Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE POLAROID CORPORATION,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,

C.A. No. 06-738-SLR
V.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

REDACTED

DEFENDANT ' S MOTION TO STRIKE NEW MATTER IN PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE , FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SURREPLY
Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") hereby requests that this Court strike arguments raised for the first time in Polaroid Corporation's ("Polaroid") Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 287 (Polaroid's "Reply") (D.I. 221). In the alternative, HP requests leave to file a brief surreply. A copy of HP's proposed short

surreply and its supporting declaration are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. In its Reply, Polaroid makes new arguments in support of its assertion that its Dodge and Burn and Adaptive Sharpening technologies do not embody Claim 7 of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 4,829,381 (the "`381 patent"), and need not have been marked. Polaroid argues for the first time in its Reply Brief that its Dodge and Burn technology uses more than one intermediate value to select a transfer function, and therefore does not embody Element 3 of Claim 7. See Reply at 7; Surreply at 1-2, attached hereto. Polaroid did not include this argument either in its Opening Brief or in its Expert Report on Marking. See Opening Brief (D.I. 146), at 21-22 (addressing intermediate values only as to Element 1); see J.A. (D.I. 151), Ex. B, Agouris Rep., at 90-98 (not addressing Claim 7 at all); Surreply at 1-2. Second, Polaroid argues for the first time in its Reply that both Dodge and Burn and

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 2 of 6

REDACTED
Adaptive Sharpening do not select a transfer function using the ratio required by Element 3 of

Claim 7 because
_ Reply at 11, 15. Polaroid cites and submits new deposition testimony in support of this argument. See id., Ex. 1. These arguments and evidence were entirely omitted from Polaroid's Opening Brief and from its Expert Report on Marking. 151), Ex. B, Agouris Rep. at 90-98. arguments. Polaroid's new arguments ignore this Court's local rules, which state that a party may not reserve for its Reply new arguments and evidence which should have been submitted in a full and fair Opening Brief. D. Del. L.R. 7.1.3(c)(2). Therefore, HP respectfully requests that this Court strike the new arguments in Polaroid's Reply Brief, or grant leave for HP to file the attached "Surreply of Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company in Opposition to Polaroid Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 287." See Opening Brief at 21-23; J.A., (D.I.

Again, HP's proposed surreply responds to these new

2

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 3 of 6

Dated: July 2, 2008

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By:

/s/ William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr. (#2247) Raymond N. Scott, Jr. (#4949) 919 N . Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington , DE 19801
Tel.: (302) 652-5070 Fax: (302) 652-0607 Email : [email protected] Robert S. Frank, Jr. (pro hac vice) Daniel C. Winston (pro hac vice) Carlos Perez-Albuerne (pro hac vice) CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP Two International Place

Boston, MA 02109 Tel.: (617) 248-5000 Fax: (617) 248-4000
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] John E. Giust (pro hac vice) Matthew E. Bernstein (pro hac vice) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,

GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92121-3039 Tel.: (858) 320-3000 Fax: (858) 320-3001
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company

3

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 4 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 2, 2008, I electronically filed with the Clerk of Court Defendant's Motion to Strike New Matters in Plaintiff's Reply Brief or in the Alternative for Leave to File A Surreply using CM/ECF, which will send electronic notification of such filing(s) to the following Delaware counsel. In addition, the filing will also be sent via hand delivery:

Via Email Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Julia Heaney (#3052) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL, LLP 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Phone: 302-658-9200 Fax: 302-658-3989
Emails: [email protected];[email protected] Via Email Russell E . Levine, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Polaroid Corporation

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Polaroid Corporation

Michelle W. Skinner/David W. Higer Maria A. Meginnes/Courtney Holohan/C. Beasley KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-2000 Fax: 312-861-2200
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; mmeginnes @kirkland.com; mmeginnes @kirkland.com; [email protected]

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 5 of 6

Courtesy Copy Via Federal Express Michelle W. Skinner KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-861-2000 Fax: 312-861-2200
Is/ William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr.

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 6 of 6

LOCAL RULE 7.1.1 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that counsel for movants have made reasonable efforts to reach agreement with opposing counsel regarding Hewlett-Packard Company's Motion to Strike New Matter in Plaintiff's Reply Brief Or, In the Alternative, For Leave to File a Surreply.

Al William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr.

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE POLAROID CORPORATION,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,

C.A. No. 06-738-SLR
V. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

REDACTED

DEFENDANT HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY'S SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO POLAROID CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 287 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. William J. Marsden, Jr. (#2247) Raymond N. Scott, Jr. (#4949) 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel.: (302) 652-5070 Fax: (302) 652-0607
Email : [email protected]; [email protected] Robert S. Frank, Jr. (pro hac vice) Daniel C. Winston (pro hac vice) Carlos Perez-Albuerne (pro hac vice) CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP Two International Place

Boston, MA 02109 Tel.: (617) 248-5000 Fax: (617) 248-4000
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] John E. Giust (pro hac vice) Matthew E. Bernstein (pro hac vice) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,

GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92121-3039 Tel.: (858) 320-3000 Fax: (858) 320-3001
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company

Dated : July 2, 2008

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 2 of 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................1 A.
B.

Dodge and Burn's Use of Intermediate Values
Embodies Claim 7, Element 3 .......................................................................1 Dodge and Bum's and Adaptive Sharpening ' s "Ratio" Equation Embodies Claim 7, Element 3 .......................................................................4

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 6

i

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 3 of 10

REDACTED
Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") submits this Surreply to address the new arguments appearing for the first time in Polaroid Corporation's ("Polaroid") Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 287" ("Reply") (D.I. 221).'

1.

ARGUMENT
HP asserts that Polaroid failed to mark its commercial products that embodied Claim 7 of

Polaroid's patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 4,829,381 (the `381 Patent"). Polaroid's Reply asserts new arguments that its products did not embody Claim 7 of the `381 patent. HP's responses to Polaroid's new arguments are as follows: A. Dodge and Burn 's Use of Intermediate Values Embodies Claim 7, Element 3

In its Opening Brief, Polaroid argued in passing that Dodge and Bum, which was incorporated in several Polaroid commercial products, does not embody Element 1 of Claim 7 of the `381 Patent because Dodge and Bum creates more than one "average" ("intermediate value" as construed by the parties) for a given neighborhood of pixels. Opening Brief at 21. In its

Reply, Polaroid submits four pages of additional argument on Element 1, and also asserts for the first time that Dodge and Bum 's alleged use of two intermediate values does not meet Element 3 of Claim 7. Reply at 7. Specifically, Polaroid references a portion of the equation described in the `381 patent specification and in Element 3 of Claim 7 ("Av/M -1"), and states for the first time that "for the equation found in this passage to operate correctly, there can be only one value for Av." Id. (emphasis added). In addition, Polaroid asserts for the first time that Dodge and Bum See id.

1 Polaroid filed "Polaroid Corporation ' s Opening Brief in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 287" (" Opening Brief') on May 16, 2007 (D.I. 146). HP filed "Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company's Opposition to Polaroid Corporation ' s Motion for Summary Judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 287" (" Opposition") on June 5, 2008 (D.I. 186).

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 4 of 10

REDACTED
Polaroid made none of these assertions in its Opening Brief or in its Expert Report on marking (see Opening Brief at 21-23 (addressing intermediate values only as to Element 1), J.A. Ex. B, Agouris Rep. at 90-98 (not addressing Claim 7 at all)) ;2 and Polaroid's new factual assertion is incorrect. Element 3 of Claim 7 of the `381 patent states, in part, that a transfer function for each pixel is selected "as a function of the ratio of the average electronic information signal to a select proportionate value of the dynamic range of the electronic information signals...." There are two independent reasons why Polaroid's new arguments relating to Element 3 are wrong. First, contrary to Polaroid's assertion, Dodge and Burn As HP's expert explained (and Polaroid's expert did not contest), Dodge and Burn

HP Surreply Ex. 1, Schonfeld Rep., at 9-10

^-(emphasis added). HP's expert elaborated that,

2 To avoid the filing of duplicate exhibits, HP cites herein to exhibits in Polaroid's Joint Appendix (D.I. 99) as "J.A. Ex. to exhibits otherwise filed with Polaroid's Motion (D.I. and to exhibits filed with HP's Opposition (D.I. 187) as "HP Ex. _". 146) as "Pol. Ex. New exhibits cited herein are attached to the Declaration of William J. Marsden, Jr. submitted herewith, and are cited as "HP Surreply Ex. ". HP Surreply Ex. 1 contains the entire report of HP's expert, Dr. Dan Schonfeld, because this Surreply cites portions of that report that were not previously submitted in the report excerpts in HP Ex. 1 (D.I. 146). Rather than submit only the additional report pages herewith and create a split exhibit, HP has included the whole Schonfeld report in HP Surreply Ex. 1 for the Court's convenience.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 5 of 10

REDACTED
Id. at 17-20.

HP Surreply Ex. 1, Schonfeld Report at 10 (emphasis added).3 Dodge and Burn therefore does not, as Polaroid suggests,

Second, Element 3 of Claim 7 does not, in any event, require the use of only one intermediate value in the equation that it uses to select a transfer function for a pixel.4 Element 3, by its express terms, merely requires that the transfer function be selected "as a function of the ratio of the [intermediate value]" to a select proportionate value of the dynamic range (emphasis added). Thus if at least one average is used in the ratio and an additional factor is also present,

See HP Surreply Ex. 1,
Schonfeld Rep. at 8, 12-13. Thus, even under Element 1, Polaroid's arguments are wrong. a Polaroid cites a number of cases for the first time in its Reply which, it asserts, state that the articles "a" and "the" in this case require the use of only one intermediate value. However, all these decisions found a singular meaning based on evidence not present in this case, such as clear language in the specification limiting the claim to a singular meaning, limiting language in the prosecution history, or admissions by the patentee. And none included the "as a function of' language that is present in Claim 7 of the `381 patent. See all cases cited in Polaroid Reply at 6, 9.

3

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 6 of 10

REDACTED
the limitation would still be satisfied. Indeed, Polaroid itself contends that

J.A. Ex. B, Agouris Report at 70-71; see HP Opposition, at 22 n.12.5 B. Dodge and Burn 's and Adaptive Sharpening's "Ratio" Equation Embodies Claim 7, Element 3

In its Opening Brief, Polaroid stated, without explanation, that each of Dodge and Burn and Adaptive Sharpening "lack" the "specific ratio" required by Element 3 of Claim 7. Opening Brief at 22, 23. In its Reply, Polaroid argues for the first time that Dodge and Burn and Adaptive Sharpening do not contain the ratio required by Element 3 because Reply at 11-13, 15-16. Polaroid 's new arguments, which appear nowhere in Polaroid's Opening Brief or in its Expert Report on marking (see J.A. Ex. B, Agouris Rep. at 90-98), are wrong. As explained by HP's expert, both Dodge and Burn and Adaptive Sharpening embody Element 3 of Claim 7, if Polaroid's interpretation of that Claim were to be adopted, because both

Polaroid technologies HP Surreply Ex. 1, Schonfeld Rep. at 19-20, 71-82 (Dodge and Burn ), 37-44, 71-82 (Adaptive Sharpening); HP Opposition at 5, 7, 25, 28.

s Polaroid also argues in its Reply for the first time that Claim 7, Element 2 requires that onl Reply at 9 n. 9, 14. However, the `381 patent specification expressly describes modifying the "original" pixel intensity information before averaging under Element 2. J.A. Ex. A, `381 patent, col. 3, 11. 35-37, 43-49, 53-61. See also HP Opposition at 22-24, 27-28. Polaroid's Element 2 arguments therefore are without merit.

4

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 7 of 10

REDACTED

See J.A. Ex. B, Agouris Rep. at 27, 35; HP Surreply Ex. 1, Schonfeld Rep. at 19-20 & n.1, 38-39 & n.2, 71 n.6; HP Surreply Ex. 2, Schonfeld Dep. at 200-202, 204, 250-51.
HP's expert demonstrated that if one were to apply the same methodology to Dodge and Burn and Adaptive Sharpening, they too would meet the limitations of Claim 7 of the `381 patent. If Polaroid's methodology is accepted, these Polaroid technologies also_®

HP Surreply Ex. 1, Schonfeld Rep. at 19-20 & n.1, 38-39 & n.2, 71 n.6; HP Surreply Ex. 2, Schonfeld Dep. at 200-202, 204, 250-51.

Thus, as HP's expert has explained, Dodge and Burn and Adaptive Sharpening contain and use the Element 3 ratio to the same extent that LACE does. Id. Polaroid has not presented expert opinion or other evidence to the contrary.

5

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 8 of 10

H.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, HP respectfully requests that Polaroid's Motion for

Summary Judgment be DENIED.

Dated: July 2, 2008

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

By:

Is/ William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr. (#2247) Raymond N. Scott, Jr. (#4949) 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel.: (302) 652-5070 Fax: (302) 652-0607 Email: [email protected] Robert S. Frank, Jr. (pro hac vice) Daniel C. Winston (pro hac vice) Carlos Perez-Albuerne (pro hac vice) CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP Two International Place

Boston, MA 02109 Tel.: (617) 248-5000 Fax: (617) 248-4000
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] John E. Giust (pro hac vice) Matthew E. Bernstein (pro hac vice) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,

GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92121-3039 Tel.: (858) 320-3000 Fax: (858) 320-3001
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company

6

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 9 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 2, 2008, I electronically filed with the Clerk of Court Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company's Surreply in Opposition to Polaroid Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 287 using CM/ECF, which will send electronic notification of such filing(s) to the following Delaware counsel. In addition, the filing will also be sent via hand delivery: Via Email Attorneys for Plaintiff and

Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Julia Heaney (#3052) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL, LLP 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Phone: 302-658-9200 Fax: 302-658-3989
Emails: [email protected];[email protected] Via Email

Counterclaim-Defendant Polaroid Corporation

Russell E. Levine, P.C. Michelle W. Skinner/David W. Higer
Maria A. Meginnes/Courtney Holohan/C. Beasley KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Polaroid Corporation

200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-2000 Fax: 312-861-2200
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-2

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 10 of 10

Courtesy Copy Via Federal Express
Michelle W. Skinner KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-861-2000 Fax: 312-861-2200
I hereby certify that on July 2, 2008 I have mailed by United States Postal Service, the document(s) to the following non-registered participants:

[Insert Non-Registered Participants Here]

/s/ William J. Marsden, Jr.

William J. Marsden, Jr.

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-3

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE POLAROID CORPORATION,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,

C.A. No. 06-738-SLR
V. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

REDACTED

DECLARATION OF WILLIAM J. MARSDEN, JR. IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY'S SURREPLY TO "POLAROID CORPORATION 'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 287" FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. William J. Marsden, Jr. (#2247) Raymond N. Scott, Jr. (#4949) 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1 100 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel.: (302) 652-5070 Fax: (302) 652-0607
Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Robert S. Frank, Jr. (pro hac vice) Daniel C. Winston (pro hac vice) Carlos Perez-Albuerne (pro hac vice) CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP Two International Place

Boston, MA 02109 Tel.: (617) 248-5000 Fax: (617) 248-4000
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] John E. Giust (pro hac vice) Matthew E. Bernstein (pro hac vice) MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,

GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel.: (858) 314-1500 Fax: (858) 314-1501
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Hewlett-Packard Company

Dated: July 2, 2008

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-3

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 2 of 3

I, William J. Marsden, Jr., declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney with Fish & Richardson P.C., counsel for Hewlett-Packard

Company. I am a member of the Bar of the State of Delaware and of this Court. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and would testify truthfully to them if called upon to do so.

2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Expert Report of Dr.

Dan Schonfeld, dated April 18, 2008. 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of excerpts of the

Deposition of Dr. Dan Schonfeld, dated May 7, 2008.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2d of July, 2008, at Wilmington, Delaware.

Is/ William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr.

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-3

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 2, 2008, I electronically filed with the Clerk of Court the foregoing document using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing(s) to the following counsel:

Via Email Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Julia Heaney (#3052) Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Polaroid Corporation

1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Phone: 302-658-9200 Fax: 302-658-3989
Emails: jblumenfeld @mnat.com; jheaney@ Tnnat. coin Via Email Russell E. Levine, P.C. Michelle W. Skinner/David W. Higer Maria A. Meginnes/Courtney Holohan/C. Beasley Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Polaroid Corporation

Kirkland & Ellis LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-2000 Fax: 312-861-2200
Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Courtesy Copy Via Federal Express Michelle W. Skinner

Kirkland & Ellis LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-2000 Fax: 312-861-2200

/s/ William J. Marsden, Jr. William J. Marsden, Jr.

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-4

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 1

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-4

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 2 of 2

REDACTED IN ITS ENTIRETY

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-5

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 1 of 2

Exhibit 2

Case 1:06-cv-00738-SLR

Document 265-5

Filed 07/10/2008

Page 2 of 2

REDACTED IN ITS ENTIRETY