Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1246
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Aaron S. Jacobs (Cal. Bar No. 214953)
`ajacobs@princelobel.com
`James J. Foster
`jfoster@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: (617) 456-8000
`
`Matthew D. Vella (Cal. State Bar No.
`314548)
`mvella@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`357 S. Coast Highway, Suite 200
`Laguna Beach, CA 92651
`Tel: (949) 232-6375
`
`
`
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC
`James L. Etheridge (SBN 158629)
`Jim@Etheridgelaw.com
`2600 East Southlake Blvd Suite 120-324
`Southlake, TX 76092
`(817) 470-7249 - Telephone
`(817) 887-5950 – Facsimile
`
`Attorneys for Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`For Defendants’ counsel, please see
`signature block
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SANTA ANA DIVISION
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`Hearing: December 7, 2020
`Judge: David O. Carter
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INFOR, INC.,
`NETSUITE, INC.,
`SQUARE ENIX, INC., and
`SQUARE ENIX LLC,
`SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. and
`SQUARE ENIX HOLDINGS CO.,
`LTD.
`UBISOFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34, the parties file this
`
`Joint Rule 26(f) Report, per the Court’s Order, Dkt. No. 53.
`I.
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`These actions have been consolidated and this Report is being submitted in all
`the actions. The Infor action has been stayed pending completion of settlement
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`3585748.v1
`
`1
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:1247
`
`
`
`papers, and thus the below does not pertain to that action. Otherwise, the discussion
`below will apply to all cases, except where noted.
`Uniloc 2017’s Position
`These are patent infringement actions. Uniloc 2017 accuses each defendant of
`infringing United States Patent Nos. 6,344,578 and 7,069,293. Each defendant
`denies infringement and alleges the patents are invalid.
`Uniloc 2017 first brought suit on the patents-in-suit against Ubisoft, NetSuite,
`and Square Enix in July/August 2016. In the normal course, those actions would
`have gone to judgment well before now. But they were waylaid: first, by venue
`issues raised by TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514
`(2017), and secondly, by a district court decision, since reversed, that certain patent
`claims were ineligible for patenting. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP LLC, 279 F.Supp. 736
`(E.D. Tex. 2007).
`Each of those Accused Infringers has thus now been aware of the patents for
`at least four years, as well as aware of the extent and theory of the infringement
`allegations against them. And each would have long since formulated its defenses.
`So Uniloc 2017 believes it appropriate to move those actions forward expeditiously.
`Uniloc 2017 thus suggests dispensing with some of the preliminary steps that
`might be appropriate to first-filed patent actions, such as formal infringement and
`invalidity contentions.
`Netsuite and Ubisoft have each filed a summary judgment motion (which each
`labeled as a motion to dismiss to evade this Court’s rule limiting each party to one
`summary judgment motion) raising an issue unique to the respective defendant.
`Uniloc 2017 has already filed its Opposition, Dkt. No. 62, to the Netsuite motion
`(which motion had asked the Court to adopt a contested claim construction and enter
`judgment thereon) and will file its opposition to the just received Ubisoft motion,
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:1248
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 67-1, (which motion appears to argue claim preclusion) after Uniloc 2017
`has had time to digest it.
`Netsuite also states it intends to file an additional motion that will claim it is a
`“strategic business partner” of the former patent owner, IBM, but Uniloc 2017
`cannot comment on that motion until it is filed.
`
`Defendants’ Position
`This is a patent infringement case. Uniloc 2017 LLC and/or its predecessor
`entities (“Uniloc”) have asserted these patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,578 and
`7,069,293, the “Asserted Patents”) approximately 50 prior times, resulting in
`multiple rulings from other courts that are relevant to this case. Specifically, two
`District Court Judges – Judge Schroeder in the Eastern District of Texas, and Judge
`Stearns in the District of Massachusetts, have already construed certain terms of the
`asserted patents. Certain claims of the ’578 Patent (20, 22, 23, 24, 35, 37, 39) have
`already been held to be invalid as indefinite through these claim construction
`proceedings. Other cases on the same two patents remain pending in other district
`courts. The ’578 Patent expired nearly two years ago, on December 14, 2018. The
`’293 Patent expires in just two months, on February 3, 2021.
`Uniloc acquired the asserted patents from IBM pursuant to an agreement
`whereby IBM reserved the right to license certain of its “Strategic Business
`Partners,” contractually defined by a monetary threshold amount of business
`between certain dates. Uniloc is obligated under the IBM agreement to defend and
`indemnify any such strategic business partners. Other defendants in other cases have
`already been dismissed as a result of this licensing agreement. Defendant NetSuite
`believes that it is also such a strategic business partner of IBM, that, as a result,
`Uniloc lacks statutory authority to bring this suit solely in its own name against
`NetSuite, and that it is obligated to defend and indemnify NetSuite for this case. In
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:1249
`
`
`
`addition, Uniloc’s infringement allegations against Defendant Ubisoft, Inc. directly
`implicate technology provided by an adjudicated IBM Strategic Partner and non-
`infringer, Akamai.
`
`
`II. LEGAL ISSUES
`
`Uniloc 2017’s position:
`
`The key legal issues will include infringement, validity, and damages.
`
`Defendants’ position:
`Defendants believe the key legal issues include:
`
`1. Whether Defendants have infringed the Asserted Patents in violation of 35
`U.S.C. § 271;
`2. Whether Uniloc has a good faith basis to allege that Defendants possessed the
`knowledge and intent to infringe required for an allegation of indirect
`infringement of the Asserted Patents after they were found to be invalid and
`during the pendency of the appeal of that invalidation to the Federal Circuit;
`3. Whether the Asserted Patents meet the conditions for patentability and satisfy
`all of the requirements set forth in the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102,
`103, and/or 112;
`4. Whether Uniloc has standing and/or statutory authority to assert the Asserted
`Patents solely in its own name;
`5. Whether the Asserted Patents are enforceable;
`6. Whether Uniloc is barred or estopped, either now or at a later time, in view of
`other litigation history on the Asserted Patents;
`7. The amount of damages, if any, under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`8. Whether Uniloc’s alleged damages are limited under 35 U.S.C. § 287;
`9. Whether Uniloc is obligated to defend and/or indemnify NetSuite in
`connection with this litigation and if so, the amount thereof;
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:1250
`
`
`
`10. Whether attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses are recoverable under 35 U.S.C. §
`284 and/or § 285; and
`11. In the event that the Asserted Patents are found not infringed, unenforceable,
`subject to a licensing obligation or right, and/or invalid, the relief, if any, to be
`awarded to Defendants.
`Defendants reserve the right to revise or supplement this list as the case progresses.
`
`III. DAMAGES
`
`Uniloc 2017’s position:
`
`Uniloc 2017 seeks damages in the nature of a reasonable royalty for infringing
`use. As there has been no discovery as yet as to the extent of use of the accused
`products, the parties cannot presently give a realistic range of provable damages.
`Defendants’ position: Defendants do not believe that Uniloc is entitled to
`
`damages. NetSuite contends that Uniloc is obligated to defend and indemnify
`NetSuite for its defense of litigation brought against it under patents acquired from
`IBM under the aforementioned agreement. Should Uniloc proceed with litigation
`against Ubisoft accusing the technology of Akamai, an adjudicated IBM Strategic
`Partner and non-infringer, Ubisoft would contend the same.
`
`INSURANCE
`IV.
`None of the parties have insurance coverage.
`
`V. MOTIONS
`
`Uniloc 2017’s position:
`
`Uniloc 2017 does not contemplate motions to add parties or claims, or to file
`amended pleadings.
`
`Defendants’ position:
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:1251
`
`
`
`NetSuite has filed a motion to dismiss Uniloc’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`NetSuite anticipates filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds
`that it is an IBM Strategic Partner under the aforementioned Uniloc-IBM Agreement
`and that Uniloc lacks statutory authority to bring suit against NetSuite in its own
`name (similar to the filings of several other district courts ruling on a judgment on
`the pleadings). Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Box, Inc., No. 19-cv-06988-JSW, 2020 WL
`611565 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020); Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Akamai Techs., Inc., No. 1:19-
`CV-11276, D.I. 44 (D. Mass Dec. 12, 2019).
`
`Ubisoft has filed a FRCP 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings that it is
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Uniloc accused Ubisoft of
`infringement through its use of technology from Akamai, which was previously sued
`by Uniloc three times, was found to be an IBM Strategic Partner and immune from
`suit, and was ultimately dismissed with prejudice. Uniloc cannot now sue Ubisoft,
`Akamai’s customer, in a fourth lawsuit accusing the same technology of infringing.
`
`VI. COMPLEXITY
`
`The parties agree that the Manual for Complex Litigation need not be used in
`these cases.
`VII. STATUS OF DISCOVERY
`
`Uniloc 2017’s position:
`
`No discovery has taken place, as yet, other than some limited written
`discovery. Uniloc 2017 has made its initial disclosures.
`
`Defendants’ position:
`
`Defendants have served their initial disclosures. NetSuite has served limited
`written discovery related to its status as an IBM Strategic Partner and Uniloc’s
`knowledge of the same. NetSuite has also responded to Rule 34 requests served by
`Uniloc.
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:1252
`
`
`
`Ubisoft served Rule 34 requests for production on Uniloc on October 16,
`
`2020. Uniloc did not respond within 30 days.
`
`VIII. DISCOVERY PLANS
`
`Uniloc 2017’s position:
`
`The subjects on which discovery may be needed are the patents and inventors,
`the accused products, infringement, damages, prior art, and validity. Discovery
`should not be conducted in phases.
`
`There are no issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronic
`documents.
`
`There are no issues about claims of privilege, or of protection of trial-
`preparation materials. Privilege logs need not include any documents or information
`dated or created after the date of filing of the first action against the respective
`defendant.
`
`Uniloc 2017 does not propose changes to the limitations on the scope of
`discovery imposed by the local and Federal Rules.
`
`The parties are finalizing a protective order based on the Model Order in the
`Northern District of California.
`
`Uniloc 2017 proposes a discovery cutoff date in the attached Exhibit A.
`Defendants’ position:
`
`
`Subjects of Discovery: Defendants believe discovery should cover issues relating to
`patent validity, including prior art, enforceability, damages, and Uniloc’s purported
`ownership and standing to assert the patents-in-suit. NetSuite further contends that
`discovery should cover Uniloc’s investigation (if any) into whether NetSuite
`qualifies as an IBM Strategic Partner under the aforementioned IBM-Uniloc
`agreement.
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:1253
`
`
`
`Any issues about the disclosure, discovery, or preservation of ESI: None to note.
`
`Defendants propose that, in view of the limited scope of this case, the parties
`should, in the first instance, be limited to 5 party depositions per side, with the right
`to seek additional party depositions for good cause. More specifically, this case
`involves only two patents (one expired, one soon-to-be expired) asserted by a non-
`practicing entity that is only seeking a reasonable royalty (meaning that the parties
`will not need to take discovery on complicated lost profits issues).
`
`Defendants have been working with Uniloc for several months on a proposed
`Protective Order. In particular, NetSuite desires this Protective Order so that it can
`provide confidential documents showing its business relationship with IBM (and
`how it qualifies as an IBM Strategic Partner). Defendants anticipate submitting this
`for the Court’s consideration in the near future, as well as a Proposed e-discovery
`Order providing for reasonable limits on the scope of electronic discovery including
`email.
`
`IX. EXPERT DISCOVERY
`
`Uniloc 2017 proposes the schedule for expert disclosures and discovery in the
`attached Exhibit A.
`
`Defendants’ position:
`
`Defendants propose that the deposition of any expert be limited to 7 hours per
`primary report (e.g., if an expert offers a report on infringement issues and the same
`expert offers a report on validity issues, then that expert would be subject to 14
`hours of deposition). Defendants also propose that if Plaintiff offers an expert report
`that includes opinions as to more than one Defendant in a single primary report, the
`expert may be deposed for an additional 3 hours per defendant. Defendants also
`propose that if any of the parties use two or more experts on an individual issue (e.g.,
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:1254
`
`
`
`the issue of infringement, the issue of validity, or the issue of damages), the parties
`agree to work cooperatively to fairly adjust the above hour limits.
`
`X. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
`
`Uniloc 2017’s position:
`
`No motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment are currently
`contemplated.
`
`Defendants’ position:
`
`NetSuite believes that Uniloc’s First Amended Complaint should be
`dismissed, as per its pending motion (D.I. 54). NetSuite also believes that it is
`entitled to judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that it qualifies as an IBM
`Strategic Partner and that Uniloc lacks statutory authority to maintain this suit solely
`in its own name. NetSuite anticipates filing that motion if any when necessary.
`NetSuite does not believe that it should have to incur the burden and expensive of
`continuing to litigate this case until Uniloc can demonstrate that it has a right to be in
`Court and that it should have yet another opportunity to re-argue the same claim
`construction question that it has already twice lost.
`
`Ubisoft has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that Uniloc’s claim is
`barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Ubisoft also anticipates filing motions
`for summary judgment regarding patent non-infringement, invalidity, ineligibility,
`and/or failure to comply with § 287, as well as potentially filing pretrial motions
`relating to expert testimony.
`
`Square Enix also anticipates filing motions for summary judgment regarding
`patent non-infringement, invalidity, ineligibility, and/or failure to comply with §
`287, as well as potentially filing pretrial motions relating to expert testimony.
`
`
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`9
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:1255
`
`
`
`XI. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
`
`The parties believe ADR Procedure No. 2 is best suited for these actions.
`Uniloc 2017 believes that the mediation be held before the end of February 2021.
`XII. SETTLEMENT EFFORTS
`Uniloc 2017 reached out to NetSuite to initiate settlement discussions. The
`
`parties spoke briefly on the phone but have not had meaningful substantive
`discussions.
`Square Enix US and Uniloc 2017 previously agreed to mediate with the
`magistrate judge in this case. Case No. 8:19-cv-1061-DOC (KESx), Dkt. 30 at 5
`(Oct. 14, 2019).
`Ubisoft and Uniloc2017 mediated this case in connection with another case
`pending in the Northern District of California. The N.D. Cal. case settled but this
`one did not. No further discussions have taken place.
`XIII. PRELIMINARY TRIAL ESTIMATE
`
`The parties estimate 4-5 days will be needed for trial of each defendant’s
`action, which will be to a jury. Uniloc 2017 expects to call five witnesses.
`
`NetSuite believes that a four (4)-day jury trial is appropriate.
`Defendants do not waive their right to a separate trial from the other
`consolidated defendants.
`XIV. TRIAL COUNSEL
`
`James J. Foster will appear as trial counsel for Uniloc 2017. Matthew G.
`Berkowitz and L. Kieran Kieckhefer will appear as trial counsel for NetSuite.
`Michelle L. Marriott, Eric A. Buresh, and Mark C. Lang will appear as trial counsel
`for Ubisoft and Square Enix.
`XV. INDEPENDENT EXPERT OR MASTER
`The parties do not believe a master or independent expert is needed.
`
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:1256
`
`
`
`XVI. OTHER ISSUES
`Uniloc 2017’s position:
`A. Trial date.
`Uniloc 2017 requests the Court set a trial date for at least one of these cases
`before the end of 2021. Uniloc 2017 suggest first Ubisoft, and then NetSuite and
`Square Enix. (Judge Guilford had previously set a November 10, 2020 trial date in
`Ubisoft). If the action against that first Accused Infringer is resolved, by settlement
`or otherwise, then the next Accused Infringer would fill that trial slot.
`B. Procedure.
`As to procedure, in these three actions Uniloc 2017 opposes the imposition of
`the local patent rules of other districts, such as those of the Northern District of
`California. Implementing the Northern District rules would drag the claim
`construction process out over six months, and simply retrace the path already trod by
`other districts, to no apparent purpose.
`Finally, Uniloc 2017 requests this Court defer its own consideration of claim
`construction until its consideration of motions for summary judgment, where only
`issues relevant to the outcome would be fully briefed
`C. Schedule.
`The Federal and Local Rules, and this Court’s Standard Orders, require the
`parties to suggest certain dates. Here are Uniloc 2017’s suggestions for Ubisoft (or
`whichever action the Court selects to try first:
`
`
`Fact discovery cutoff
`
`
`
`Last day to serve initial expert reports
`
`Last day to notice motions for hearing
`
`Final pretrial conference
`
`
`
`Trial date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6/30/21
`7/15/21
`9/22/21
`10/27/21
`11/12/21
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`11
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:1257
`
`
`
`All of the above dates, except for the dates for pretrial conference and trial,
`could be the same for all three actions. Once the Court sets these dates, other
`dates can be calculated by rote application of the rules, or this Court’s
`Standard Orders.
`Defendants’ position:
`Because this is a patent case, Defendants propose adoption of the schedule
`attached as Exhibit B. Within this schedule, Defendants propose the following
`dates, including those as required by this Court’s Standing Order:
`
`Fact discovery cutoff
`
`
`
`10/29/2021
`
`Expert discovery cutoff
`
`
`1/6/2022
`
`Last day to notice motions for hearing
`2/28/2022
`
`First final pretrial conference
`
`
`4/4/2022
`
`First Trial date
`
`
`
`
`4/19/2022
`
` Exhibit B follows the schedule set forth in the Northern District of California
`patent rules, with the following modifications:
`• Uniloc will serve P.R. 3-1 and 3-2 disclosures on December 21, 2020.
`• NetSuite will serve P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 disclosures by the later of February
`18, 2021, or 30 days after a ruling on each pending Rule 12 motion.1
`
`
`1 As mentioned throughout the report, NetSuite believes that there are two gating
`issues in this litigation: (1) Uniloc does not have an infringement case under the
`claim construction adopted by two other Federal Judges; and (2) NetSuite is
`entitled to a license from IBM, meaning that Uniloc lacks statutory authority to
`maintain this suit solely in its own name. NetSuite has a motion pending on the
`first issue, and anticipates filing a motion on the second issue, if necessary,
`shortly after entry of a Protective order in this case. NetSuite does not believe it
`should have to incur additional burden and expense in completing invalidity
`contentions before Uniloc can demonstrate that it has the right to be in Court and
`have yet another chance at arguing the same claim construction point that it has
`twice lost.
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`12
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:1258
`
`
`
`Defendants propose that certain discovery taken in prior cases involving the
`parties and the Asserted Patents, specifically interrogatory responses, depositions,
`and third party discovery of IBM, can be used against the other party in the case in
`which the discovery occurred as if taken in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`13
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:1259
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 23, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ James J. Foster_
`Aaron S. Jacobs (Cal. Bar No. 214953)
`ajacobs@princelobel.com
`James J. Foster
`jfoster@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`One International Place, Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: (617) 456-8000
`
`Matthew D. Vella
`(Cal. State Bar No. 314548)
`mvella@princelobel.com
`PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP
`357 S. Coast Highway, Suite 200
`Laguna Beach, CA 92651
`Tel: (949) 232-6375
`
`Attorneys for Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michelle L. Marriott
`Paul R. Hart (pro hac vice)
`paul.hart@eriseip.com
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`
`Michelle L. Marriott (pro hac vice)
`michelle.marriott@eriseip.com
`Eric A. Buresh (pro hac vice)
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`Mark C. Lang (pro hac vice)
`mark.lang@eriseip.com
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`Telephone: 913.777.5600
`Facsimile: 913.777.5601
`
`Stephen S. Smith (SBN 166539)
`ssmith@stephensmithlaw.com
`LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN S. SMITH, PC
`30700 Russell Ranch Rd., Ste. 250
`Westlake Village, CA 91362
`Phone: (310)955-5824
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`14
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES Document 68 Filed 11/23/20 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:1260
`
`
`
`Fax: (310)955-5824
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Square Enix, Inc.
`and Ubisoft, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION OF FILER
`
`
`I hereby attest that all other signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is
`
`submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matt Berkowitz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT 26(f) REPORT
`
`
`
`15
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01150-DOC-KES
`
`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
`
`