`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:13-CV-11567-DJC
`
`LEAVE TO FILE GRANTED ON
`JUNE 11, 2014 (Dkt. No. 112)
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`ZOND, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`THE GILLETTE COMPANY and
`THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`
`Defendants The Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company (collectively,
`
`“Gillette”) respectfully bring to the Court’s attention a recent development in another case brought
`
`by Zond in this District that is pertinent to Gillette’s Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review.
`
`See Zond, LLC v. Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd. et al., No. 13-cv-11634 (Young, J.).
`
`In the Fujitsu case, Zond asserts against various Fujitsu entities and Taiwan Semiconductor
`
`Manufacturing Corporation (“TSMC”) entities seven of the same ten patents that Zond asserts
`
`against Gillette. On May 31, 2014, Fujitsu and TSMC renewed a motion to stay their case pending
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”), based on their joinder of the IPRs filed on all claims of those patents
`
`by Intel Corporation (“Intel”). As the Court is aware, on April 18, 2014, Judge Stearns stayed the
`
`cases that Zond filed against Intel and SK Hynix based on Intel’s IPRs filed on all claims of the
`
`same seven patents. On June 2, 2014, Judge Young likewise stayed the Fujitsu case. See Zond,
`
`LLC v. Fujitsu Semiconductor Ltd., No. 13-cv-11634, Dkt. No. 124. Specifically, Judge Young
`
`entered the following order:
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-11567-DJC Document 113 Filed 06/11/14 Page 2 of 3
`
`“The case is ordered administratively closed. It may be reopened by any party upon
`the conclusion of the proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Appeals Board
`or upon May 9, 2016, whichever shall first occur.”
`
`
`Accordingly, Judges Stearns and Young have now stayed three of the cases filed by Zond
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`based on IPRs before the United States Patent and Trademark Office challenging the validity of
`
`each claim of all seven patents involved in those cases. In addition, as of May 2, 2014, Gillette
`
`completed filing IPRs on all claims of the remaining three patents asserted against Gillette. See
`
`Dkt. No. 92 at 7. Gillette has agreed to be bound by the same estoppel as Intel in connection with
`
`the IPRs filed on all claims of the other seven patents. See Dkt. No. 68 at 2, 3.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 5, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Christopher R. Noyes
`
`
`
`Mark G. Matuschak, BBO # 543873
`Larissa Bifano Park, BBO # 663105
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`
`Christopher R. Noyes, BBO # 654324
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`
`Attorneys for Defendants The Gillette
`Company and The Procter & Gamble
`Company
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-11567-DJC Document 113 Filed 06/11/14 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Christopher R. Noyes, hereby certify that on June 11, 2014 a true and correct copy of the
`
`above document was served upon counsel of record for the plaintiff through the Court’s electronic
`
`court filing (ECF) system.
`
`/s/ Christopher R. Noyes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
