Realnetworks, Inc. et al v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. et al, No. 3:2008cv04548 - Document 428 (N.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: Request for Judicial Notice Administrative Motion For Judicial Notice of RealNetworks' Patent Applications filed byDisney Enterprises, Inc.(a Delaware corporation), NBC Universal, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp.(a Delaware corporation), Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.(a Delaware corporation), Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation(a Delaware corporation), Viacom, Inc., Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A-F to Administrative Motion for Judicial Notice of RealNetworks' Patent Applications, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Administrative Motion for Judicial Notice of RealNetworks' Patent Applications)(Singla, Rohit) (Filed on 6/24/2009)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Realnetworks, Inc. et al v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. et al Doc. 428 Case3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document428 1 2 3 4 5 GLENN D. POMERANTZ (SBN 112503) Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com BART H. WILLIAMS (SBN 134009) Bart.Williams@mto.com KELLY M. KLAUS (SBN 161091) Kelly.Klaus@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Tel: (213) 683-9100; Fax: (213) 687-3702 Filed06/24/09 Page1 of 7 ROBERT H. ROTSTEIN (SBN 72452) rxr@msk.com ERIC J. GERMAN (SBN 224557) ejg@msk.com MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 11377 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90064-1683 Tel: (310) 312-2000; Fax: (310) 312-3100 6 7 8 9 10 11 GREGORY P. GOECKNER (SBN 103693) gregory_goeckner@mpaa.org DANIEL E. ROBBINS (SBN 156934) dan_robbins@mpaa.org 15301 Ventura Boulevard, Building E Sherman Oaks, California 91403-3102 Tel: (818) 995-6600; Fax: (818) 285-4403 Attorneys for Motion Picture Studio Plaintiffs/Declaratory Relief Claim Defendants 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 REALNETWORKS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, 17 18 19 CASE NO. C 08-4548-MHP vs. DVD COPY BATES ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. 20 Defendants. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF REALNETWORKS’ PATENT APPLICATIONS [Declaration of Rohit K. Singla and Proposed Order filed herewith] 21 22 23 UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP, et al., 24 25 26 27 CASE NO. C 08-4719-MHP Plaintiffs, vs. REALNETWORKS, INC., et al. Defendants. 28 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE CASE NO. C 08-4548-MHP Dockets.Justia.com Case3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document428 1 Filed06/24/09 Page2 of 7 On June 11, 2009, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) published five patent 2 applications filed by RealNetworks in 2007 and 2008 relating to RealDVD. None of these 3 applications were produced in discovery, despite being called for by the Studios’ requests — and 4 it is clear why not: In three of the applications Real tries to patent the very ARccOS/RipGuard 5 circumvention technologies that it has told this Court do not even exist. These patent applications 6 flatly contradict the testimony and proposed findings submitted by Real and strongly support the 7 Studios’ contentions regarding Real’s circumvention of ARccOS and RipGuard. For example: 8 • Real and its witnesses have told the Court that ARccOS and RipGuard are not copy protection technologies and that Real’s engineers did not know how ARccOS and RipGuard worked. Yet Real simultaneously has told the PTO that “Macrovision RipGuard™” and “Sony ARccOS™” are “copy protection mechanisms” and then described specific techniques used by ARccOS and RipGuard. • Real has insisted that the Facet DVDWalk function does not circumvent ARccOS and RipGuard because it does not identify ARccOS/RipGuard protections or have “any mechanism . . . that deals with an ARccOS or RipGuard error.” Yet Real’s patent applications describe in detail how its DVDWalk technology is used to “detect and/or avoid media obfuscation schemes” like ARccOS and RipGuard. Indeed, the point of the application is to patent those very detection and avoidance techniques. • Real has told the Court, through witnesses and proposed findings, that ARccOS and RipGuard can only delay but cannot prevent a “linear copy” of DVDs. But Real is insisting to the PTO that ARccOS and RipGuard can “cause an archiving process to fail” or “never complete” — exactly contrary to its representations to this Court. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 The applications list as inventors Phillip Barrett and James Bielman, witnesses who repeatedly 19 denied knowing what ARccOS and RipGuard are, much less trying to circumvent them. 20 The Studios respectfully request that the Court take judicial notice of these three 21 patent applications, and consider them as part of the record. See Coinstar, Inc. v. Coinbank 22 Automated Systems, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 1109, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (patent applications and 23 supporting declarations subject to judicial notice); accord Monster Cable Prods., Inc. v. 24 Discovery Communs., Inc., 2004 WL 2445348, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Judicial notice is 25 warranted here because the applications have been in Real’s possession and control but 26 unavailable to the Studios; because the applications so directly contradict Real’s contentions 27 before this Court; and because the applications should have been produced in discovery. 28 -1- MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE CASE NO. C 08-4548-MHP Case3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document428 1 I. REAL’S PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTRADICT ITS LITIGATION POSITIONS AND WITNESS TESTIMONY. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Filed06/24/09 Page3 of 7 The three patent applications which the Studios seek to add to the record are U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0148125 A1 (Watson, Bielman, and Barrett); U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/095,249 (Chasen, Buzzard, et al.); and U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/012,500 (Barrett, Hamilton, et al.). They are attached hereto as Exhibits A-C. The ’125 application was filed on December 10, 2008, during discovery in this case and just weeks before the depositions of Real’s engineers. The ’125 application claims priority to the ’500 and ’249 provisional applications, which were filed in December 2007 and September 2008, respectively. 9 A. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Real insisted at the preliminary injunction hearing that ARccOS/RipGuard are not copy protection schemes. Its expert, Mr. Dixon, testified that ARccOS and RipGuard are not “copy protection measures.” [Tr. 921:2-6.] Mr. Bielman, the only engineer Real proffered at the hearing and an inventor on one of Real’s patent applications, testified that he did not “classify [ARccOS] as copy protection.” [Tr. 1083:7-10.] Mr. Barrett likewise testified in his deposition that he “d[idn’t] believe that ARccOS is a[] . . . copy protection scheme.” [Barrett at 172:12-14.] One section of Real’s proposed findings is labeled “ARccOS and RipGuard are not Copy Protection Because They Lack Authentication and Encryption.” [Real’s FOF at 66.] 18 19 20 21 22 ARccOS/RipGuard Are Copy Protection Schemes. Yet, in its December 2007 and June 2008 provisional applications (predating this litigation), Real correctly describes “Macrovision RipGuard™, Sony ARccOS™” as “copy protection mechanisms” or “copy protection schemes.” [’500 Application at ¶ 0015; ’249 Application at ¶ 0113.] The patent applications recognize that “Archos [sic] provides copy protection schemes found on many DVD discs.” [’249 Application ¶ 0113.] 23 B. 24 25 26 27 ARccOS and RipGuard Cause Copying to Fail. Real’s argument that ARccOS/RipGuard are not effective copy protection is based in part on the allegation that ARccOS/RipGuard-protected DVDs can always be copied by a linear scheme, given enough time. Mr. Bielman testified that ARccOS/RipGuard could not prevent a linear copy of a DVD. [Tr. 1011:12-18.] Real had its expert Mr. Dixon give the same 28 -2- MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE CASE NO. C 08-4548-MHP Case3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document428 Filed06/24/09 Page4 of 7 1 testimony: that ARccOS/RipGuard only slowed down copying. [Tr. 871:9-13, 890:15-891:3; 2 895:10-19] In its proposed findings, Real asked the Court to find that “[i]t is not possible to stop 3 a linear copy with ARccOS or RipGuard errors because DVD drives can be directed to ignore or 4 ‘time out’ on any errors encountered.” [Real’s FOF ¶ 114; see also id. ¶¶ 113-117, 142.] 5 Putting aside the fact that even slowing copying can effectively control illicit 6 copying,1 Real’s patent applications directly contradict what Real has been telling the Court. 7 Real told the PTO that ARccOS and RipGuard “obfuscation schemes” “may cause an archiving 8 process to fail,” i.e., to “never complete.” [‘125 Application at ¶ 0025.] The patent applications 9 describe ARccOS and RipGuard as “designed to defeat track-by-track copying methods.” [‘500 10 Application at ¶ 0015.] Indeed, part of Real’s basis for seeking to patent its circumvention 11 technologies is that copying of protected DVDs can otherwise fail altogether. 12 C. 13 Facet’s “DVDWalk” Has Been Specifically Designed to “Remove” and “Avoid” Techniques Used by ARccOS and RipGuard. Mr. Bielman told the Court that Facet does not circumvent ARccOS or RipGuard, 14 denying that Facet could “tell one way or another, when it gets a read error back from a DVD, 15 whether that error was put there intentionally or unintentionally.” [Tr. 1012:12-19.] Mr. Bielman 16 specifically denied that DVDWalk had “any mechanism that recognizes an ARccOS or RipGuard 17 disc.” [Tr. 1018:20-1019:1.] Real asks this Court, similarly, to find that there is “no mechanism 18 or code in Facet to identify ARccOS or RipGuard errors” and that “[t]he Facet design team has 19 never made a change to the DVD Walk code to address an ARccOS or RipGuard error.” [Real’s 20 FOF ¶¶ 125, 154-155.] Real is telling the Court that Facet cannot identify ARccOS or RipGuard 21 protections and so cannot possibly be “avoiding” or “removing” those techniques. 22 The patent applications, again, tell a sharply different story, confirming the 23 evidence presented by the Studios. All 40 claims of the ’125 application claim a “media analysis 24 component” designed to “walk” the DVD or otherwise determine how to copy (“archive”) a DVD 25 with ARccOS or RipGuard. The application explains that the idea is “to distinguish between read 26 errors . . . due to . . . damage and those caused by intentionally placed bad data.” [’125 27 1 28 The issue for DMCA purposes, of course, is not whether ARccOS/RipGuard are “copy protection” but whether they are effective technological measures under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b). -3- MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE CASE NO. C 08-4548-MHP Case3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document428 Filed06/24/09 Page5 of 7 1 Application at ¶ 0119.] The goal of “walking” the DVD is to then “detect and/or avoid media 2 obfuscation schemes.” [’125 Application at ¶ 0025.] The application discusses how Real’s 3 technology “detects” or “determines” that the DVD contains “invisible” buttons, dummy menu 4 items, “cyclic data in the segment,” or an “infinite still frame in the segment.”2 [’125 Application 5 at ¶¶ 0025, 0028, 0095, 0101.] Real explains to the PTO that if such techniques are found, then 6 DVD Walk “may remove the segment from the media walk data structure,” or “avoid 7 intentionally invalid data by avoiding segments on the recording medium.” [’125 Application at 8 ¶¶ 0101, 0103.] Real’s denials to this Court that DVDWalk avoids or removes 9 ARccOS/RipGuard protection fly in the face of its claims to the PTO, which Real made to obtain 10 patent protection for its methods for circumventing ARccOS and RipGuard.3 11 D. 12 Real’s Witnesses—Including the Very Inventors Listed on the Patent Applications—Disguised and Hid the Truth About ARccOS and RipGuard At his December 15, 2008 deposition, Phillip Barrett — the Manager of the Facet 13 project and named inventor on Real’s applications — denied any knowledge of ARccOS and 14 RipGuard: “[I am] not really sure exactly what ARccOS is.” He insisted that sector errors were 15 caused by smudges, manufacturing errors, scratches, and things children did to DVDs. [Id. at 16 17:10-18:8.]. He testified that he had not even a “suspicion” as to why such errors might be 17 intentionally included to slow down linear copying. [Barrett Depo. 124:16-125:21.] 18 But, just five days prior to Mr. Barrett’s deposition, Real filed the ’125 application 19 — with Mr. Barrett as an inventor — that claimed priority to applications that discuss ARccOS 20 and RipGuard by name and explain that they are copy protection techniques. Mr. Barrett 21 understood that these techniques rely on bad sectors. The ’125 application describes 22 ARccOS/RipGuard as utilizing “obfuscation data [that] may include one or more ‘bad sectors.’”4 23 2 24 25 26 27 28 Contrary to the patent applications, Mr. Bielman insisted before the Court that “infinite still frames” did not have “anything to do with ARccOS or RipGuard.” [Tr. 1020:15-1021:6.] 3 The ’249 application similarly explains that Vegas circumvents ARccOS and RipGuard by first detecting “bad sectors intentionally placed on the media (e.g., as opposed to defects . . . ),” determining that “the cell is a copy protection cell,” and then “skip[ping] the cell.” [’249 Application at ¶ 0114, 0117.] 4 The ’125 application filed in December 2008 — after the Studios had raised the issue of ARccOS and RipGuard circumvention — replaces the earlier explicit references to “ARccOS” and “RipGuard” with the more generic term “obfuscation schemes” or “obfuscation techniques.” -4- MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE CASE NO. C 08-4548-MHP Case3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document428 Filed06/24/09 Page6 of 7 1 [’125 at ¶ 0025.] Mr. Barrett understood also that “copy protection measures (e.g. Macrovision 2 RipGuard™ [and] Sony ARccOS™ . . .) . . . may be designed to defeat track-by-track copying 3 methods by deliberately including large amounts of invalid data.” [‘500 Application at ¶ 0016] 4 Mr. Barrett, and the other engineers at Real, also knew of other techniques used by ARccOS and 5 RipGuard. The ’125 application, for example, discusses “invisible” buttons, “dummy” menu 6 items, an “infinite still frame in the segment,” etc. [’125 Application at ¶¶ 0028, 0095, 0101.] 7 Mr. Barrett’s claims of ignorance about ARccOS/RipGuard — and Real’s 8 contentions and other testimony on this subject — cannot be true given the disclosures in Real’s 9 own patent applications. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Bielman, as inventors, submitted declarations 10 under oath attesting to their review and understanding of the entire application, and the truth of 11 statements therein. [Exh. A (“Declaration for Patent Application”)]; see 37 C.F.R. 1.63(b)(2). 12 II. 13 PATENT APPLICATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY. These patent applications were undeniably called for in discovery. The Studios’ 14 first set of discovery requests, for example, sought all documents with keywords such as 15 “ARccOS,” “RipGuard,” and “bad sector” — all of which terms appear in Real’s applications. 16 [Exh. D at C.14-15] More importantly, the Studios repeatedly asked for documents comprising 17 architecture, technical or design specifications or documentation for RealDVD: a category clearly 18 encompassing the technical patent specifications. [Id. at B; Exh. E at II.B.1] The Studios asked 19 specifically for such patent applications after the deposition of Nicole Hamilton.5 [Exh. F at 2] 20 Real’s omission is particularly surprising given this Court’s instructions to Real’s 21 in-house counsel — who must have known about the patent applications — to personally ensure 22 compliance with Real’s discovery obligations: “[m]ake sure that . . . when you say that every and 23 all documents that have been sought and searched for have, in fact, been turned over.” The Court 24 could not have been clearer: “I’m going to hold [you] personally responsible for . . . making sure 25 that the discovery complies with what is required, and that it is entirely produced so there is no 26 gap between outside counsel and in-house counsel.” [March 3 Hearing Tr. at 45:7-9, 44:3-7.] 27 5 28 Ms. Hamilton is also listed as an inventor and testified that she helped develop Real’s circumvention technology, demonstrating again the prejudice to the Studios from the loss of Ms. Hamilton’s engineering notebooks. -5- MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE CASE NO. C 08-4548-MHP Case3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document428 1 2 III. Filed06/24/09 Page7 of 7 CONCLUSION The Studios respectfully request the Court, pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, to consider the 3 attached patent applications as part of the record on the Studios’ Motion for Preliminary 4 Injunction. 5 6 DATED: June 24, 2009 7 /s/ Rohit K. Singla ROHIT K. SINGLA MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Attorneys for Studio Defendants/CounterclaimPlaintiffs/Plaintiffs COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC., DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT, INC., SONY PICTURES TELEVISION INC., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP., NBC UNIVERSAL, INC., WALT DISNEY PICTURES, WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP, UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP, AND VIACOM, INC. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE CASE NO. C 08-4548-MHP
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
