Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1027
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-1136 (JHS)
`
`
`
`
`) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
`
`VIDEOLABS, INC. and
`VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ROKU, INC.’S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jying@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Roku, Inc.
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul E. Torchia
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`(212) 351-4000
`
`S. Christopher Whittaker
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Dr., Suite 1200
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`(949) 451-3800
`
`Jaysen S. Chung
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
`(415) 393-8200
`
`Nathan R. Curtis
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201-2923
`(214) 698-3100
`
`April 5, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 1028
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 3
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The ’790, ’559, and ’794 Patents Are Ineligible Under Section 101 ...................... 5
`
`The Patents Are Ripe for a Determination on Patent Ineligibility .......................... 6
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 1029
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................7
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................5, 7
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................5
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................4
`
`Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. Citigroup Inc.,
`424 F. Supp. 3d 385 (D. Del. 2020), aff’d, No. 2020-1458, 2020 WL 6947911
`(Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2020) ...........................................................................................................4
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................6
`
`IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`307 F. Supp. 3d 356 (D. Del. 2018) .......................................................................................2, 5
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................5, 7
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................5, 7
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................4
`
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 1030
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................................................................................................2, 5, 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ....................................................................................................................5, 7
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 1031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Abbreviation
`
`Meaning
`
`’113 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE43,113 (D.I. 1, Ex. 4)
`
`’559 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,440,559 (D.I. 18, Ex. 1)
`
`’790 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,233,790 (D.I. 18, Ex. 3)
`
`’794 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,605,794 (D.I. 18, Ex. 2)
`
`ʼ238 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,769,238 (D.I. 18, Ex. 6)
`
`ʼ059 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,970,059 (D.I. 18, Ex. 7)
`
`Am. Compl.
`
`First Amended Complaint in VideoLabs, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-
`01136 (D. Del) (D.I. 18)
`
`Defendant
`
`Roku, Inc.
`
`Netflix Litigation VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-229 (D. Del.)
`
`Starz Litigation
`
`Starz Ent., LLC v. VL Collective IP, LLC et al., No. 1:21-cv-1448 (D. Del.)
`
`VideoLabs
`
`Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 1032
`
`
`
`I. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC (“VideoLabs”) sued Defendant
`
`Roku, Inc. (“Roku”) on October 11, 2023, asserting infringement of six patents: U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`RE43,113; 7,233,790; 8,605,794; 7,440,559; 8,291,236; and 8,667,304. See D.I. 1. After Roku
`
`filed a Motion to Dismiss the First through Fourth Counts of the Complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`for lack of subject matter eligibility (D.I. 9), VideoLabs filed a First Amended Complaint in which
`
`it no longer asserts the ʼ113 patent and asserts infringement of two additional patents: U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,769,238 and 7,970,059.
`
`This case is one of over a dozen in which VideoLabs, a non-practicing entity, has sought
`
`to monetize its patent portfolio. One or more of the patents in this case have been asserted against
`
`the following defendants:
`
`• Starz Entertainment (Case No. 1:21-cv-01448 (D. Del.));
`
`• Netflix (Case No. 1:22-cv-00229 (D. Del.));
`
`• Meta (Case No. 1:22-cv-00680 (D. Del.));
`
`• Amazon (Case No. 6:22-cv-00079 (W.D. Tex.));
`
`• Apple (Case No. 3:23-cv-01307 (N.D. Cal.));
`
`• Dell (Case Nos. 6:21-cv-00456 (W.D. Tex.) and 1:23-cv-01366 (W.D. Tex.));
`
`• HP (Case No. 6:22-cv-01086 (W.D. Tex.) and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1341);
`
`• Micro-Star (Case No. 6:22-cv-00722 (W.D. Tex.) and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1332);
`
`• Lenovo (Case No. 6:22-cv-00721 (W.D. Tex.) and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1332);
`
`• ASUS (6:22-cv-00720 (W.D. Tex.) and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1332); and
`
`• Acer (Case No. 6:22-cv-00720 (W.D. Tex.) and ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1332).1
`
`
` 1 Less than two months before trial, the case against Starz was stayed pending the IPR
`proceedings. The cases against Netflix and Meta are pending before this Court. The district court
`cases against ASUS and HP are pending in the Western District of Texas. In the ITC investigation
`against ASUS, an Administrative Law Judge held that the ʼ238 patent was invalid under the
`doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (and VideoLabs did not appeal the decision of the
`ALJ). The cases against Amazon, Apple, Lenovo, Micro-Star, and Dell settled and were
`dismissed.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 1033
`
`
`
`Additionally, three of the asserted patents (the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents) are currently the
`
`subject of instituted IPR proceedings.
`
` IPR2023-00628 (’790 patent); IPR2023-00630
`
`(’559 patent); IPR2023-00891 (’794 patent). Final Written Decision on the validity of these
`
`patents are expected on October 3, 2024, for the first two and January 12, 2025, for the third.
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Roku moves to dismiss with prejudice the First
`
`through Third Counts of the First Amended Complaint—in which VideoLabs asserts infringement
`
`of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents—because the claims of the asserted patents fail to recite patent-
`
`eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`As explained in defendant Netflix’s briefing and argument in support of its Partial
`
`Motion to Dismiss, VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-229, D.I. 16, 19 (D. Del.)—
`
`a related patent infringement case pending before this Court and involving many of the same
`
`patents—the claims of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter
`
`because they are directed to the abstract ideas of transmission and manipulation of data and add
`
`no inventive concept beyond those abstract ideas. To avoid burdening the Court with additional
`
`papers and in the interests of judicial efficiency, Roku hereby joins the motion to dismiss filed by
`
`Netflix with respect to the patent ineligibility of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents, and respectfully
`
`requests that the Court dismiss with prejudice the counts of the Complaint against Roku alleging
`
`infringement of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents.2
`
`
` 2 In this District, a defendant can join a motion to dismiss for subject matter ineligibility filed by
`another defendant in a related case. See IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 3d
`356, 359 (D. Del. 2018) (granting Amazon’s motion to dismiss under Section 101 joined by several
`additional defendants); see also Web 2.0 Techs., LLC v. ProofHub, LLC, C.A. No. 23-343 (MN),
`D.I. 8 at 1‒2 & D.I. 15 at 1‒2 (D. Del.).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 1034
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents are directed to transmitting and manipulating data. In
`
`particular, the ’790 patent claims the idea of cataloging content for mobile devices based on device
`
`capabilities. ’790 Patent (D.I. 18, Ex. 3) at Abstract, 15:21‒33. The ’559 patent claims controlling
`
`content flow from a server to a terminal based on information such as user preferences, capabilities
`
`of the terminal, and/or previous content stored by the terminal. ’559 Patent (D.I. 18, Ex. 1) at
`
`Abstract, 15:15‒32. And the ’794 patent claims synchronizing audio and video data segments in
`
`chronological fashion. ’794 Patent (D.I. 18, Ex. 2) at Abstract, 7:45‒57. The patents implement
`
`these ideas on conventional devices (e.g., wireless communication devices and servers) using
`
`conventional computer hardware and software techniques. See, e.g., ’790 Patent (D.I. 18, Ex. 3)
`
`at 6:46‒52, 14:12‒16; ’559 Patent (D.I. 18, Ex. 1) at 10:33‒44, 11:31‒40; ’794 Patent (D.I. 18,
`
`Ex. 2) at 3:67‒4:41, 6:43‒7:20.
`
`These three patents have already been the subject of eligibility challenges. In 2022,
`
`VideoLabs sued Netflix asserting infringement of four patents, including the ’790, ’559, and ’794
`
`patents. See VideoLabs, Inc. et al. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-229 (D. Del.) (the “Netflix
`
`Litigation”). Netflix moved to dismiss VideoLabs’s infringement allegations with respect to the
`
`’790, ’559, and ’794 patents for lack of patentable subject matter under Section 101. See Netflix
`
`Litigation, D.I. 15. The Netflix parties fully briefed the issues (see id., D.I. 16, 18, 19), and oral
`
`argument on Netflix’s motion was held on February 9, 2023. See id., D.I. 35. In December 2023,
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidated claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of the
`
`’794 patent but rejected the challenge to claims 20 and 21. IPR2022-01086, Final Written Decision
`
`(D.I. 11, Ex. 4) at 47‒48 (Dec. 18, 2023).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 1035
`
`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The Supreme Court articulated a two-step framework for determining patent eligibility.
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217‒18 (2014). At Step One, the court determines
`
`“whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept[],” such as “abstract ideas.”
`
`Id. This first step “ask[s] what the patent asserts to be the focus of the claimed advance over the
`
`prior art,” and whether that focus is on patent-ineligible subject matter. Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th
`
`1040, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020)). The Federal Circuit has explained that this inquiry “must focus on the language of the
`
`Asserted Claims themselves, considered in light of the specification.” Id. (quoting TecSec, Inc. v.
`
`Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
`
`If the claims are directed to an ineligible concept, Step Two asks whether the claims contain
`
`an “inventive concept,” or “an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that
`
`the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept]
`
`itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217‒18 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in original). This
`
`step is satisfied only when the claim limitations “involve more than performance of ‘well-
`
`understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content
`
`Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347‒48 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 224) (alterations in original).
`
`Under Alice, when multiple claims are substantially similar, it is enough to conduct this
`
`two-step analysis based on a representative claim. Alice, 573 U.S. at 224‒26. Analyzing a
`
`representative claim is appropriate when the claims are directed to the “same concept” and the
`
`dependent claims “offer only minor, nontechnical variations.” Fast 101 Pty Ltd. v. Citigroup Inc.,
`
`424 F. Supp. 3d 385, 387–88 (D. Del. 2020), aff’d, No. 2020-1458, 2020 WL 6947911 (Fed. Cir.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 1036
`
`
`
`Nov. 25, 2020). It is the patentee’s burden to present “meaningful argument” that a claim should
`
`not be treated as representative. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Dismissal at the pleadings stage for lack of subject matter eligibility is appropriate where
`
`“there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a
`
`matter of law.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). The Federal Circuit has recognized that patent eligibility “may
`
`be, and frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or (c) motion where the undisputed facts,
`
`considered under the standards required by that Rule, require a holding of ineligibility under the
`
`substantive standards of law.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018). Thus, the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly affirmed § 101 rejections at the motion to dismiss
`
`stage,” “based on intrinsic evidence from the specification without need for ‘extraneous fact
`
`finding outside the record.’” See Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859
`
`F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905,
`
`912 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The ’790, ’559, and ’794 Patents Are Ineligible Under Section 101
`
`The ineligibility of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patent claims was fully briefed and heard in
`
`the Netflix Litigation. See Netflix Litigation, D.I. 16, 18, 19, 35. Roku agrees that the claims of
`
`those patents are ineligible for the reasons set forth in the papers and at oral argument, and in the
`
`interest of judicial efficiency, joins in Netflix’s motion to dismiss with respect to the subject-matter
`
`ineligibility of the ’790, ’559, and ’794 patents. See IPA Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 307
`
`F. Supp. 3d 356, 359 (D. Del. 2018) (granting Amazon’s motion to dismiss under Section 101
`
`joined by several additional defendants).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 1037
`
`
`
`As noted above, the PTAB invalidated claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’794 patent
`
`but rejected the challenge to claims 20 and 21. See IPR2022-01086, Final Written Decision at
`
`(D.I. 11, Ex. 4) at 47‒48 (Dec. 18, 2023). This development, however, does not impact the
`
`challenge to the patent eligibility of the ’794 patent. In the Netflix Litigation, the parties briefed
`
`and discussed the limitations of claims 20 and 21. See Netflix Litigation, D.I. 16 at 17‒19, id., D.I.
`
`18 at 18‒19. Furthermore, while VideoLabs made a superficial challenge to Netflix’s showing
`
`that claim 1 of the ’794 patent is representative of all claims in the ’794 patent, see Netflix
`
`Litigation, D.I. 18 at 20, VideoLabs did not identify any claim limitations that affected the
`
`eligibility analysis, let alone carry its burden of persuading the Court of “the distinctive
`
`significance of any claim limitations not found in the representative claim.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d
`
`at 1365.3
`
`Thus, Roku joins in Netflix’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the ’790, ’559, and
`
`’794 patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and Roku respectfully requests that
`
`the Court dismiss Counts One through Three of the Complaint against Roku. Roku does not
`
`believe that any further briefing or oral argument is necessary to resolve this issue.
`
`B.
`
`The Patents Are Ripe for a Determination on Patent Ineligibility
`
`There is no reason for the Court to defer the determination of patent eligibility to a later
`
`stage of the case. The Federal Circuit has explained that a motion to dismiss for lack of patent
`
`eligibility may be granted when “there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent
`
`
` 3 VideoLabs should not be permitted to introduce any additional argument regarding any alleged
`“distinctiveness” in the limitations of claims 20 and 21 of the ʼ794 patent. As explained above,
`Netflix’s ineligibility motion on the ’794 patent is fully briefed and argued, and, if granted, a
`decision of ineligibility in the Netflix Litigation will preclude VideoLabs from asserting
`infringement of the ʼ794 patent against Roku. See Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Cap. One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, because new argument would be improper with
`respect to the already-briefed and argued motion in the Netflix Litigation, the Court should not
`permit VideoLabs to offer any new arguments on the eligibility of the patents challenged.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 1038
`
`
`
`resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.” ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 765 (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly explained that ineligibility
`
`“may be, and frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or (c) motion,” SAP Am., Inc. v.
`
`InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and can be “based on intrinsic evidence
`
`from the specification without need for extraneous fact finding outside the record,” Secured Mail
`
`Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 912 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
`
`Here, the abstract nature of the claims is clear from the claim language itself, is confirmed
`
`by the remainder of the patent specifications, and there are no factual allegations that could
`
`preclude resolution of the ineligibility question. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1371
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“In a situation where the specification admits the additional claim elements are
`
`well-understood, routine, and conventional, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for a patentee to
`
`show a genuine dispute.”). Because there are no genuine disputes requiring claim construction or
`
`factual discovery, these issues are ripe for the Court’s consideration.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court hold that the
`
`claims of the ’559, ’794, and ’790 patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under
`
`Section 101 and dismiss the First through Third Counts of the First Amended Complaint with
`
`prejudice.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 1039
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jying@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Roku, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Paul E. Torchia
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-0193
`(212) 351-4000
`
`S. Christopher Whittaker
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Dr., Suite 1200
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`(949) 451-3800
`
`Jaysen S. Chung
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3715
`(415) 393-8200
`
`Nathan R. Curtis
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201-2923
`(214) 698-3100
`
`April 5, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 23 Filed 04/05/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 1040
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 5, 2024, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with
`
`the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all registered
`
`participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`April 5, 2024, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`Michael J. Farnan, Esquire
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`M. Elizabeth Day, Esquire
`Marc Belloli, Esquire
`Jerry D. Tice II, Esquire
`Aaron R. Hand, Esquire
`Hillary Bunsow, Esquire
`BUNSOW DE MORY LLP
`701 El Camino Real
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Jennifer Ying
`
`
`
`
`Jennifer Ying (#5550)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`