Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 38477
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No.1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH
`
`REDACTED, PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION FOR REARGUMENT UNDER L.R. 7.1.5
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`Timothy Devlin (No. 4241)
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Tel: (302) 449-9010
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Express Mobile, Inc.
`
`Dated: August 15, 2022
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James R. Nuttall (pro hac vice)
`Michael Dockterman (pro hac vice)
`John L. Abramic (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
`jabramic@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
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 38478
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files “read information from the database.” ............. 4
`
`GoDaddy’s experts agreed with Express Mobile and admitted that GoDaddy’s
`Category 3 RTE files “read information from the database.” ................................. 6
`
`GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files are very different from Shopify’s RTE files.
`................................................................................................................................. 8
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 38479
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc.,
`141 S.Ct. 1183 (2021) ................................................................................................................2
`
`Lifeport Scis. LLC v. Cook Inc.,
`No. CV 13-362-GMS, 2015 WL 11237044 (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2015) .................................3, 10
`
`Shopify Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc.,
`No. CV 19-439-RGA, 2021 WL 4288113 (D. Del. Sept. 21, 2021) ............................... passim
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..............................................................................................3, 10
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 38480
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Express Mobile seeks reargument (reconsideration) of the Court’s summary judgment
`
`Order on a single, narrow issue pertaining to the ’397 and ’168 patents (Web Design Patents).
`
`Specifically, Express Mobile seeks reargument on the Court’s finding that GoDaddy was entitled
`
`to summary judgment on the “Category 3” runtime engine (RTE) files based on the claim
`
`limitation “reads information from the database.” On pages 25–26 of its Order (D.I. 261), the
`
`Court found, as a matter of fact, that GoDaddy’s “Category 3” runtime engine (RTE) files do not
`
`“read information from the database” because those files instead rely on other files to call upon
`
`the database and “interact only with the [third-party] CDN.” D.I. 261 at 25–26. The Court
`
`observed that “Express Mobile provides no evidence that the files in Category 3 actually read the
`
`database.” Id. at 25. But the Court apparently misapprehended the facts in the record showing
`
`that files in Category 3 do read the database, as both GoDaddy’s and Express Mobile’s experts
`
`correctly concluded. Express Mobile respectfully submits that this misapprehension of fact on the
`
`operation of Category 3 RTE files led the Court to an incorrect conclusion on whether there is a
`
`disputed issue of material fact—on how Category 3 RTE files read the database—and a
`
`correspondingly erroneous conclusion that summary judgment on this narrow issue was warranted,
`
`which the Court can correct on reargument of this limited issue.1
`
`First, the evidence shows that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files interact with GoDaddy’s
`
`database (named
`
` not “only with the CDN.” GoDaddy’s witnesses admit, and Express
`
`Mobile’s expert agrees, that the Category 3 RTE files interact with and obtain user settings from
`
`GoDaddy’s
`
` database. See D.I. 159, Silvas Decl. ¶ 35 (
`
`1 Express Mobile regrets that the parties’ briefing confused this issue. GoDaddy, for example,
`commingled all four categories of different accused RTE files and made sweeping statements that
`only applied to certain RTE files. Express Mobile requests reargument only as to GoDaddy’s
`Category 3 RTE files and not as to GoDaddy’s Category 1, 2, and 4 RTE files.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 38481
`
`); D.I. 194-2,
`
`Almeroth Reply Report ¶¶ 218–221. The Court’s holding otherwise was an incorrect reading of
`
`how GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files obtain user settings.
`
`Second, the evidence shows that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files directly “read
`
`information from” GoDaddy’s
`
` database.
`
` GoDaddy’s
`
` database
`
`communicates with the Category 3 RTE files through an Application Programming Interface
`
`(API), which is a part of the database itself and functions as a translator so that the two components
`
`(RTE files and database) can communicate. In this case, an API simply allows the Category 3
`
`RTE files to select the task (i.e., reading information from the database), via a “fetch()” function
`
`call.2 Both of GoDaddy’s technical experts admitted (and Express Mobile’s technical expert
`
`agrees) that this is “reading information from the database.” D.I. 196-2, Kent Tr. at 169:25–170:5
`
`(emphasis added). The record evidence therefore shows that an RTE that calls a database using
`
`an API is reading from the database, and the Court’s finding otherwise was inconsistent with these
`
`record facts.
`
`Third, the Court also misapprehended that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files “rely on
`
`several intermediary files to access the database” by equating GoDaddy’s and Shopify’s RTE files.
`
`Unlike the Shopify RTE files, GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files themselves contain a “fetch()”
`
`2 An API is nothing more than a translator that programmers can use “to select the particular task
`that they need for their programs.” Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 141 S.Ct. 1183, 1191 (2021).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 38482
`
`function call that directly calls for the “fetching” of information from GoDaddy’s database. And,
`
`unlike the alleged Shopify RTE files, GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files do not rely on or “trigger”
`
`any intermediary files to access GoDaddy’s Casandra database, such as “drop file[s] to perform its
`
`data fetching function.” See Shopify Inc. v. Express Mobile, Inc., No. CV 19-439-RGA, 2021 WL
`
`4288113, at *10 (D. Del. Sept. 21, 2021). There was no direct “fetch()” or other calls to the
`
`database in the accused RTE files in Shopify, and there are no comparable intermediate files that
`
`are called to perform reading here. GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files are thus materially different.
`
`GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files are more like the RTE files described in the Web Design
`
`Patents. Both the preferred embodiment in Web Design Patents and GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE
`
`file “read information from the database” by downloading information directly from a database
`
`using an API. Finding that these RTE files are not reading from a database would exclude a
`
`preferred embodiment in the patent. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1996) (claim interpretations that exclude preferred embodiments are “rarely, if ever,
`
`correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support”).
`
`For these reasons and as discussed below, the Court should grant reargument on this narrow
`
`issue, correct a clear misapprehension of fact, and hold that whether the Category 3 RTE files
`
`“read information from the database” is a factual question that must be left for the jury.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`Express Mobile’s request is limited. “[A] court may alter or amend its judgment if the
`
`movant demonstrates,” among other things, “a need to correct a clear error of law or fact.” Lifeport
`
`Scis. LLC v. Cook Inc., No. CV 13-362-GMS, 2015 WL 11237044, at *1 (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2015).
`
`Here, Express Mobile respectfully submits that the Court made “an error not of reasoning but of
`
`apprehension” of fact as to only one issue on pages 25 and 26 of the Court’s Order. Id.; D.I. 261
`
`at 25–26. Specifically, the Court found that GoDaddy’s “Category 3” runtime engine (RTE) files
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 38483
`
`“interact only with the CDN and rely on other files to call upon the database.” Id. The record
`
`shows that the Court misapprehended the evidence on how GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files read
`
`from the database, which in turn led to the incorrect conclusion that there was no contested issue
`
`of material fact on this point. In light of the evidence that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files do
`
`interact directly with GoDaddy’s
`
` database using a “fetch()”function call contained
`
`within the Category 3 RTE files themselves, reargument on this limited issue is warranted.
`
`A.
`
`GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files “read information from the database.”
`
`GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files read user selectable settings directly from the database.
`
`Those RTE files (JavaScript render files) retrieve user selectable settings directly from GoDaddy’s
`
` database via the function call “fetch()” within the Category 3 RTE files themselves.
`
`D.I. 194-1 ¶¶ 289–305; D.I.195-1 ¶ 200; D.I. 195-3 ¶ 20; D.I. 159 ¶ 35. Specifically, the “fetch()”
`
`function call of the Category 3 JavaScript render files reads from the GoDaddy database through
`
`an API. D.I. 191 at 2; D.I. 194-1 ¶¶ 289-305; D.I. 194-2 ¶ 200; D.I. 194-3 ¶ 20; D.I. 159 ¶ 35.
`
`The Court misapprehended the nature of that API. See D.I. 261 at 26 (“accessing a database by
`
`using an API or library is not the equivalent of reading a database”). The GoDaddy
`
` is
`
`itself a part of the database and functions as a translator. API’s are not intermediary files that do
`
`the “fetching” like those files at issue in Shopify. D.I. 194-1 ¶¶ 314, 376, 406, 429, 431; D.I. 194-
`
`2 ¶ 200; D.I. 194-3 ¶ 14. Rather, an API is simply a translator for the function call of GoDaddy’s
`
`Category 3 RTE files (here, “fetch()”), that is recited directly as code in the accused Category 3
`
`RTE file. Id.3 Thus, the API of GoDaddy’s database simply translates a function call within the
`
`RTE file (e.g., “fetch()”) into something the database can understand. API’s are a common way
`
`
`3 This
`e.g.,
`See,
`resources.
`domain
`public
`consistent with
`entirely
`is
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API (stating simply that “[a]n application programming interface
`(API) is a way for two or more computer programs to communicate with each other”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 38484
`
`for software components to read from a database. D.I. 194-1 ¶¶ 314, 376, 406, 429, 431; D.I. 194-
`
`2 ¶ 200; D.I. 194-3 ¶ 14. As Express Mobile’s expert explained: “Databases have APIs on them,
`
`APIs are application programming interfaces, it’s the mechanism by which data from a database
`
`is read.” D.I. 164-7, Almeroth Tr. at 322:9–11. This is why both of GoDaddy’s experts agreed
`
`that an RTE file that includes a read function call to a database that uses an API is “reading from
`
`a database.” D.I. 195-2, Greenspun Dep. at 115.
`
`This graphic illustrates the nature
`
`and operation of GoDaddy’s Category RTE
`
`3 files and their interaction with the
`
`database. A file that uses an API (like
`
`GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files)
`
`is
`
`
`
`” D.I.
`
`reading from the database: “
`
`194-3 ¶ 20 (emphasis added).
`
`The Court also concluded that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files “interact only with the
`
`CDN,” a third-party content delivery service, and do not “fetch” information from GoDaddy’s
`
`Cassandra database. D.I. 261 at 25. The facts in the record are not contested on this point.4 First,
`
`
`4 Express Mobile respectfully submits that GoDaddy caused the Court’s misapprehension in at
`least two ways. First, GoDaddy submitted untimely declarations from Messrs. Jarrett and Silvas
`that appear to have misled the Court. The Jarrett Declaration does not relate to Category 3 RTE
`files at all, and only addressed PHP templates, which are Category 4 RTE files. See D.I. 160,
`Jarrett Decl. ¶¶ 10–29. Mr. Silvas suggested that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files
`
`
` D.I. 159, Silvas Decl. ¶¶ 31–35. Second, GoDaddy initially asserted
`in its briefing that its Category 3 RTE files do not interact with GoDaddy’s database at all, but
`later conceded these files did get information from GoDaddy’s database and that its argument only
` to retrieve information from the Cassandra database. See D.I.
`related to the use of the
`206, GoDaddy Reply at 6 n.6.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 38485
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 9 of 15 PagelD #: 38485
`
`GoDaddy’s untimely declaration admits the Category 3 RTE files3x
`
`Re 1.1. 159, Silvas Decl. § 35. Express Mobile’s expert, Dr.
`
`Almeroth, also showed that these Category 3 RTE files fetch information from GoDaddy’s
`
`HE ‘latabase, not just third-party content delivery networks. DI. 194-2, Almeroth Reply
`
`4] 219-220. Afterall, the entire issue of whether the “fetch()” function passes through the “yyy
`
`HEcclates to theJ database (which includes theJ not the third-party CDN
`
`(which does not). D.I. 159, Silvas Decl. {| 40|
`
`Re.§$GoDaddy’s arguments regarding the yyy
`
`Re Only relevant if GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTEfiles interact with the
`
`BE databaseitself.
`
`In sum, Express Mobile respectfully submits that the Court misapprehended the nature and
`
`operation of GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTEfiles. GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTEfiles do not “rely on
`
`other files to call upon the database” and do not “interact only with the CDN.” DI. 261 at 25.
`
`Instead, GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTEfiles retrieve information from GoDaddy’s database through
`
`the database’s APIand,therefore, “read information from a database” consistent with the Court’s
`
`construction.
`
`B.
`
`GoDaddy’s experts agreed with Express Mobile and admitted that GoDaddy’s
`Category 3 RTEfiles “read information from the database.”
`
`The Court foundthat there is no evidence that the accused RTE files read from the database.
`
`D.I. 261 at 25—26. But this finding runs counterto all of the evidence in this case. There is no
`
`dispute that accessing a database through an API satisfies the “reading information from a
`
`database” requirement. GoDaddy’s infringement expert, Mr. Kent, testified that
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 38486
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 10 of 15 PagelD #: 38486
`
`* *
`
`a
`
`a
`
`D.I. 196-2, Kent Tr. at 169:8-13, 169:25—170:5 (emphasis added). GoDaddy’s invalidity expert
`
`also admittedthat
`
`ee
`
`E——— eee
`
`D.I. 195-2, Greenspun Tr.at 115:8—15 (emphasis added).°
`
`Express Mobile’s technical expert and both of GoDaddy’s technical experts all agree that
`
`an RTE file retrieving information from a database through an APIis “reading information from a
`
`database.” See also D.I. 194-3, Almeroth Suppl. Report § 14.
`
`Indeed, according to GoDaddy’s
`
`expert, an APIis[ll° The
`
`°DnLn Java Database Connectivity (JDBC), which
`“is an application programming interface (API) for the programming language Java, which defines
`
`
`
`
`how a a_database.”client may access See Java Database Connectivity,
`
`
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Database_Connectivity.
`° Mr. Silvas stated that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTEfilesPe
`ee
`.” DI. 159, Silvas Decl. § 35.
`Mr. Silvas’ declaration is contrary to the opinions and testimony of both GoDaddy’s and Express
`Mobile’s technical experts. See D.I. 261 at 16 (“Noneofthe expert disclosures, however, disclosed
`the facts included in the disputed declarations.”). To the extent this untimely and untested
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 38487
`
`Court’s finding that there was no evidence that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE read function call
`
`(“fetch”) to the database using an API clearly misapprehended the evidence on which the experts
`
`agreed or the Court would not have concluded that GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files fail to read
`
`information from the database.
`
`C.
`
`GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files are very different from Shopify’s RTE files.
`
`It also was an incorrect reading of the evidence to compare GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE
`
`files to the Shopify RTE files and equate the API of GoDaddy’s database with the “drop file” at
`
`issue in Shopify. The Court explained:
`
`GoDaddy argues that the fetch() function does not “read information from the
`database” because the files rely on several intermediary files to access the database
`rather than reading the database directly. The Court agrees. Express Mobile’s
`position here is similar to its position in Shopify. There, Express Mobile conceded
`that the alleged run time engine did not read the database directly but rather
`“triggered the drop file to perform its data fetching function.” See Shopify, 2021
`WL 4288113, at *10. “Because Express Mobile agrees that the drop file is doing
`the actual reading and is separate from the claimed run time engine,” the Court
`concluded, “Express Mobile has not shown that the accused Liquid template file is
`reading from the database.”
`
`D.I. 261 at 25. The GoDaddy Category 3 RTE files, however, are materially different from
`
`Shopify RTE files.
`
`In Shopify, the alleged RTE files
`
`“trigger[ed] the drop file[s] to perform
`
`its data fetching function.” See Shopify,
`
`2021 WL 4288113, at **8, 10. In other
`
`words, the “drop files” (not the RTE
`
`files) were “doing the actual reading.”
`
`
`declaration is considered, there is at least genuine dispute of material fact that precludes summary
`judgment of non-infringement. Id. at 16–18 (“GoDaddy’s delayed disclosure of the Silvas and
`Jarrett declarations was not substantially justified, and a sanction is warranted.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 38488
`
`Id. The Shopify Court found that the alleged Shopify RTE files (e.g., “Liquid Template”) “rely
`
`on several intermediary files [e.g., the “drop files” and “ActiveRecord”] to access the database
`
`rather than reading the database directly.” D.I. 261 at 25.
`
`Unlike the intermediary operation used in the alleged Shopify RTE files, GoDaddy’s
`
`Category 3 RTE files themselves contain a “fetch()” function call that does the “fetching” of
`
`information from the Cassandra database. D.I. 194-1 ¶¶ 289–305; D.I. 195-1 ¶ 200; D.I. 195-3
`
`¶ 20; D.I. 159 ¶ 35. In Shopify, the RTE file (“Liquid Template”) did not include a database read
`
`function call but rather invoked and called a separate file, a “Drop File,” which read information
`
`from the database using yet another file, “ActiveRecord.” Unlike the alleged Shopify RTE files,
`
`GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files do not rely or “trigger” any intermediary files to make a function
`
`call to access the Casandra database, such as “drop file[s] to perform its data fetching function.”
`
`Compare id. and Shopify, 2021 WL 4288113, at *10. Every technical expert agrees that the API
`
`used to translate the “fetch()” function of GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files into something the
`
`database (e.g.,
`
` can understand is how “reading from the database” is done, and in fact
`
` that an RTE file could read from a database. D.I. 195-2, Greenspun Tr. at 115;
`
`D.I. 196-2, Kent Tr. at 169–170; D.I. 194-3, Almeroth Suppl. Report ¶14; D.I. 164-7, Almeroth
`
`Tr. at 322.
`
`In this regard, GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files are akin to the RTE files described as a
`
`preferred embodiment in the specification of the Web Design Patents. Both the preferred
`
`embodiment in the patent and GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE are files that “read information from
`
`the database” by downloading information from the database using a runtime call to the database
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 38489
`
`through an API.7 GoDaddy admitted that downloading is a form of reading and expressly included
`
`in the scope of the claims and GoDaddy’s experts admitted accessing a database using an API is
`
`reading. D.I. 121, CC Order at 16–17 (“Defendant agreed that ‘downloading is equivalent to
`
`reading over a network.’”); D.I. 196-2, Kent Tr. at 169–170; D.I. 195-2, Greenspun Tr. at 115.
`
`Finding that these RTE files are not reading from a database would exclude the preferred
`
`embodiment in the patent. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996) (excluding preferred embodiments are “rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly
`
`persuasive evidentiary support”). Thus, unlike in Shopify and absent some claim construction
`
`excluding the preferred embodiment of the Web Design Patents, GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files
`
`practice the “runtime engine” claim limitation and “read information from the database.”8
`
`Equating the RTE files here to Shopify as this Court did is inconsistent with the evidence.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Express Mobile respectfully submits that the Court misapprehended the record with respect
`
`to GoDaddy’s Category 3 RTE files. There are, at the very least, genuine disputes of material fact
`
`that preclude summary judgment of non-infringement. Reargument is therefore warranted and
`
`necessary to “correct a clear error of . . . fact.” Lifeport Scis., 2015 WL 11237044, at *1.
`
`
`7 The preferred embodiments include Java based RTE files. ’397 Patent at 43:28–32, 45:44–57.
`According to GoDaddy’s own technical experts,
`
`. D.I. 195-2,
`Greenspun Tr. at 115; D.I. 196-2, Kent Tr. at 169–170; D.I. 164-7, Almeroth Tr. at 322.
`
` 8
`
` The Court also misapprehended that Express Mobile was trying to reargue the “facilitate the
`retrieval of information from the database” construction that was originally proposed in Shopify.
`That construction was not even advanced in this case, and as discussed above, GoDaddy agreed in
`this case that reading from the database literally includes a file that downloads information over a
`network like the accused Category 3 RTE here. D.I. 121 at 17 (“Defendant agreed that
`‘downloading is equivalent to reading over a network.’”); see also D.I. 77 at 46:14–24 (Judge
`Andrews stated that “if the file that’s executed in run time downloads information from the
`database, you’re [GoDaddy] going to concede that that’s included within reading information from
`the database.”).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 38490
`
`Dated: August 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`
`/s/ Timothy Devlin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Timothy Devlin (No. 4241)
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Tel: (302) 449-9010
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James R. Nuttall (pro hac vice)
`Michael Dockterman (pro hac vice)
`John L. Abramic (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
`jabramic@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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 266 Filed 08/18/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 38491
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that copies of the within filing were served on
`
`counsel of record via electronic mail on August 15, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Timothy Devlin
`Timothy Devlin (No. 4241)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`