Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 276-3 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 39366
`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 276-3 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 4 PagelD #: 39366
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 276-3 Filed 01/13/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 39367
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`EXPRESS MOBILE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim
`Defendant,
`
`v.
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC,
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim
`Plaintiff.
`
`C.A. NO. 19-1937-MFK
`
`GODADDY.COM, LLC’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF FACT
`REMAINING TO BE LITIGATED
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 16.3 and the parties’ agreed-upon schedule, GoDaddy sets forth
`
`below its statement of the issues of fact remaining to be litigated. This statement is based on the
`
`current status of the case and the Court’s rulings to date. GoDaddy reserves the right to modify
`
`or supplement this statement in response to subsequent rulings by the Court. GoDaddy
`
`incorporates its disputed issues of law to the extent that the issues involve factual issues and/or
`
`mixed questions of law and fact.
`
`I.
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`1.
`
`Whether Express Mobile can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`GoDaddy has infringed directly, literally, under the doctrine of equivalents,1 or induced the
`
`infringement of any of claims 1, 3, 12, 16, and 22 of the ’755 Patent, claims 1 and 13 of the ’287
`
`1 As stated elsewhere in the [Proposed] Joint Pre-Trial Order, GoDaddy objects to trial on the
`doctrine of equivalents because Express Mobile cannot meet its burden on that issue. GoDaddy
`addresses the doctrine of equivalents for all issues of fact herein solely in the event the Court
`allows trial on the issue.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 276-3 Filed 01/13/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 39368
`
`Patent, and claims 1, 11, 14, 17, and 19 of the ’044 Patent (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”).2
`
`2.
`
`Whether Express Mobile can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
`
`GoDaddy willfully infringes any of the Asserted Claims.3
`
`II.
`
`INVALIDITY
`
`1.
`
`Whether the Asserted Claims are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
`
`view of any of the following prior art references and combinations:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`BlackBerry MDS Studio and its associated systems and methods
`(“BlackBerry MDS”);
`
`Apple iWeb and its associated systems and methods (“iWeb”);
`
`Nexaweb by Nexaweb Technologies and its associated systems and
`methods (“Nexaweb”);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0013310 (“Arner”);
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0118844 (“Huang”) and
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/024391 A1 (“Stevens”);
`
`iWeb, Arner, and Stevens;
`
`iWeb, Arner, Huang, and Stevens;
`
`BlackBerry MDS and Arner;
`
`BlackBerry MDS, Arner, and Stevens;
`
`2 As stated elsewhere in the [Proposed] Joint Pre-Trial Order, GoDaddy objects to trial on claim 1
`of the ’755 patent, claim 1 of the ’287 patent, and claims 1 and 11 of the ’044 patent on the grounds
`that PTAB is to rule upon the invalidity of those claims imminently, either in the midst of or the
`week after trial in this case. GoDaddy addresses those claims for all issues of fact herein solely in
`the event the Court allows trial on them.
`3 As stated elsewhere in the [Proposed] Joint Pre-Trial Order, GoDaddy objects to trial on willful
`infringement because this Court effectively disposed of this issue by virtue of its summary
`judgment decision in this case (see Doc. 261, p. 30, fn. 4). There is no evidence or offer of proof
`by Plaintiff as to willful infringement relating to the asserted ’755 patent, ’287 patent or ’044
`patent. GoDaddy addresses willfulness for all issues of fact herein solely in the event the Court
`allows trial on the issue.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-01937-MFK-JLH Document 276-3 Filed 01/13/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 39369
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`NexaWeb and Arner;
`
`Nexaweb and Stevens;
`
`Arner, Huang, and Stevens.
`
`III.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`1.
`
`Whether Express Mobile is entitled to recover reasonable royalties and, if so, in
`
`what amount under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`2.
`
`Whether Express Mobile is entitled to prejudgment and postjudgment interest
`
`under 27 U.S.C. § 1961.
`
`Whether this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Whether attorneys’ fees, disbursements, and/or costs are due to Express Mobile or
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`GoDaddy.
`
`3
`
`