1751564 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

VOXER, INC. and VOXER IP LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM LLC, 

Defendants 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00655 [ADA] 

Jury Trial Demanded 

FILED UNDER SEAL

FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT NO. 1 

FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT VOXER IS 

NOT ENTITLED TO , 

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE ASSERTED PATENTS 

ARE INVALID FOR IMPROPER INVENTORSHIP

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 1 of 11
i 

1751564 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ........................... 1

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 4

V. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5

A. The Asserted Claims Are Not Entitled to . ......... 5

B. In the Alternative, the Asserted Patents Are Invalid for Improper 

Inventorship. ........................................................................................................... 6

VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 6

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 2 of 11
ii 

1751564 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Federal Cases 

Coleman v. Dines, 

754 F.2d 353 (Fed. Cir. 1985)....................................................................................................4 

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 

376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..........................................................................................4, 5, 6

Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 

135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..............................................................................................4, 6 

Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 

155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..........................................................................................4, 5, 6

Schulze v. Green, 

136 F.3d 786 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................................................4 

Singh v. Brake, 

317 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................4 

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 3 of 11
1 

1751564 

I. INTRODUCTION 

It is axiomatic that a person is a joint inventor only if he contributes to the conception of 

the claimed invention. Here, however, 

the asserted patents are invalid under section 102(f) for improper inventorship. 

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT 

(1) Whether Facebook is entitled to summary judgment 

; and (2) , 

whether the asserted patents are invalid for improper inventorship. 

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND2

 The asserted patents claim priority to various nonprovisional patent applications, the 

earliest of which is Application No. 12/028,400, filed on February 8, 2008. Dkt. 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-

5. Each asserted patent also claims priority to multiple provisional applications, the earliest of 

which is Application No. 60/937,552, filed on June 28, 2007 (the “June 2007 Provisional”). Id. 

 Each asserted patent names four co-inventors: Thomas E. Katis, Matthew J. Ranney, 

James T. Panttaja, and Mary G. Panttaja. Id. The June 2007 Provisional identifies Mr. Katis and 

Mr. Ranney as inventors but does not mention Mary or James Panttaja.3

 

1

 Namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,180,030; 9,634,969; 10,142,270; and 10,511,557. 

2

 All exhibit citations are to the Declaration of William S. Hicks, filed concurrently herewith. 

3

 Ex. A (June 2007 Provisional; Katis Ex. 1138) at VOXER0002943. 

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 6 of 11
4 

1751564 

Voxer contends that the asserted claims are entitled to a priority date 

 All of these prior art 

references predate the June 2007 Provisional. 

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS 

“Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea 

of the complete and operative invention, as it is therefore to be applied in practice.” Singh v. 

Brake, 317 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Conception must include every feature of the 

claimed invention. Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 359 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 

“[A] person is a joint inventor only if he contributes to the conception of the claimed 

invention.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Joint 

inventorship under section 116 can only arise when collaboration or concerted effort occurs—

that is, when the inventors have some open line of communication during or in temporal 

proximity to their inventive efforts.” Id. at 1359. “[O]ne does not qualify as a joint inventor by 

merely assisting the actual inventor after conception of the claimed invention.” Ethicon, Inc. v. 

U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Naming the correct inventor is a condition of patentability, and failure to do so renders a 

patent invalid. Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Parties other than 

an alleged inventor may bring claims of incorrect inventorship under section 102(f). Id. at 1348; 

Schulze v. Green, 136 F.3d 786, 788, 792 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (non-inventor may challenge patent 

11 Ex. B at 9-11, ¶¶ 40-43. 

12 See, e.g., Ex. B, ¶¶ 223, 286 (Branam); id., ¶ 245 (Atarius); id., ¶¶ 376, 423, 477, 590 

(Rensin); id., ¶¶ 438, 537 (Kalaboukis); id., ¶¶ 495, 576 (Brueck); id., ¶¶ 527, 629 (Mullig). 

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 7 of 11
5 

1751564 

validity based on misjoinder assertion). Although Section 256 permits a bona fide mistake in 

joining a person as an inventor to be corrected, “if the patentee does not claim relief under the 

statute and a party asserting invalidity proves incorrect inventorship, the court should hold the 

patent invalid for failure to comply with section 102(f).” Pannu, 155 F.3d at 1350-51. 

V. ARGUMENT 

A. The Asserted Claims Are Not Entitled to 

See supra, n. 4-9; Eli Lilly, 376 F.3d at 1358–59. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 8 of 11
6 

1751564 

B. In the Alternative, the Asserted Patents Are Invalid for Improper 

Inventorship. 

Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1460 (“[O]ne does not qualify as a 

joint inventor by merely assisting the actual inventor after conception of the claimed 

invention.”); Eli Lilly, 376 F.3d at 1358-59 (“[A] person is a joint inventor only if he contributes 

to the conception of the claimed invention.”). Failure to name the proper inventors renders a 

patent invalid unless the error is corrected. Pannu, 155 F.3d at 1349–50. 

Here, 

Accordingly, to the extent 

, the Court should enter summary judgment that the asserted patents are invalid 

for failure to comply with section 102(f). Pannu, 155 F.3d at 1350-51 (“[I]f the patentee does not 

claim relief under the statute and a party asserting invalidity proves incorrect inventorship, the 

court should hold the patent invalid for failure to comply with section 102(f).”). 

VI. CONCLUSION 

The Court should grant summary judgment that 

, the Court should grant summary 

judgment that the asserted patents are invalid for improper inventorship. 

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 9 of 11
7 

1751564 

Dated: October 18, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: s/ Paven Malhotra 

 Christa M. Anderson 

canderson@keker.com 

David J. Silbert 

dsilbert@keker.com 

Eugene M. Paige 

epaige@keker.com 

Matthew W. Werdegar 

mwerdegar@keker.com 

Paven Malhotra 

pmalhotra@keker.com 

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 

633 Battery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: 415-391-5400 

Michael E. Jones 

SBN: 10929400 

Patrick C. Clutter 

SBN: 24036374 

POTTER MINTON, PC 

110 North College, Suite 500 

Tyler, Texas 75702 

Tel: 903-597-8311 

Fax: 903-593-0845 

mikejones@potterminton.com 

patrickclutter@potterminton.com 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

FACEBOOK, INC. and INSTAGRAM LLC 

 

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 10 of 11
1751564 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are 

being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail on October 18, 2021. 

I also hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service 

are being served with a notice of filing of this document, under seal, pursuant to L.R. CV-5(a)(7) 

on October 18, 2021. 

/s/ Paven Malhotra 

Paven Malhotra 

I certify that the foregoing document is authorized to be filed under seal pursuant to the 

Protective Order in this case and Judge Albright’s Standing Order Regarding Filing Documents 

Under Seal in patent Cases and Redacted Pleadings. 

/s/ Paven Malhotra 

Paven Malhotra 

Case 1:20-cv-00655-DAE Document 121 Filed 10/25/21 Page 11 of 11