throbber
Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 328 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 14141
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1597-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS
`
`AREND! S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V .
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
`U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`AREND! S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED and
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`AREND! S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`f/k/a MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 328 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 14142
`
`AREND! S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`(USA) INC., f/k/a SONY ERICSSON
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY CORPORATION, and SONY
`CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`AREND! S.A.R.L. ,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`GOOGLELLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`AREND! S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC. and
`OATH INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 12-1602-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`
`At Wilmington this 31st day of March, 2022 :
`
`ORDER
`
`For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion issued this date,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 328 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 14143
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
`
`1.
`
`Arendi' s motion to exclude portions of Dr. Michael Shamas' expert report (C.A.
`
`No. 12-1597 D.I. 190) is GRANTED.
`
`2.
`
`Arendi's motions to exclude portions of Dr. Martin Rinard's expert report (C.A.
`
`No. 12-1601 D.I. 265; C.A. No. 13-919 D.I. 269) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
`
`PART.
`
`3.
`
`Arendi's motions to exclude portions of Mr. Monty G. Myers ' expert report (C.A.
`
`No. 12-1602 D.I. 223; C.A. No. 13-920 D.I. 233) are GRANTED.
`
`4.
`
`LG's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement by the Rebel 4 accused
`
`products (C.A. No. 12-1595 D.I. 263) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`5.
`
`BlackBerry' s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (C.A. No. 12-
`
`1597 D.I. 195) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`6.
`
`Motorola' s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (C.A. No. 12-
`
`1601 D.I. 271) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`7.
`
`Sony's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (C.A. No. 12-1602
`
`D.I. 231) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`8.
`
`Google's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (C.A. No. 13-919
`
`D.I. 275) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
`
`9.
`
`Oath's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement (C.A. No. 13-920 D.I.
`
`240) is GRANTED.
`
`10.
`
`Because the Memorandum Opinion is filed under seal, the parties shall meet and
`
`confer and, no later than April 4, submit a proposed redacted version, accompanied by a
`
`supporting memorandum, detailing how, under applicable law, the Court may approve any
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 328 Filed 03/31/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 14144
`
`requested redactions. In the absence of a timely, compliant request, the Court will unseal the
`
`entire opinion.
`
`11.
`
`These cases will be REASSIGNED to the Vacant Judgeship (2022) after the ·
`
`Court dockets a public version of its Memorandum Opinion.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket