Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-2 Filed 09/12/19 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:123
`
`
`
`Matthew G. Berkowitz (SBN 310426)
`matthew.berkowitz@shearman.com
`Yue (Joy) Wang (SBN 300594)
`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)
`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.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`NETSUITE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
` Case No. 18-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`DECLARATION OF MATTHEW G.
`BERKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF
`NETSUITE’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Judge:
`Date:
`Time:
`Location:
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. Josephine L. Staton
`November 1, 2019
`10:30 AM
`Ronald Reagan Federal
`Building, Courtroom 10A
`
`
`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
`
`BERKOWITZ DECL. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 18-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-2 Filed 09/12/19 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:124
`
`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
`
`I, Matthew G. Berkowitz, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a partner at the law firm of Shearman & Sterling LLP and lead
`
`counsel for Defendant NetSuite, Inc. I am a member in good standing of the Bar of
`
`the State of California. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and, if
`
`called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth
`
`herein.
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’
`
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. ADP, LLC, No. 16-cv-
`
`00741, D.I. 151 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017).
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Judge Robert
`
`W. Schroeder III’s Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting the Constructions for
`
`the Disputed and Agreed Terms of the Asserted Patents, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v.
`
`ADP, LLC, No. 16-cv-00741, D.I. 233 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2017).
`
`4.
`
`On August 28, 2017 the parties to Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. NetSuite,
`
`Inc., No. 16-cv-00862 (E.D. Tex.) (Schroeder, J.) (“NetSuite I”) filed a Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’
`
`Opening Claim Construction Brief, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. NetSuite, Inc., No. 16-
`
`cv-00862, D.I. 117 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2017).
`
`6.
`
`On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs in NetSuite I voluntarily dismissed
`
`the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). NetSuite’s motion to
`
`dismiss was pending at the time of the plaintiffs’ dismissal. Attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Notice of Dismissal
`
`Without Prejudice, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. NetSuite, Inc., No. 16-cv-00862, D.I.
`
`120 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2017).
`
`7.
`
`On September 4, 2019, at approximately 8:00AM, I had a telephonic
`
`meet and confer with Mr. James Foster, counsel for Plaintiff Uniloc 2017 LLC, about
`
`the subject of NetSuite’s motion to dismiss and whether Plaintiff would be interested
`
`BERKOWITZ DECL. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-2 Filed 09/12/19 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:125
`Cas 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 24-2 Filed 09/12/19 Page30f3 Page|D#:125
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`in amending the complaint. Mr. Foster indicated that Plaintiff was not interested in
`
`amending the complaint and that Plaintiff planned to seek reconsideration of Judge
`
`Schroeder’s claim construction order in the Eastern District of Texas. We discussed
`
`the status of Eastern District of Texas cases, as well as the Federal Circuit’s decision
`
`on Judge Schroeder’s Section 101 ruling. It was clear that the parties were at an
`
`impasse about whether Judge Schroeder’s existing construction of “application
`
`program(s)” / “application(s)” should govern in this case.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed this 12th day of September in Menlo Park, California.
`
`/-
`
`. ~
`
`/'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Matthew G. BerkoWitz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BERKOWlTZ DECL. ISO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`2
`
`CASE No. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS—DFM
`
`
`
`