** FILED UNDER SEAL – RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY ** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC., 

Defendant. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-555 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

USC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 19
-iTABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................................ 2

III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ...................................................... 2

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................... 3

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

1. USC Is Entitled To Partial Summary Judgment Because Facebook Failed To 

Show That Use Of The Would Disclose To The Public 

Every Element Of The Asserted Claims. ................................................................... 5

A. Facebook failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that each and 

every limitation of the asserted claims is disclosed by the combinations 

identified by its expert. .................................................................................... 9

2. USC Is Entitled To Partial Summary Judgment Because Facebook Failed To 

Show That Use Of Would Disclose To The Public Every 

Element Of The Asserted Claims. ........................................................................... 12

VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 13

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 19
-iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

Allied Colloids Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 

 64 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................................... 5 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

 477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 4 

Boyd v. State Farm Ins. Co., 

 158 F.3d 326 (5th Cir 1998) ........................................................................................................ 4 

Celotex v. Catrett, 

477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 4 

Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharm., Inc., 

 715 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................... 6, 10, 11 

Duplantis v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 

 948 F.2d 187 (5th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................................... 4 

Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 

 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................... 5 

OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys, 

 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................... 1 

Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. IBM, 

 No. 13-2072, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28461 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017) ........................................ 7 

Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 

 123 U.S. 249 (1887) .................................................................................................................... 5 

Sweet Lake Land & Oil Co. LLC v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 

 No. 2:09 CV 1100, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 650 (W.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012) .................................. 4 

TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., 

 120 F. Supp. 3d 600 (E.D. Tex. 2015) .................................................................................... 6, 8 

Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 

 814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................... 5, 10 

W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 

721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................... 5 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 19
-iiiStatutes 

35 U.S.C. § 102 ...................................................................................................................... passim 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 4 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ....................................................................................................................... 4 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 4 of 19
-1- 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff USC IP Partnership, L.P. (“USC”) moves for partial summary judgment on 

Facebook, Inc.’s (“Facebook”) claims and affirmative defense of invalidity. It is canon that “the 

patent laws have not generally recognized as prior art that which is not accessible to the public.” 

OddzOn Prods. v. Just Toys, 122 F.3d 1396, 1402 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[W]hen the possessor of 

secret art (art that has been abandoned, suppressed, or concealed) that predates the critical date is 

faced with a later-filed patent, the later-filed patent should not be invalidated in the face of this 

‘prior’ art, which has not been made available to the public.” See id.

Facebook asserts that the ’300 Patent is invalid based on the so-called 

 That assertion necessarily relies on information that was never accessible to the public, 

including Facebook had no choice but 

to rely on because the public-facing Facebook website never provided 

any indication of how the information displayed to the user was generated (as is required by the 

claims). Accordingly, USC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of 

the ’300 Patent are not invalid in view of the 

Facebook also asserts that the ’300 Patent is invalid based on the so-called 

 and Conspicuously absent from Facebook’s evidence 

regarding alleged use of these systems are screenshots from the systems. 

never provided any indication of how the 

information displayed to the user was generated (as is required by the claims). Accordingly, USC 

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of the ’300 Patent are not invalid 

in view of the

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 5 of 19
-2- 

II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 

Whether this Court should grant summary judgment of no invalidity on Facebook’s claim 

of invalidity under the public use prong of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because 

was not publicly accessible.

Whether this Court should grant summary judgment of no invalidity on Facebook’s claim 

of invalidity under the public use prong of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the

were not publicly accessible.

III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 

UMF No. 1: U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300, was filed on July 20, 2011, and issued on February 

4, 2014. 

UMF No. 2: Facebook asserts that claims 1-17 of the ’300 Patent are invalid, as anticipated 

or obvious, in view of the Ex. 1, Expert Report of Nathaniel Polish, 

Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300, ¶190, ¶¶1184-1585. 

UMF No. 3: Facebook uses the term 

 Ex.1, p. 73, n.14. 

UMF No. 4: Facebook uses the term 

 Ex. 1, p. 

73, n.14. 

UMF No. 5: was not sold in in this country. Ex. 2, Polish 

Dep. Tr. 151:9-13 (Sep. 24, 2021). 

UMF No. 6: Facebook relies on four categories of evidence to support its prior-art 

invalidity defense of the 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 6 of 19
-3- 

Ex. 1, ¶¶175-182. 

UMF No. 7: Category (1)— —was not 

publicly accessible before July 20, 2010. Ex. 1, ¶172 

 Ex. 2, Polish Dep. Tr. 155:3-7 (Sep. 24 

, 2021); Ex. 3, Vickrey Dep. Tr. 180:5-17 (July 9, 2021). 

UMF No. 8: Category (2)—

—were not publicly accessible before July 20, 2010. Ex. 1, Polish Report ¶172 

 Ex. 2, Polish Dep. Tr. 155:8-17, 155:25-156:9 (Sep. 24 , 2021). 

UMF No. 9: A user of the would not be able to readily discern the 

claimed features of the ’300 Patent through use of the alone. Ex. 2, Polish Dep. 

Tr. 164:9-166:9 (Sep. 24 , 2021). 

UMF No. 10: Facebook uses the term to refer to

 operated. Ex. 1, ¶141. 

UMF No. 11: Facebook uses the term to refer to how the 

operated. Ex. 1, ¶141. 

UMF No. 12: A user of either the or the 

would not be able to readily discern the claimed features of the ’300 Patent through use of 

either system alone. Ex. 2, Polish Dep. Tr. 29:19-32:17 (Sep. 24, 2021). 

IV. LEGAL STANDARDS 

Summary judgment is proper when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as 

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 7 of 19
-4- 

56(a); see also Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the non-movant bears the burden 

of proof on an issue, the movant is entitled to summary judgment by demonstrating that the nonmovant failed to proffer sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 

323. “By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual 

dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary 

judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine [dispute] of material fact.” Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48 (1986). The summary judgment standard evaluates 

whether there is a genuine issue of material fact based on admissible evidence. See, e.g., Duplantis 

v. Shell Offshore, Inc., 948 F.2d 187, 191 (5th Cir. 1991) (“It has long been settled law that a 

[party] must respond to an adequate motion for summary judgment with admissible evidence.”). 

Expert opinion, by itself, is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to withstand 

summary judgment. Boyd v. State Farm Ins. Co., 158 F.3d 326, 331 (5th Cir 1998) (“For the 

purposes of summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), an expert affidavit must include 

materials on which the expert based his opinion, as well as an indication of the reasoning process 

underlying the opinion.”); see also Sweet Lake Land & Oil Co. LLC v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 

2:09 CV 1100, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 650, at *8-9 (W.D. La. Jan. 3, 2012) (“Although expert 

testimony may be more inferential than that of fact witnesses, in order to defeat a motion for 

summary judgment, an expert opinion must contain more than mere conclusions.”).

The public use bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) requires that: “the invention was . . . in public 

use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in 

the United States. . . .” “A ‘public use’ for the purpose of barring access to the patent system is a 

use more than a year before the patent filing date, whereby a completed invention is used in public, 

without restriction and in circumstances other than ‘substantially for the purposes of 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 8 of 19
-5- 

experiment.’” Allied Colloids Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 64 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1995), 

quoting Smith & Griggs Mfg. Co. v. Sprague, 123 U.S. 249, 256 (1887). Patent invalidity based 

on public use is required to be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Allied Colloids Inc. v. 

Am. Cyanamid Co., 64 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, 

Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1030, (1987). Invalidity under 

the public use bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is an affirmative defense, and therefore the burden of 

proof is on the party attacking the validity of a patent on that basis. Allied Colloids Inc. v. Am. 

Cyanamid Co., 64 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

V. ARGUMENT 

1. USC Is Entitled To Partial Summary Judgment Because Facebook Failed To 

Show That Use Of The Would Disclose To The Public 

Every Element Of The Asserted Claims. 

Facebook contends that the anticipates the claims of the ’300 Patent 

under the public use prong of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). “A claim is anticipated only if each and every 

element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior 

art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). For 

invalidity by public use of a system, the use of the system must, by itself, place the claimed systems 

and methods in the possession of the public. W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 

1549 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“There is no evidence that a viewer of the machine could thereby learn 

anything of which process, among all possible processes, the machine is being used to practice . . 

. it was error to hold that Budd's activity with the Cropper machine, as above indicated, was a 

‘public’ use of the processes claimed in the '566 patent, that activity having been secret, not 

public”). Key to the public use prong is the public having access to and being able to discern the 

claimed features of the invention: “[I]f members of the public are not informed of, and cannot 

readily discern the claimed features of the invention in the allegedly invaliding prior art, the public 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 9 of 19
-6- 

has not been put in possession of those features.” Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharm., Inc., 715 F.3d 

1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Rather, the alleged public use must place the claimed features of the 

claims in the public’s possession. See TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 

3d 600, 615-16 (E.D. Tex. 2015). Use of the by itself, fails to place the 

claimed inventions of the ’300 Patent in the possession of the public.

As Facebook’s expert, Dr. Polish, describes it, the 

 UMF No. 4. 

See Ex. 2, Polish Dep. Tr. 155:3-7 . The 

 Ex. 1, Polish Report ¶¶171. 

Id. at 

¶¶172 

 This is relevant because the claims require that the webpages are generated in a 

specific way, using specific inputs and algorithms.

Each independent claim (claims 1, 5, and 11) requires an “intent engine.”1 Claim 1 further 

requires, for example, processing an input parameter in the intent engine to determine at least one 

inferred intent. That inferred intent is then provided to a web browser so that it can be displayed 

in a webpage. The intent engine then receives a confirmed intent that the intent engine processes 

to determine at least one recommended webpage, that is displayed to the user. Then, the user is 

prompted to rank the recommended webpage, and that rank is stored in a datapoint, along with the 

identity of the webpage and the inferred intent. 

1

 The Court construed the term “intent engine” to mean “a software component for collecting and 

analyzing intent data from visitors.” 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 10 of 19
-7- 

Similarly, independent claim 5 requires, for example, processing an indicated intent in the 

intent engine to determine one or more recommended webpages, which are displayed to the user. 

That processing specifically requires that “indicated intent” is used as a reference to intent ranking 

data that ranks a plurality of webpages for that intent, and that the intent data includes intent data 

provided by previous visitors to one or more webpages. Here again, the user is prompted for 

certain inputs and sees the results (i.e., the webpages) without seeing how those webpages are 

generated. There is no dispute that a user of the would not be able to 

readily discern these claimed features through use of alone. UMF No. 9.

Independent claim 11 requires that the intent engine provide webpage recommendations in 

an intent tool and receive ranking data from a ranking tool. That ranking data is then stored in at 

least one database. As with the other independent claims, there is no dispute that a user of the 

would not be able to readily discern these claimed features through use of 

alone. 

Facebook’s expert never opines that the by itself, places the 

elements of the claims in the possession of the public. UMF No. 9. Without additional disclosures 

through other supposed prior art references, no one could know how works simply by 

using

does not disclose the systems and methods behind 

Facebook. See Ex. 3, Vickrey Dep. Tr. 15:2-17 (July 9, 2021). These details would be necessary 

to discern whether the discloses the claims of the ’300 Patent. Such 

disclosure is required by anticipation by public use. As a result, use of the

cannot render the claims of the ’300 Patent invalid as a matter of law.

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 11 of 19
-8- 

This case bears striking similarity to the facts in Parallel Networks Licensing, LLC v. IBM. 

There, defendant IBM provided a web server to host the 1996 Masters golf tournament. No. 13-

2072, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28461, at *22 (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2017). The plaintiff, Parallel 

Networks, argued that it was “entitled to summary judgment because IBM’s use of the web server 

was not ‘public use.’” Id. There was no dispute that the server itself was accessible to the public 

and that “members of the public were able to submit web requests to the server and to receive web 

pages (web data) from the server.” See id. at *23. But that public use did not disclose “any of 

IBM’s internal network operations, including request-routing and load-balancing,” which were 

required by the claims. See id. at *22; see also id. at *23 (“In their interactions with the Masters 

server, members of the public did not manage dynamic web requests, nor did they route requests 

or process requests. All of those actions were carried out exclusively, and confidentially, by IBM’s 

servers.”). Acknowledging Lockwood, the Parallel Networks court found that use of the IBM 

Masters server was not public use. See id. at *22-24. Use of the is no 

different: 

which is required to disclose the claimed invention. And Facebook’s expert 

does not opine that it did.

In another example, the court in TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., was presented 

with the question of whether public demonstration of a software product (Lotus Notes) constituted 

public use of the invention when some of the claimed features were disabled (the RC4 feature). 

See 120 F. Supp.3d at 615. The court concluded that such public demonstrations did not constitute 

public use. See id. (“Thus, a reasonable jury could have concluded that public use of the Lotus 

Notes without RC4 program at Lotus Week was not enough to place the claimed features of the 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 12 of 19
-9- 

’730 patent in the public’s possession.”). In doing so, the court expressly rejected the defendant’s 

argument that “the prior inventor need not divulge the ‘innards’ of the invention to the public to 

be public use.” See id. The court also recognized that the holding in Lockwood applies only when 

“public use of the high-level aspects of the [prior invention] was enough to place the claimed

features of the [patent in question] in the public’s possession.” See id. at 616. That is not the case 

here, nor has anyone opined that it is.

In both instances, the details matter—the details regarding whether the public use disclosed 

the claimed invention. Facebook bears the burden of clear and convincing evidence that the claims 

of the ’300 Patent are invalid based on public use of the ’300 Patent. Mere public accessibility to 

is not sufficient. See id. (“The details matter, and 

Defendant hand-waves over the details concerning what does and does not need to be disclosed in 

the prior invention to ensure that the public has access to all elements of the claimed invention; 

yet, this type of detail would be precisely the type of detail—especially in the face of 

confidentiality agreements to the contrary—that would have been needed meet the clear and 

convincing burden that the patent was invalid due to public disclosure or use.”). 

There is no genuine issue of material fact that a user of the would 

not be able to readily discern the claimed features of the ’300 Patent through use of 

alone. UMF No. 9. That is required for anticipation through public use, and accordingly, USC is 

entitled to summary judgment that the does not anticipate the claims of the 

’300 Patent under the public use prong of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

A. Facebook failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that each and 

every limitation of the asserted claims is disclosed by the combinations 

identified by its expert.

Even though Facebook argues that the anticipates the claims of the 

’300 patent, Facebook’s expert impermissibly relied on multiple purported prior art references to 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 13 of 19
-10- 

find disclosure. But even using multiple references, Facebook’s expert fails to show that each 

element of each asserted claim is disclosed. 

Facebook must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that each and every claim 

limitation of the ’300 Patent was disclosed through public use of the See 

Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d at 631. Even if Facebook’s are 

admissible, they fail to disclose certain limitations of the claims of the ’300 Patent. Accordingly, 

USC is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the alleged of the

does not anticipate claims 1-4, 7, and 11-17 of the ’300 Patent.

Claim limitation 1[j] recites “storing a datapoint comprising an identity of the webpage, 

the inferred intent and the received rank.” ’300 Patent at 18:57-58. Facebook’s only evidence that 

public use of the discloses this limitation is: 

 Ex. 1, Polish Report ¶¶1349-1360. 

 As a result, Facebook’s only potential evidence is a 

 Ex. 1, Polish Report ¶1353 (citing 

Ex. 4). Dr. Polish’s report contains a single sentence stating that 

without any analysis. See id. His lack of analysis is not surprising because 

See generally Ex. 4. There is no reasonable dispute that

fails to describe “storing a datapoint comprising an identity of the webpage, the inferred intent and 

2

 Public use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) requires that the public be able to “readily discern the 

claimed features of the invention in the allegedly invaliding prior art.” See Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion 

Pharm., Inc., 715 F.3d at 1359. was not publicly accessible. UMF No. 

7. 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 14 of 19
-11- 

the received rank” as recited in claim 1 of the ’300 Patent. Therefore Facebook cannot show, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that each and every claim limitation of claim 1 of the ’300 Patent 

was disclosed through public use of the Moreover, claims 2-4 depend 

from claim 1, so Facebook can not make the requisite showing for those claims for the same reason 

as claim 1.

Claim 7 recites “The method according to claim 6 wherein determining the ranked list 

comprises processing a plurality of datapoints, each datapoint comprising: an identity of a 

webpage of the namespace; an intent; and a ranking of the intent for the respective webpage.” ’300 

Patent at 19:23-28. Facebook relies on the same evidence for claim 7 that it did for claim limitation 

1[j]. See Ex. 1, Polish Report ¶1427. Therefore Facebook cannot show, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that claim 7 of the ’300 Patent was disclosed through public use of the 

 for the same reasons as claim limitation 1[j].

Claim 11 recites two limitations that pertain to data storage. Claim limitation 11[e] recites 

“at least one database configured to store intent data.” ’300 Patent at 20:9. Claim limitation 11[h] 

recites “receive ranking data from the ranking tool and store the ranking data in the at least one 

database.” ’300 Patent at 20:13-14. Facebook’s only evidence that public use of 

discloses limitation 11[e] is: Ex. 1, Polish 

Report ¶¶1504-1513. cannot be evidence of 

public use because it was not publicly accessible.3 Dr. Polish asserts that the discloses 

claim limitation 11[e], but provides no analysis. See id. Moreover, the s silent regarding 

3

 Public use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) requires that the public be able to “readily discern the 

claimed features of the invention in the allegedly invaliding prior art.” See Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion 

Pharm., Inc., 715 F.3d at 1359. UMF No. 

7. 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 15 of 19
-12- 

the actual types of data stored. See generally Ex. 5. There is no reasonable dispute that the 

fails to describe “at least one database configured to store intent data” as recited in claim 11 

of the ’300 Patent. Facebook’s only evidence that public use of the 

discloses limitation 11[h] of the ’300 Patent is Ex. 1, Polish Report ¶¶1532-1539. 

cannot be evidence of public use because it was 

not publicly accessible, so Facebook has no evidence for claim limitation 11[h]. Therefore 

Facebook cannot show, by clear and convincing evidence, that each and every claim limitation of 

claim 11 of the ’300 Patent was disclosed through public use of the 

Moreover, claims 12-17 depend from claim 11, so Facebook can not make the requisite showing 

for those claims for the same reason as claim 11. 

2. USC Is Entitled To Partial Summary Judgment Because Facebook Failed To 

Show That Use Of The Would Disclose To The Public Every 

Element Of The Asserted Claims. 

Facebook contends that the are prior art under 

only the “public use” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Ex. 2, Polish Dep. Tr. 25:5-12 (Sep. 24 , 

2021). Use of either by itself, fails to place the claimed inventions of the ’300 Patent in 

the possession of the public. As with the Facebook’s expert never opines 

that use of by itself, places the elements of the claims in the possession of 

the public. UMF No. 12. Indeed Facebook’s expert did not perform any analysis regarding 

whether a user of would be able to ascertain how the system works by using 

it:

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 16 of 19
-13- 

Ex. 2, Polish Dep. Tr. 30:13-31:4 (Sep. 24, 2021). Speculation by the public of how might 

have worked is not applicable standard. Facebook must show, by clear and convincing evidence 

that use of by itself, places the elements of the claims in the possession of 

the public. Facebook has no such evidence because it never ran from the perspective 

of a public user. Ex. 2, Polish Dep. Tr. 31:5-32:17 (Sep. 24, 2021). Without additional disclosures 

through other supposed prior art references, the public would not know how

works simply by using them. See UMF No. 12; Ex. 2, Polish Dep. Tr. 30:3-7 (Sep. 24 , 2021). As 

a result, use of cannot render the claims of the ’300 Patent invalid as a matter 

of law.

VI. CONCLUSION 

Facebook cannot win at trial on invalidity based on the undisputed evidence for any of the 

 Partial 

summary judgment of no invalidity should therefore be granted in favor of USC.

Dated: October 5, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Fred I. Williams

Fred I. Williams 

Texas State Bar No. 00794855 

Michael Simons 

Texas State Bar No. 24008042 

WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC 

327 Congress Ave., Suite 490 

Austin, TX 78701 

Tel: 512-543-1354 

fwilliams@wsltrial.com 

msimons@wsltrial.com 

Todd E. Landis 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 17 of 19
-14- 

State Bar No. 24030226 

WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC 

2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130 #366 

Dallas, TX 75204 

Tel: 512-543-1357 

tlandis@wsltrial.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff USC IP Partnership, L,P. 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 18 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on October 5, 2021, the undersigned caused a copy 

of the foregoing document to be served on all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system, 

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

/s/ Fred I. Williams

Fred I. Williams 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I certify that on October 5, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel, Sarah Tishler and Abdul Althebaity, 

and Defendant’s counsel, Phillip Morton and Liz Stameshkin, met and conferred by telephone 

regarding this motion. Counsel for Defendant indicated that they oppose this motion. 

/s/ Fred I. Williams

Fred I. Williams 

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

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

to the Court’s February 12, 2021 standing order regarding filing documents under seal in patent 

cases and redacted pleadings. 

/s/ Fred I. Williams

Fred I. Williams 

Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 79 Filed 10/12/21 Page 19 of 19