Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`United States of America
`Tel: 302-449-9010
`Fax: 302-353-4251
`www.devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`March 22, 2023
`
`
`Matthew J. Moffa
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Email: MMoffa@perkinscoie.com
`
`VIA EMAIL
`
`Re: BNR v. HMD et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-22706-RNS, Plaintiff’s Supplemental
`Contention Proposals per Post-Discovery Hearing Administrative Order (Dkt. 158)
`
`Dear Mr. Moffa:
`
`Pursuant to Judge Goodman’s Post-Discovery Hearing Administrative Order
`
`(Dkt. 158), Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR” or “Plaintiff”) hereby
`provides to Defendants HMD America, Inc., HMD Global Oy, Wingtech Technology
`Co., Ltd., Wingtech International, Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores L.P., Target
`Corp., and Walmart, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) BNR’s supplemental contention
`proposals.
`
`BNR’s Supplemental Contention Proposals
`
`1. Supplemental Contentions Under P.R. 3-1(c) (Claim Charts)
`
`[P.R. 3-1(c)]: A chart identifying specifically where each
`limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused
`Instrumentality, including for each element that such party
`contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the
`structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that
`performs the claimed function;
`
`
`For this issue highlighted above, BNR proposes serving a separate claim chart for
`
`each Accused Instrumentality and removing the “at least” language below (from Exhibit
`C-1, the ’629 patent) as shown by strikethrough:
`
`
`at least the Nokia G50 and the Nokia 1, Nokia 1 Plus, Nokia 1.3,
`Nokia 1.4, Nokia 2, Nokia 2 V, Nokia 2 V Tella, Nokia 2.1, Nokia
`2.2, Nokia 2.3, Nokia 2.4, Nokia 3, Nokia 3 V, Nokia 3.1, Nokia 3.1
`Plus, Nokia 3.1 C, Nokia 3.1 A, Nokia 3.2, Nokia 3.4, Nokia 4.2,
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 3 of 4
`
`Devlin Law Firm
`March 22, 2023
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`Nokia 5, Nokia 5.1, Nokia 5.1 Plus, Nokia 5.3, Nokia 5.4, Nokia 6,
`Nokia 6.1, Nokia 6.1 Plus, Nokia 6.2, Nokia 7, Nokia 7 Plus, Nokia
`7.1, Nokia 7.2, Nokia 8, Nokia 8 Sirocco, Nokia 8V 5G UW, Nokia
`8.1, Nokia 8.3 5G, Nokia 9 PureView, Nokia 225 4G, Nokia 800
`Tough, Nokia 8110 4G, Nokia 2720 V Flip, Nokia 2760 Flip, Nokia
`6300 4G, Nokia C1, Nokia C1 Plus, Nokia C2, Nokia C2 Tennen,
`Nokia C2 Tava, Nokia C3, Nokia C10, Nokia C20, Nokia C21,
`Nokia C30, Nokia C100, Nokia C200, Nokia C2 Tava, Nokia G10,
`Nokia G11 Plus, Nokia G20, Nokia G21, Nokia G300 5G, Nokia
`X71, Nokia T10, Nokia T20, Nokia XR20, Nokia X100 5G, Nokia
`G100, Nokia G400 5G, Nokia 2780 Flip
`
`
`BNR would follow this approach for all of the asserted patents, including the ’629
`
`patent (see Exhibit C), the ’072 patent (see Exhibit L), and the ’432 patent (see Exhibit
`M). In the case of the ’629 patent, for example, this would result in 70 new charts.
`
`Alternatively, BNR proposes the following example for a “representative” basis
`
`for the ’629 patent that would obviate the need for supplementation via additional charts.
`
`
`• The claim chart herein for the G50 is representative of the Accused
`Instrumentalities because each Accused Instrumentality is compliant
`with the 802.11n standard as shown below for each limitation. For
`each Accused Instrumentality, the same infringing features exist
`within the 802.11n standard in the same way.
`
`
`2. Supplemental Contentions Under P.R. 3-1(d) (Indirect Infringement)
`
`[P.R. 3-1(d)] For each claim that is alleged to have been indirectly
`infringed, an identification of any direct infringement and a
`description of the acts of the alleged indirect infringer that contribute
`to or are inducing that direct infringement. If alleged direct
`infringement is based on joint acts of multiple parties, the role of
`each such party in the direct infringement must be described.
`
`For each Defendant, BNR proposes supplementing its contentions with the
`identification of Defendant’s customers and end-users that would be the direct infringers as it
`relates to the accused products, and the indirect infringer would be the Defendant that
`contributes to or is inducing that direct infringement. As to the “acts” of indirect
`infringement, these identifications would be based on public information, such as website
`links showing how customers and end-users should use the accused products.
`
`3. Supplemental Contentions Under P.R. 3-1(e) (Doctrine of Equivalents)
`
`[P.R. 3-1(e)] Whether each limitation of each asserted claim is
`alleged to be literally present or present under the doctrine of
`equivalents in the Accused Instrumentality. For any claim under the
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 161-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2023 Page 4 of 4
`
`Devlin Law Firm
`March 22, 2023
`Page 3 of 3
`
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the Initial Infringement Contentions must
`include an explanation of each function, way, and result that is
`equivalent [and] why any differences are not substantial;
`
`
`To the extent that BNR asserts the doctrine of equivalents in supplemental
`
`contentions, BNR proposes that it will supplement its contentions with an explanation of each
`“function, way, and result that is equivalent [and] why any differences are not substantial.”
`BNR further proposes that this supplementation would occur in the claim chart, where
`applicable for a claim limitation.
`
`
`4. Supplemental Contentions Under P.R. 3-1(b) (Method Claims)
`
`[P.R. 3-1(b)] Separately, for each asserted claim, each accused
`apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other
`instrumentality (“Accused Instrumentality”) of each opposing party
`of which the party is aware. This identification must be as specific
`as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus must be identified
`by name, if known, or by any product, device, or apparatus which,
`when used, allegedly results in the practice of the claimed method
`or process;
`
`BNR proposes supplementing its P.R. 3-1(b) contentions with the identification of
`each Defendant for the method claims, thus clarifying that the method is performed through
`use of the accused product by a particular Defendant.
`
`5. Supplemental Contentions Under P.R. 3-1(c) (Means For Limitations)
`
` A
`
` chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each
`asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality,
`including for each element that such party contends is governed
`by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or
`material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that performs the
`claimed function;
`
`For claims containing “means for” limitations, BNR proposes updating the relevant
`claim chart to reflect structure for the asserted patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`
`/s/ Christopher Clayton
`Christopher Clayton
`
`
`