Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10387 Filed 05/17/23 Page 1 of 41
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:22-md-3034-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`
`Defendants Ford Motor Company, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda
`
`Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC, Volkswagen Group of America,
`
`Inc., Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, Nissan North
`
`America Inc., Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation a/k/a Nissan Motor
`
`Acceptance Company LLC, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North
`
`America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering &
`
`Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, General
`
`Motors Company, General Motors LLC, Tesla, Inc., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, and
`
`FCA US LLC (collectively “Defendants”) respectfully move to stay the multi-
`
`district litigation, and all related cases, pending the final disposition of the inter
`
`partes review proceedings of the asserted patents, including any appeals. In support,
`
`Defendants rely on the accompanying brief.
`
`Defendants requested to meet and confer regarding this motion on May 9,
`
`within a week of the initial round of IPR institutions. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10388 Filed 05/17/23 Page 2 of 41
`
`
`
`7.1(a), there was a conference between attorneys on May 17 in which the movants
`
`explained the nature of this motion and its legal basis and requested but did not
`
`obtain concurrence in the relief sought. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their
`
`motion and stay these proceedings pending the final disposition of the Patent Office
`
`proceedings regarding the asserted patents, including any appeals.
`
`Dated: May 17, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Joseph A. Herriges (with consent)
`Joseph A. Herriges, MN Bar No.
`390350
`Conrad A. Gosen, MN Bar No.
`0395381
`James Huguenin-Love, MN Bar No.
`0398706
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, 3200 RBC
`Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-5070
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`herriges@fr.com, gosen@fr.com,
`huguein-love@fr.com
`
`Michael J. McKeon, DC Bar No.
`459780
`Christian Chu, DC Bar No. 483948
`Jared Hartzman, DC Bar No.
`1034255
`Joshua Carrigan, VA Bar No. 96911
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`
`
`
`/s/ Justin B. Weiner
`Susan M. McKeever
`Justin B. Weiner
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 West Big Beaver Road
`Suite 400
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 822-7851
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`weiner@bsplaw.com
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Ryan C. Richardson
`William H. Milliken
`Anna G. Phillips
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox
`P.L.L.C
`1100 New York Avenue NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`rrichardson@sternekessler.com
`wmilliken@sternekessler.com
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10389 Filed 05/17/23 Page 3 of 41
`
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`mckeon@fr.com, chu@fr.com,
`hartzman@fr.com, carrigan@fr.com
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Parkway
`Suite 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`Fax: (734) 418-4255
`mhuget@honigman.com,
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY
`AND GENERAL MOTORS LLC
`
`/s/ John T. Johnson (with consent)
`John T. Johnson
`Jeffrey Mok
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`7 Times Square, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 765-5070
`Facsimile: (212) 258-2291
`E-mail: jjohnson@fr.com
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Benjamin J Christoff
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`E-mail: Cordell@fr.com
`Thomas Branigan (P41774)
`
`Bowman and Brooke LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`aphillips@sternekessler.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA, INC. AND
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA CHATTANOOGA
`OPERATIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`/s/ Thomas H. Reger II (with consent)
`Thomas H. Reger II
`Texas Bar No. 24032992
`reger@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 747-5070
`
`Lawrence Jarvis
`Georgia Bar No. 102116
`jarvis@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st
`Floor
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Telephone: (404) 892-5005
`Facsimile: (404) 892-5002
`
`Elizabeth Ranks
`Massachusetts Bar No. 693679
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10390 Filed 05/17/23 Page 4 of 41
`
`41000 Woodard Avenue, 200 East
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Telephone: (248) 205-3300
`Facsimile: (248) 205-3399
`thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrook
`e.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR
`CO., INC. AND HONDA
`DEVELOPMENT &
`MANUFACTURING OF
`AMERICA, LLC
`
`
`/s/ Peter J. Brennan (with consent)
`Reginald J. Hill (IL Bar #6225173)
`Peter J. Brennan (IL Bar #6190873)
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 N. Clark St.
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 222-9350
`rhill@jenner.com
`pbrennan@jenner.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.
`AND NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
`a/k/a NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC
`
`ranks@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1 Marina Park Drive
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Parkway
`Suite 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`mhuget@honigman.com
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`TESLA, INC.
`
`/s/ Frank C. Cimino, Jr. (with consent)
`Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
`Megan S. Woodworth
`Jonathan L. Falkler
`Robert C. Tapparo
`VENABLE LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 344-4569
`FCCimino@Venable.com
`MSWoodworth@Venable.com
`JLFalkler@Venable.com
`RCTapparo@Venable.com
`
`Patrick G. Seyferth (P47575)
`Susan M. McKeever (P73533)
`BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC
`100 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 400
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 822-780
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10391 Filed 05/17/23 Page 5 of 41
`
`/s/ Celine J. Crowson (with consent)
`Celine J. Crowson
`Joseph J. Raffetto
`Damon M. Lewis
`Nicholas W. Rotz
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`555 Thirteenth St, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-5703
`Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
`celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com
`joseph.raffetto@hoganlovells.com
`damon.lewis@hoganlovells.com
`nicholas.rotz@hoganlovells.com
`
`James A. Martone
`Dickinson Wright PLLC
`2600 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 300
`Troy, MI 48084-3312
`Tel: 248-433-7391
`Fax: 248-433-8284
`Jmartone@dickinsonwright.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
`
`seyferth@bsplaw.com
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`FCA US LLC
`
`/s/ Paul R. Steadman (with consent)
`Paul R. Steadman (Ill. Bar No.
`6238160)
`Matthew Satchwell (Il. Bar No.
`6290672)
`Shuzo Maruyama (Ill. Bar No.
`6313434)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
`Chicago, IL 60606-0089
`Tel: 312.368.2135
`Fax: 312.251.2850
`paul.steadman@us.dlapiper.com
`matthew.satchwell@us.dlapiper.com
`shuzo.maruyama@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Brian Erickson (Texas Bar No.
`24012594)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000
`Austin, Texas 78701-4653
`Tel: 512.457.7059
`Fax: 512.721.2263
`brian.erickson@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`TOYOTA MOTOR
`CORPORATION, TOYOTA
`MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
`TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A.,
`INC. AND TOYOTA MOTOR
`ENGINEERING &
`MANUFACTURING NORTH
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10392 Filed 05/17/23 Page 6 of 41
`
`AMERICA, INC. AND TOYOTA
`MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
` /s/ John LeRoy (with consent)
`John S. LeRoy (P61964)
`Christopher C. Smith (P73936)
`Kyle G. Konz (P79452)
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Telephone: (248) 358-4400
`Fax: (248) 358-3351
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brookskushman.com
`kkonz@brookskushman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10393 Filed 05/17/23 Page 7 of 41
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`Case No.: 2:22-md-3034-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10394 Filed 05/17/23 Page 8 of 41
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................ vi
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ............................. vii
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ...................................................................................... 6
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND......................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`Patent Office Proceedings ..................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has already instituted
`IPRs on the ’941, ’512, and ’450 patents. .................................. 8
`
`Additional IPR petitions are pending before the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board on all asserted patents. ........................ 9
`
`B.
`
`The MDL Is Still in Its Early Stages ...................................................10
`
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................ 10
`
`A. Discovery Is Not Complete and Trial Dates Have Not Been
`Set ........................................................................................................10
`
`B.
`
`A Stay Will Simplify the Issues in This Case .....................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`The IPR proceedings will significantly streamline the
`issues in the case. ..................................................................... 13
`
`A stay will promote efficiency in this case even if some
`of the challenged claims ultimately survive. ........................... 16
`
`C.
`
`Neo Will Not Be Prejudiced by a Stay ................................................20
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10395 Filed 05/17/23 Page 9 of 41
`
`
`
`
`
`INDEX OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01537, Paper 8 (PTAB May 5, 2023)
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01539, Paper 7 (PTAB May 2, 2023)
`
`Exhibit
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01567, Paper 8 (PTAB May 4, 2023)
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless, LLC, IPR2023-
`00079, Paper 11 (PTAB May 5, 2023)
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`PTAB Trial Statistics FY22 End of Year Outcome Roundup IPR,
`PGR, Patent and Trial Appeal Board (Fiscal Year 2022)
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10396 Filed 05/17/23 Page 10 of 41
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`ACQIS, LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`109 F. Supp. 3d 352 (D. Mass. 2015) ................................................................. 18
`
`Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Crane Co.,
`357 F. App’x 297 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Beacon Nav. GmbH v. Audi AG,
`No. 13-CV-11389, 2013 WL 4053171 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2013) ............. 7, 20
`
`British Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp,
`No. 18-366-WCB, 2019 WL 4740156 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019) ............ 11, 15, 17
`
`British Telecomms. PLC v. IAC/InterActiveCorp,
`No. 18-366-WCB, 2020 WL 5517283 (D. Del. Sept. 11, 2020) ........................ 16
`
`California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd.,
`25 F.4th 976 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 19
`
`Donnelly Corp. v. Guardian Indus. Corp.,
`No. 05-74444, 2007 WL 3104794 (E.D. MI Oct. 22, 2007) .............................. 18
`
`Equipements de Transformation IMAC v. Anheuser-Busch Cos.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D. Mich. 2008) ............................................................. 15
`
`Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`No. 17-871-LPS, 2019 WL 1276029 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2019) ........ 11, 13, 18, 21
`
`GII Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Cybernet Sys. Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-14890, 2014 WL 4209928 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 26, 2014) ...... 6, 18, 20
`
`Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Liqui-Force Servs. (USA), Inc.,
`No. 08-11916, 2009 WL 1469660 (E.D. Mich. May 26, 2009) ......................... 21
`
`IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 18-452-WCB, 2019 WL 3943058 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019) .................. 15, 19
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2023-00079, Paper 11 (PTAB May 5, 2023) ................................................. 9
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10397 Filed 05/17/23 Page 11 of 41
`
`
`
`Mich. Motor Techs., LLC v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft,
`No. 2:19-cv-10485, ECF No. 88 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2020) ............................. 7
`
`MicroPairing Techs. LLC v. FCA US LLC,
`No. 2:21-cv-12015, ECF No. 29 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2022) .............................. 7
`
`In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation,
`MDL No. 3034, ECF No. 1 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`Litigation, Mar. 31, 2022) ................................................................................... 12
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6-21-cv-00026 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 13, 2021) .................................................. 22
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`No. 6-21-cv-00024 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 12, 2021) .................................................. 22
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 6-21-cv-00025 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 13, 2021) .................................................. 22
`
`Netjumper Software, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 04-70366, 2008 WL 2761022 (E.D. Mich. July 15, 2008).......................... 13
`
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11,
`2015) ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Orbital Australia Pty v. Daimler AG,
`No. 15-CV-12398, 2015 WL 5439774 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2015) ....... 5, 19, 21
`
`Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. St. Jude Med., Inc.,
`No. 12-12908, 2013 WL 2393340 (E.D. Mich. May 31, 2013) ........................... 8
`
`Schwendimann v. Stahl’s, Inc.,
`No. 19-10525, 2021 WL 164546 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2021) .................... 2, 6, 13
`
`Serv. Sols. U.S., L.L.C. v. Autel.US Inc.,
`No. 13-10534, 2015 WL 401009 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2015) .............. 5, 7, 14, 18
`
`Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. v. ZF N. Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:22-CV-10289-TGB-EAS, 2023 WL 3359611 (E.D. Mich.
`May 10, 2023) ............................................................................................... 15, 21
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10398 Filed 05/17/23 Page 12 of 41
`
`
`
`StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
`No. 2-22-cv-10524, ECF No. 15 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2022) .............................. 7
`
`Transtex LLC v. WABCO Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-12793, 2018 WL 10742464 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2018) .............passim
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01537, Paper 8 (PTAB May 5, 2023) ............................................. 8, 17
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01539, Paper 7 (PTAB May 2, 2023) ................................................... 8
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01567, Paper 8 (PTAB May 4, 2023) ............................................. 8, 17
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10399 Filed 05/17/23 Page 13 of 41
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED
`
`1. Whether this litigation should be stayed pending the final disposition of
`inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings on the six asserted patents,
`where:
`
`(a)
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has instituted review of all
`challenged claims of three of the asserted patents;
`
`(b)
`
`additional IPR petitions have been filed on the three other asserted
`patents and may be instituted in the coming months;
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`the IPR proceedings could invalidate nearly all asserted claims of
`all six asserted patents;
`
`even if some challenged claims survive, the IPRs will significantly
`narrow the disputed issues in this litigation, including with regard
`to claim construction and validity; and
`
`(e)
`
`a stay would not prejudice Plaintiff because
`
`(i)
`
`fact discovery is not yet complete (e.g., no party depositions
`have been taken and the parties are still producing documents
`and exchanging written discovery), and there are no dates
`currently set after the Markman hearing,
`
`(ii) Plaintiff does not make or sell any products and would not
`suffer any competitive harm from a stay,
`
`(iii) Plaintiff seeks only monetary damages that would not be
`affected by a stay and has not sought a preliminary or
`permanent injunction, and
`
`(iv) Plaintiff delayed bringing this suit for years after Defendants’
`accused products were marketed and after Plaintiff had acquired
`the asserted patents and sued other entities for allegedly
`infringing the asserted patents.
`
`
`Answer: Yes.
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10400 Filed 05/17/23 Page 14 of 41
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY
`
`1. Serv. Sols. U.S., L.L.C. v. Autel.US Inc., No. 13-10534, 2015 WL 401009
`(E.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2015)
`
`2. Schwendimann v. Stahl’s, Inc., No. 19-10525, 2021 WL 164546 (E.D. Mich.
`Jan. 19, 2021)
`
`3. Transtex LLC v. WABCO Holdings Inc., No. 2:17-CV-12793, 2018 WL
`10742464 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2018)
`
`4. Orbital Australia Pty v. Daimler AG, No. 15-CV-12398, 2015 WL 5439774
`(E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2015)
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10401 Filed 05/17/23 Page 15 of 41
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This litigation began when Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”), a non-
`
`practicing entity backed by litigation funder Fortress Investment Group, sued
`
`Defendants1 on six patents related to wireless communications.2 Neo seeks only
`
`damages. As a non-practicing entity that does not make or sell any products, it has
`
`no need for injunctive relief. Neo’s litigation campaign against much of the
`
`automotive industry was, at Neo’s request, consolidated into this multidistrict
`
`litigation (“MDL”) and transferred to this Court in June 2022. ECF No. 1.
`
`Following Neo’s complaints, Volkswagen, MBUSA, Ford, and Honda filed
`
`a total of 16 petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) covering all asserted patents.
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has already instituted three of the
`
`IPRs for the ’941, ’512, and ’450 patents. While one IPR petition against the ’302
`
`
`1 Defendants consist of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), American Honda
`Motor Co., Inc., Honda Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC
`(“Honda”), Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen Group of America
`Chattanooga Operations, LLC (“Volkswagen”), Nissan North America Inc., Nissan
`Motor Acceptance Corporation a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC
`(“Nissan”), Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North
`America, Inc., Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (“Toyota”), General Motors
`Company, General Motors LLC (“GM”), Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”), Mercedes-Benz
`USA, LLC (“MBUSA”), and FCA US LLC (”FCA”).
`
`2 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,467,366 (“the ’366 patent”); 10,833,908 (“the ’908
`patent”); 10,075,941 (“the ’941 patent”); 10,447,450 (“the ’450 patent”); 10,965,512
`(“the ’512 patent”); and 10,771,302 (“the ’302 patent”) (collectively the “asserted
`patents”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10402 Filed 05/17/23 Page 16 of 41
`
`
`
`patent was denied institution, all asserted patents remain subject to at least one
`
`pending or instituted IPR proceeding. Institution decisions covering the remaining
`
`patents, which relate to substantially similar subject matter, are due in the coming
`
`months. These IPR proceedings could eliminate the need to litigate almost all
`
`asserted claims, and at the very least will significantly narrow the issues to be
`
`litigated.
`
`The Court should stay this MDL pending completion of the IPRs.3 Such
`
`stays have “numerous advantages,” including “narrowing or elimination of issues,
`
`the alleviation of discovery problems relating to prior art, the encouragement of
`
`settlement, initial consideration of issues by the PTO with its particular expertise,
`
`and reduction of costs for the parties and the court.” Schwendimann v. Stahl’s, Inc.,
`
`No. 19-10525, 2021 WL 164546, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2021) (Parker, J.). And
`
`a stay is particularly warranted on these facts for several reasons.
`
`First, this litigation is in its early stages. The majority of the work remains
`
`ahead of the parties and the Court. Fact discovery is still ongoing, with written
`
`discovery and documents still actively being exchanged and contentions yet to be
`
`finalized. No party depositions have yet occurred. Expert discovery has not yet
`
`
`3 Defendants move to stay the MDL, as well as the related Case Nos. 2:22-
`cv-11405-TGB; 2:22-cv-11402-TGB; 2:22-cv-11403-TGB; 2:22-cv-11404-TGB;
`2:22-cv-11406-TGB; 2:22-cv-11407-TGB; 2:22-cv-11408-TGB; 2:22-cv-11769-
`TGB; 2:22-cv-11770-TGB.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10403 Filed 05/17/23 Page 17 of 41
`
`
`
`begun, nor have dispositive motions been drafted. While Markman briefing has
`
`been submitted, the Court has not yet held a Markman hearing or issued a
`
`Markman order. Nor has any date been set to terminate the MDL and remand the
`
`individual litigations back to their origin courts for trial. Thus, the case stage is
`
`appropriate for a stay.
`
`The MDL posture of this litigation makes an early-stage stay particularly
`
`appropriate. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered consolidation of the
`
`individual actions to “eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial
`
`rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.”
`
`ECF No. 1 at 2. Continuing the MDL in parallel with 16 pending IPR proceedings,
`
`however, would do precisely the opposite.
`
`Absent a stay, the parties will proceed through fact and expert discovery,
`
`claim construction, and dispositive motions and return to their origin courts for
`
`trial. If the IPRs then result in cancellation or amendment of claims or rulings on
`
`claim construction or claim scope—which is likely—this Court’s work would have
`
`been for naught. The Court and the parties would have wasted significant resources
`
`litigating claims or patents that may no longer exist or whose meaning and scope is
`
`changed. Even worse, with the MDL concluded, discovery and claim construction
`
`might need to be reopened in all nine individual litigations—resulting in precisely
`
`the sort of duplication of effort that MDL treatment was supposed to avoid. By
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10404 Filed 05/17/23 Page 18 of 41
`
`
`
`contrast, staying the case at this juncture would conserve the Court’s and parties’
`
`resources, prevent any inconsistencies from arising between the district-court and
`
`IPR proceedings, and minimize any follow-on efforts needed following the IPR
`
`proceedings by ensuring these efforts are performed only once as part of the MDL.
`
`Second, the IPR proceedings will narrow the scope of the claims at issue and
`
`simplify the litigation. Nearly all asserted claims—34 out of 36—are subject to an
`
`instituted or pending IPR proceeding before the Patent Office. If the PTAB amends
`
`or cancels one or more claims, it will significantly narrow the issues in dispute
`
`before the parties even begin party depositions, hold a Markman hearing, or
`
`conduct expert discovery. Even if the challenged claims are not amended, the
`
`issues will still be simplified at least because of the estoppel imposed on
`
`petitioning Defendants. Moreover, the Court could benefit from the PTAB’s claim
`
`constructions and other analysis following the conclusion of the stay, and a stay
`
`will reduce the likelihood of inconsistent findings in the two sets of proceedings.
`
`That the PTAB has not yet issued institution decisions on three of the
`
`asserted patents does not warrant denial of a stay now. These three remaining
`
`patents describe similar subject matter as those already subject to an instituted
`
`petition, and thus the PTAB is likely to institute these remaining IPRs. But, even if
`
`the PTAB does not institute any of the remaining IPR petitions, the case will be
`
`considerably simplified by the PTAB’s rulings in the three instituted proceedings.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10405 Filed 05/17/23 Page 19 of 41
`
`
`
`Indeed, courts frequently stay cases where IPRs have been instituted on fewer than
`
`all claims asserted in the related litigation. See, e.g., Serv. Sols. U.S., L.L.C. v.
`
`Autel.US Inc., No. 13-10534, 2015 WL 401009, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 28, 2015)
`
`(staying case where 1 of 7 patents was in IPR because “[t]hough a stay would have
`
`greater potential to simplify the issues if all seven patents were involved in the IPR
`
`proceeding, this does not mean that a more limited review would not help simplify
`
`the case”); Transtex LLC v. WABCO Holdings, Inc., No. 17-cv-12793, 2018 WL
`
`10742464, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2018) (Murphy, J.) (staying case where 1 of 8
`
`patents was in IPR).
`
`Third, a stay will not unduly prejudice Neo. Neo does not compete with
`
`Defendants. In fact, Neo does not practice the patents, nor does it make or sell any
`
`products. None of Neo’s licensees compete with Defendants either. Thus, a delay
`
`does not put Neo at risk of any economic harm or destruction to its business. See
`
`Orbital Australia Pty v. Daimler AG, No. 15-CV-12398, 2015 WL 5439774, at *3
`
`(E.D. Mich. Sept. 15, 2015) (Steeh, J.) (granting stay pending the PTAB’s decision
`
`to grant or deny IPR petitions). Neo has not sought an injunction, and the monetary
`
`damages it seeks would not be impacted by a stay.
`
`Moreover, any delay resulting from a stay is insignificant compared to Neo’s
`
`own delay in bringing these actions against Defendants. Neo’s predecessor
`
`acquired the asserted patents in 2019 and Neo acquired them in 2020. Despite this,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10406 Filed 05/17/23 Page 20 of 41
`
`
`
`and despite Neo asserting these patents against other entities in 2021, Neo waited
`
`for over two years before filing its claims against Defendants. Moreover, Neo’s
`
`current claims accuse vehicles from at least as far back as 2015. Thus, Neo cannot
`
`credibly argue that it would be prejudiced by a delay.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay the MDL
`
`action until after the Patent Office proceedings have concluded.
`
`I.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`“[D]istrict courts []have the inherent power to manage their dockets and stay
`
`proceedings.” Automated Merch. Sys., Inc. v. Crane Co., 357 F. App’x 297, 299
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009). Courts “routinely exercise this discretion” and grant motions to
`
`stay “due to the numerous advantages of staying district court proceedings pending
`
`the completion of the reexamination process, including the narrowing or
`
`elimination of issues, the alleviation of discovery problems relating to prior art, the
`
`encouragement of settlement, initial consideration of issues by the PTO with its
`
`particular expertise, and reduction of costs for the parties and the court.”
`
`Schwendimann, 2021 WL 164546, at *2 (granting motion to stay pending inter
`
`partes review). “[T]here is a ‘liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay’”
`
`in this District pending the outcome of Patent Office proceedings. See GII
`
`Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Cybernet Sys. Corp., No. 2:13-cv-14890, 2014 WL 4209928,
`
`at *1 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 26, 2014). Indeed, courts in this District have routinely
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10407 Filed 05/17/23 Page 21 of 41
`
`
`
`granted stays pending IPR proceedings in automotive cases involving some of the
`
`same Defendants present in this case. See, e.g., StratosAudio, Inc. v. Volkswagen
`
`Group of America, Inc., No. 2-22-cv-10524, ECF No. 15 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29,
`
`2022) (granting stay pending resolution of instituted IPRs where fact discovery
`
`was ongoing but no depositions had been taken when IPRs were instituted); Mich.
`
`Motor Techs., LLC v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 2:19-cv-10485, ECF No.
`
`88 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 22, 2020) (same); MicroPairing Techs. LLC v. FCA US LLC,
`
`No. 2:21-cv-12015, ECF No. 29 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2022) (granting a stay prior
`
`to institution of any IPR petitions); Beacon Nav. GmbH v. Audi AG, No. 13-CV-
`
`11389, 2013 WL 4053171 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 12, 2013) (staying case pending
`
`Patent Office proceedings).
`
`This District considers three factors to determine whether a stay pending
`
`Patent Office proceedings is appropriate: “(1) whether discovery is complete and
`
`whether a trial date has been set; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in
`
`question and trial of the case; and (3) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or
`
`present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party.” Regents of Univ. of
`
`Michigan v. St. Jude Med., Inc., No. 12-12908, 2013 WL 2393340, at *2 (E.D.
`
`Mich. May 31, 2013).
`
`When IPRs have already been instituted on asserted patents, courts often
`
`find these factors weigh in favor of a stay. Serv. Sols. U.S., 2015 WL 401009, at *3
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10408 Filed 05/17/23 Page 22 of 41
`
`
`
`(staying case where 1 of 7 asserted patents was in IPR); Transtex, 2018 WL
`
`10742464, at *1; NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-1058-WCB, 2015
`
`WL 1069111, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (“[A]fter the PTAB has instituted
`
`review proceedings, the parallel district court litigation ordinarily should be
`
`stayed.”).
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Patent Office Proceedings
`
`Because each of the asserted patents is directed to subject matter that was
`
`already well known in the art, Volkswagen, MBUSA, Ford, and Honda filed a total
`
`of 16 IPR petitions before the PTAB covering each of the asserted patents. These
`
`petitions were summarized in a status report submitted by the filing defendants on
`
`May 9, 2023. ECF No. 140.
`
`
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has already instituted
`IPRs on the ’941, ’512, and ’450 patents.
`
`Volkswagen filed IPR petitions on September 15, 2022 against the ’941,
`
`’302, and ’512 patents and on September 27, 2022 against the ’450 patent. The
`
`PTAB granted institution for the petitions challenging the ’941,4 ’512,5 and ’4506
`
`
`4 Exhibit 1 (Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01537, Paper 8 (PTAB May 5, 2023)).
`
`5 Exhibit 2 (Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01539, Paper 7 (PTAB May 2, 2023)).
`
`6 Exhibit 3 (Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-01567, Paper 8 (PTAB May 4, 2023)).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 145, PageID.10409 Filed 05/17/23 Page 23 of 41
`
`
`
`patents between May 2, 2023 and May 5, 2023. The institution decisions found a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Volkswagen will prevail in invalidating at least one
`
`challenged claim of each patent and instituted trial on all challenged claims. Final
`
`written decisions in these proceedings are expected in early May 2024.
`
`Additionally, on May 5, 2023, the PTAB granted institution of MBUSA’s petition
`
`challenging the ’512 patent on the same grounds as Volkswagen’s petition and
`
`joined the MBUSA petition with Volkswagen’s.7 While Volkswagen’s IPR petition
`
`against the ’3