Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9352 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 398-4760
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`vs.
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`_________________________________
`WI-LAN INC.,
`
`vs.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 3:14-cv-2235-DMS-BLM (Lead
`Case); Consolidated with 3:14-cv-01507-
`DMS-BLM
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT WI-LAN INC.’S
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S
`AMENDED INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`Department: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`Hearing Date: February 9, 2018
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`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 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9353 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 
`
`II.  STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................................... 1 
`
`III. 
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2 
`
`A.  Allowing Amendment At This Late Stage Would Cause Wi-LAN Undue Prejudice. ....... 2 
`
`B.  Apple’s Amendments Were Not Necessitated by Claim Construction .............................. 5 
`
`IV. 
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 8 
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`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 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9354 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`E.digital Corp. v. FMJ Storage, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-323-H-BGS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181279 (S.D. Cal. June 9,
`2015) ..........................................................................................................................................5
`
`E.digital Corp. v. Microsemi Corp.,
`No. 15-cv-319-H-BGS, 2015 WL 11237473 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2015) ....................................6
`
`LG Elecs. Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc.,
`211 F.R.D. 360 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ...............................................................................................7
`
`Multimedia Patent Tr. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 10-CV-2618-H (KSC), 2012 WL 4547449 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) ..............................6
`
`Nano-Second Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Dynaflex Int'l,
`CV 10-9176 ................................................................................................................................4
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Am. Inc.,
`479 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2007) .......................................................................................7
`
`O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................4
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.,
`No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2011 WL 3443835 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011) ......................................5
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`14CV2061-H, 2015 WL 12843185 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015) .................................................7
`
`Viasat, Inc. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,
`No. 3:12-CV-00260-H (WVG), 2013 WL 12061855 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013).........................5
`
`Yodlee, Inc. v. Cashedge, Inc.,
`No. C 05-01550 SI, 2007 WL 2261566 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007) ............................................5
`
`Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg. LLC,
`No. 10cv0541-GPC-WVG, 2013 WL 5674834 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2013)...................... passim
`
`Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg. LLC,
`No. 10cv0541-GPC-WVG, 2014 WL 358430 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) ..................................5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`P.L.R. 3.6 .........................................................................................................................1, 2, 5, 6, 8
`
`-ii-
`
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`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 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9355 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Wi-LAN respectfully requests that the Court strike Apple’s Amended
`Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6, served
`January 2, 2018. Apple’s amended contentions, served ten days prior to the close of
`fact discovery and barely a month before expert reports must be completed, would
`cause undue prejudice to Wi-LAN because they contain dozens of new alleged prior
`art references and numerous new claim charts. Further, these invalidity contentions
`do not meet Patent Local Rule 3.6’s requirements for serving amended contentions
`because they were not served in response to amended infringement contentions, an
`unanticipated claim construction, or a motion granted by the Court.
`II.
`STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
`On June 19, 2014, Apple filed this declaratory judgment action against Wi-
`LAN. On January 12, 2015, Wi-LAN served its original infringement contentions,
`followed by amended
`infringement contentions on May 15, 2017, and
`August 10, 2017. On June 29, 2017, Apple served its Invalidity Contentions on Wi-
`LAN. On November 13, 2017, the Court issued its claim construction order, in
`which Apple prevailed on one issue and in which the Court otherwise largely
`adopted the same constructions already adopted in prior litigation between Apple
`and Wi-LAN.
`On January 2, 2018, barely a month before expert reports are due on
`February 8, 2018, Apple served its Amended Invalidity Contentions on Wi-LAN,
`adding indefiniteness charts and 29 new alleged prior art references not disclosed in
`Apple’s original invalidity contentions.
`Pursuant to the Court’s May 15, 2017 Amended Case Management Order,
`expert disclosures were required to be served by November 10, 2017, expert reports
`are due by February 8, 2018, and expert discovery must be completed by
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`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 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9356 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`April 9, 2018. The deadline for dispositive motions in this matter is April 23, 2018,
`and trial is set for July 23, 2018.
`Apple’s amended invalidity contentions add a significant number of new
`alleged prior art references disclosed for the first time. These include seven new
`patent references (compare Ex. A 4–5 with Ex. B 4–6 (adding the Chuah ‘675
`Application, the Tiedemann patent, and the five patents that follow the Tiedemann
`patent)) and twenty-two new non-patent references (compare Ex. A 5–7 with Ex. B
`6–10 (adding the Karn reference on page 8 of Exhibit B and all 21 references
`thereafter)). Moreover, eight new claim charts are included. McNett Decl. ¶ 4, Exs.
`C–J. At least eleven other claim charts have been modified, most of them adding
`over ten pages of new material each and referencing newly cited alleged prior art.
`McNett Decl. ¶¶ 5–6, Ex. K. In total, Apple’s amendments add 29 new references
`and eight new claim charts, and extensively modify at least eleven other charts.
`III. ARGUMENT
`In the Southern District of California, amendments to a party’s invalidity
`contentions are governed by Patent Local Rule 3.6(b). That rule provides: “As a
`matter of right, a party opposing a claim of patent infringement may serve “Amended
`Invalidity Contentions” no later than the completion of claim construction
`discovery.” P.L.R. 3.6(b). “Thereafter, absent undue prejudice to the opposing
`party, a party opposing infringement may only amend its validity contentions” under
`three specific circumstances. Id. Apple’s amended contentions should be stricken
`both because they are unduly prejudicial to Wi-LAN and because none of those three
`circumstances are met.
`A. Allowing Amendment at This Late Stage Would Cause Wi-LAN
`Undue Prejudice.
`A party may only amend its invalidity contentions “absent undue prejudice to
`the opposing party.” P.L.R. 3.6(b); Zest IP Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg.
`
`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
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-2-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9357 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`LLC, No. 10cv0541-GPC-WVG, 2013 WL 5674834 at *7, *11 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16,
`2013). “The right to amend invalidity contentions is subject to the court's
`countervailing duty to avoid prejudicing [the patentee] through eleventh hour
`alterations.” Zest, 2013 WL 5674834 at *10–11. Apple’s amended contentions were
`served years into this litigation, a mere ten days before the close of fact discovery,
`and barely a month before expert reports must be completed. This does not leave
`sufficient time for Wi-LAN to develop defenses to these claims and for Wi-LAN’s
`experts to respond to Apple’s new allegations in their reports.
`The burden Wi-LAN faces is especially great given the magnitude of Apple’s
`amendments. At least one court in this district has held that “the addition of thirty
`prior art references, with little information as to the materiality to the patents in suit,
`would result in undue prejudice” and that “[r]equiring [the patentee] to respond to
`such a substantial number of new combinations served after the close of fact
`discovery and over two years into the litigation would result in a significant and
`unexpected burden” on the patentee. Zest, 2013 WL 5674834, at *11. Here, like in
`Zest, Apple’s amended invalidity contentions list 29 new alleged prior art references
`not discussed in Apple’s original invalidity contentions, add numerous new claim
`charts, and modify the dozens of claim charts that had been provided with Apple’s
`original contentions. Apple is not entitled to a redo of its invalidity case at the
`eleventh hour.
`In Zest, the court struck amended invalidity contentions as unduly prejudicial
`even though there was no trial date and the parties had not taken expert discovery.
`Zest, 2013 WL 5674834 at *11. Here, where trial is less than six months away and
`expert report deadlines fast approaching, the case for striking Apple’s amended
`invalidity contentions is even stronger.
`Courts also look to the diligence of the party serving the amended contentions.
`See Zest, 2013 WL 5674834 at *10 (finding a lack of diligence). Here, there is no
`
`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
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-3-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9358 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`reason Apple could not have produced these invalidity contentions earlier in the
`case. Apple has had sufficient time to search for prior art since it filed this case in
`2014. These prior art references are published documents which have been available
`to Apple since this case was filed; these references were not suddenly made relevant
`as a result of the Court’s claim construction.
`In considering the party’s diligence, the critical question is whether the party
`“could have discovered [the new information] earlier had it acted with the requisite
`diligence.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1363
`(Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, in fact, Apple has long known about at least two of the prior
`art references it is now seeking to add. U.S. Patent No. 6,493,331 to Walton was
`cited in four of Apple’s own issued patents (see U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,063;
`8,717,998; 9,203,578; and 9,572,172), and U.S. Patent No. 5,914,950 to Tiedemann
`was cited in another Apple patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,504,057. See Ex. B 5–6. That
`Apple had known of these patents and yet for years failed to disclose them as prior
`art shows a lack of diligence. See Nano-Second Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Dynaflex Int'l, CV
`10-9176 RSWL MANx, 2012 WL 2077253 at *1–*2 (C.D. Cal. June 6, 2012)
`(denying leave to amend invalidity contentions to add one prior art reference when
`defendants had long had that prior art reference in their possession). Apple could
`easily have identified these additional prior art references when it served its original
`invalidity contentions.
`With the end of fact discovery on January 12 and expert reports due
`February 8, there is now very little time left for Wi-LAN to conduct discovery on
`this late-disclosed alleged prior art or to address it in the overall context of this
`dispute. That is exactly the type of sandbagging the Patent Local Rules are designed
`to avoid. See Yodlee, Inc. v. Cashedge, Inc., No. C 05-01550 SI, 2007 WL 2261566
`at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2007) (striking amended invalidity contentions where there
`is no explanation why the new prior art “could not have been discovered in time to
`
`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
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-4-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9359 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`include in the original Final Invalidity Contentions”); Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google
`Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2011 WL 3443835 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2011)
`(finding that to allow amended contentions after the close of fact discovery and with
`expert discovery underway would be a “dramatic maneuver at this late date”). If
`these new invalidity contentions are not stricken, Wi-LAN will face undue prejudice.
`B. Apple’s Amendments Were Not Necessitated by Claim
`Construction
`Amended invalidity contentions may be served only under the three
`conditions set forth in Patent Local Rule 3.6(b), none of which Apple meets. Subject
`to certain limitations, amended invalidity contentions may be served (1) after receipt
`of amended infringement contentions, (2) after a claim construction order issues, and
`(3) upon motion to the Court. P.L.R. 3.6(b). Wi-LAN has not amended its
`infringement contentions since August 10, 2017, and Apple never moved the Court
`for permission to amend its invalidity contentions. Therefore, P.L.R. 3.6(b)(1) and
`(b)(3) do not apply, and Apple’s only possible argument that its invalidity
`contentions were proper is under P.L.R. 3.6(b)(2), which provides for amendment
`within 50 days of a claim construction order.
`This provision, however, requires that “the party opposing infringement
`believes in good faith that amendment is necessitated by a claim construction that
`differs from that proposed by such party.” Zest, 2013 WL 5674834 at *7; Zest IP
`Holdings, LLC v. Implant Direct Mfg. LLC, No. 10cv0541-GPC-WVG, 2014 WL
`358430 at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) (restating rule and denying reconsideration);
`Viasat, Inc. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-00260-H (WVG), 2013 WL
`12061855 at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2013); E.digital Corp. v. FMJ Storage, Inc., No.
`15-cv-323-H-BGS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181279, at *14 (S.D. Cal. June 9, 2015);
`E.digital Corp. v. Microsemi Corp., No. 15-cv-319-H-BGS, 2015 WL 11237473 at
`
`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
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-5-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9360 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`*10 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2015).1 A patentee is “only allowed to amend its contentions
`under Rule 3.6 if the amending party believes in good faith that the Court’s claim
`construction so requires.” Multimedia Patent Tr. v. Apple Inc., No. 10-CV-2618-H
`(KSC), 2012 WL 4547449 at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012).
`Indeed, district courts have found that the Patent Local Rules allow for
`supplementation of contentions only in response to an unexpected claim
`construction. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Am. Inc., 479 F. Supp. 2d 664, 667 (E.D. Tex.
`2007) (“This exception is intended to allow a party to respond to an unexpected
`claim construction by the court. This does not mean that after every claim
`construction order, new infringement contentions may be filed. That would destroy
`
`
`1 This limitation was part of the text of P.L.R. 3.6 at least as of 2013.
`http://web.archive.org/web/20131019215828/http://www.casd.uscourts.gov/upload
`s/Rules/Local%20Rules/LocalRules.pdf. The PDF of the Local Rules currently
`posted on the Court’s website appears to inadvertently omit the last two lines of
`P.L.R. 3.6(b)(2). However, the revision history, text, and purpose of the rule
`demonstrate that the limitation remains part of P.L.R. 3.6. The Court has not
`requested public comment removing this text as it normally does when the local
`rules are amended. See
`https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Rules/GeneralOrders/SitePages/Home.aspx. The
`truncated version of P.L.R. 3.6(b)(2) in the current PDF is incoherent because it
`starts with an “if” but does not specify what the “if” is conditioned on. The
`corresponding provision in P.L.R. 3.6(a)(2) limiting amendment of infringement
`contentions remains unmodified. Finally, given that the invalidity contentions are
`designed to encourage timely disclosure of prior art, it would make no sense to
`allow amendments after claim construction that are not necessitated by the actual
`claim construction decision.
`
`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
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-6-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9361 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`the effectiveness of the local rules in balancing the discovery rights and
`responsibilities of the parties.”); LG Elecs. Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D.
`360, 367 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (“Unlike the liberal policy for amending pleadings, the
`philosophy behind amending claim charts is decidedly conservative, and designed
`to prevent the 'shifting sands' approach to claim construction.”); see also Presidio
`Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 14CV2061-H (BGS), 2015 WL
`12843185, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015) (noting that “the Court will similarly
`consider interpretations of the PLR [Patent Local Rules] by courts of the Northern
`District of California and the Eastern District of Texas as persuasive authority” when
`interpreting Local Patent Rules on contentions).
`In its Claim Construction Order, the Court adopted Apple’s construction of
`the preamble of Claim 26 of the ’145 Patent, and for most of the other terms, the
`Court adopted the same constructions reached in prior litigation. Dkt. No. 203.
`These constructions are not unexpected. As one example, for the ’040 patent, the
`only term construed by the Court was “packing sub-header,” and the Court adopted
`exactly the same construction as the prior lawsuit between Apple and Wi-LAN. Dkt.
`No 203 at 9; Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 13cv0798 DMS (BLM), Order
`Construing Patent Claims, ECF No. 98 (Dec. 23, 2013). Apple cannot seriously
`argue that this was an unexpected construction. Yet Apple adds charts for this patent
`against new references (charts B11 and B12 against the Carvalho and UMTS
`references) and an indefiniteness chart. See McNett Decl. ¶ 4, Exs. D–F.
`Aside from the question of whether the Court’s construction was unexpected,
`Apple also cannot show that “amendment is necessitated” by the Court’s claim
`construction. See Zest, 2013 WL 5674834 at *7. An unexpected claim construction
`could reasonably necessitate small updates to some claim charts, but there is no
`reason that it requires Apple to provide 29 new alleged prior art references, new
`
`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
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-7-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9362 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`claim charts regarding indefiniteness, new claim charts based on new references, and
`substantial changes to claim charts previously served on Wi-LAN.
`The sheer volume of new material in Apple’s amended invalidity contentions
`makes it particularly clear that this amendment is not necessitated by the Court’s
`claim construction. In Zest, for example, a party attempted to add 30 prior art
`references after claim construction, and the court found that only one of those
`references was linked to the claim construction by a good faith basis. See Zest, 2013
`WL 5674834 at *10 (“[The amending party] has not offered any explanation as to
`the relevance of the additional twenty nine prior art references”). Here too, Apple
`has offered no argument linking the addition of these references to the Court’s claim
`construction either in the contentions themselves or in the parties’ meet-and-confer.
`Apple’s amended invalidity contentions are unrelated to the Court’s claim
`construction, and therefore Apple has no basis to amend under the local rules.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Wi-LAN respectfully requests that the Court grant
`this motion and strike Apple’s Amended Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent
`Local Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6, served January 2, 2018.
`
`Dated: January 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Allison Goddard
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
`ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92101
`(619) 398-4760
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`Robert Cote
`rcote@mckoolsmith.com
`Brett Cooper
`bcooper@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-8-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`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 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9363 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`Kevin Schubert
`kschubert@mckoolsmith.com
`Christopher McNett
`cmcnett@mckoolsmith.com
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 402-9400
`(212) 402-9444 (facsimile)
`
`Seth Hasenour
`shasenour@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 692-8700
`(512) 692-8744 (facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for Defendant,
`Wi-LAN 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
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-9-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 258-1 Filed 01/11/18 PageID.9364 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on January 11, 2018, I caused a copy of this pleading to
`be delivered via electronic mail on the counsel of record.
`
`Dated: January 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Allison Goddard
`Allison H. Goddard (211098)
` ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
`PATTERSON LAW GROUP
`
`402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
`
`
`San Diego, CA 92101
`
`(619) 398-4760
`
`(619) 756-6991 (facsimile)
`Attorneys for Defendant,
` Wi-LAN Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO STRIKE APPLE INC.’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`-10-
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`
`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
`
`