Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 47 Filed 12/03/19 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:584
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Matthew G. Berkowitz (SBN 310426)
`Email:
`matthew.berkowitz@shearman.com
`Yue (Joy) Wang (SBN 300594)
`Email: joy.wang@shearman.com
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`1460 El Camino Real
`2nd Floor
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.838.3600
`Fax: 650.838.3699
`
`Attorneys for Defendant NetSuite Inc.
`
`Additional Counsel on Signature Page
`
`JOSHUA A. KREVITT, SBN 208552
`jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com
`PAUL E. TORCHIA
`ptorchia@gibsondunn.com
`FLORINA YEZRIL
`fyezril@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`Telephone: 212.351.4000
`Facsimile: 212.351.4035
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Infor, Inc.
`
`Additional Counsel on Signature Page
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
` Case No. 8:19-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`
`DEFENDANTS NETSUITE INC.’S
`AND INFOR, INC.’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S
`ORDER FOR BRIEFING (D.I. 40)
`Hearing
`Dec. 4, 2019 3PM
`Judge:
`Hon. David O. Carter
`
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NETSUITE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUPP. BRIEF PURSUANT TO
`THE COURT’S ORDER (D.I. 40)
`
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 47 Filed 12/03/19 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:585
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INFOR, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC(KESx)
`
`
`DEFENDANTS NETSUITE INC.’S
`AND INFOR, INC.’S
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`PURSUANT TO THE COURT’S
`ORDER FOR BRIEFING (D.I. 44)
`
`Hearing: December 4, 2019, 3 p.m.
`Judge:
`David O. Carter
`
`
`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’S SUPP. BRIEFING PURSUANT TO CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`THE COURT’S ORDER (D.I. 40)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 47 Filed 12/03/19 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:586
`
`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
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s December 2, 2019 Order for Briefing (D.I. 40),
`Defendants Infor, Inc. (“Infor”) and NetSuite Inc. (“NetSuite”) file this Supplemental
`Brief Pursuant to the Court’s Order for Briefing (D.I. 40).
`A. What is the current status of the Square Enix case pending in Texas,
`and how would it affect any of the four related cases before this
`Court?
`The Square Enix case in the Eastern District of Texas is still in its early stages.
`Square Enix has not yet filed a responsive pleading, and the most recent docket entry
`reflects an Order granting Uniloc 2017 LLC’s (“Uniloc”) motion for the appointment
`of an international process server. See Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Square Enix Holdings
`Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19-cv-00221, D.I. 7 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 9, 2019). To the extent the
`Eastern District of Texas court decides issues against Uniloc in that case, or Uniloc
`takes certain positions before that court, Uniloc could be bound by those rulings or
`positions consistent with applicable law, including principles of equitable estoppel
`and res judicata. Infor and NetSuite are unaware of other specific reasons why the
`Square Enix case would affect the related cases before this Court.
`B. NetSuite, in its papers, contends that adopting Judge Schroeder’s
`claim construction would be dispositive of the case against it. Is this
`also true of the infringement claims in the other cases (viz., the
`claims in Infor and the counterclaims in Square Enix and Ubisoft)?
`Infor believes that if Judge Schroeder’s claim construction were adopted, it
`would likely preclude any infringement allegation against Infor, and would at a
`minimum would narrow the case. Infor’s pending motion to dismiss (Case No 8:19-
`cv-1150, D.I. 35) is not based on this construction, however, but rather on Uniloc’s
`inability to plead compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and failure to plead
`infringement consistent with the Federal Circuit’s eligibility decision in the Uniloc v.
`ADP case.
`Infor and NetSuite lack specific knowledge as to whether and to what extent
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUPP. BRIEFING PURSUANT TO CASE NO. 18:9-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`THE COURT’S ORDER (D.I. 40)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 47 Filed 12/03/19 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:587
`
`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
`
`Judge Schroeder’s prior Markman order affects or is relevant to the infringement
`issues in the Ubisoft, and Square Enix cases.
`Importantly, neither Infor nor NetSuite were parties to the cases in the Eastern
`District of Texas that resulted in Judge Schroeder’s Markman Order.1
`On the other hand, Square Enix was a party to the prior Texas litigation that
`resulted in Judge Schroeder’s Markman ruling on the ’578 and ’293 patents, and
`Ubisoft was involved in that Markman as it concerns the related ’466 and ’766
`patents. See Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. AVG Techs. USA, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00393, D.I.
`210 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2017). Therefore, NetSuite and Infor are differently-situated
`than Ubisoft, Square Enix, and Uniloc as it concerns Markman issues.
`C.
`In its Supplemental Rule 26(f) Report, Uniloc refers to “an
`interlocutory claim construction order” that is currently the subject
`of a motion to reconsider. Is this claim construction the same one
`that NetSuite contends would be dispositive of its case?
`Yes, but Judge Schroeder never labeled that ruling as “interlocutory” or ever
`suggested that it was preliminary. Rather, Judge Schroeder issued a claim
`construction order in the ADP cases after multiple rounds of briefing, and a full
`Markman hearing. See Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. ADP, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00741, D.I.
`225 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2017). Uniloc recently moved for partial reconsideration of
`Judge Schroeder’s Markman order, but notably never asked Judge Schroeder to
`modify his construction of “application program(s)” as to the ’293 patent. See Uniloc
`USA, Inc. et al. v. ADP, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00741, D.I. 344 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2019).
`Uniloc apparently concedes that the limiting arguments made during prosecution of
`U.S. Patent No. 6,510,466 (“the ’466 patent”) apply with equal force to limit
`
`1 NetSuite’s Motion to Dismiss (Case No. 8:19-cv-01151, D.I. 27) is based on the
`proposition that Uniloc had an opportunity to argue the construction of the term
`“application program(s)” before Judge Schroeder, and should not get a complete re-
`do as to NetSuite when it has not alleged, and appears unable to allege under Rule 11,
`infringement against NetSuite under Judge Schroeder’s construction of “application
`program(s).”
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUPP. BRIEFING PURSUANT TO CASE NO. 18:9-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`THE COURT’S ORDER (D.I. 40)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 47 Filed 12/03/19 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:588
`
`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
`
`construction of the term “application program(s)” in the ’293 patent—which is a
`continuation of the ’466 patent. Id. at 3-13. Uniloc simply disputes that the
`prosecution history of the ’466 patent is relevant to construction of the term
`“application program(s)” in the ’578 patent, id., despite Judge Schroder’s
`(unchallenged) findings in his Markman order that the ’578 patent incorporates by
`reference the ’466 patent and “explicitly states” that it is “related” to the ’578 patent.
`See Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. ADP, LLC, No. 2:16-cv-00741, D.I. 233 at 11-14 (E.D.
`Tex. Aug. 16, 2017).
`D. The Court is presently considering three options for consolidating
`these cases:
` Consolidating all four cases together;
` Consolidating Square Enix with Ubisoft (the declaratory
`judgment cases), and Infor with NetSuite; and
` Consolidating Ubisoft, Infor, and NetSuite, but leaving Square
`Enix separate.
`Which of these options – in light of the pending Square Enix action
`in Texas and this Court’s interest in efficient case management –
`would provide for the most equitable and efficient resolution of
`these cases?
`NetSuite and Infor believe that Option (ii) would be most equitable and
`efficient.2 Each of NetSuite and Infor have outstanding motions to dismiss and to
`stay discovery pending resolution of those motions. Both motions to dismiss are tied,
`at least in part, to Uniloc’s failure to plead a plausible case of infringement consistent
`with prior rulings from Judge Schroeder and the Federal Circuit regarding the ’578
`and ’293 patents. Before the Court’s transfer order, NetSuite and Infor were in a
`similar procedural posture, with case management conferences set to proceed before
`Judge Staton a week apart, and hearing dates on their respective motions set relatively
`close in time.
`
`
`2 Although Infor and NetSuite consent to consolidation of their cases for pretrial proceedings, they
`do not presently consent to consolidation for trial.
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUPP. BRIEFING PURSUANT TO CASE NO. 18:9-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`THE COURT’S ORDER (D.I. 40)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 47 Filed 12/03/19 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:589
`
`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
`
`Ubisoft and Square Enix, on the other hand, are declaratory judgment
`plaintiffs, represented by the same counsel. For this reason they do not have pending
`motions to dismiss or motions to stay discovery. Depending on the Court’s ruling on
`these motions, NetSuite and Infor could end up on a different track than Ubisoft and
`Square Enix, making consolidation across all four cases (or even just the Ubisoft,
`Infor, and NetSuite cases) inefficient and cumbersome. Accordingly, either of
`Options (i) and (iii) would result in mixing differently-situated parties for discovery
`(and Markman) purposes.
`
`Dated: December 3, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew G. Berkowitz
`Matthew G. Berkowitz (SBN 310426)
`Email: matthew.berkowitz@shearman.com
`Yue (Joy) Wang (SBN 300594)
`Email: joy.wang@shearman.com
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`1460 El Camino Real 2nd Floor
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.838.3600
`Fax: 650.838.3699
`
`L. Kieran Kieckhefer (SBN 251978)
`Email: kieran.kieckhefer@shearman.com
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`535 Mission Street
`25th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 415.616.1100
`FAX: 415.616.1199
`
`Attorneys for Defendant NetSuite Inc.
`
`
`
`GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`/s/ Paul E. Torchia
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUPP. BRIEFING PURSUANT TO CASE NO. 18:9-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`THE COURT’S ORDER (D.I. 40)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 47 Filed 12/03/19 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:590
`
`JOSHUA A. KREVITT, SBN 208552
`jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com
`PAUL E. TORCHIA
`ptorchia@gibsondunn.com
`FLORINA YEZRIL
`fyezril@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`Telephone: 212.351.4000
`Facsimile: 212.351.4035
`
`JENNIFER RHO, SBN 254312
`jrho@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
`Telephone: 213.229.7000
`Facsimile: 213.229.7520
`
`ANDREW ROBB, SBN 291438
`arobb@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`Telephone: 650.849.5300
`Facsimile: 650.849.5333
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Infor, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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’S SUPP. BRIEFING PURSUANT TO CASE NO. 18:9-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`THE COURT’S ORDER (D.I. 40)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 47 Filed 12/03/19 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:591
`
`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
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`I, the undersigned, declare:
`
`I am employed in the City of New York, State of New York. I am over the age
`
`of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10166.
`
`On December 3, 2019, I caused the foregoing document to be electronically
`filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send
`notification of such filings to all known counsel of record. I declare under penalty of
`perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that
`the above is true and correct.
`
`Executed on December 3, 2019, at New York, New York.
`
`
`By: /s/ Paul E. Torchia
`Paul E. Torchia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUPP. BRIEFING PURSUANT TO CASE NO. 18:9-cv-01151-DOC-KES
`THE COURT’S ORDER (D.I. 40)
`
`6
`
`