Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:328
`
`
`Randall J. Sunshine (SBN 137363)
`rsunshine@linerlaw.com
`Ryan E. Hatch (SBN 235577)
`rhatch@linerlaw.com
`Jason L. Haas (SBN 217290)
` jhaas@linerlaw.com
`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.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC., a California
`corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA, INC, et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No. 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM
`
`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 Volkswagen
`Group of America, Inc., d/b/a Audi of America, Inc., and Bentley Motors, Inc.
`(collectively, “VWGoA,” or “Defendant”) submit their Joint Rule 16(b) Report
`pursuant to this Court’s June 23, 2014 Order Setting Rule 16(b) Scheduling
`Conference, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26, and the Court’s 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.
`Statement of the Case
`a.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s Statement
`
`
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`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 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:329
`
`
`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
`
`
`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 (“VWGoA”) 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,
`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
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`2
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:330
`
`
`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
`
`
`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
` 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:
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`3
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:331
`
`
`Porsche
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`VWGoA
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`BMW
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`Mercedes
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`Jaguar
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`Volvo
`
`Ford
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Chrysler
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`Subaru
`
`Nissan
`
`X X
`
`Mitsubishi
`
`
`
`Mazda
`
`
`
`X X X X
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kia
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Honda
`
`Patent
`
`‘601 Patent X
`
`X
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`‘486 Patent
`
`‘775 Patent
`
`‘375 Patent
`
`‘007 Patent
`
`‘927 Patent
`
`‘374 Patent
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X X X
`
`
`
`X X X X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`X X X X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`X
`
`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
`Defendant’s Statement
`ii.
`VWGoA has moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Signal’s claims of willful
`infringement (D.I. 35). VWGoA expects to counterclaim for a declaratory judgment
`of non-infringement and invalidity. VWGoA also expects to assert additional
`defenses, and specifically license and/or exhaustion defenses.
`In view of the differing patents, patent claims, and accused products asserted
`
`
`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.
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`4
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:332
`
`
`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
`
`
`against the various separate defendants, VWGoA opposes Signal’s proposed
`consolidation of the co-pending litigations identified above.
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`b.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s 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.
`Defendant’s Statement
`VWGoA does not currently dispute Plaintiff’s statement of subject matter
`jurisdiction.
`VWGoA expects to counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of non-
`infringement and invalidity of the patents asserted by Signal under 28 U.S.C. §§
`2201 and 2202. This court will have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
`counterclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`Legal Issues
`c.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s 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.
`All but three defendants (Nissan, Mercedes and VWGoA) 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, Volvo, and BMW of North America LLC) assert counterclaims for
`invalidity and non-infringement.
`Other affirmative defenses include failure to state a claim, prosecution history
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`5
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:333
`
`
`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
`
`
`/ 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.
`Defendant’s Statement
`The primary legal issues in this case are the validity of the asserted patents
`and whether there is infringement by VWGoA. VWGoA has not yet answered the
`complaint but expects to assert non-infringement, invalidity and various other
`defenses, including license and/or exhaustion defenses.
`Parties, and Non-Party Witnesses
`d.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s 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 Signal’s witnesses identified by
`Defendants in their respective disclosures.
`ii.
`Defendant’s Statement
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`6
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:334
`
`
`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
`
`
`Volkswagen AG, a publicly held German corporation. Audi of America, Inc. is a
`registered trade name of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Bentley Motors, Inc.
`is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. A list of
`defendants’ subsidiaries and affiliates is attached at Exhibit B.
`In its Initial Disclosures, VWGoA identified the following parties and non-
`party witnesses believed to have information relating to the issues raised by Signal’s
`Complaint: Signal IP; the named inventors of the patents in suit; counsel who
`prosecuted the applications underlying the patent in suit; and the following VWGoA
`witnesses: Eric Eichhorst, Christian Schroth, Anna Russell, Ryan Turk, Patrick
`Hannon, Jennifer Clayton, David Jenkins, David Gibson, and Ryan Flynn.
`Damages
`e.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s Statement
`Based on currently-available information, Plaintiff’s preliminary damages
`estimates are as follows:
`Defendant Preliminary damages estimate
`Honda
`$201-223M
`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
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`7
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:335
`
`
`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
`
`
`Defendant Preliminary damages estimate
`VWGoA
`$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.
`Defendant’s Statement
`There are no damages currently claimed by VWGoA in this case. VWGoA
`expects to recover costs and attorneys’ fees.
`It is Signal’s burden to prove constructive notice of the alleged infringement,
`and Signal provided no such notice until filing of its original complaint. Signal’s
`recovery of damages is accordingly limited to post-filing sales. If the asserted
`patents are found not invalid and infringed, VWGoA currently estimates the realistic
`range of provable damages to be approximately $200,000 - $600,000.
`Insurance
`f.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s Statement
`Plaintiff is unaware of any insurance coverage for the claims and
`counterclaims asserted in the Signal Actions.
`ii.
`Defendant’s Statement
`VWGoA is not aware of any relevant insurance coverage.
`g. Motions
`i.
`Plaintiff’s Statement
`There are currently four motions pending in the Signal Actions, all filed by
`defendants: (1) Ford’s 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 Plaintiff’s claims for direct and indirect
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`8
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:336
`
`
`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
`
`
`infringement (Case No. 14-03109, Dkt. No. 34); (3) Nissan’s motion to dismiss
`Plaintiff’s claims for willful infringement (Case No. 14-03113, Dkt. No. 35); and (4)
`VWGoA’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 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.
`Defendant’s Statement
`VWGoA may seek early summary judgment of non-infringement based on
`license and/or exhaustion defenses, and may also move to add one or more suppliers
`of the accused systems to the litigation.
`h. Manual for Complex Litigation
`i.
`Plaintiff’s 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,
`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
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`9
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:337
`
`
`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
`
`
`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)).
`
`Defendant’s Statement
`ii.
`VWGoA does not believe that the procedures of the Manual for Complex
`Litigation (“MCL”) are either necessary or appropriate for the efficient management
`of this litigation. In view of the different patents and patent claims asserted against
`the co-defendants, and the different accused products, VWGoA opposes the
`common discovery procedures proposed by Signal, as well as the common court
`filings and designation of “liaison counsel.” As discussed below, VWGoA also
`opposes the phasing of expert reports into six different groups as unnecessarily
`complex and time-consuming (resulting in a three-year schedule and 2017 trial
`date). Finally, there is no need for special MCL rules for non-party and foreign
`discovery or conveyance of settlement offers – Signal is free to subpoena non-
`parties and foreign entities and to convey settlement offers to one or more
`defendants as it considers necessary.
`Status of Discovery
`i.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s Statement
`The parties have exchanged Initial Disclosures on or before August 4, 2014.
`Other than the disclosures required by the Court’s Standing Patent Rules, no other
`formal discovery has yet been pursued by any party.
`ii.
`Defendant’s Statement
`VWGoA served its initial disclosures on July 21, 2014. Although no
`discovery requests have been served, VWGoA has collected and will shortly
`complete the production to Signal of most of what would be produced in the early
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`10
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:338
`
`
`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
`
`
`stage of discovery, pursuant to the court’s expectations set forth in D.I. 32, p. 2.
`Discovery Plan
`j.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s 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 Court’s 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.
`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 Circuit’s Model Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases shall
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`11
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:339
`
`
`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
`
`
`govern.2
`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
`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
`
`
`2 Available at
`http://memberconnections.com/olc/filelib/LVFC/cpages/9008/Library/Ediscovery%
`20Model%20Order.pdf.
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`12
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:340
`
`
`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
`
`
`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
`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
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`13
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:341
`
`
`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
`
`
`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.
`
`i.
`Defendant’s Statement
`VWGoA’s anticipated deponents are listed in its initial disclosures and
`include Signal IP, the inventors of the patents in suit, prosecution counsel, Signal’s
`experts, and companies/individuals knowledgeable about the prior art. Their
`depositions will be completed by the discovery cut-off date (see Exhibit A).
`VWGoA does not propose any changes to the disclosures specified by Rule
`26(a). VWGoA may serve written discovery requests. The subject of discovery
`will focus primarily on Signal’s infringement allegations, the validity of the asserted
`patents, and VWGoA’s license and/or exhaustion defenses. Exhibit A to this report
`includes a proposed schedule for the completion of all discovery related to this
`lawsuit. VWGoA does not propose phased discovery, except that (a) fact discovery
`should be substantially complete prior to opening expert reports and (b) expert
`discovery should be conducted after expert reports are served.
`Regarding discovery limitations, VWGoA opposes Signal’s proposal of
`common discovery requests shared among the numerous Signal litigation defendants
`because there are numerous differences between the asserted patents in each case,
`the claims asserted against each defendant, and the products that are accused of
`infringement. VWGoA does not propose any modification of the limitations on
`discovery specified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`Regarding court orders, VWGoA proposes the entry of its proposed
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`14
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:342
`
`
`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
`
`
`Protective Order (see Exhibit C).
`VWGoA agrees with Signal that document production requests shall not
`include e-mail communications; however, VWGoA believes that e-mail, document
`formatting and related subjects should be addressed in a separate order and proposes
`entry of the attached ESI order governing electronic discovery (see Exhibit D).
`Discovery Cut-Off
`k.
`i.
`Plaintiff’s Statement
`Plaintiff has proposed a case schedule that includes a plan for the completion
`of discovery. (See Exhibit A.)
`ii.
`Defendant’s Statement
`VWGoA has proposed a discovery cut-off date generally corresponding to
`that specified by the court’s standard schedule. (See Exhibit A, Defendant’s
`column.)
`
`l.
`
`Expert Discovery
`i.
`Plaintiff’s Statement
`Plaintiff has proposed a case schedule that includes a plan for expert witness
`disclosures and discovery. (See Exhibit A.)
`Plaintiff’s 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.
`Defendant’s Statement
`VWGoA has proposed a case schedule that includes a plan for expert witness
`disclosures and discovery. (See Exhibit A.)
`VWGoA opposes Signal’s proposal of five patent-specific phases for expert
`reports because it is overly complicated and time-consuming, resulting in a three-
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`15
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:343
`
`
`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
`
`
`year schedule and a trial date in 2017 for completion of this litigation. In view of
`the different patents asserted by Signal and different accused products in the Signal
`litigations, consolidated expert reports are neither efficient nor appropriate.
`m. Dispositive Motions
`i.
`Plaintiff’s 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 Court’s Standing Orders.
`ii.
`Defendant’s Statement
`VWGoA may file motions for summary judgment or partial summary
`judgment on issues including infringement, validity, and/or its license and/or
`exhaustion defenses.
`VWGoA proposes the addition of an early Markman/summary judgment
`schedule permitting the presentation, with prior approval of the court, of ten or
`
`41406.013-2064721v1 (REH)
`
`
`
`16
`JOINT RULE 16(b) REPORT
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:344
`
`
`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
`
`
`fewer case-dispositive claim terms to be construed in association with early
`summary judgment briefing, as well as the presentation of dispositive defenses other
`than non-infringement.
`In vi