Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 294 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 18145
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 22-311 (WCB)
`
`
`
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`
`
`IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC., and GINKGO
`BIOWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANT MOTIF FOODWORKS, INC.’S REPLY LETTER BRIEF SEEKING AN
`ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF SAMPLES AND SUPPLEMENTATION OF
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`Lucinda C. Cucuzzella (#3491)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`ccucuzzella@morrisnichols.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Sandy Shen
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 538-8000
`
`Geoffrey A. Kirsner
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor,
`New York, NY 10010
`(212) 849-7000
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motif FoodWorks, Inc.
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Joseph M. Paunovich
`Ryan Landes
`Sandra L.
`Haberny Sarah
`Cork Razmig
`Messerian Patrick
`T. Schmidt
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa
`Street 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`(213) 443-3000
`
`Stephen Q. Wood
`Trevor J. Quist
`Derek A. Huish
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`2755 E. Cottonwood Parkway
`Suite 430
`Salt Lake City, UT 84121
`(801) 515-7300
`
`
`
`Public Version Filed: December 5, 2023
`
`Confidential Version Filed: November 21, 2023
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 294 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 18146
`
`Impossible’s supplement yesterday (Ex. A) still fails to address critical deficiencies.
`
`Interrogatory No. 3. Impossible shockingly still refuses to identify the priority date for
`its own patents, focusing instead on irrelevant arguments from IPR proceedings. D.I. 269 at 1-2.
`What matters is the scope and validity of the asserted claims as construed by this Court. Impossible
`cannot equivocate on its claimed priority date, and refuse to address the adequacy (or inadequacy)
`of the description in its own provisional applications, by pointing to Motif’s arguments in the
`separate IPR proceedings. Impossible’s refusal to stake out a clear and unequivocal position on
`priority dates forces Motif to defend against Impossible’s approach on two fronts and without
`clarity on the scope of prior art—a wasteful, costly, and inefficient process.
`
`Interrogatory No. 12. Impossible’s response regarding “customers” (Ex. A, 49) fails to
`provide the full scope of the information requested—communications with “Vendors or licensees”
`related to this litigation. D.I. 265-1, Ex. A, 11. As communications with vendors and licenses is
`critical to multiple claims and defenses, D.I. 265-1, Ex. E, 8, this response should be supplemented.
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 6 and 14. Impossible again refuses to supplement these responses.
`D.I. 269 at 2-3. This is improper. The date Impossible first anticipated litigation is not privileged.
`D.I. 265 at 2 (citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395 (1981)). And delay in bringing
`suit is relevant to entitlement to a permanent injunction. Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks
`Corp., 861 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Impossible has not identified any contrary case law.
`
`Interrogatory No. 4. Impossible’s response, which simply lists a few documents
`associated with certain products, fails to show “where each element of such claims may be found
`in the Impossible Product” on a claim-by-claim basis as explicitly requested. Apple, Inc. v. Wi-
`Lan, Inc., 2018 WL 733740, *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. 2018) (unequal burden on parties of determining
`plaintiff’s contentions from documents). Detailed contentions as to how a plaintiff’s product
`practices the asserted patents are particularly important in lost profits cases like the one here, e.g.,
`to the extent Impossible contends it lost sales to Motif’s products. Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP
`Am., Inc., 717 F.3d 1255, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Interrogatory No. 8. Motif’s request is not moot. While Impossible now incorporates its
`identification of practicing products in other responses, it still fails to set forth any facts regarding
`an alleged nexus between the claims and proffered indicia of non-obviousness. A product may
`not be coextensive with a claim. D.I. 265, 3 (noting critical, unclaimed features). It is Impossible’s
`burden to prove nexus and Motif is entitled to know the support Impossible will rely on.
`
`Interrogatory No. 2. Impossible’s response regarding “public use, disclosure, or
`demonstration” (Ex. A, 7) does not address any publication of the asserted subject matter, as
`explicitly requested. This information is imperative for Motif to test Impossible’s assertions of
`potentially invalidating disclosures of the claimed subject matter and should be provided.
`
`Interrogatory No. 9. Impossible’s supplement leaves open the possibility of pre-suit
`damages. Ex. A at 35 (referencing Dec. 2021 and Sept. 2022 dates). But, in its responsive brief,
`regarding Interrogatory No. 4, Impossible seems to acknowledge such pre-suit damages are
`unavailable, going so far as to argue that “marking is irrelevant.” D.I. 265 at 3. If Impossible will
`not claim pre-suit damages, then it should say as much, as that binding clarification would
`significantly simplify a number of other discovery matters. If Impossible does claim pre-suit
`damages, then it must explain the basis for that contention, including the alleged date of
`first infringement, based on the information Motif has provided about its commercial products.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00311-WCB Document 294 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 18147
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`
`
`JAT: lo
`Attachments
`cc:
`Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
`All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF and email)
`
`
`2
`
`
`