`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`James R. Asperger (Bar No. 83188)
`jamesasperger@quinnemanuel.com
`Yury Kapgan (Bar No. 218366)
`yurykapgan@quinnemanuel.com
`Pushkal Mishra (Bar No. 298695)
`pushkalmishra@quinnemanuel.com
`865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`Counsel for Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe (Bar No. 254886)
`jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION
`Edward R. McGah, Jr (Bar No. 97719)
`emcgah@blackberry.com
`Vice President, Deputy General
`Counsel—Litigation
`41 Ticknor Place
`Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
`Telephone: (650) 581-4750
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`a Canadian corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`TWITTER, INC.,
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
`REGARDING ’351 AND ’929
`PATENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
`
`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 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 49 Filed 09/10/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:790
`
`
`
`On September 5, 2019, the Court deferred ruling on Twitter, Inc.’s “motion to
`
`dismiss related to the ’351 and ’929 Patents until a final ruling has been issued” in the
`
`related cases BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-
`
`(KSx) and BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-(KSx)
`
`“regarding whether those patents are patent-eligible” and the parties have each briefed
`
`the Court “stating how a determination of § 101 patent-ineligibility of the same asserted
`
`patents in those other cases should impact Twitter’s motion in this case.” Court’s
`
`Tentative Ruling at 13, Docket No. 47. BlackBerry Limited respectfully submits that
`
`any “determination of § 101 patent-ineligibility of the same asserted patents in those
`
`other cases should” apply equally to Twitter’s motion in this case.
`
`
`
`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. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS Document 49 Filed 09/10/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:791
`
`
`
`Dated: September 10, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /s/ James R. Asperger
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`James R. Asperger (Bar No. 83188)
`jamesasperger@quinnemanuel.com
`Yury Kapgan (Bar No. 218366)
`yurykapgan@quinnemanuel.com
`Pushkal Mishra (Bar No. 298695)
`pushkalmishra@quinnemanuel.com
`865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`Jordan R. Jaffe (Bar No. 254886)
`jordanjaffe@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION
`Edward R. McGah, Jr (Bar No. 97719)
`emcgah@blackberry.com
`Vice President, Deputy General Counsel—
`Litigation
`41 Ticknor Place
`Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
`Telephone: (650) 581-4750
`Counsel for Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited
`
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-01444-GW-KS
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM
`
`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
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
