`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
` Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.1:19-cv-01937-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CASE NARROWING
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the undersigned counsel for GoDaddy.com, LLC
`
`(“Defendant”), and Express Mobile, Inc., that the parties will follow certain procedures
`
`consistent with those set forth in the July 22, 2013 Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s Model
`
`Order Limiting Excess Patent Claims and Prior Art,1 as agreed below and subject to the approval
`
`of the Court with the following schedule:
`
`Date
`November 8, 2021
`
`November 10, 2021
`
` Event
`Express Mobile reduces the number of asserted claims
`to no more than 5 claims per Asserted Patent, and 20
`claims total across all the Asserted Patents.
`GoDaddy reduces the number of prior art references to
`no more than 8 references per Asserted Patent, 20 prior
`art references total across all the Asserted Patents,2 and
`25 prior art grounds total across all the Asserted
`
`
`1
`There are five asserted patents in this case. These patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,546,397,
`7,954,168, 9,063,755, 9,471,287, and 9,928,044 (the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2
`For the avoidance of doubt, the limit on “prior art references” applies prior art references
`that GoDaddy seeks to apply in an anticipation or obviousness ground, as defined below.
`Therefore, to the extent that Defendants seek to apply purported “background” references in its
`prior art grounds, GoDaddy shall identify those references, and those references are included in
`the 20 prior art references limit. GoDaddy agrees not to use alleged “background” art to
`circumvent the limitations on prior art grounds.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA-JLH Document 152 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 7781
`
`
`
`Date
`
` Event
`Patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.3 In its
`submission, GoDaddy must indicate the precise prior
`art references and grounds that it seeks to apply to
`claims of each Asserted Patent.
`
`The parties agree that after asserted claims and prior art references and grounds are
`
`selected by the parties in accordance with the schedule set forth above, new asserted claims and
`
`prior art references cannot be substituted for the existing asserted claims and prior art references
`
`without moving the Court.
`
`
`DATED: November 5, 2021
`
`BALLARD SPAHR LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Brian S.S. Auerbach
`Beth Moskow-Schnoll (No. 2900)
`Brittany Giusini (No. 6034)
`Brian S.S. Auerbach (No. 6532)
`BALLARD SPAHR LLP
`919 N. Market Street, 11th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3034
`(302) 252-4465
`moskowb@ballardspahr.com
`giusinib@ballardspahr.com
`auerbachb@ballardspahr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`
`By: /s/ Timothy Devlin
`Timothy Devlin (No. 4241)
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Tel: (302) 449-9010
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`For the avoidance of doubt, a “prior art ground” is any distinct ground of anticipation or
`obviousness asserted against one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. For example, a ground
`of anticipation by reference A is a separate ground from obviousness over reference A—reciting
`both an anticipation and obviousness ground over that reference would count as two grounds.
`Additionally, an obviousness combination over references A and B is a distinct ground from an
`obviousness combination over references A, B, and C, even if those combinations are applied
`against different claims of the same patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-RGA-JLH Document 152 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 7782
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`BALLARD SPAHR LLP
`Brian W. LaCorte (pro hac vice)
`Jonathon A. Talcott (pro hac vice)
`Andrew Hensley (pro hac vice)
`1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300
`Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
`(602) 798-5400
`lacorteb@ballardspahr.com
`talcottj@ballardspahr.com
`hensleya@ballardspahr.com
`
`BALLARD SPAHR LLP
`Shaton C. Menzie (pro hac vice)
`999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
`Atlanta, GA 30309-3915
`(678) 420-9362
`menzies@ballardspahr.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant/Counterclaimant
`GoDaddy.com, LLC
`
` OF COUNSEL:
`
`James R. Nuttall (pro hac vice)
`Michael Dockterman (pro hac vice)
`Katherine H. Johnson (pro hac vice)
`Robert F. Kappers (pro hac vice)
`Tron Fu (pro hac vice)
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`227 West Monroe, Suite 4700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 577-1300
`jnuttall@steptoe.com
`mdockterman@steptoe.com
`kjohnson@steptoe.com
`rkappers@steptoe.com
`tfu@steptoe.com
`
`Christopher Suarez (pro hac vice)
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 429-3000
`csuarez@steptoe.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this
`
` day of
`
`
`
`
`
`, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
