder External API Implementation Version 2.1.33” with bates nos. QO 267842 - 267938
376. Document produced by Pizza Hut in this action titled, “Statement of Work #C094318” with bates nos. PH012879 - 12884
377. Document produced by Pizza Hut in this action titled, “QuikOrder, Inc. Online and Mobile Ordering Solutions” with bates nos. QO 275982 - 276014
378. “Memorandum Opinion and Order” in Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Systems Corp., et al., (Civil Action No. 2-07-CV-271, E.D. TX) dated 04/21/2010
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71062 Page 68 of 82
-23-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
379. Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings for the 3/23/18 Motion Hearing and Pretrial Conference in the IPDEV Co. v. Ameranth, Inc. case (Case No. 14CV1303-DMS) (“IPDEV v Ameranth”)
380. Applicants’ 5/28/08 Reply and Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. 1.111 in U.S. Patent Application No. 11/112,990
381. Screen shot of the Google Play app store download page for the Pizza Hut mobile app printed on 7/6/18
382. Screen shot of the Apple iTunes app store page for the Pizza Hut mobile app printed on 7/6/18
383. Printout and screen shots from App Annie for the Pizza Hut mobile app version history for the iOS mobile app. Exhibit 28 is discussed in the concurrently filed declarations of Dr. Malek and Mr. Cardinal in support of Ameranth’s Opposition to the MSJ
384. Printout and screen shots from App Annie for the Pizza Hut mobile app version history for the Android mobile app. Exhibit 29 is discussed in the concurrently filed declarations of Dr. Malek and Mr. Cardinal in support of Ameranth’s Opposition to the MSJ
385. Screen shots of a Samsung Galaxy S9 smartphone that has the Pizza Hut Android mobile app installed showing Pizza Hut mobile app data storage on the phone. Exhibit 30 is discussed in the concurrently filed declarations of Dr. Malek and Mr. Cardinal in support of Ameranth’s Opposition to the MSJ
386. Pizza Hut’s and QuikOrder’s First Supplemental Responses to Ameranth’s First Set of Requests for Admission Regarding Authenticity of Documents dated and served in this case on 5/24/18
387. Ameranth’s Responses to Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s First Set of Request for Admissions (Nos. 1-2) dated and served on all defendants’ counsel in this case on 3/15/18
388. Excerpts from the true and correct copy of the transcript of the Deposition Of Benjamin F. Goldberg, Ph.D., dated 5/29/18
389. A screenshot from Fiddler, an internet data capture tool which captures data transmitting between mobile apps, websites, back end servers, and computers over the internet or other networks. The screenshot shows a device running the Papa John’s mobile app on an iPhone X in communication with the Papa John’s back end servers over the internet. This exhibit is further described in paragraph 9 of the Declaration of Michel Cardinal submitted herewith
390. Second Chaotic Moon Production (2ND
CHAOTICMOONPRODUCTION000521-522)
391. Instructional website page regarding how to use QuikOrder website, Bates no. AMER2018000006505
392. Workflows & Wireframes document; project iPhone App v2.0/Android v1.0; Version 1.3; Bates nos. QO 000148 – 265
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71063 Page 69 of 82
-24-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
393. “Statement of Work” document with Bates nos. QO 000266 – 276
394. “QuikOrder External API Implementation” document with Bates nos. QO 000277 – 1309
395. Workflows & Wireframes, Project: Just Go With it Sweepstakes, Version 1.1; QO 017715 – 17724
396. “Content Document” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 019981 – 20342
397. “Pizzahut.com Optimization” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 000071 – 134
398. “Workflows & Wireframes” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 020680 – 20754
399. “Pizza Hut, Inc. RIS Restaurant Automation Development” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 022837 – 22844
400. “Pizza Hut, Inc. RIS Restaurant Automation Development” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 022881 – 22893
401.
“Statement of Work” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 018437 – 18440
402.
“Coupon Code Primer” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 001442 – 1447
403.
“WIREFRAMES” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 022554 – 22643
404.
“Special Setup – Pizza Setup” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 001411 – 1418
405.
“QuikOrder Store Setup Guide” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 001542 – 1593
406.
“Pizza Hut Gateway Authentication” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 018172 – 18177
407.
Excel spreadsheet titled, “Pizza Hut, Project: Site Optimization,” dated 8/11/10, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 022109 – 22118
408.
“Menu Setup Changes” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 001339 – 1346
409.
Franchise Disclosure Documents produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH005186 – 5869
410.
“Statement of Work” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH005936 – 5972
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71064 Page 70 of 82
-25-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
411.
“Pizza Hut API Development Requirements Document” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH006343 – 6361
412.
“QUIKORDER 2009 Infrastructure Redesign” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH006362
413.
Flow charts titled “Chicago Data Center – PHI Production Environment,” created: 6/7/13, modified: 7/1/13, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 052267 – 52269
414.
“QuikOrder External API Implementation” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH009074 – 9194
415.
“Frequently Asked Questions For Online Ordering and TMS®/Call Center” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH010669 – 10694
416.
“High Delivery Time Dashboard Report” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH010750 – 10755
417.
“QuikOrder regarding setting up the nationally advertised P’Zolos” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH012152 – 12172
418.
“Intelligent Up-sell” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH012176 – 12180
419.
“Special Setup – Pizza Setup” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 001411 – 1418
420.
“Printable Offers” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 001432 – 1436
421.
“Administrative User Document” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 052103 – 52128
422.
“QuikOrder Administration User Manual” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 052129 – 52209
423.
“Category Selector Changes” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 154421 - 154427
424.
“Statement of Work” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 175146 – 175151
425.
“PH Messaging Framework (Deep Dish) -> End-To-End Data Flow” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 156100
426.
“Technical Specification Details” document with Bates nos. QO 039064 – 39067
427.
“QuikOrder Model-View-Control Code Base” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 018256
428.
Pizza Hut website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006614
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71065 Page 71 of 82
-26-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
429.
Pizza Hut website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006615
430.
Pizza Hut website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006616
431.
Pizza Hut website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006617
432.
LinkedIn profile for Eric Bermont, Executive Vice President of QuikOrder Inc. produced with Bates nos.
AMER2018000006618 – 6619
433.
Pizza Hut Facebook page printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006620 – 6621
434.
Pizza Hut website printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006622 – 6624
435.
Google Play webpage printout for Pizza Hut mobile app produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006645
436.
iTunes webpage printout for Pizza Hut mobile app produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006646
437.
Microsoft Store webpage printout for Pizza Hut mobile app produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006647
438.
PRJ# 1212 2012 Redesign” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 152443 – 152526
439.
Blog.PizzaHut.com printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006648 – 6650
440.
Pizza Hut website printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006655 – 6661
441.
Pizza Hut website printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006662 – 6668
442.
Pizza Hut website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006677
443.
LinkedIn profile printout for Christopher Duran, Senior Business Analyst / Project Manager at QuikOrder produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006685 – 6687
444.
LinkedIn profile printout for Jeff Loukas, Director: Digital Delivery and Innovation Pizza Hut produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006688 – 6691
445.
Franchise.PizzaHut.com website printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006695 – 6697
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71066 Page 72 of 82
-27-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
446.
Franchise.PizzaHut.com website printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006698 – 6700
447.
LinkedIn profile for Jeremiah Jacobson, PHP Developer at QuikOrder produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006727 – 6730
448.
LinkedIn profile for Alexis Gonzalez, Software Developer at QuikOrder produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006731 – 6735
449.
LinkedIn profile for Chris Dziegielewski, Senior Developer at QuikOrder produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006736 – 6738
450.
LinkedIn profile for Mary Scumaci, Sr. UI Applications Design at QuikOrder produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006739 – 6744
451.
QuikOrder UX & Design Lead posting printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006773
452.
LinkedIn profile for Kaunish Patel, VP Development at QuikOrder produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006774 – 6777
453.
staging3.quikorder.com webpage printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006778 – 6780
454.
QuikOrder website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006781
455.
LinkedIn profile for Sean Reddy, Android Developer at QuikOrder produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006786 – 6789
456.
quikorder.com website printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006942 – 6956
457.
demo.quikorder.com website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006957
458.
pizzainn.quikorder.com website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006958
459.
caseys.quikorder.com website printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006959
460.
godfathers.quikorder.net website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006960
461.
nationalsystems.com/online-ordering.html website printout produced with Bates nos. AMER2018000006961 – 6962
462.
staging3.quikorder.com website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000006966
463.
“QO API BETA” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 261570 – 261818
464.
“Statement of Work” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 000145 – 147
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71067 Page 73 of 82
-28-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
465.
“Statement of Work” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 000266 – 271
466.
Source code printouts produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH007116 - PH007132
467.
Source code printouts produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH012913‐ PH013055
468.
Source code printouts produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO262118‐ QO262429
469.
“AMENDED AND RESTATED STATEMENT OF WORK” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 262025 – 262066
470.
“Amended and Restated Online Order Agreement” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 262532 – 262556
471. “Frequently Asked Questions For Online Ordering and TMS®/Call Center” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267567 – 267591
472. “New Pizza Hut Website” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267686 – 267703
473. “Setting up SUS Stores for Online Ordering and Call Center” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267741 – 267745
474. Flow charts – Chicago and Dallas Call Centers, produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 267746
475. “API Examples” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267747 – 267749
476. “CMS Database Architecture” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 267752
477. Document titled, “How to Shift Website Traffic between Chicago and Dallas,” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267754 – 267756
478. “Architecture Diagrams” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267817 – 267819
479. “V3 API Calls” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 267820
480. QuikOrder/Pizza Hut Akamai Origin Failover Flow Chart, Carryout and Delivery Flow Charts, Order Flow and Network Flow Diagrams, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267833 – 267841
481. “QuikOrder External API” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267842 – 267938
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71068 Page 74 of 82
-29-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
482. QuikOrder and Pizza Hut Workflow and Order Flow Diagrams, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267940- 267946
483. “PizzaHut.com Infrastructure” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267947 – 267967
484. QuikOrder/Pizza Hut Top-Level Network Level Data Flow Diagrams and Order Flow Diagrams, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267974 – 267978
485. “Control Internet Ordering via SUS” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH016399
486. “Digital Team Home Page” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH016554 – 17097
487. “Digital Operations Current State” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH017098 – 17215
488. “Project – API Layer Home” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH017220 – 17253
489. “ARL SUS Restaurants Alerts” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0175612 – 175672
490. “SUS Administration” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH 175721 – 175725
491. “Amended and Restated Information Technology Master Services Agreement” and “Amended and Restated Statement of Work” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 261065 – 262066
492. “Enhancement for QO Station Stores” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267673 – 267677
493. “System Feature Overview” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275271 - QO 275291
494. “QuikOrder configuration after PH routers moved to separate segment off of ASA,” by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 267945
495. “Statement of Work” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 262080 - QO 262115
496. Diagram produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 275264
497. “Network Services Environment” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 275083
498. Flow charts related to Call Center, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0183285 – 183290
499. Google Analytics reports produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0183441- 185673, 185802 - 191716
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71069 Page 75 of 82
-30-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
500. “High-Level Data Flow Down Load File from MMS” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH0191996
501. “MMS Menu Extract Output File Specifications” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0191997 – 192019
502. “Pizza Hut Menu Management System Assessment” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192020 – 192054
503. “Pizza Hut MMS Application Deployment Document” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192055 – 192072
504. “Quick Reference Guide” and “Steps to Install MMS in a new user’s laptop” documents produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192075 – 192080
505. “Pizza Hut Web Menu Management System” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192081 – 192150
506. “Big Flavor Dipper” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 269985 – 269989
507. Screenshots of Test Order for pizza, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 269996 – 269998
508. Screenshots of Test Order of pizza and various promotions, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 270000 – 270042
509. Screen shots originally produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275085 – 275091 (and re-produced with Bates nos. QO 276240 – 276246)
510. Screen shots originally produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275093 – 275095 (and re-produced with Bates nos. QO 276248 – 276250)
511. Screen shots originally produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275096 – 275104 (and re-produced with Bates nos. QO 276251 – 276259)
512. Screen shots originally produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275105 – 275121 (and re-produced with Bates nos. QO 276260 – 276276)
513. Screen shots originally produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275122 – 275125 (and re-produced with Bates nos. QO 276277 – 276280)
514. Screen shots originally produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275126 – 275127 (and re-produced with Bates nos. QO 276281 – 276282)
515. Screen shots originally produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275128 – 275141 (and re-produced with Bates nos. QO 276283 – 276296)
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71070 Page 76 of 82
-31-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
516. Screen shots originally produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275142 – 275203, QO 275530 – 275534 (and re-produced with Bates nos. QO 276297 – 276358, QO 276685 – 276689)
517. Screen shots produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192153 – 192174, 192177 – 192249
518. Screen shots produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192175 – 192176
519. Flow chart related to Call Center, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH0183287
520. “QuikOrder, Inc. Online and Mobile Ordering Solutions” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275982 – 276014
521. “Franchise Disclosure Document” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH015102 – 15759
522. “Franchise Disclosure Document” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH015760 – 16396
523. “National Systems Corp/QuikOrder Inc.” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275666 – 275707
524. pizzahut.com website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000007669
525. Native CSV file produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH016397
526. Native CSV file produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH017271
527. Native Excel file produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH017324
528. Native Excel file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 269980
529. Native Excel file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 269957
530. Native Excel file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 266214
531. “Project – Loyalty – Phase 2” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH017430 – 17477
532. Native CSV file produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH016398
533. “PHP Cache Interface Guide” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267758 – 267816
534. “Project – API Layer Home” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH017220 – 17253
535. “Digital Products: Bottom of Funnel, 3rd
Party, Payments Home” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH016459 – 16478
536. Screen shots produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192335 – 192344
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71071 Page 77 of 82
-32-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
537. pizzahut.com website printout produced with Bates no. AMER2018000007670
538. “BOH Help Manual,” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH 16400 – 16406
539. “QuikOrder Guide,” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH 16407 – 16410
540. Q4 2017 update and planning document, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH 16479 – 16553
541. Franchise documents from 2012 to 2016, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH013066 – PH016372
542. Various Pizza Hut PowerPoint presentations, agreements and Statements of Work, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0178007 - 185673
543. Yum Statement of Work, Statement of Work for Live Services for Live Agent Services, Live Ops Statements of Work, Addendums and Amendments; Online Orders and Sales spreadsheets, Analytics Reports and Historical data, and Audience Lifetime Value Reports, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0185674 – PH0191716
544. Documents and e-mails related to training on TMSCC Call Center System, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0191717 – PH0191989
545. Excel spreadsheets containing Financial, sales and product data, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192151 – PH0192152
546. Source code produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0192250 – PH0192344
547. Source code produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos.PH007072 – PH007193
548. E-mails regarding Code Release Notification, 2017 Digital Metrics Reports detailed Analytics, PowerPoint presentations regarding 2017-2018 Ecommerce Analytics, and 2016 State of Digital Business, produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0175962 – PH0178006
549. Active User and Ecommerce Overview Website Data Reports and corresponding Excel spreadsheets, sampled from February 2018, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267982 - QO 268031
550. National Systems Consolidates Profit & Loss Reports from 2010-2017, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO268032 – QO268039
551. National Systems Consolidates group agreements and annual reports; various QuikOrder Online Order Agreements, produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO268040 – QO269953
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71072 Page 78 of 82
-33-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
552. Source code produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. CDREV00006_0001 – CDREV000324_0009
553. Source code produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. CDREV00033_0001 – CDREV00033_0008
554. Source code produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. CDREV00034_0001 – CDREV00034_0004
555. Source code produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 052055 – QO 052074
556. Native Excel file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 267740
557. Financial statements produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 268032 – 268039
558. Annual reports produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 269616 – 269688
559. “Statement of Work” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 261888 – 261924
560. “Online Order Agreement Pizza Hut Franchisees” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 261925 – 261940
561. “License Agreement” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 262067 – 262073
562. Native file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 275082
563. Native Excel file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 276236
564. Native Excel file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 275939
565. Native Excel file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 275940
566. “V3 Analysis & Recommendations” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275962 – 275981
567. “National Systems Corp/QuikOrder Inc.” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275666 – 275707
568. “Pizza Hut Online Store Count” document produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 275081
569. Native Excel file produced by QuikOrder with Bates no. QO 275937
570. “Business Plan for QuikOrder” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 275196 – 275204
571. “State of the Digital Business” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0177786 – 177831
572. “Ecommerce metrics” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0177511 – 177546
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71073 Page 79 of 82
-34-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
573. “Ecommerce Metrics” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0177614 – 177653
574. Native Excel file produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH0185674
575. Native Excel file produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH0185675
576. Financial statements produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0183307 – 183354
577. Native Excel file produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH0192151
578. Native Excel file produced by Pizza Hut with Bates no. PH0192152
579. “Amended and Restated Statement of Work” and “Amended and Restated Information Technology Master Services Agreement” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0182995 – 183096
580. “Digital Dominance” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0178125 – 178139
581. “Baron Concors” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0178715 – 178742
582. “Baron Concors” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0179686 – 179708
583. “Baron Concors” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0179912 – 179925
584. “Baron Concors” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0180204 – 180225
585. “Growth Strategy” document produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0182027 – 182132
586. Agreements and statements of work produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 261822 – 261957
587. Amendment to statement of work produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 261958 – 261964
588. Amended and Restated Online Order Agreements produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 262532 – 265347
589. “QuikOrder Store Active/Holiday Setup Utility,” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267592 – 267595
590. “Non-SUS Pizza/Topping/Side Item Copy Utility,” and “Online Ordering Copy Utility,” produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267678 – 267685
591. Native files produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 266197 – 266230
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71074 Page 80 of 82
-35-
NO. Date Marked Date Admitted Description
592. Google Analytics reports produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 267982- 268031, 274868 - 275081
593. Agreements produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 270425 - 273378
594. Amended and Restated Online Order Agreements produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 272793 – 273378
595. Statements of work produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 273379 – 273627, 273694 - 273707
596. Agreements produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 273708 – 274867
597. Agreements and statements of work produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH012687 – 12868
598. Agreements and statements of work produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH012869 – 12912
599. Franchise disclosure documents produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH013066 – 13749
600. Franchise disclosure documents produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH013750 – 14454
601. Franchise disclosure documents produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH014455 – 15101
602. Franchise disclosure documents produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0182286 - 182994
603. "Daily Digital Metrics Reports" produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0177139 – 177414, 177914 - 177916
604. “Ecommerce Metrics” documents produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0177415 – 177785
605. “State of the Digital Business” documents produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. P0177786 – 177913
606. “WBR Reports” produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. P0177917 – 178006
607. Agreements and statements of work produced by Pizza Hut with Bates nos. PH0183355 – 183440, 185676 - 185801
608. Source code printouts produced by QuikOrder with Bates nos. QO 276359 – 276684
609. Domino’s screenshots, exhibit 52 to Infringement Contentions, served on 4/1/13
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71075 Page 81 of 82
44
PLAINTIFF AMERANTH, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS OF
FACT AND LAW Case No. 3:11-cv-01810 DMS (WVG)
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 on July 6, 2018, I electronically transmitted the
attached document to defendants Pizza Hut, QuikOrder, Domino’s and Papa
John’s’ counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system.
By: /s/ William J. Caldarelli
William J. Caldarelli
Case 3:11-cv-01810-DMS-WVG Document 1184 Filed 07/06/18 PageID.71076 Page 82 of 82