MARA - Joint Rule 16(b) Report
-
Upload
markman-advisors -
Category
Documents
-
view
45 -
download
1
description
Transcript of MARA - Joint Rule 16(b) Report
-
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
Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Randall J. Sunshine (SBN 137363) [email protected]
Ryan E. Hatch (SBN 235577) [email protected]
Jason L. Haas (SBN 217290) [email protected] LINER LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor Los Angeles, California 90024.3503 Telephone: (310) 500-3500 Facsimile: (310) 500-3501 Attorneys for Plaintiff SIGNAL IP, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SIGNAL IP, INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT Date: September 15, 2014 Time: 8:30 a.m. Hon. John A. Kronstadt Trial Date: TBD
Plaintiff Signal IP, Inc., (Plaintiff or Signal) and defendants American
Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda of America Mfg., Inc. (collectively Honda),
Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc.
(Mitsubishi), Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (Mazda), Subaru of America, Inc.
(Subaru), Kia Motors America, Inc. (Kia), Ford Motor Company (Ford),
BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler), Volvo
Cars of North America, LLC (Volvo), Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
(Jaguar), and Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (MBUSA) (collectively, Defendants)
submit their Joint Rule 16(b) Report pursuant to this Courts June 23, 2014 Order
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:408
-
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 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling Conference, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and
26, and the Courts Initial Standing Patent Order.
On August 25, 2014, the parties held a joint conference to address the matters
contained in the aforementioned rules and orders.
a. Statement of the Case i. Plaintiffs Statement
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff notes for the convenience of the Court that
its portion of the Joint Rule 16(b) Report is the same for actions it has filed.
Plaintiff has filed fourteen actions for patent infringement against Defendants
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda of America Mfg., Inc. (collectively
Honda), Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan), Mitsubishi Motors North
America, Inc. (Mitsubishi), Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (Mazda), Subaru of
America, Inc. (Subaru), Kia Motors America, Inc. (KMA), Ford Motor
Company (Ford), BMW of North America, LLC (BMWNA), Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC (Mercedes), Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler), Volvo Cars of North
America, LLC (Volvo), Volkswagen Group of America (VW) and Bentley
Motors, Inc. (Bentley), Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Jaguar), and
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) (individually Defendant, and
collectively Defendants).
These actions have not yet been consolidated, and are pending as the
following related cases: Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (14-cv-
02454), Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc. (14-cv-02457); Signal IP, Inc. v.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (14-cv-00491); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of
America, Inc. (14-cv-02459); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America,
Inc. (14-cv-00497); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. (14-cv-
02462); Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc. (14-cv-02962); Signal IP, Inc.
v. Subaru of America, Inc. (14-cv-02963); Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America,
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:409
-
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
3 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
LLC (14-cv-03111); Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. (14-cv-03105); Signal IP, Inc.
v. Ford Motor Company (14-cv-03106); Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North
America, LLC (14-cv-03108); Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2-14-cv-
03109); Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (2-14-cv-03114);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (2-14-cv-03113); Signal IP,
Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (14-cv-03107) (collectively the Signal
Actions).
To streamline the Signal Actions, and to avoid duplication by the parties and
the Court, Plaintiff believes it is appropriate to consolidate the Signal Actions for
claim construction and other pre-trial matters. A later determination can be made
whether one of more of the Signal Actions, or common issues therein, should be
tried together.
Plaintiff asserts claims for infringement of seven patents generally directed to
automotive technologies (collectively, the Signal Patents):
U.S. Pat No. 5,714,927 (the 927 Patent), entitled Method of improving zone of coverage response of automotive radar;
U.S. Pat No. 5,732,375 (the 375 Patent), entitled Method of inhibiting or allowing airbag deployment;
U.S. Pat No. 6,434,486 (the 486 Patent), entitled Technique for limiting the range of an object sensing system in a vehicle;
U.S. Pat No. 6,775,601 (the 601 Patent), entitled Method and control system for controlling propulsion in a hybrid vehicle;
U.S. Pat No. 6,012,007 (the 007 Patent), entitled Occupant detection method and system for air bag system;
U.S. Pat No. 5,463,374 (the 374 Patent), entitled Method and apparatus for tire pressure monitoring and for shared keyless entry
control; and
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:410
-
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
4 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
U.S. Pat No. 5,954,775 (the 775 Patent), entitled Dual-rate communication protocol.
For ease of reference, the following table shows the patents asserted against
each Defendant in the Signal Actions:
Patent
Hon
da
Kia
Maz
da
Mits
ubis
hi
Niss
an
Suba
ru
Chr
ysle
r
Ford
Vol
vo
Jagu
ar
Mer
cede
s
BMW
VW
Pors
che
601 Patent X X X X X X X X X X
486 Patent
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
775 Patent
X X X
375 Patent
X X X X X X X X X
007 Patent
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
927 Patent
X X X X X X X X X X X X
374 Patent
X X X X X X X
Plaintiff presently asserts a total of 33 claims of the Signal Patents against
Defendants collectively, with a maximum of only eight claims from any single
patent. With only a few exceptions, the asserted claims are the same in each patent
for each accused Defendant.1
ii. Defendants Statement
1 The asserted claims are: 601 Patent, claims 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17; 486 Patent, claims 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, and 35; 775 Patent, claim 6; 375 Patent, claims 1 and 7; 007 Patent, claims 1, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22; 927 Patent, claims 1, 2, and 6; and 374 Patent, claims 1, 2, and 3. The asserted claims are the same for all Defendants except: in the 486 Patent, claims 23, 30, and 35 are asserted against Mercedes only, claim 27 is not asserted against Mercedes and VWGoA, and claim 34 is not asserted against VWGoA; and in the 007 Patent, claims 9, 18, and 22 are asserted against Mazda only.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:411
-
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
5 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Identical copies of this Joint Report have been filed in each of the Honda,
Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, Chrysler, Ford, Volvo, Jaguar, BMW and
Mercedes actions.2
Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity (NPE) that acquired the asserted patents (or
Signal Patents) from Delphi Automotive PLC, which in turn had acquired at least
some of the patents from its predecessor Delco Electronics. As stated above, the
Plaintiff in these cases has filed fourteen separate lawsuits alleging various
combinations of claims from seven largely unrelated patents against a large swath of
the automobile industry.
The technologies in these cases include seat occupant sensing and airbag
deployment, tire pressure monitoring systems and keyless entry systems, vehicle
control systems in the nature of adaptive cruise control, techniques for controlling
blind spot detection, and data bus protocols systems for controlling propulsion in
hybrid vehicles. Aside from the airbag patents, the patents are essentially unrelated.
They have different inventors, different filing dates, and a broad range of issuance
dates ranging from 1995 (19 years ago) to 2004 (10 years ago). If tried together,
they will present a considerable challenge for the jury.
While the Plaintiff in these cases is a NPE, Defendants, in contrast, are direct
competitors to each other, and constitute the United States operations of each
respective automobile manufacturer. Most Defendants if not all have foreign
sister, parent, and subsidiary companies that the Plaintiff has intentionally not
named in its Complaints.
All Defendants assert that they do not infringe any valid claim of the asserted
patents. This is not surprising. Presumably, if the patents had value in the industry,
2 Case Numbers 14-cv-02454; 14-cv-02457; 14-cv-00491; 14-cv-02459; 14-cv-00497; 14-cv-02462; 14-cv-02962; 14-cv-02963; 14-cv-03111; 14-cv-03106; 14-cv-03108; 2-14-cv-03109; 14-cv-03107.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:412
-
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 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Delphi would not have let the patents lie dormant for ten to twenty years and then
sold them to the Plaintiff.
Because the asserted patents issued anywhere from 1995 to 2004, there are
significant issues of laches and estoppel in this case whose particular facts will vary
from vehicle to vehicle and accused system to accused system, and thus Defendant
to Defendant.
The Defendants assert that damages must be limited in accordance with the
provisions of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 286 and Sec. 287.
Delphi, the original assignee on some of the asserted patents, is the supplier of
the accused technology to some of the defendants in these cases. As such, at least
some of the defendants are licensed, and the relevant allegations need to be dropped
from the case. Other licensing defenses are known to exist for at least some of the
defendants, and Defendants expect that others may become known via discovery.
Similarly, some Defendants have also counter-claimed for declarations of
non-infringement and invalidity, including: Mitsubishi, BMW of North America,
LLC, Volvo.
Additionally, some Defendants are also pursuing claims of unenforceability
of the asserted patents, including unenforceability by way of inequitable conduct.
Various parties may file for Inter Partes Review and/or Reexamination of at
least some claims of the asserted patents before the United States Patent Office. As
such, the number of proceedings related to these cases may multiply in coming
months.
The Defendants in the related cases will attempt to work together where
possible to facilitate the management of all cases by the Court. However, the
Defendants in the various related cases are all direct competitors, and have
significant concerns about confidentiality and potential conflicts of interest.
The Defendants have various foreign and domestic suppliers for the
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:413
-
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
7 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
automotive components associated with Plaintiff's allegations of infringement. It is
possible that some suppliers of accused components or systems may seek to join in
one or more of the fourteen actions filed by plaintiff, or that one or more defendants
could seek to have suppliers appear and defend their accused products.
There may be overlap in the Defendants' suppliers of various components, but
it is too early in the case to determine if that overlap is significant or material in
light of Plaintiffs vague infringement allegations.
Moreover, because the Defendants' operations are located in a variety of
jurisdictions, some Defendants may seek transfer of part or all of their respective
case to different jurisdictions. Indeed, Ford has already filed such a motion.
Depending on the status of review proceedings before the Patent Office, some
Defendants may also seek a stay of proceedings.
b. Subject Matter Jurisdiction i. Plaintiffs Statement
These Actions arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of
the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants do not contest that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
all patent-related claims in these cases.
c. Legal Issues i. Plaintiffs Statement
Principal substantive issues. The principal substantive legal issues in the
Signal Actions are the alleged infringement of the Signal Patents, the alleged
invalidity of the Signal Patents in view of the relevant prior art, and the monetary or
other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled. The meaning and scope of the terms used
in the asserted patent claims are germane to these legal issues.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:414
-
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 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
All but three defendants (Nissan, Mercedes and Audi) have filed answers. All
defendants who have answered assert defenses of failure to state a claim, non-
infringement, and invalidity. The three defendants who have asserted counterclaims
(Mitsubishi, BMW, and Volvo) assert counterclaims for invalidity and non-
infringement.
Other affirmative defenses include failure to state a claim, prosecution history
/ argument estoppel / prosecution disclaimer, equitable defenses (waiver, implied
waiver, estoppel, laches, acquiescence, implied license, unclean hands), limitation
on damages, no injunctive relief / adequate remedy at law, first sale / patent
exhaustion, express license, license, release, non-assertion agreement, outside
territorial reach of patent laws, patent misuse, costs barred under 288, and no
attorneys fees under 285.
Principal substantive procedural issues. The principal procedural issues for
the Court to consider at this stage are whether the Signal Actions should be
consolidated for claim construction and other pre-trial matters, and whether the
action against Ford should be transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan.
ii. Defendants Statement Claim construction is a key legal issue in these cases, and Defendants believe
it will be dispositive of infringement and/or invalidity for many of the asserted
claims and/or accused products.
Because of the importance of claim construction and the amount of effort that
just construing the claims alone will take for the parties and the Court to complete,
the Defendants prefer to limit discovery at the outset of the case to claim
construction and core technical documents during the initial phase of claim
construction. The remaining fact discovery would commence on the date of entry of
the claim construction order.3 Because Defendants believe that the claim 3 This approach was adopted by Judge Pfaelzer in Diamond Coating Techs,
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:415
-
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
9 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
construction process will have the effect of eliminating certain patents, claims, or
accused products from the case, this phased discovery approach will be more
efficient for all of the parties and non-parties from which discovery may be sought
(including inventors and suppliers).
After the claim construction order, the parties would then undertake fact
discovery relating to the issues of infringement, invalidity, and damages.
Some Defendants also believe that inequitable conduct may become a
significant issue in this case as discovery proceeds. Defendants may seek leave to
amend their affirmative defenses if warranted by new information produced in
discovery.
Some defendants have license defenses based on pre-existing licenses under
one or more of the patents in suit. Such defendants may seek to amend their
affirmative defenses if warranted by new information. License defenses based on
licenses granted to third-party suppliers may also result in intervention of non-party
suppliers in one or more of the actions.
Finally, Defendants assert that damages in this case should be limited due to
laches, estoppel, and/or the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 286 and 287. The earliest of
the asserted patents issued 19 years ago. Even the latest issued 10 years ago. The
law presents substantial limits on the Plaintiff's ability to recover for infringement of
any valid patent claims based on the delay in bringing suit.
From an evidentiary perspective, Defendants believe that a large amount of
non-party discovery will be required in this case. Investigation is ongoing, but
Plaintiff's infringement contentions implicate a number of automotive systems
provided by non-party suppliers and manufacturers. Many of these non-parties may
be foreign entities.
LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., No. 8:13-cv-01481 (C.D. Cal.) (see Order attached hereto as Exhibit B).
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:416
-
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 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Additionally, Defendants are competitors in the market and have substantial
concern about the risk of inadvertent disclosure of their confidential and trade secret
information to each other. The Defendants recognize that the Court has already
entered a Standing Protective Order, but additional protection may be needed for
sensitive information, for example, sales and pricing data, trade secrets, and source
code.
d. Parties, and Non-Party Witnesses i. Plaintiffs Statement
Marathon Patent Group, Inc. is the parent corporation of Plaintiff Signal IP,
Inc. and owns more than 10% of the outstanding stock of Signal IP. No other
publicly traded company owns more than 10% of the outstanding stock in Signal IP.
In its Initial Disclosures, Plaintiff identified the following parties and non-
party witnesses on the main issues in the case: individuals with knowledge regarding
the accused instrumentalities, the named inventors of the Signal Patents, its
corporate representative Doug Croxall, and Signals witnesses identified by
Defendants in their respective disclosures.
ii. Defendants Statement The Defendants verify that they have identified all subsidiaries, parents, and
affiliates in their Certificates of Interested Parties.
The Defendants have also identified all presently known witnesses in their
Rule 26(a) disclosures.
e. Damages i. Plaintiffs Statement
Based on currently-available information, Plaintiffs preliminary damages
estimates are as follows:
Defendant Preliminary damages estimate
Honda $201-223M
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:417
-
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
11 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Defendant Preliminary damages estimate
Kia $133-148M
Mazda $63-70M
Mitsubishi $6-7M
Nissan $151-167M
Subaru $28-31M
Chrysler $154-170M
Ford $304-336M
Volvo $13-14M
Jaguar $20-22M
Mercedes $120-133M
BMW $104-115M
VW $132-146M
Porsche $23-25M
Total $1.4-$1.6B
These preliminary estimates are subject to revision based on additional
information, including information regarding sales, revenues, use of accused
features, use of potentially licensed products, or other relevant information.
ii. Defendants Statement The Defendants assert that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages, as
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:418
-
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
12 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Defendants are not liable.
Although the Defendants assert that Plaintiff's infringement contentions are so
deficient that it is impossible for Defendants to estimate potential exposure at this
time, the estimates above are self-serving and grossly excessive. For several
defendants, the amounts above appear to include damages based upon sale of
licensed vehicles that should not be in the case. Moreover, for some defendants
many of the accused vehicles do not contain the accused technology and also should
be dismissed from this action. These examples of over-counting could amount to a
reduction as great as 95% or more of the damages estimates provided above for
certain defendants.
f. Insurance i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff is unaware of any insurance coverage for the claims and
counterclaims asserted in the Signal Actions.
ii. Defendants Statement The following Defendants assert that they are unaware of any insurance
coverage for this litigation at this time:
Mazda, Subaru, Mitsubishi, BMW of North America, LLC, Nissan,
Jaguar, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Kia, Volvo, MBUSA.
g. Motions i. Plaintiffs Statement
There are currently four motions pending in the Signal Actions, all filed by
defendants: (1) Fords motion to transfer to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 14-03106, Dkt. No. 36); (2) Mercedes
partial motion to dismiss portions of Plaintiffs claims for direct and indirect
infringement (Case No. 14-03109, Dkt. No. 34); (3) Nissans motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs claims for willful infringement (Case No. 14-03113, Dkt. No. 35); and (4)
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:419
-
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
13 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
VWs motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims for willful infringement (Case No. 14-
03113, Dkt. No. 35). Plaintiff opposes these motions.
At this time, Plaintiff does not anticipate filing any motions seeking to add
other parties or claims, or filing any amended pleadings.
ii. Defendants Statement In addition to the motions referenced in Plaintiffs Statement, above,
Defendants assert that they anticipate filing motions for summary judgment of non-
infringement for at least some and likely all of the asserted claims, depending on the
Court's claim construction. Defendants may also file motions for summary judgment
of invalidity.
Some Defendants are anticipating filing a motion for transfer of venue in
addition to or in conjunction with Ford's motion.
As set forth above, some Defendants may move to amend their pleadings to
include inequitable conduct and other defenses if circumstances warrant.
Some Defendants are also considering filing petitions for Review and/or
Reexamination of the asserted patents by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. They may, therefore, move to stay these cases.
Some defendants may seek to implead suppliers of accused systems.
h. Manual for Complex Litigation i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff believes many of the procedures discussed in the Manual for
Complex Litigation, Fourth (MCL, 4th) are relevant to the Signal Actions and
should be utilized, including:
Designating a single location (i.e. this District) for storage of source code, with a common data format and common review tools ( 11.444, 11.423)
(See infra, Section (s));
Designation of liaison counsel to handle joint submissions,
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:420
-
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
14 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
communication, service, or other issues common among Defendants (
10.221, 11.12);
Designation of lead case for common filings ( 20.11); Use of common discovery requests ( 11.464, 11.423) (See infra, Section
(j));
Coordination of depositions on common witnesses to avoid cumulative or duplicative depositions ( 11.455) (See infra, Section (j));
Phasing discovery by groups of patents and defendants ( 11.422) (See infra, Section (i) and Exhibit A);
Need for discovery on non-parties such as suppliers ( 11.447); Potential need for foreign discovery ( 11.494) (See infra, Section (s)); and Conveyance of settlement offers to clients ( 13.24) (See infra, Section
(n)).
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants are committed to working together to reduce the complexity of
this case for the Court. To that end, the Defendants are willing to consider the
Manual for Complex Litigation as a guideline in these cases. However, because the
Defendants are direct competitors with significant confidentiality concerns and
potential conflicts of interest, Defendants cannot agree to appoint individual
attorneys to represent all Defendants, to permit common depositories for
confidential business information produced in the course of discovery, nor can
Defendants agree to consolidate seemingly common issues like claim construction
without careful prior consideration.
On the specific selected portions of the MCL that plaintiff addresses above,
Defendants cannot support Plaintiffs proposal with regard to source code
production. At this stage of the case, and in light of Plaintiffs insufficient
infringement contentions, Defendants are not convinced that production of source
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:421
-
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
15 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
code is even necessary in this case. At very least, Plaintiff has yet to demonstrate a
need for such burdensome discovery. In most instances, Defendants do not know
the specific products or functionality that Plaintiff is accusing, and it is therefore
impossible to know what, if any, source code may be relevant to this case.
Moreover, Defendants expect that to the extent relevant source code does exist, it is
most likely to reside with third parties outside Defendants control. Defendants
therefore propose that any decisions on the specific procedural aspects of source
code production be postponed until after the claim construction phase of the case,
and only then if there is a real, demonstrated need for source code production.
If source code production becomes necessary, Defendants would work with
Plaintiff on a Defendant-by-Defendant basis to explore available production
procedures that may include production of source code in the offices of each
Defendants counsel, or at the source code suppliers facilities, subject of course to
client and non-party confidentiality restrictions that are likely to bind the production
of any source code, recognizing that to the extent that source code resides with non-
parties, Defendants expect that they will not be in a position to control the
production of such code..
Defendants likewise cannot support the liaison counsel concept for
confidentiality reasons. Defendants also disagree that phasing of discovery by
patent will be efficient or useful, but would agree (as explained above) to the
phasing of discovery to claim construction and core technical documents separate
and before the remaining fact discovery.
i. Status of Discovery i. Plaintiffs Statement
The parties have exchanged Initial Disclosures on or before August 4, 2014.
Other than the disclosures required by the Courts Standing Patent Rules, no other
formal discovery has yet been pursued by any party.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 15 of 36 Page ID #:422
-
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
16 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
ii. Defendants Statement Plaintiffs have provided in initial infringement contentions to Defendants, and
the parties have disclosed limited information for purposes of discussing potential
settlement. At the outset, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's infringement contentions
are grossly deficient.
j. Discovery Plan i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff objects to any proposal that discovery be limited at the outset of the
case to claim construction and core technical documents. This would cause
unnecessary delay and prevent prompt, early discovery that the Court encourages.
Plaintiff also objects to any proposal that would limit discovery of source
code or other technical information. The Courts Standing Patent Rule 2.6.1
provides for automatic production of source code and other technical materials, and
discovery of this information is important and should not be limited or precluded in
any way.
Subject matter of discovery. Plaintiff believes discovery, including requests
for production, interrogatories, requests for admission, and depositions will be
necessary on at least the following topics: (1) the inventions disclosed in the Signal
Patents; (2) design, development and functionality of the accused instrumentalities;
(3) revenue, sales, and profit information relating to the accused instrumentalities;
(4) use of the accused instrumentalities; (5) alleged prior art relating to the Signal
Patents; (6) Defendants affirmative defenses and counterclaims; and (7) issues
relating to the calculation of damages and other relief.
Discovery procedures and formats. Plaintiff agrees that [e]arly agreement
between the parties regarding the forms of production will help eliminate waste and
duplication. (MCL 4th, 11.446.) The following procedures and production
formats should be adopted in the Signal Actions.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 16 of 36 Page ID #:423
-
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 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
General production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and
45 for ESI shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence such
as chat logs or instant messaging (collectively email). For discovery of email, the
Federal Circuits Model Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases shall
govern.4
Documents shall be produced in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) format.
TIFF files shall be single page and shall be named with a unique production number
followed by the appropriate file extension. Load files shall be provided to indicate
the location and unitization of the TIFF files. If a document is more than on page,
the unitization of the document and any attachments and/or affixed notes shall be
maintained as they existed in the original document.
Extracted text shall be provided with all records, except for documents that
originated as hard copy or redacted documents. OCR text shall be provided for
hard copy documents. For redacted documents, OCR text shall be provided for the
redacted version. For all document file types not conducive to TIFF review (e.g.,
Excel, PowerPoint, video/audio files, database (Access, etc.)), files in native format
shall be produced, and files shall be named with the production number following
by the appropriate file extension. Standard Concordance load files (DAT and
Opticon) shall be produced.
Discovery may be served by email on all counsel of record per Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E), and all documents served by other means shall also be
served by email.
Before serving deposition notices and subpoenas, the parties will make every
effort to obtain agreeable deposition dates for attorneys who will take and defend
4 Available at http://memberconnections.com/olc/filelib/LVFC/cpages/9008/Library/Ediscovery%20Model%20Order.pdf.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 17 of 36 Page ID #:424
-
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
18 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
each deposition, and for the witness.
Common discovery and discovery limits. In related cases pending before the
same judge, it is best to coordinate discovery plans to avoid conflicts and
duplication. (MCL 4th, 11.455; see also Id. ([J]udges should attempt to
coordinate the depositions of common witnesses and other common discovery); Id.
at 11.464 (The court should consider requiring similarly situated parties to confer
and develop a single or master set of interrogatories to be served on an opposing
party.)).
Plaintiff proposes that the Signal Actions should be consolidated for pre-trial
discovery on common issues. (See MCL 4th, 11.423, 11.464.) Common issues
will likely include prosecution of the Signal Patents, discovery regarding the
inventions and named inventors of the Signal Patents, alleged prior art of the Signal
Patents, prior assignees of the Signal Patents (Delphi Technologies, Inc. or Delco
Electronics Corporation), and discovery regarding plaintiff Signal IP, Inc..
Accordingly, the following discovery limits are appropriate:
Requests for Production. Each side may serve upon each opposing side up to
twenty-five (25) common requests for production, to be answered by each party on
the opposing side. Each party may serve, upon each opposing party, up to ten (10)
individual requests for production, to be answered only by the party upon whom
they were served.
Interrogatories. Each side may serve, upon each opposing side, up to fifteen
(15) common interrogatories, to be answered by each party on the opposing side.
Each party may serve, upon each opposing party, up to ten (10) individual
interrogatories, to be answered only by the party upon whom they were served.
Requests for Admission. Plaintiff may serve up to twenty (20) requests for
admission on each of the Defendants, and each Defendant may serve up to twenty
(20) requests for admission on Plaintiff. This limit should not apply to requests for
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 18 of 36 Page ID #:425
-
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
19 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
admission solely for the purpose of authenticating a document.
Depositions. Depositions of all common witnesses or parties shall be
coordinated among all parties on each side, and limited on each side to two (2)
consecutive days in the same location, with 7 (seven) hours per day. This limit also
applies to expert witnesses who must provide a written report under Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B), with the addition that each party on one side that is the subject of a
written report from an expert may take up to an additional two (2) hours of
deposition testimony. Parties in related cases may use depositions taken in one
particular case. (See MCL 4th, 11.455.)
The above limits may be modified by order of the Court, upon showing of
good cause.
ii. Defendants Statement The Defendants, while in general agreement that some amount of common
discovery is efficient, do not agree that each side be limited to the same number of
discovery requests or that each defendant be severely limited in its ability to take
individual written discovery or deposition testimony if these cases are consolidated.
As explained above, the Defendants represent a broad range of competitors in the
automobile market. They have substantially different numbers and types of accused
products, and the facts and circumstances surrounding their affirmative defenses and
counterclaims will vary. The Defendants may make differing business decisions
based on which defenses and counterclaims to actively pursue, and the Defendants
have retained different counsel with differing advice on how best to proceed.
Moreover, Defendants are restrained in their ability to "share" work product due to
their need to protect competitive information, and the potential conflicts of interest
between the Defendants as competing entities. Ultimately, it was the Plaintiff's
choice to file 14 different lawsuits alleging infringement of 7 unrelated patents that
issued anywhere between 1995 to 2004, and Defendants should not bear the
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 19 of 36 Page ID #:426
-
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
20 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
financial and evidentiary prejudice of having to consolidate discovery where they do
not perceive a collective benefit in doing so. One of the reasons that Congress
enacted the joinder statute, 35 U.S.C. 299 was to end the abusive practice of
treating as co-defendants [in patent infringement actions] parties who make
completely different products and have no relation to each other. See 157 Cong.
Rec. H.4426 (daily ed. June 22, 2011) (statement of Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-
Va.)). Prior to the enactment of the Section 299, some courts had routinely
permitted party joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). See H. Rep. No. 112-98, Part
1, at 55 n.61. And, non-practicing entities, took advantage of this rule to sue
unrelated parties for infringement of the same patent or patents, resulting in limited
opportunities for each defendant to present individualized positions on issues such
as infringement, willfulness, damages, and discovery. The joinder statute aims to
discourage these multi-defendant patent actions by imposing heightened
requirements for party joinder relative to Rule 20(a)(2). Plaintiff, therefore, should
not be permitted to do an end-run around Section 299 by imposing unreasonable
litigation uniformity among competing defendants.
That said, Defendants expect that there may be substantial agreement between
the Defendants on issues of disavowal of claim scope, prosecution history estoppel,
invalidity, inventorship, ownership, inequitable conduct, and other issues that are
primarily based on the Plaintiff's inability to succeed in asserting the patents-in-suit.
Unlike Plaintiff, the Defendants are not in the business of litigation and plan to limit
expenses where reasonably possible.
Defendants intend to depose the named inventors of the asserted patents, and
will address issues including but not limited to (a) conception; (b) reduction to
practice; (c) inventorship; (d) ownership of the asserted patents; (e) claim
construction; (f) prior art; (g) inequitable conduct; (h) document retention; and/or (i)
discovery efforts.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 20 of 36 Page ID #:427
-
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
21 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Defendants intend to depose the Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff's predecessors-in-
interest on issues including but not limited to: (a) conception; (b) reduction to
practice; (c) inventorship; (d) ownership of the asserted patents; (e) claim
construction; (f) prior art; (g) inequitable conduct; (h) laches; (i) estoppel; (j)
licensing; (k) damages; (l) marking; (h) document retention; and/or (i) discovery
efforts.
Additionally, Defendants will depose any experts proposed by Plaintiffs.
Defendants understand Plaintiff has indicated that it has retained certain named
inventors and other individuals as fact and/or expert witnesses, and may require
more than one deposition of certain individuals on issues such as claim construction
and infringement.
Defendants are willing to coordinate scheduling of depositions of inventors to
prevent unnecessary duplicative discovery. However, Defendants to not agree to the
deposition limits proposed by Plaintiff. Defendants reserve the right to request
extended depositions of key witnesses because the individual Defendants are
competitors with different products and different defenses, and may seek different
information during discovery.
Defendants reserve the right to issue requests for admission on factual issues
including, for example, authentication of documents, key dates, and any other
factual issues that Plaintiff can readily admit. The Defendants do not agree to
Plaintiff's proposed limit on the number of requests for admission. Though the
Federal Rules apply no limit on the number of RFAs that any party may serve in a
case, in the spirit of compromise Defendants propose that they be allocated 25
collective RFAs to be shared among Defendants, and 75 RFAs to be used
individually on a per-defendant basis. Defendants further propose that there be no
limit on RFAs served for the purpose of authenticating evidence. Defendants
propose that the Plaintiff be limited to 100 RFAs.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 21 of 36 Page ID #:428
-
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
22 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Defendants anticipate serving document production requests on Plaintiff on
all issues identified for deposition above. The Defendants agree to Plaintiff's
proposed limit on the number of requests for production. Further, the Defendants do
not agree to the Federal Circuit Advisory Committees Model Order Regarding E-
Discovery in Patent Cases. The Defendants do not agree that email discovery will
be either helpful or necessary, and Plaintiff has made no good faith representation
that it will need email discovery in prosecuting its case.
Defendants also anticipate serving interrogatories on Plaintiff on all issues
identified for deposition above. Defendants agree to consolidate interrogatories on
issues that are common to all Defendants, but reserve the right to serve individual
interrogatories on issues unique to each Defendant. The Defendants do not agree to
Plaintiff's proposed limit on the number of interrogatories. Defendants propose that
each side may serve up to 10 common interrogatories to be answered by each party
on the opposing side. Defendants propose that each party also be allotted 15
individual interrogatories to be served on specific parties. Finally, Defendants
propose that each Defendant be allotted three additional interrogatories for each
patent asserted against that Defendant that exceeds two patents. For example, a
party accused of infringing six patents in this case would have 10 common, 15
individual, and 12 additional interrogatories.
Additional third-party depositions and discovery requests may be required on
issues including but not limited to (a) non-infringement; (b) prior art; (c) inequitable
conduct; (d) licensing; and/or (e) damages.
Defendants propose to have two phases of discovery. The first phase will be
limited to claim construction discovery and core technical documents and will end
two week before the parties claim construction briefs are due.
k. Discovery Cut-Off i. Plaintiffs Statement
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 22 of 36 Page ID #:429
-
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
23 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Plaintiff has proposed a case schedule that includes a plan for the completion
of discovery. (See Exhibit A.)
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants believe that it is premature to set a discovery cut-off until after the
Court has issued a claim construction Order. Because Defendants expect that this
case may be substantially narrowed via the claim construction process, it appears
appropriate to evaluate the scope of the case and the discovery that remains
necessary after the claim construction Order issues, and to set a date at that time.
In any case, Defendants propose that fact discovery should conclude 14 days
before the date of opening expert reports, and that expert discovery should remain
open until 30 days after rebuttal expert reports are served.
l. Expert Discovery i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff has proposed a case schedule that includes a plan for expert witness
disclosures and discovery. (See Exhibit A.)
Plaintiffs proposal includes five patent-specific phases for expert reports
related to patent-specific issues (e.g. infringement and invalidity), and three phases
for other expert reports (e.g. damages), in groups of Defendants. Phasing expert
discovery in this manner will results in an orderly and efficient timeline for expert
disclosures. (See MCL 4th, 11.422).
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants oppose the staggered discovery plan proposed by Plaintiffs.
Staggered discovery will multiply litigation expenses for the Defendants and delay
their resolution of the case on dispositive motions. Moreover, it can be expected that
scheduling difficulties will interfere, with many parties being unable to make
witnesses available within narrowly-confined discovery windows as will result from
such phased discovery.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 23 of 36 Page ID #:430
-
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 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
As before, Defendants suggest that the Court revisit the appropriate expert
discovery limits after it issues a claim construction order and the parties have time to
assess the remaining scope of the case.
m. Dispositive Motions i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff may file motions for summary judgment or partial summary
judgment on issues including infringement, validity, and Defendants affirmative
defenses.
Plaintiff believes it is appropriate for parties on one side to file a consolidated
motion (including dispositive or non-dispositive motions) when more than one party
is presenting the same issue(s), e.g. invalidity, license, procedural issues, or other
issues that may be common to more than one party.
Counsel shall meet and confer prior to the filing of a motion to determine if a
consolidated motion can be filed and, if so, whether: (i) one consolidated motion can
be filed because the issues are common to all moving parties; (ii) a consolidated
motion as to common issues can be accompanied by one or more shorter,
supplemental motions as to unique issues; or (iii) a motion by one party can be filed
to which other parties join in whole or in part. The purpose of this requirement is to
prevent the filing of overlapping and duplicative materials with the Court. It is also
designed to preclude side-stepping of the page limits on briefs imposed by the Local
Rules and this Courts Standing Orders.
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants strongly object to the additional procedures that Plaintiff seeks to
impose on Defendants regarding consolidated motions. In an effort to reduce
litigation costs, Defendants will meet and confer where appropriate to file
consolidated motions. The Defendants are direct competitors in the market. It
would create both financial and evidentiary prejudice against the Defendants to
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 24 of 36 Page ID #:431
-
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 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
impose procedures that could inhibit their ability to file motions in a timely and
efficient manner in accordance with the strategic and business decisions of each
Defendant.
Defendants contend that non-infringement can be established by dispositive
motion with regard to many, if not all, patents and defendants. It is expected that
several Defendants will move for summary judgment of non-infringement at an
early stage in this case.
Defendants contend that invalidity of certain claims may be established by
dispositive motion. Certain other defenses, such as a license defense, may also be
susceptible to dispositive motions.
n. Settlement i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff believes that it is in the best interest of the parties to discuss
disposition of the Signal Actions by settlement, and to that end has attempted to
initiate settlement discussions with all Defendants. Only one defendant Porsche
has not agreed to accept or review settlement materials from Plaintiff, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Parties should be encouraged to at least convey such
offers to their clients. (See MCL 4th, 13.24 (Attorneys have an obligation
promptly to submit nonfrivolous offers of settlement to the client. Breach of this
duty is egregious if counsel will be compensated in whole or in part on the basis of
the number of hours expended in the litigation.).)
Additionally, Plaintiff has held settlement teleconferences pursuant to Rule
408 with ten defendants, and four defendants have not accepted Plaintiffs request to
discuss settlement following receipt of the settlement materials.
Of the suggested ADR procedures in Local Rule 16-15.4, Plaintiff prefers
participation in a private dispute resolution proceeding (Procedure No. 3), but is also
willing to participate in other ADR procedures.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 25 of 36 Page ID #:432
-
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
26 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
ii. Defendants Statement The Defendants agree to proceed by ADR Procedure 1, in accordance with
Local Rule 16-15.4. To date, Plaintiff's infringement contentions have been
insufficient to meaningfully evaluate settlement.
o. Trial Estimate i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff estimates 5 court days for each of the Signal Actions, and anticipates
that it will call between 5 and 8 witnesses. Plaintiff believes it is appropriate to
determine at a later stage whether one of more of the Signal Actions, or common
issues therein, should be tried together.
ii. Defendants Statement As an initial point, each Defendant is entitled to its own trial under the AIA.
As such, the question of consolidated trials is entirely premature at this time.
Further, Defendants expect that with seven patents on vastly different technologies,
many experts, and the potential for significant non-party testimony by videotape, at
least ten trial days are likely necessary for each Defendants trial. Defendants
further suggest, at the appropriate stage, the court consider whether some sort of
bifurcation, staged trials, or other tool be considered to reduce the burden placed on
the jury.
p. Trial Counsel i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiffs trial counsel are Randall J. Sunshine, Ryan E. Hatch, and Jason L.
Haas, all of Liner LLP, 1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, California
90024.3503.
ii. Defendants Statement Counsel for American Honda Motor Co. are Ahmed Davis, Ralph Phillips, and
Scott Elengold from the DC office of Fish & Richardson, Robert Hillman of
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 26 of 36 Page ID #:433
-
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
27 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Fishs Boston office, and Geoff Biegler of Fishs San Diego office.
Counsel for Kia Motors America, Inc. are Ron Pabis, Mark Davis, Steve
Shahida from Greenberg Traurigs DC office, and Rich Edlin from Greenberg
Traurigs New York Office.
Counsel for Mazda North America, Inc. are Matthew D. Satchwell and Paul R.
Steadman of the Chicago, Illinois office of DLA Piper LLP.
Counsel for Mitsubishi Motors North America are Charles Gorenstein and Ali
Imam of the Falls Church, Virginia office of Birch Stewart Kolasch Birch, LLP.
Counsel for Nissan North America, Inc. are B. Trent Webb, Patrick A. Lujin and
Richard D. Eiszner of the Kansas City, Mo office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon
LLP; Douglas W. Robinson and Gabriel Scott Spooner of the Irvine, California
office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP; and Jamie Kitano of the San Francisco,
California office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.
Counsel for Subaru of America, Inc. are Matthew D. Satchwell and Paul R.
Steadman of the Chicago, Illinois office of DLA Piper LLP.
Counsel for Chrysler Group, LLC are Frank C. Cimino and Megan S.
Woodworth of the Washington DC office of Dickstein Shapiro LLC and Larry
LaPorte of the Los Angeles, California office of Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.
Counsel for BMW of North America, LLC are Joseph P. Lavelle and Andrew N.
Stein of the Washington D.C. office of DLA Piper LLP (US).
Counsel for Ford Motor Company are John LeRoy, Frank Angileri, Linda
Mettes and Chris Smith of the Southfield, Michigan office of Brooks Kushman.
Counsel for Jaguar Land Rover North America are Matthew J. Moore, Clement
J. Naples, Lisa K. Nguyen, and Jason M. Garr of the Washington, D.C., New
York and Silicon Valley offices of Latham & Watkins LLP.
Counsel for Volvo Cars of North America, LLC are David T. Pollock and Tracy
Zurzolo Quinn of the San Francisco and Philadelphia offices of Reed Smith
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 27 of 36 Page ID #:434
-
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
28 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
LLP.
Counsel for Mercedes-Benz USA LLC are Scott W. Doyle and Jonathan R.
DeFosse of the Washington, D.C. office of Shearman & Sterling LLP; and Don
A. Hernandez and Cristina Hernandez of the Pasadena Office of Gonzalez,
Saggio, and Harlan LLP.
q. Independent Expert or Master i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff does not believe the Court should appoint a master or independent
scientific expert.
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants agree that it does not appear at this time that court-appointed,
independent scientific experts are necessary in this case However, if the Court
believes that a technical expert may be helpful to it for some limited technical
purpose, as it did in Brandywine Communications Technologies, LLC v. Toshiba
Corp., No.LA CV12-03211, the Defendants would not object to such appointment.
r. Timetable i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiffs proposed timetable is attached as Exhibit A.
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants proposed timetable is attached as Exhibit A.
Defendants have provided reasonable date proposals for the deadlines leading
up to the Markman hearing that reflect the current size and complexity of the cases.
Importantly, all Defendants expect that the cases are going to be substantially
streamlined via the claim construction process, and expect that both patents and
parties currently involved in the cases will be removed after the claims are
construed.
Defendants oppose Plaintiffs proposal to stagger the deadlines by patent and
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 28 of 36 Page ID #:435
-
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
29 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
party groups after the Markman hearing, because that approach is irresponsibly
lengthy and does not provide timely disclosures to the Defendants that Plaintiff
chose to sue all at one time. Because the landscape is certain to be materially
different after the Markman decision issues and the range of products to which these
cases may apply will be narrowed significantly, in ways that cannot now be
predicted and will likely be at odds with Plaintiffs staggered approach, Defendants
propose that the Court set a Scheduling Conference shortly after the Markman
decision issues, at which time the remaining parties can submit a reasonable
schedule proposal that meaningfully addresses the scope of the cases (if any) as it
exists at that time.
It should also be noted that Defendants have put forward two competing
proposals for how the schedule should proceed leading up to the Markman hearing.
Both proposals are set forth in Exhibit A. As can be seen, the Defendants in Group
B believe additional time is required to complete the events set forth in the schedule
relative to Defendants in Group A. Defendants that advocate for the Group A
schedule are Mazda, Subaru, Ford, Mercedes, Nissan, Volvo, Mitsubishi, BMW,
Jaguar, and Chrysler. Defendants that advocate for the Group B schedule are Honda
and Kia.
s. Other Issues i. Plaintiffs Statement
Modifications to Standing Protective Order. The Courts Standing
Protective Order (Standing Orders, Exhibit E) governs discovery unless the Court
enters a different protective order. (S.P.R. 1.5.) Plaintiff believes that the Courts
Standing Protective Order is appropriate in large part, but should be tailored to
facilitate an efficient and orderly review of source code in the Signal Actions, to
take place in a single geographic area (e.g. in this District), organized appropriately,
and with a common set of source code review tools. (See MCL 4th, 33.25 (Some
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 29 of 36 Page ID #:436
-
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
30 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
courts have incorporated standing protective orders as part of the initial pretrial
conference; however, the particular patent case may dictate a more tailored order.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that Section 5.2 of the Courts Standing
Protective Order should be modified as follows (with additions shown in underline):
5.2 Location and Supervision of Inspection. Any HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE produced in discovery shall be
made available for inspection, in a format allowing it to be reasonably
reviewed and searched, during normal business hours or at other mutually
agreeable times, at an office of the designating partys counsel in this
District or another mutually agreeable location in this District. The source
code shall be made available for inspection on a secured computer in a
secured room, and the inspecting party shall not copy, remove, or
otherwise transfer any portion of the source code onto any recordable
media or recordable device. Source code shall be produced in the format
in which it is used in the ordinary course of business, and labeled and
organized to permit the reviewing party to readily identify the relevant
patents, technology, products, and timeframes to which it pertains. The
designator may visually monitor the activities of the inspecting partys
representatives during any source code review, but only to ensure that
there is no unauthorized recording, copying, or transmission of the source
code. The secured computer shall run the Microsoft Windows Operating
System on which the following software tools are installed: SlickEdit
(http://www.slickedit.com), Understand (http://www.scitools.com),
Beyond Compare (http://www.scootersoftware.com), and Acrobat
(http://get.adobe.com/reader), Cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com), and Edit
Pad Lite (http://www.editpadlite.com). The reviewing party may request
installation of additional tools that might be necessary to facilitate an
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 30 of 36 Page ID #:437
-
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
31 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
orderly and efficient review of source code, which request shall not be
unreasonably denied by the producing party.
These modifications to the Courts Standing Protective Order will facilitate an
efficient and orderly review of source code. (See MCL 4th, 11.444, 11.423.)
Moreover, production of source code in this District is appropriate, as each
party is already represented by at least one law firm with offices in this District. (See
L.R. 83-2.1.3.4 (Every attorney seeking to appear pro hac vice must designate as
Local Counsel an attorney with whom the Court and opposing counsel may readily
communicate regarding the conduct of the case and upon whom documents may be
served. An attorney may be designated as Local Counsel only if he or she: (1) is a
member of this Court; and (2) maintains an office within the District.) (emphasis
added))
In addition, the majority of Defendants national law firms also have offices
in this District.5 If production in this District is inconvenient, the parties will meet
and confer and designate a different common location, such as Washington D.C. or
New York, for the production of all source code.
Non-English speaking witnesses and discovery in foreign jurisdictions.
Plaintiff intends to rely largely on documentary evidence, but may also pursue
discovery of non-English speaking witnesses, or discovery in foreign jurisdictions.
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants propose the Court defer consideration of the source code issue
until such time as there is an actual, demonstrated need for the production of such
code. At a minimum, Defendants disagree that it is appropriate for their confidential
source code (to the extent any such code exists within their control) be placed on a 5 Defendants with national counsel having offices in Los Angeles or Orange County include: Honda (Fish & Richardson); Nissan (Shook, Hardy & Bacon); Mazda, Subaru and BMW (DLA Piper); Kia (Greenberg Traurig); Ford (Brooks Kushman); Chrysler (Dickstein Shapiro); Volvo (Reed Smith); and Jaguar (Latham & Watkins).
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 31 of 36 Page ID #:438
-
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
32 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
single computer accessible to other Defendants in this case.
t. Patent Cases i. Plaintiffs Statement
Consolidation of Claim Construction Proceedings. Judicial time is the
scarcest resource of all. (MCL 4th, 10.1.) Consolidated claim construction
proceedings will conserve the Courts limited resources, and achieve a speedy and
efficient resolution of all claim construction disputes. Consolidated proceedings
will provide the parties with a uniform set of constructions and will avoid
potentially inconsistent results. Plaintiff believes that the procedures in the Courts
Standing Patent Rules can be readily adapted to facilitate consolidated proceedings,
as follows.
All parties to the Signal Actions should work to limit the terms in dispute by
narrowing or resolving differences, and jointly identify the 10 terms likely to be
most significant to the Signal Actions (S.P.R. 3.1). By default, claim construction
briefs should abide by the page limits set forth in S.P.R. 3.5, i.e. 25 pages per side
for single omnibus opening briefs, and 10 pages per side for single omnibus reply
briefs.
In addition to the information in S.P.R. 3.4.2 through 3.4.5, the parties should
address in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (S.P.R. 3.4)
whether: (i) one consolidated brief on each side can be filed because the issues are
common to all parties; (ii) a consolidated brief as to issues common to all
Defendants must be accompanied by one or more shorter, supplemental briefs as to
unique issues; and (iii) whether the default page limits should be increased on both
sides to accommodate any supplemental briefing. The purpose of this requirement
is to prevent the filing of duplicative materials with the Court, and to preclude the
side-stepping of the page limits on briefs.
Each side should provide a single set of presentation and tutorial materials.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 32 of 36 Page ID #:439
-
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
33 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
(S.P.R. 3.5). The parties shall jointly lodge with the Court the material described in
S.P.R. 3.5.1 through 3.5.3 (i.e. the chart with the parties proposed constructions;
annotated copies of the file histories; electronic copy of each file history). Each side
will have a maximum of 45 minutes to present evidence and argument in support of
their positions, but the parties can address whether additional time is necessary in
the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, pursuant to the procedure
set forth in S.P.R. 3.4.4.
Plaintiffs proposed schedule for Markman proceedings is set forth in Exhibit
A.
The Federal Circuit Advisory Committees Model Order Limiting Excess
Patent Claims and Prior Art should apply.
Under S.P.R. 2.3, the parties are required to consider and address in this
report the Federal Circuit Advisory Committees Model Order Limiting Excess
patent Claims and Prior Art (Model Order).6 Plaintiff believes that the limits set
forth in Phases 1 and 2 of the Model Order7 are appropriate and should apply across
all Signal Actions in a consolidated fashion (i.e. Plaintiff should abide by the limits
on asserted claims across all actions, and Defendants jointly should abide by the
limits on prior art across all actions).
In fact, Plaintiff is already essentially at or below these limits for the Signal
Actions. Plaintiff currently asserts 33 claims in 7 patents, with no more than eight
6 The Model Order is available at http://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2013/07/model-order-excess-claims.pdf. 7 In the Model Order, Phase 1 limits plaintiff to 32 claims (maximum of 10 per patent), selected 14 days after the S.P.R. 2.5 Invalidity Contentions, and limits defendants to 40 references total (maximum of 12 per patent), selected 14 days after selection of asserted claims. Phase 2 limits plaintiff to 16 claims (maximum of 5 per patent), selected 28 days after the Markman order, and limits defendants to 20 references total (maximum of 6 per patent), selected 14 days after selection of claims.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 33 of 36 Page ID #:440
-
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
34 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
claims per patent. (See Section (a).) This is only one claim above the limit of 32
asserted claims in Phase 1, and already below the limit of 10 claims per patent.
ii. Defendants Statement Because the Defendants believe that claim construction is the number one
issue that will help the parties work out issues of non-infringement and invalidity, it
should not be given short shrift as proposed by Plaintiff. Defendants believe that
there are significant limitations to the scope of the patents in suit that will present
substantial, common non-infringement arguments for many of the Defendants.
Accordingly, the Defendants propose proceeding only with claim construction
discovery at this point.
Each of the Defendants has different accused products. Even if the
Defendants can agree on broad principles like disavowal of claim scope or
prosecution history estoppel, they each may emphasize different aspects of claim
construction that most squarely address the products that they are dealing with in
their case. And they have the legal right to do so. As such, Plaintiff's proposal is
completely unworkable. Likewise, there are terms that may be significant for only
some parties depending on the nature of the accused products.
Accordingly, the Defendants believe that they should not be constrained to
present claim construction terms or arguments with one another, and they request
the right to present separate terms and briefs to the Court. However, the Defendants
will work together to coordinate on common terms and positions, and will limit the
briefing, as appropriate, for overlapping positions.
Defendants suggest a limit of five claim terms for construction per patent,
with the parties all working together to identify the terms as well as to provide the
Court with a list of the 10 most significant claim terms. Given the size and scope of
the case, Plaintiffs proposal on the Markman briefing page limit is unworkable.
Defendants suggest that the Court set forth a date for the parties to submit proposals
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 34 of 36 Page ID #:441
-
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
35 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
on Markman briefing and argument after the exchange of claim constructions, so
that the parties have a better understanding on the number of disputed terms and
proposed constructions. Further, with respect to Plaintiffs proposals regarding
restrictions on the number of prior art references, Defendants suggest the Court set a
date subsequent to the Courts ruling on claim construction for the parties to submit
proposals on these issues as the parties should have a better understanding at that
time of what claims are likely to go forward and hence the size and complexity of
the various remaining cases (if any).
u. Do Parties Wish to Have a Magistrate Judge Preside i. Plaintiffs Statement
Plaintiff does not wish to have a Magistrate preside over the Signal Actions
but does not oppose a Magistrate Judge presiding over discovery and procedural
issues, or settlement conferences.
ii. Defendants Statement Defendants do not wish to have a Magistrate Judge preside at trial, but would
welcome a Magistrate Judge to preside over discovery and procedural issues, as well
as settlement conferences in these Central District of California Actions.
Dated: September 5, 2014 LINER LLP By:
/s/ Ryan E. Hatch
Randall J. Sunshine Ryan E. Hatch Jason L. Haas Attorneys for Plaintiff SIGNAL IP, INC.
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 35 of 36 Page ID #:442
-
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
36 Case No. 2:14-cv-02962-JAK (JEMx) JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
Dated: September 5, 2014 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: /s/ Patrick A. Lujin Patrick A. Lujin B. Trent Webb
Richard D. Eiszner Douglas W. Robinson Gabriel S. Spooner Jamie H. Kitano Attorneys for Defendant NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, Inc.
ATTESTATION REGARDING SIGNATURES
I, Ryan E. Hatch, attest that all signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filings content and have authorized the filing. Dated: September 5, 2014 By: /s/ Ryan E. Hatch Ryan E. Hatch
Case 2:14-cv-02962-JAK-JEM Document 43 Filed 09/05/14 Page 36 of 36 Page ID #:443
a. Statement of the Casei. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
b. Subject Matter Jurisdictioni. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
c. Legal Issuesi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
d. Parties, and Non-Party Witnessesi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
e. Damagesi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
f. Insurancei. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
g. Motionsi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
h. Manual for Complex Litigationi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
i. Status of Discoveryi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
Plaintiffs have provided in initial infringement contentions to Defendants, and the parties have disclosed limited information for purposes of discussing potential settlement. At the outset, Defendants assert that Plaintiff's infringement contentions...j. Discovery Plani. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
k. Discovery Cut-Offi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
l. Expert Discoveryi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
m. Dispositive Motionsi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
n. Settlementi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
o. Trial Estimatei. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
p. Trial Counseli. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
Counsel for American Honda Motor Co. are Ahmed Davis, Ralph Phillips, and Scott Elengold from the DC office of Fish & Richardson, Robert Hillman of Fishs Boston office, and Geoff Biegler of Fishs San Diego office. Counsel for Kia Motors America, Inc. are Ron Pabis, Mark Davis, Steve Shahida from Greenberg Traurigs DC office, and Rich Edlin from Greenberg Traurigs New York Office. Counsel for Mazda North America, Inc. are Matthew D. Satchwell and Paul R. Steadman of the Chicago, Illinois office of DLA Piper LLP. Counsel for Mitsubishi Motors North America are Charles Gorenstein and Ali Imam of the Falls Church, Virginia office of Birch Stewart Kolasch Birch, LLP. Counsel for Nissan North America, Inc. are B. Trent Webb, Patrick A. Lujin and Richard D. Eiszner of the Kansas City, Mo office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP; Douglas W. Robinson and Gabriel Scott Spooner of the Irvine, California office of Shook, Har... Counsel for Subaru of America, Inc. are Matthew D. Satchwell and Paul R. Steadman of the Chicago, Illinois office of DLA Piper LLP. Counsel for Chrysler Group, LLC are Frank C. Cimino and Megan S. Woodworth of the Washington DC office of Dickstein Shapiro LLC and Larry LaPorte of the Los Angeles, California office of Dickstein Shapiro, LLP. Counsel for BMW of North America, LLC are Joseph P. Lavelle and Andrew N. Stein of the Washington D.C. office of DLA Piper LLP (US). Counsel for Ford Motor Company are John LeRoy, Frank Angileri, Linda Mettes and Chris Smith of the Southfield, Michigan office of Brooks Kushman. Counsel for Jaguar Land Rover North America are Matthew J. Moore, Clement J. Naples, Lisa K. Nguyen, and Jason M. Garr of the Washington, D.C., New York and Silicon Valley offices of Latham & Watkins LLP. Counsel for Volvo Cars of North America, LLC are David T. Pollock and Tracy Zurzolo Quinn of the San Francisco and Philadelphia offices of Reed Smith LLP. Counsel for Mercedes-Benz USA LLC are Scott W. Doyle and Jonathan R. DeFosse of the Washington, D.C. office of Shearman & Sterling LLP; and Don A. Hernandez and Cristina Hernandez of the Pasadena Office of Gonzalez, Saggio, and Harlan LLP.q. Independent Expert or Masteri. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
r. Timetablei. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
s. Other Issuesi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
t. Patent Casesi. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement
u. Do Parties Wish to Have a Magistrate Judge Presidei. Plaintiffs Statementii. Defendants Statement