Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 306 Filed 03/30/18 PageID.13023 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`JOHN ALLCOCK (Bar No. 98895)
`john.allcock@dlapiper.com
`SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM (Bar No. 174931)
`sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
`ERIN GIBSON (Bar No. 229305)
`erin.gibson@dlapiper.com
`ROBERT WILLIAMS (Bar No. 246990)
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`TIFFANY MILLER (Bar No. 246987)
`tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, California 92101-4297
`Tel: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`
`ROBERT BUERGI (Bar No. 242910)
`robert.buergi@dlapiper.com
`AMY WALTERS (Bar No. 286022)
`amy.walters@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
`Tel: 650.833.2000
`Fax: 650.833.2001
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`MARK C. SCARSI (Bar No.
`183926)
`mscarsi@milbank.com
`ASHLEE N. LIN (Bar No.
`275267)
`anlin@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
`MCCLOY LLP
`2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: 424.386.4000
`Fax: 213.629.5063
`
`CHRISTOPHER J. GASPAR
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`cgaspar@milbank.com
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY
`& MCCLOY LLP
`28 Liberty Street
`New York, NY 10005
`Tel: 212.530.5000
`Fax: 212.822.5019
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WI-LAN, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`AND RELATED
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM
`(lead case);
`CASE NO. 3:14-cv-1507-DMS-BLM
`(consolidated)
`
`APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL
`RECONSIDERATION AND
`CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
`STRIKING APPLE’S AMENDED
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`[DOCKET NUMBER 297]
`
`Date: TBD
`Time: TBD
`Dept.: 13A
`Judge: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
`Magistrate Judge: Hon. Barbara L. Major
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`WEST\280967011.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 306 Filed 03/30/18 PageID.13024 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) will and hereby
`
`does move for partial reconsideration and clarification of the Court’s Order Striking
`
`Apple’s Amended Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. No. 297, hereafter the “Order”). On
`
`March 30 at approximately 12:45 p.m. Pacific, counsel for Apple called chambers
`
`and left a voicemail to request a hearing date for this motion pursuant to Local Rule
`
`7.1(b) and Chamber Rule 6(B), but did not receive a response. Upon receiving a
`
`hearing date for this motion, Apple will file a notice of withdrawal of its Motion for
`
`Clarification of Order Striking Apple's Amended Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. No.
`
`10
`
`305).
`
`11
`
`Apple moves for partial reconsideration of the Court’s Order striking Apple’s
`
`12
`
`amended invalidity contentions (Dkt. No. 297, hereafter “the Order”) as to the
`
`13
`
`UMTS and Carvalho references, because the Court’s decision in In Re: Ameranth
`
`14
`
`Cases yesterday (“the Ameranth Order”) compels a different decision on Wi-LAN’s
`
`15
`
`motion to strike. In the Ameranth Order, the Court correctly held that: (1) Patent
`
`16
`
`Local Rule 3.6.b.2 “does not set out … a requirement” that limits amendments to
`
`17
`
`invalidity contentions only to those based on “unexpected” claim constructions;
`
`18
`
`(2) the Rule does not impose a diligence requirement, but rather “sets a hard and
`
`19
`
`fast deadline for amendments in light of claim construction rulings: 50 days after
`
`20
`
`the order issues”; and (3) alleged “complications” to rebuttal expert reports based
`
`21
`
`on timely amended contentions “do not demonstrate undue prejudice.” These are
`
`22
`
`correct statements of the law in this District and are contrary to the findings of the
`
`23
`
`Order in this case, where Apple served claim construction-based invalidity
`
`24
`
`contentions on the 50-day deadline. It would be manifestly unjust to preclude
`
`25
`
`Apple from amending its invalidity contentions based on the law of this district as
`
`26
`
`correctly articulated in the intervening Ameranth Order.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`Apple also seeks clarification that the Order does not preclude Apple or its
`
`experts from: (1) continuing to rely and opine on any portion of Apple’s originally
`
`-1-
`WEST\280967011.1
`APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 306 Filed 03/30/18 PageID.13025 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`disclosed invalidity contentions, or (2) discussing prior art references for purposes
`
`of describing the background of the art or the understanding of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, which is expressly permitted under the law of this Circuit, regardless
`
`of whether such a background reference is disclosed in invalidity contentions. The
`
`parties dispute the scope of the Order, with Wi-LAN taking the most expansive
`
`view of the Order possible, as demonstrated by its motion to strike (Dkt. No. 304),
`
`which seeks to exclude as much of Apple’s invalidity case as possible. If the Order
`
`did intend to preclude Apple from offering expert opinions on either topic, Apple
`
`respectfully requests reconsideration. The Order did not address the sufficiency of
`
`10
`
`Apple’s disclosure of the prior art references at issue in Apple’s original invalidity
`
`11
`
`contentions and did not address whether Apple could rely on references for
`
`12
`
`background and other permitted purposes. If read as expansively as Wi-LAN reads
`
`13
`
`it, the Order would be contrary to the facts and law and would result in manifest
`
`14
`
`injustice to Apple, warranting reconsideration.
`
`15
`
`This Motion is made pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1, and is based on this
`
`16
`
`Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`
`17
`
`Authorities and supporting declaration, all of which are served and filed herewith,
`
`18
`
`the complete records and files of this action, and any argument or additional
`
`19
`
`evidence that is permitted by this Court.
`
`20
`
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Dated: March 30, 2018
`
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`By /s/ Sean C. Cunningham
`JOHN ALLCOCK
`SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM
`ERIN GIBSON
`ROBERT BUERGI
`ROBERT WILLIAMS
`TIFFANY MILLER
`JACOB ANDERSON
`AMY WALTERS
`
`
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`WEST\280967011.1
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 306 Filed 03/30/18 PageID.13026 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY &
`MCCLOY LLP
`Mark C. Scarsi
`Ashlee N. Lin
`Christopher J. Gaspar
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLE 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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`WEST\280967011.1
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 306 Filed 03/30/18 PageID.13027 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 30, 2018, I electronically transmitted the
`
`attached document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and
`
`transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Sean C. Cunningham
`Sean C. Cunningham
`
`
`
`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
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`S A N D I E G O
`
`
`WEST\280967011.1
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
`3:14-CV-002235-DMS-BLM
`
`