Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10277 Filed 05/09/23 Page 1 of 12
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS LLC’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE IN PROCURING EVIDENCE FROM FOREIGN
`THIRD PARTIES
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”) respectfully requests, pursuant to 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1781 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and 28(b), that the
`
`Court issue Letters of Request seeking, pursuant to the Convention of 18 March
`
`1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague
`
`Evidence Convention”), the procurement of evidence from foreign third parties
`
`Ficosa International S.A. (“Ficosa”), Quectel Wireless Solutions Ltd. (“Quectel”),
`
`and Rolling Wireless S.A.R.L. (“Rolling”). These foreign third parties possess
`
`documents and knowledge to be used at trial in support of Plaintiff’s infringement
`
`allegations against Defendants. Counsel for the affected Defendants1 do not oppose
`
`this Motion. Specifically, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court sign and
`
`
`1 The third party recipients are either, on information and belief, direct or indirect
`suppliers to FCA US LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Acceptance
`Corp., and Tesla, Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS LLC’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
`ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE IN PROCURING EVIDENCE FROM FOREIGN
`THIRD PARTIES
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”) respectfully requests, pursuant to 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1781 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and 28(b), that the
`
`Court issue Letters of Request seeking, pursuant to the Convention of 18 March
`
`1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague
`
`Evidence Convention”), the procurement of evidence from foreign third parties
`
`Ficosa International S.A. (“Ficosa”), Quectel Wireless Solutions Ltd. (“Quectel”),
`
`and Rolling Wireless S.A.R.L. (“Rolling”). These foreign third parties possess
`
`documents and knowledge to be used at trial in support of Plaintiff’s infringement
`
`allegations against Defendants. Counsel for the affected Defendants1 do not oppose
`
`this Motion. Specifically, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court sign and
`
`
`1 The third party recipients are either, on information and belief, direct or indirect
`suppliers to FCA US LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Acceptance
`Corp., and Tesla, Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10278 Filed 05/09/23 Page 2 of 12
`
`affix its seal to the accompanying Letters of Request (attached as Appendices A–
`
`C) and return the same with original signatures and seals to Plaintiff’s counsel for
`
`transmission to the central judicial authorities via the U.S. Department of State.
`
`
`
`DATED: May 9, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Christopher S. Stewart
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`YOUNG, GARCIA &
`QUADROZZI, PC
`2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334
`Telephone: (248) 353-8620
`Email: quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10279 Filed 05/09/23 Page 3 of 12
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on May 9, 2023, the foregoing document was
`
`filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will
`
`send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
`
`/s/ Christopher S. Stewart
`Christopher S. Stewart
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10280 Filed 05/09/23 Page 4 of 12
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS LLC’S
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST
`FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE IN PROCURING
`EVIDENCE FROM FOREIGN THIRD PARTIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10281 Filed 05/09/23 Page 5 of 12
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED
`Whether the Court should issue Letters of Request seeking assistance from
`the appropriate central judicial authorities of China, Luxembourg, and Spain in
`obtaining discovery from third parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10282 Filed 05/09/23 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 1
`II. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 2
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10283 Filed 05/09/23 Page 7 of 12
`
`TABLE OF MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES
`
`
`In re Flint Water Cases No. 5:16-cv-10444, 2020 WL 2097652 (E.D. Mich. May
`1, 2020)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10284 Filed 05/09/23 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re Flint Water Cases
` No. 5:16-cv-10444, 2020 WL 2097652 (E.D. Mich. May 1, 2020) ...................... 2
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1781 ........................................................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10285 Filed 05/09/23 Page 9 of 12
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff sued Defendants in the above-captioned action, alleging that
`
`Defendants’ vehicles, which possess LTE/LTE-A/5G/NR functionalities
`
`(“Accused Instrumentalities”), infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the ’366
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 (“the ’908 patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,075,941 (“the ’941 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 (“the ’450 patent”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 (“the ’512 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302
`
`(“the ’302 patent”).
`
`
`
`To support its infringement claims, Plaintiff sought discovery from third-
`
`party Qualcomm, including source code, concerning the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`Qualcomm informed Neo that, in order for Qualcomm to produce the source code
`
`that is loaded onto the modem chips that are incorporated into Defendants’
`
`products, Neo must provide Qualcomm with the corresponding software build
`
`identifiers (“build IDs”). Neo pursued this discovery from Defendants, who
`
`informed Neo that certain third-party suppliers, including Ficosa, Quectel, and
`
`Rolling, possessed this information. Accordingly, Neo seeks the instant relief to
`
`obtain this discovery from the third-party suppliers, as well as additional
`
`identifying information pertaining to components relevant to the Accused
`
`Functionalities.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10286 Filed 05/09/23 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`The Letters of Request seek the assistance of the central judicial authorities
`
`of China, Luxembourg, and Spain in obtaining the requested build IDs and other
`
`information on the Accused Functionalities from, respectively, Quectel, Rolling,
`
`and Ficosa, pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention. On information and
`
`belief, Quectel is headquartered in China; Rolling is headquartered in
`
`Luxembourg; and Ficosa is headquartered in Spain.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`A letter of request transmitted pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention is
`
`a formal request for judicial assistance in producing evidence that is transmitted
`
`between the central judicial authorities of the issuing and receiving countries.
`
`Federal district courts have the authority to issue letters of request pursuant to the
`
`Hague Evidence Convention, to which China, Luxembourg, and Spain are
`
`signatories. See 28 U.S.C. § 1781; 22 C.F.R. § 92.54; FED R. CIV. P. 28(b); In re
`
`Flint Water Cases, No. 5:16-cv-10444, 2020 WL 2097652, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May
`
`1, 2020). The issuance of letters of request is a matter that lies within the Court’s
`
`discretion. Flint, 2020 WL 2097652 at *1.
`
`
`
`The evidence sought pertains to the Accused Functionalities in this case,
`
`namely, the software build IDs corresponding to the software loaded onto the
`
`modem chips ultimately incorporated into Defendants’ products. Providing this
`
`information will enable the manufacturers of these modem chips to identify and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10287 Filed 05/09/23 Page 11 of 12
`
`produce the correct source code, which will directly evince Defendants’
`
`infringement in this case. Thus, the evidence sought is directly relevant to the
`
`central issue in each case and is necessary to obtain evidence that will be used at
`
`trial. The letters of request seek documents showing any software build IDs
`
`corresponding to the Accused Products, as well as identifying information on the
`
`components supplied by these entities to Defendants or Defendants’ suppliers. If
`
`the courts to whom they are addressed decline to compel the production of
`
`documentary evidence, the letters also seek depositions of corporate
`
`representatives on the matter.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant
`
`Plaintiff’s motion, sign and affix its seal to the Letters of Request (attached as
`
`Appendices A–C) and return the same with original signatures and seals to
`
`Plaintiff’s counsel for forwarding to the U.S. Department of State.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 141, PageID.10288 Filed 05/09/23 Page 12 of 12
`
`DATED: May 9, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Christopher S. Stewart
`Jason D. Cassady
`Texas State Bar No. 24045625
`Email: jcassady@caldwellcc.com
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Texas State Bar No. 24079399
`Email: cstewart@caldwellcc.com
`CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 1200
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 888-4848
`Facsimile: (214) 888-4849
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi (P71646)
`YOUNG, GARCIA &
`QUADROZZI, PC
`2775 Stansbury Blvd., Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334
`Telephone: (248) 353-8620
`Email: quadrozzi@youngpc.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on May 9, 2023, the foregoing document was
`
`filed electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will
`
`send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
`
`/s/ Christopher S. Stewart
`Christopher S. Stewart
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
