Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-22706-RNS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HMD AMERICA, INC., HMD GLOBAL
`OY, SHENZHEN CHINO-E
`COMMUNICATION CO. LTD., HON HAI
`PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD,
`TINNO MOBILE TECHNOLOGY CORP.,
`SHENZHEN TINNO MOBILE CO., LTD.,
`TINNO USA, INC., UNISOC
`TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`SPREADTRUM COMMUNICATIONS
`USA, INC., WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY
`CO. LTD., WINGTECH
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., HUAQIN CO.
`LTD., BEST BUY CO., INC., BEST BUY
`STORES L.P., TARGET CORP.,
`WALMART INC.,
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SET COMMON RESPONSE
`DEADLINE
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “BNR”), opposes the Motion to Set
`
`Common Response Deadline (“Motion”) filed by Defendants HMD America, Inc., HMD Global
`
`Oy (“HMD”), Tinno Mobile Technology Corp., Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Co., Ltd., Tinno USA,
`
`Inc. (“Tinno”), Wingtech Technology, Co., Ltd., Wingtech International, Inc. (“Wingtech”), and
`
`Walmart, Inc. (“Walmart”). Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants’
`
`Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 2 of 7
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On August 25, 2022, BNR filed this action for patent infringement against HMD, Tinno,
`
`Wingtech, Walmart, Shenzhen Chino-E Communication Co., Ltd. (“Chino-E”), Unisoc
`
`Technologies Co., Ltd. and Spreadtrum Communications USA, Inc. (“Unisoc”), Huaqin Co.,
`
`Ltd. (“Huaqin”), Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores L.P. (“Best Buy”), and Target Corp.
`
`(“Target”). (ECF No. 1.)
`
`On September 21, 2022, BNR filed a waiver of the service of summons signed by HMD
`
`Global Oy. (ECF No. 28.) The next day, BNR filed a return of service as to HMD America, Inc.
`
`(ECF No. 34). At the request of HMD, BNR agreed to an extension of HMD America Inc.’s
`
`response date to October 24, 2022 and agreed to the same extension for Best Buy and Target.
`
`(ECF No. 35.) Additional waivers, returns, and agreed extensions were filed concerning
`
`Walmart, Tinno, Hon Hai, Unisoc, and Wingtech. (See ECF Nos. 27, 29, 31–33, 36, 38, 48, 51.)
`
`The table below summarizes the response date for each of those Defendants.
`
`Defendant
`
`Response Date
`
`HMD America, Inc.
`
`Target Corp.
`
`Best Buy Co., Inc.
`
`Best Buy Stores L.P.
`
`Walmart Inc.
`
`October 24, 2022 (ECF No. 36)
`
`October 24, 2022 (ECF No. 36)
`
`October 24, 2022 (ECF No. 36)
`
`October 24, 2022 (ECF No. 36)
`
`October 24, 2022 (ECF No. 27)
`
`Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.
`
`October 24, 2022 (ECF No. 48)
`
`Tinno USA, Inc.
`
`October 27, 2022 (ECF No. 38)
`
`Wingtech International, Inc.,
`
`November 18, 2022 (ECF No. 50)
`
`Spreadtrum Communications USA, Inc.
`
`November 18, 2022 (ECF No. 29)
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 3 of 7
`
`Wingtech Technology Co. Ltd.,
`
`December 19, 2022 (ECF No. 51)
`
`HMD Global Oy
`
`December 19, 2022 (ECF No. 28)
`
`Tinno Mobile Technology Corp.
`
`December 19, 2022 (ECF No. 33)
`
`Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Co., Ltd.
`
`December 19, 2022 (ECF No. 32)
`
`Unisoc Technologies Co., Ltd.
`
`December 19, 2022 (ECF No. 31)
`
`
`
`
`
`Yesterday, on October 21, 2022, BNR filed its unopposed motion for alternative service
`
`on Shenzhen Chino-E Communication Co., Ltd (“Chino-E”). (ECF No. 61.) The Court granted
`
`BNR’s motion on October 21, 2022. (ECF No. 62.) Counsel for BNR has been in
`
`communication with counsel for Huaqin Co. Ltd. (“Huaqin”) regarding service. (See ECF No.
`
`61 at 1.) Plaintiff remains mindful of this Court’s Notice of Upcoming Deadline to Serve under
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requiring service of Huaqin by November 23, 2022.
`
`
`
`This Motion was filed by HMD, Tinno, Wingtech, and Walmart. (ECF No. 59.)
`
`Defendants Best Buy, Target, Hon Hai, Unisoc, Chino-E, and Huaqin did not join in the Motion.
`
`(Id.) None of the Defendants have a response date of January 16, 2023.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Defendants’ Motion is not based on good cause and instead relies on a misapplication of
`
`Rule 4 and speculation. First, Defendants incorrectly argue that if Huaqin or Chino-E waive
`
`service—which they have not done—then their responses “will be due in January of 2023 or
`
`later.” (See ECF No. 59 at 2–3.) This argument is wrong because it misapplies the response
`
`deadlines set by Rule 4. These deadlines are based on when the request for waiver is sent to the
`
`defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3). For example, BNR sent Chino-E a request to waive
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 4 of 7
`
`service under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on September 9, 2022 via email
`
`and FedEx. (ECF. No. 61 at l–2.) Rule 4(d)(3) provides:
`
`A defendant, who before being served with process, timely returns a waiver need
`not serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the request was sent—or
`until 90 days after it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the
`United States.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3).
`
`
`
`Chino-E is a “defendant outside of any judicial district of the United States.” Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 4(d)(3). Even if Chino-E timely returns the waiver, Chino-E must respond to BNR’s
`
`Complaint within 90 days from when BNR sent the request. Ninety days from when BNR sent
`
`the request is December 8, 2022. (See Scalia v. Horizon Care Servs., No. 20-80154-CV-
`
`MIDDLEBROOKS, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 265740, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2020) (holding
`
`that under Rule 4(d)(3), defendant’s response to the complaint was due sixty days after plaintiff
`
`sent defendant a request to waive service).
`
`The same response date of December 8, 2022 applies to Hauqin as well. BNR sent the
`
`request for waiver to Hauqin on September 9, 2022. Even if both Chino-E and Hauqin agree to
`
`waive service, their responses will be due December 8, 2022. Their responses will not “be due in
`
`January of 2023 or later,” as Defendants argue. (See ECF No. 59 at 3.) Not a single Defendant
`
`in this case has a response date of January 16, 2023 and there is no basis to use this date as a
`
`common response deadline for all of the Defendants in the litigation, even those that did not join
`
`this Motion.
`
`Second, Defendants incorrectly argue in their Motion that a “common response deadline”
`
`is consistent with the Court’s Order Requiring Discovery and Scheduling Conference (ECF No.
`
`8). (ECF No. 59 at 3.) This argument is unavailing because it is based on speculation as to a
`
`unidentified “joint motions and consolidated responses and replies” that do not even exist and
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 5 of 7
`
`for which there is no existing joinder of the Defendants. (Id.) Even this Motion is not a “joint
`
`motion” and is only brought by HMD, Tinno, Wingtech, and Walmart. (Id. at 1.) Most of the
`
`Defendants did not join in it. (Id.) Moreover, even for the Defendants that did bring this
`
`Motion, they are silent as to whether “clear conflicts of position” do not exist. Accordingly, the
`
`Court’s Order Requiring Discovery and Scheduling Conference does not provide a basis to set a
`
`common response deadline of January 16, 2023.
`
`Finally, Defendants’ argument that responses should be delayed until January 16, 2023 to
`
`“allow the parties to resolve outstanding evidentiary issues relating to the Court’s subject matter
`
`jurisdiction,” is based on more speculation. (Id. at 3–4.) Defendants fail to provide any
`
`plausible grounds under Rule 12(b)(1) for setting a common response deadline, and fail to
`
`provide any plausible arguments about the “licensing arrangement between Plaintiff and a third
`
`party” that would justify additional delay. (ECF 59 at 3.) Defendants’ so-called “orderly start”
`
`plan is nothing more than a hypothetical—their desired hypothetical—that does not warrant
`
`delaying this case and will prejudice Plaintiff. (See id. at 4.)
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should deny Defendants’ Motion to Set Common Response Deadline.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`Date: October 21, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jose I. Rojas
`Jose I. Rojas
`Florida Bar No.: 331546
`jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com
`Alexander F. Rojas
`Florida Bar No.: 124232
`arojas@rojaslawfirm.com
`ROJASLAW
`201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: (305) 446-4000
`Facsimile: (305) 985-4146
`
`Paul Richter
`prichter@devlinlawfirm.com
`Christopher Clayton
`cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com
`Adam Woodward
`Florida Bar No. 1029147
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2022 Page 7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 21, 2022, a copy of the foregoing will be sent by
`
`operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing
`
`receipt. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jose I. Rojas
`Jose I. Rojas
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`