Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 1 of 14
`
`STEFANI E. SHANBERG (State Bar No. 206717)
`sshanberg@mofo.com
`NATHAN B. SABRI (State Bar No. 252216)
`nsabri@mofo.com
`MADELEINE E. GULLY (State Bar No. 263120)
`mgully@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone:
`(415) 268-7000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 268-7522
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`Edward R. Nelson III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Texas Bar No. 00797142
`Ryan P. Griffin (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Texas Bar No. 24053687
`Christopher G. Granaghan (Admitted Pro Hac
`Vice)
`Texas Bar No. 24078585
`ed@nbafirm.com
`ryan@nbafirm.com
`chris@nbafirm.com
`NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.
`3131 West Seventh Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`Facsimile: (817) 377-3485
`
`Christopher D. Banys (SBN 230038)
`Richard C. Lin (SBN 209233)
`Jennifer L. Gilbert (SBN 255820)
`cdb@banyspc.com
`rcl@banyspc.com
`jlg@banyspc.com
`BANYS, P.C.
`1030 Duane Avenue
`Santa Clara, CA 95054
`Telephone: (650) 308-8505
`Facsimile: (650) 353-2202
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:18-cv-02245-JD
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
`STATEMENT
`
`Date: August 30, 2018
`Time: 10:00 AM
`Place: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`Judge: Hon. James Donato
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
` 
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
` 
` 
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 2 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`Plaintiff Firstface Co., Ltd. (“Firstface”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”), hereby file this Joint
`Case Management Statement.1
`1.
`Jurisdiction and Service: The basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
`claims and defendant’s counterclaims, whether any issues exist regarding personal jurisdiction or
`
`venue, whether any parties remain to be served, and, if any parties remain to be served, a proposed
`deadline for service.
`This case is an action for patent infringement and arises under the patent laws of the United States.
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). No issues exist regarding
`personal jurisdiction or venue as to this case, and no parties remain to be served.
`2.
`Facts: A brief chronology of the facts and a statement of the principal factual issues in dispute.
`Firstface filed its Complaint against Apple on April 13, 2018. Firstface asserts the following patents
`(collectively, the “asserted patents”):
`(1)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,831,557 (the “’557 patent”);
`(2)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,633,373 (the “’373 patent”); and
`(3)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,779,419 (the “’419 patent”).
`Firstface alleges that Apple directly infringes the asserted patents by making, using, offering for
`sale, selling, and/or importing Apple mobile devices that support fingerprint authentication (for the ’557
`patent) and Apple mobile devices that support fingerprint authentication and Siri functionality (for the ’373
`and ’419 patents), including the iPhone 5s, iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone 7,
`iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, iPad (2017 version, a/k/a the iPad (5th generation)), iPad (2018
`version, a/k/a the iPad (6th generation)), iPad Air 2, iPad mini 3, iPad mini 4, iPad Pro (12.9 inch) (1st
`generation), iPad Pro (9.7 inch) (1st generation), iPad Pro (12.9 inch) (2nd generation), and iPad Pro (10.5
`inch) (2nd generation) (collectively, the “accused products”). Firstface also alleges that Apple induces the
`infringement and contributes to the infringement of the ’557, ’363, and ’419 patents by its customers and
`
`                                                            
`1 In preparing this joint statement, the parties coordinated with the parties in Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-02243-JD, which was related to this case on June 28, 2018,
`to propose a common procedural schedule, and will endeavor to coordinate where appropriate on other
`issues, including on the submission of a common protective order and ESI order. There is one patent in
`common among the cases.
`
`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
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
` 
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 3 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`other end users of the accused products. Finally, Firstface alleges that, despite knowing of the ’557 patent
`since at least early 2015, Apple persisted in infringing, and accordingly has and continues to willfully
`infringe the ’557 patent.
`On July 24, 2018, Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Firstface Co., Ltd.’s Complaint
`(“Apple’s Motion”) (Dkt. No. 36) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the grounds that the
`Complaint fails to provide adequate notice to Apple of the basis for Firstface’s claims of direct
`infringement, induced infringement, contributory infringement, and willful infringement. Firstface filed
`an opposition to Apple’s Motion on August 7, 2018 (Dkt. Nos. 40, 41). Apple filed a reply in support of
`its Motion on August 14, 2018 (Dkt. No. 42). A hearing on Apple’s Motion is set for August 30, 2018, at
`10:00 a.m.
`3.
`Legal Issues: A brief statement, without extended legal argument, of the disputed points of law,
`including reference to specific statutes and decisions.
`The principal disputed legal issues are:
`(1)
`The proper construction of the asserted claims of the asserted patents;
`(2) Whether Apple directly infringes any asserted claim of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 271(a) and/or whether Apple is liable for indirect infringement of any asserted claim of
`the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) or (c);
`(3) Whether any asserted claim of the asserted patents is invalid, including under 35 U.S.C. §§
`101, 102, 103, 112 and/or 116;
`(4) Whether any asserted claim of the asserted patents is unenforceable;
`(5) Whether Firstface’s claims of patent infringement are barred by equitable estoppel,
`ensnarement, reverse doctrine of equivalents, and/or waiver;
`If liability is established, whether Firstface is entitled to any damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284,
`and, if so, the amount of such damages;
`If liability and damages are established, whether such damages are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§
`286-288 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1498 and, if so, to what extent; and
`
`(6)
`
`(7)
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`3
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 4 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`4.
`
`(8) Whether this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling the prevailing party to
`attorneys’ fees.
`Motions: All prior and pending motions, their current status, and any anticipated motions.
` As described above in Section 2, Apple’s Motion to Dismiss is currently pending. Apple intends
`to file dispositive motions on noninfringement and/or invalidity at an appropriate time in the case.
`5.
`Amendment of Pleadings: The extent to which parties, claims, or defenses are expected to be
`added or dismissed and a proposed deadline for amending the pleadings.
`Aside from the answer, defenses, and counterclaims that Apple will file, the parties do not currently
`expect to add or dismiss parties, claims, or defenses, but reserve the right to do so in accordance with Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 15.
`6.
`Evidence Preservation: A brief report certifying that the parties have reviewed the Guidelines
`Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI Guidelines”), and confirming
`
`that the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and
`
`proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this
`action. See ESI Guidelines 2.01 and 2.02, and Checklist for ESI Meet and Confer.
`The parties have reviewed the ESI Guidelines and have met and conferred regarding reasonable
`and proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.
`7.
`Disclosures: Whether there has been full and timely compliance with the initial disclosure
`requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, and a description of the disclosures made.
`The parties will make disclosures in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) on September 6,
`2018, as set forth in paragraph 17 below.
`8.
`Discovery: Discovery taken to date, if any, the scope of anticipated discovery, any proposed
`limitations or modifications of the discovery rules, a brief report on whether the parties have
`
`considered entering into a stipulated e-discovery order, a proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 26(f), and any identified discovery disputes.
`The parties have not yet served any discovery and have not identified any discovery disputes.
`Changes to the timing, form, or requirement for disclosures (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(A)):
`a.
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`4
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 5 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`(4)
`(5)
`
`The parties propose serving initial disclosures by September 6, 2018. The parties do not propose
`any change to the form or requirement for such disclosures.
`The subjects on which discovery may be needed (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(B)):
`b.
`Plaintiff anticipates needing discovery on at least the following topics:
`(1)
`Defendant’s infringement of the asserted patents, including discovery related to the design,
`development, and testing of the infringing features of the accused devices;
`The damages Defendant owes for infringing the asserted patents, including discovery
`related to Defendant’s marketing, costs, sales, revenues, and profits relating to the accused
`products;
`Defendant’s patent licenses and licensing policies;
`Defendant’s claim constructions for the asserted patents;
`Defendant’s willful infringement of the asserted patents, including discovery regarding
`Defendant’s pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents; and
`(6)
`Defendant’s bases for its defenses and counterclaims.
`Defendant anticipates seeking discovery on at least the following topics:
`(1)
`The factual bases for Plaintiff’s claims and defenses;
`(2)
`The proper claim constructions for the asserted claims of the asserted patents;
`(3)
`The asserted patents, including, but not limited to prior art, invalidity analyses,
`unenforceability, conception, reduction to practice, prosecution history, assignment history,
`financial or ownership interests, and alleged infringement analyses;
`Any actual or potential licenses of the asserted patents, or comparable licenses, and the
`practices of the licensees that allegedly embody the asserted patents;
`Plaintiff’s cease and desist or demand correspondence regarding the asserted patents; and
`Plaintiff’s allegations of damages, including, but not limited to license agreements,
`royalties, market conditions, and profits.
`Defendant reserves the right to amend the subjects for discovery pending further discovery in this
`matter.
`
`(4)
`
`(5)
`(6)
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`5
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 6 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`c.
`
`Any issues about disclosure, discovery, or preservation of electronically stored information,
`including the form or forms in which it should be produced (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(C)):
`The parties anticipate presenting an ESI order to the Court to govern the discovery of electronically
`stored information.
`d.
`Any issues about claims of privilege or of protection as trial-preparation materials (Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(D)):
`The parties agree that documents created on or after the filing of the Complaint that are subject to
`a claim of attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or any other privilege or immunity do not
`need to be included in the parties’ privilege logs.
`Changes that should be made to the limitations on discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3)(E)):
`e.
`Firstface requests that the Court increase the number of 30(b)(6) deposition topics allowed from
`ten to twenty-five. The Court’s Standing Order for Discovery in Civil Cases, which limits the number of
`deposition topics, applies broadly to all civil cases. Firstface respectfully submits that this case, as a patent
`case, is more complex than the typical civil action. Firstface believes that twenty-five topics is necessary
`in light of the complexity of the case, yet it remains small enough to avoid unnecessarily burdening the
`parties.
`Apple believes that the Rule 30(b)(6) limits specified in the Court’s Standing Order for Discovery
`in Civil Cases should apply. Specifically, the limitation that a party may seek Rule 30(b)(6) depositions
`from another party on up to a total of 10 topics (for the entire case) described with reasonable particularity
`is appropriate in this case. The legal issues, specified above in paragraph 3, are those of typical patent
`cases, and no more complex than those of typical civil cases, as contemplated by the Court’s standing
`orders and do not necessitate increasing the limit.
`Except as disputed above, the parties agree that this case should be governed by the discovery
`limitations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and any orders of the Court.
`f. Any other orders that the court should issue under Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c):
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`6
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 7 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`10.
`
`The parties anticipate presenting a stipulated protective order to the Court governing the disclosure
`of confidential information in this action, which will include heightened protections for any source code
`that may be produced.
`9.
`Class Actions: If a class action, a proposal for how and when the class will be certified.
`This case is not a class action.
`Related Cases: Any related cases or proceedings pending before another judge of this court, or
`before another court or administrative body.
`Firstface Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-02243-JD was related
`to this case on June 28, 2018 (Dkt. No. 30). No other related cases are pending before another judge of
`this court or another court or administrative body.
`11.
`Relief: All relief sought through complaint or counterclaim, including the amount of any damages
`sought and a description of the bases on which damages are calculated. In addition, any party
`
`from whom damages are sought must describe the bases on which it contends damages should be
`calculated if liability is established.
`Firstface seeks judgment that Apple has infringed, directly or indirectly, the asserted patents, and
`that its infringement with respect to the ’557 patent has been willful. Firstface seeks damages in the form
`of a reasonable royalty and prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Firstface also seeks enhanced
`damages with respect to the ’557 patent. Firstface contends that it cannot calculate the damages at this
`time, but anticipates that it will be able to provide an estimate when its Damages Contentions are due.
`Firstface also intends to seek its attorneys’ fees and costs.
`Apple seeks judgment in favor of Apple and against Firstface on all claims asserted in the
`Complaint, and an order dismissing the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Apple also requests that
`the Court find that: (1) the claims of the asserted patents are invalid and/or unenforceable; (2) Apple has
`not infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, willfully or otherwise,
`any claim of the asserted patents; (3) Firstface be enjoined from making any claims that Apple infringes
`the asserted patents or instituting or prosecuting any lawsuit or proceeding which places at issue Apple’s
`right to make, use, or sell the products that allegedly infringe the asserted patents; (4) Firstface cannot
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`7
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 8 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`recover any damages from Apple for any infringement of the asserted patents and is not entitled to
`injunctive relief; (5) this case is exceptional, and award Apple its costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 285; and (6) awarding such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Pursuant to paragraph
`21(e), below, Apple expects that it will be able to address damages issues when the parties’ respective
`Damages Contentions under Patent L.R. 3-8 and 3-9 are due.
`12.
`Settlement and ADR: Prospects for settlement, ADR efforts to date, and a specific ADR plan for
`the case, including compliance with ADR L.R. 3-5 and a description of key discovery or motions
`necessary to position the parties to negotiate a resolution.
`The parties have not held any settlement discussions, but have agreed to conduct private mediation
`via JAMS within thirty days after the Court’s claim construction order. The parties expect that the Court’s
`claim construction order will provide guidance that will assist the parties in attempting to reach resolution.
`13.
`Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes: Whether all parties will consent to have a
`magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including trial and entry of judgment.
`The parties do not consent to having a magistrate judge conduct all further proceedings including
`trial and entry of judgment.
`14. Other References: Whether the case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special
`master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
`The parties do not believe that this case is suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special
`master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
`15.
`Narrowing of Issues: Issues that can be narrowed by agreement or by motion, suggestions to
`expedite the presentation of evidence at trial (e.g., through summaries or stipulated facts), and any
`request to bifurcate issues, claims, or defenses.
`The parties do not anticipate any requests to bifurcate issues, claims, or defenses. The parties are
`currently unaware of any issues that can be narrowed by agreement or motion. The parties agree to confer
`in good faith after the discovery period as to ways to expedite the presentation of evidence at trial.
`16.
`Expedited Trial Procedure: Whether this is the type of case that can be handled under the
`Expedited Trial Procedure of General Order No. 64 Attachment A. If all parties agree, they shall
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`8
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 9 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`instead of this Statement, file an executed Agreement for Expedited Trial and a Joint Expedited
`Case Management Statement, in accordance with General Order No. 64 Attachments B and D.
`The parties do not propose that this case proceed under the Expedited Trial Procedure of General
`Order No. 64 Attachment A.
`17.
`Scheduling: Proposed dates for designation of experts, discovery cutoff, hearing of dispositive
`motions, pretrial conference and trial.
`The parties jointly propose the following case schedule:
`
`
`Event
`Initial Disclosures
`Infringement Contentions and
`Accompanying Document Production
`Invalidity Contentions and Accompanying
`Document Production
`Exchange of Proposed Terms for
`Construction
`Exchange of Preliminary Claim
`Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence
`Damages Contentions and Accompanying
`Document Production
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement
`Responsive Damages Contentions and
`Accompanying Document Production
`Opening Claim Construction Brief
`Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`Completion of Claim Construction
`Discovery
`Reply Claim Construction Brief
`Claim Construction Hearing
`Fact Discovery Cutoff
`
`Opening Expert Reports
`
`Rebuttal Expert Reports
`
`Date
`9/6/2018
`9/20/2018
`
`11/6/2018
`
`11/20/2018
`
`12/11/2018
`
`12/19/2018
`
`1/11/2019
`
`1/18/2019
`
`2/1/2019
`3/1/2019
`3/12/2019
`
`3/15/2019
`5/2/2019
`10 weeks after issuance of
`claim construction order2
`13 weeks after issuance of
`claim construction order
`17 weeks after issuance of
`claim construction order
`
`                                                            
`2 Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for Claim Construction in Patent Cases, the parties anticipate
`finalizing the remaining case schedule in a subsequent case management report following issuance of a
`claim construction order, and include a proposed framework herein.
`
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`9
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
` 
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 10 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`Expert Discovery Cutoff
`
`Deadline to File Dispositive/Daubert
`Motions
`Dispositive Motion/Daubert Responses
`
`Dispositive Motion/Daubert Replies
`
`Dispositive Motions Hearing
`
`File Pretrial Materials (see Judge Donato’s
`Standing Order for Civil Jury Trials)
`Pretrial Conference
`Trial
`
`19 weeks after issuance of
`claim construction order
`21 weeks after issuance of
`claim construction order
`24 weeks after issuance of
`claim construction order
`26 weeks after issuance of
`claim construction order
`28 weeks after issuance of
`claim construction order
`1/30/2020
`
`2/13/2020
`3/3/20203
`
`18.
`
`Trial: Whether the case will be tried to a jury or to the court and the expected length of the trial.
`Firstface has requested trial by jury. Assuming that the trial schedule in the Standing Order for
`Civil Jury Trials Before Judge James Donato applies, and assuming no additional parties or patents are
`added to the case, the parties expect trial to take 10-12 days, in order to adequately address all issues related
`to the three asserted patents and the expected number of asserted claims.
`19.
`Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons: Whether each party has filed the
`“Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” required by Civil Local Rule 3-15. In addition,
`
`each party must restate in the case management statement the contents of its certification by
`
`identifying any persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other
`
`entities known by the party to have either: (i) a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy
`
`or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected
`
`by the outcome of the proceeding. In any proposed class, collective, or representative action, the
`
`required disclosure includes any person or entity that is funding the prosecution of any claim or
`counterclaim.
`Each party has filed the Certification of Interested Entities or Persons required by Civil Local Rule
`
`3-15.
`
`                                                            
`3 Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases, the parties anticipate being ready for trial by the
`date set forth herein, but request the Court set separate trial dates for this case and for Firstface Co., Ltd. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 3:18-cv-02243-JD, at times convenient to the Court.
`
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`10
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
` 
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 11 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`Firstface restates that it does not have a parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owns
`10% or more of its stock, and that the following listed persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships,
`corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities (i) have a financial interest in the subject
`matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or (ii) have a non-financial interest in that subject
`matter or in a party that could be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding: (1) Shareholders
`of Firstface Co., Ltd., and (2) Counsel for Firstface.
`Apple restates that, pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it has no parent
`corporation and that no publicly held corporation holds 10% or more of Apple’s stock. Pursuant to Civil
`Local Rule 3-15, Apple certifies that no persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations
`(including parent corporations), or other entities other than the named parties are known to have either: (i)
`a financial interest of any kind in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding; or (ii)
`any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
`20.
`Professional Conduct: Whether all attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the
`Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California.
`All attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for
`the Northern District of California.
`21. Other: Such other matters as may facilitate the just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of this
`matter.
`The parties consent to service by e-mail pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(e). The parties have
`also met and conferred regarding the following topics listed in Local Patent Rule 2-1(b):
`a.
`Proposed modification of the obligations or deadlines set forth in these Patent Local Rules
`
`to ensure that they are suitable for the circumstances of the particular case (see Patent L.R.
`1-3).
`The parties’ proposed schedule is set forth in paragraph 17 above. The deadlines generally follow
`those set forth in the Patent Local Rules, with slight modifications to avoid interfering with holidays in
`2018 and 2019.
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`11
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 12 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`b.
`
`The scope and timing of any claim construction discovery including disclosure of and
`discovery from any expert witness permitted by the court.
`The parties agree that with respect to the disclosures required by Patent Local Rule 4-2(b) and 4-3,
`and solely with respect to the identification and disclosure of expert witness testimony, it is sufficient to
`state that a party will rely on expert testimony to support a particular proposed construction and any party
`that expects to present expert testimony in support of its claim construction position will make its expert
`witness available for deposition at a mutually agreeable time after service of such disclosure. The parties
`agree that they will provide any such expert testimony in the form of a declaration, which will be submitted
`with their claim construction briefs.
`c.
`The format of the Claim Construction Hearing, including whether the Court will hear live
`testimony, the order of presentation, and the estimated length of the hearing.
`The parties will abide by the procedures set forth in the Standing Order for Claim Construction in
`Patent Cases Before Judge James Donato, and in accordance with those procedures estimate the length of
`the hearing will be three hours. No party currently anticipates presenting live testimony at the claim
`construction hearing.
`How the parties intend to educate the court on the technology at issue.
`d.
`The parties are willing to present a tutorial in accordance with the Standing Order for Claim
`Construction in Patent Cases Before Judge James Donato at a time convenient to the Court.
`e.
`The parties shall provide the court with a non-binding, good-faith estimate of the damages
`
`range expected for the case along with an explanation for the estimate. If either party is
`
`unable to provide such information, that party shall explain why it cannot and what specific
`
`information is needed before it can do so. Such party shall also state the time by which it
`should be in a position to provide that estimate and explanation.
`The parties are currently unable to provide an estimate of the damages range at this time. Firstface
`will require discovery from Defendant, including information regarding the number of infringing units sold
`and the price of each unit sold, before it is able to provide an estimate. Apple will require infringement
`contentions that adequately identify the accused products and the basis for the alleged infringement, and
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`12
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 13 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`discovery regarding the bases for Firstface’s damages contentions, before it is able to provide an estimate.
`The parties expect that they will be able to provide an estimate when their respective Damages Contentions
`under Patent L.R. 3-8 and 3-9 are due.
`
`Dated: August 23, 2018
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III 

`Edward R. Nelson III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Texas Bar No. 00797142
`Ryan P. Griffin (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Texas Bar No. 24053687
`Christopher G. Granaghan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Texas Bar No. 24078585
`ed@nbafirm.com
`ryan@nbafirm.com
`chris@nbafirm.com
`NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON P.C.
`3131 West Seventh Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`Facsimile: (817) 377-3485
`
`Christopher D. Banys (SBN 230038)
`Richard C. Lin (SBN 209233)
`Jennifer L. Gilbert (SBN 255820)
`cdb@banyspc.com
`rcl@banyspc.com
`jlg@banyspc.com
`BANYS, P.C.
`1030 Duane Avenue
`Santa Clara, CA 95054
`Telephone: (650) 308-8505
`Facsimile: (650) 353-2202
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff FIRSTFACE CO., LTD.
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Stefani E. Shanberg
` Stefani E. Shanberg
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 23, 2018
`
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`13
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`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 3:18-cv-02245-JD Document 43 Filed 08/23/18 Page 14 of 14
`
` 
` 
`
`ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), Edward R. Nelson III attests that concurrence in the filing
`of this document has been obtained from each of the signatories listed above.
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III 

`Edward R. Nelson III
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
`
`14
`
`CASE NO: 3:18-CV-02245-JD
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`