Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11249 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`PRODUCTION OF NEO’S LICENSING
`NEGOTIATIONS WITH AVANCI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`PRODUCTION OF NEO’S LICENSING
`NEGOTIATIONS WITH AVANCI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11250 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`1.
`
`Should plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC (“Neo”) be compelled to produce
`
`its patent licensing negotiations with third-party Avanci, LLC (“Avanci”) where:
`
`• Avanci is the world’s largest automotive OEM patent licensing entity for
`
`4G/LTE cellular patents, and Neo is asserting its patents against the
`
`Defendant automotive OEM’s 4G/LTE cellular technology;
`
`• Each Defendant is a licensee of Avanci;
`
`• Neo admitted in an interrogatory response that it was negotiating with
`
`Avanci to secure a patent license that would cover each of the asserted
`
`patents, each of the Defendants, and the alleged infringement asserted in
`
`this case;
`
`• Avanci permitted at least one Defendant (Ford) to produce in discovery its
`
`patent license negotiations with Avanci; and
`
`• Neo seeks damages in the form of a “reasonable royalty” under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§284 and the Federal Circuit has held that a patentee’s negotiations to
`
`license its asserted patents are squarely relevant to the reasonable royalty
`
`determination.
`
`Defendants’ answer: Yes.
`
`
`
`CONCURRENCE PURSUANT TO L.R. 7.1(a)
`
`Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(a), the parties met-and-conferred on numerous occasions
`
`regarding the relief sought in this Motion. The Court held a Status Conference on
`
`September 13, 2023 to discuss the parties’ discovery dispute, and authorized the
`
`Defendants to file this Motion.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11251 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................ i
`
`CONCURRENCE PURSUANT TO L.R. 7.1(a) ..................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................ iii
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Neo’s Patent Infringement Claims ................................. 1
`
`B.
`
`The Avanci 4G/LTE Patent Pool........................................................ 2
`
`C.
`
`Defendants’ Requests for Neo’s Licensing Negotiations .................... 3
`
`D.
`
`The Present Discovery Dispute Regarding Avanci ............................. 4
`
`III. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The “claim charts/analyses” exchanged between Neo and
`Avanci ............................................................................................... 5
`
`Neo’s communications with Avanci about a “group resolution
`of this litigation” are relevant and are not privileged .........................10
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11252 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc.,
`
`773 F. 3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 7
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`
`318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y.1970) ........................................................... 2, 7
`
`High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`
`No. 09-2269-CM-DJW, 2012 WL 1533213 (D. Kan. Apr. 30, 2012) ........... 8
`
`Iafrate v. Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP,
`
`335 F.R.D. 378 (E.D. Mich. 2020) ............................................................... 9
`
`In re Smirman,
`
`267 F.R.D. 221 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (Zatkoff, J.) ........................................... 9
`
`Phoenix Sols. Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`
`254 F.R.D. 568 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ............................................................ 7, 10
`
`Rembrandt Pat. Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc,
`
`No. C 14-05093, 2016 WL 427363 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) ....................... 9
`
`Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`
`No. 12-CV-05601, 2014 WL 3940294 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014) ............... 9
`
`Rules
`
`F.R.E. 408 .............................................................................................................10
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11253 Filed 09/27/23 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Avanci patent license is highly relevant to this case and reflects a
`
`“reasonable royalty.” (See ECF No. 175, PageID.11061.) Defendants seek relevant
`
`evidence Neo is withholding regarding (i) Avanci’s determination as to whether
`
`Neo’s asserted patents cover the 4G/LTE cellular “standards” Neo relies on to allege
`
`infringement in this case, and (ii) Avanci’s determination of Neo’s share of the
`
`Avanci license fee that is attributable to the asserted patents. Neo admits its
`
`negotiation with Avanci was directed to the asserted patents and the Defendants, all
`
`of whom are Avanci licensees. Neo’s “privilege” objection to disclosing this highly
`
`relevant factual information is factually unsupported, contrary to the law, and should
`
`be overruled. For the reasons detailed below, the Court should compel Neo to
`
`produce the materials exchanged with Avanci in licensing negotiations.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Neo’s Patent Infringement Claims
`
`Neo asserts that Defendants infringe six U.S. patents through the inclusion of
`
`“4G/LTE” cellular modem devices in Defendants’ vehicles. The asserted patents
`
`make no reference to vehicles or automotive technology. Rather, they are directed
`
`exclusively to low-level features operating, if at all, inside of a cellular “modem”
`
`chipset supplied to the Defendants for incorporation in their vehicles. The term
`
`“4G/LTE” refers to published “standards” that manufacturers of cellular modem
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11254 Filed 09/27/23 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`chipsets (and stationary cell towers) use to ensure their products can communicate
`
`with one another. Neo alleges “[t]he inventions in the Patents-in-Suit relate to
`
`various improvements in OFDMA networks and corresponding user equipment, and
`
`those improvements have since been incorporated into the 3GPP standards for
`
`4G/LTE and 5G/NR networks” and “the Asserted Patents read onto portions of the
`
`4G/LTE or NR/5G standards.” (See ECF No. 28, PageID.60, 64.)1
`
`Neo seeks damages for Defendants’ alleged infringement in the form of a
`
`“reasonable royalty.” (ECF No. 98-3, PageID.8148.) Neo asserts the reasonable
`
`royalty should be determined using, among other things, the time-honored “Georgia-
`
`Pacific analysis,” including “Neo’s licensing … history.” (Id.)2
`
`B.
`
`The Avanci 4G/LTE Patent Pool
`
`Avanci is the world’s largest 4G/LTE cellular “patent pool.” Its portfolio
`
`includes thousands of patents, held by more than 50 patent owners, that are alleged
`
`to be “essential” to the implementation of the 4G/LTE standard. More than 40
`
`automotive OEMs—including all of the Defendants in this case—have procured
`
`licenses to those patents through Avanci. The licenses allow the OEMs to include
`
`cellular features in their vehicles without fear of infringement claims by the Avanci
`
`licensors (regardless of the merit of such infringement claims, which is often
`
`
`1 Neo recently dropped its infringement claims against the “NR/5G” standard.
`
`2 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis is added.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11255 Filed 09/27/23 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`disputed). Defendants pay Avanci a per-vehicle license fee, and Avanci distributes
`
`portions of that fee to the 4G/LTE patent owners.
`
`The size of Avanci’s patent pool is central to the royalty determination for
`
`Neo’s patents in this case. In October 2017, Avanci represented
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.4 Avanci states that it “simplifies patent licensing by reducing
`
`complexity, increasing efficiency and ensuring fairness for licensors and licensees.”5
`
`These facts confirm the Court’s stated view as to the relevance of the Avanci license
`
`to the determination of a reasonable royalty. (ECF No. 175, PageID.11061.)
`
`C. Defendants’ Requests for Neo’s Licensing Negotiations
`
`Early in discovery, Defendants served interrogatories and document requests
`
`on Neo seeking basic information relevant to the reasonable royalty determination.
`
`Common Interrogatory No. 2 and Document Request No. 49 are representative.
`
`(Exs. B and C.) Among other things, these requests seek a description of “the
`
`substance and outcome of all license discussions and/or negotiations … relating to
`
`
`3 The term “SEP” refers to a Standard Essential Patent.”
`
`4 In October 2017, Avanci
`
`
`
` Each of these other companies since has
`
`joined Avanci’s 4G/LTE pool. See https://www.avanci.com/vehicle/4gvehicle.
`
`5 See https://www.avanci.com/about.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11256 Filed 09/27/23 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`any Asserted Patent,” and production of related documents and communications.
`
`
`
`Neo’s original response to this discovery provided only objections and no
`
`substantive response. (Ex. B, pp. 10-12; Ex. C.) Neo’s first supplemental response
`
`admitted
`
`
`
`.” (Id., p. 17.)
`
`But Neo refused to provide the details of its negotiation, claiming an unsubstantiated
`
`“common legal interest.” Id. Defendants explained to Neo that its objections were
`
`improper. (Ex. D, 7/28/23 Letter from LeRoy to Stewart.)
`
`On September 1, 2023, Neo supplemented its response to provide additional
`
`information concerning its negotiation with Avanci. (Ex. B, pp. 18-20.) For
`
`example, Neo disclosed
`
`
`
`.” (Id., p.
`
`19.) However, Neo continued to withhold crucial documents, communications, and
`
`information regarding the Avanci negotiations—including
`
`
`
`.6
`
`D. The Present Discovery Dispute Regarding Avanci
`
`While Neo has selectively agreed to provide some information, a dispute
`
`remains over relevant information Neo admits it is withholding—Neo’s emails and
`
`other correspondence with Avanci, as well as the documents exchanged between the
`
`
`6 Neo subsequently agreed to provide this information but has not done so.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11257 Filed 09/27/23 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`parties during their negotiations, such as memoranda, reports, draft agreements,
`
`offers to license, and patent valuations (“The Avanci Materials”). In addition,
`
`shortly before the September 13, 2023 Status Conference, Neo enumerated two
`
`highly significant categories of documents it is withholding that fall within the scope
`
`of Defendants’ requests: (1) “[Neo’s] infringement claim charts/analyses that were
`
`shared with Avanci by email”; and (2) Neo’s “discussions” with Avanci “about a
`
`possible group resolution of this litigation.” (Ex. E.)
`
`At the conclusion of the Status Conference, the Court granted Defendants
`
`permission to submit this Motion to Compel the information Avanci is withholding
`
`responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests. (ECF No. 175, PageID.11082-83.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Through fact discovery, Defendants learned that Neo considered joining the
`
`Avanci 4G/LTE patent pool as a licensor of the same patents asserted in this case.
`
`Neo and Avanci exchanged documents and communications regarding the value of
`
`Neo’s asserted patents relative to the Avanci portfolio as a whole, and documents
`
`comparing the patents to the 4G/LTE standard at issue in this case. While all
`
`information exchanged between Neo and Avanci is relevant and should be produced,
`
`defendants focus below on the two categories Neo confirmed it is withholding.
`
`A. The “claim charts/analyses” exchanged between Neo and Avanci
`
`Neo’s pleading that “the Asserted Patents read onto portions of the 4G/LTE
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11258 Filed 09/27/23 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`… standard” (ECF No. 28, PageID.60, 64) is at the core of Neo’s infringement
`
`claims in this case. Thus, the “claim charts/analyses” exchanged between Neo and
`
`Avanci – which Neo admits
`
`– are squarely relevant evidence in this case.
`
`Avanci documents describe
`
`
`
`
`
`.” (Ex. F, NEO-AUTO_0104952.)
`
`Avanci defines
`
` (Id., NEO-AUTO_0104951.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Id., NEO-AUTO_0105114.)
`
`Thus, the exchanges Neo admits it is withholding concerning Neo’s patents
`
`are relevant to both Neo’s infringement theories against Defendants and the value of
`
`Neo’s patent portfolio (as determined by Avanci). As Neo’s counsel explained
`
`during the status conference, “when you do a comparable license damages model,
`
`what you have to do is look at the ways that the comparable license evaluated the
`
`value of the technology.” (ECF No. 175, PageID.11061.) The Neo-Avanci
`
`licensing discussions are part of Neo’s “licensing history” identified in its Rule
`
`26(a)(1) initial disclosures. (ECF No. 98-3, PageID.8148.) Importantly, Neo does
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11259 Filed 09/27/23 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`not deny the withheld materials are relevant.
`
`Other materials Neo shared with Avanci during the negotiation, such as the
`
`value of Neo’s pre-existing licenses with third-parties other than Avanci, are also
`
`relevant the reasonable royalty analysis. Neo states that Avanci offered Neo a
`
` (Ex. B, p. 19.) According to
`
`Avanci,
`
`
`
`. (Ex. F, NEO-AUTO_0105338.) Neo’s prior
`
`license revenue is relevant to at least “Georgia Pacific” factor one. See Ericsson,
`
`Inc. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., 773 F. 3d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2014), citing Georgia-
`
`Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y.1970)
`
`(finding that “royalties received by the patentee for the licensing of the patent in
`
`suit” is a relevant factor for the jury to consider).
`
`Neo’s basis for withholding this relevant information has evolved. In its
`
`original interrogatory response, Neo asserted it is not required to turn over details of
`
`“unconsummated” licensing negotiations. (Ex. B, p. 10.) To the extent Neo
`
`continues to maintain that objection, it is improper. See Phoenix Sols. Inc. v. Wells
`
`Fargo Bank, N.A., 254 F.R.D. 568, 582–85 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (adopting defendant’s
`
`view that licensing communications “are relevant to show … what [the patentee]
`
`would consider a reasonable royalty rate for the patents-in-suit.”); High Point Sarl
`
`v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 09-2269-CM-DJW, 2012 WL 1533213, at *9 (D. Kan.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11260 Filed 09/27/23 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`Apr. 30, 2012) (ordering production of “ongoing and unconsummated patent
`
`licensing communications with third parties in the absence of a consummated
`
`agreement” because they are “relevant to whether prior licenses are comparable and
`
`to the calculation of a reasonable royalty.”).
`
`Most recently, Neo asserted that the Avanci Materials were “prepared by Neo
`
`with counsel in anticipation of litigation, and were shared with Avanci under NDA
`
`or with an expectation of confidentiality” and that “[w]ork product protection is not
`
`waived by sharing confidentially with a non-adversary in these circumstances.” (Ex.
`
`E.) Neo’s positions are each improper. First, the materials were not “prepared in
`
`anticipation of litigation,” they were prepared as
`
`” to
`
`share with Avanci for its patent valuation. (Ex. F, NEO-AUTO_0104952.) Avanci
`
`does not litigate patent assertions; it is a licensing entity only. And it appears that
`
`Neo was already in litigation with Defendants when the communications with
`
`Avanci were made. This undermines Avanci’s assertion that the communications
`
`were “in anticipation” of litigation.
`
`Second, even if Neo’s materials constituted attorney work product at the time
`
`they were first made, Neo waived that protection when it shared them with Avanci.
`
`And Neo’s alleged privilege would not apply to the materials Neo received from
`
`Avanci. The common interest doctrine provides a limited exception to waiver, but
`
`it does not apply here. Neo’s assertion of non-waiver is relevant only if Neo and
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11261 Filed 09/27/23 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`Avanci had agreed – before the exchange – that they share a common legal interest.
`
`See In re Smirman, 267 F.R.D. 221, 223 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (Zatkoff, J.) (addressing
`
`the common interest privilege “when parties enter into a common-interest
`
`agreement”). Neo and Avanci entered into a routine confidentiality agreement, but
`
`it makes no reference to any “common legal interest” and includes no agreement to
`
`receive privileged information from the other party, and no obligation to maintain
`
`that information as privileged. (Ex. G.) See Rembrandt Pat. Innovations, LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc, No. C 14-05093, 2016 WL 427363, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016)
`
`(compelling production of attorney work product exchanged with third parties,
`
`despite existence of a non-disclosure agreement); Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No.
`
`12-CV-05601, 2014 WL 3940294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014) (same).
`
`More fundamentally, Neo and Avanci lack a common legal interest because
`
`they are at opposite ends of a licensing negotiation. Their legal interests are adverse,
`
`whereas the law requires an “identical legal interest” for any common legal interest
`
`privilege to apply. Iafrate v. Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP, 335 F.R.D. 378 (E.D.
`
`Mich. 2020). See also, Rembrandt, 2016 WL 427363, at *7-8 (compelling NPE to
`
`produce its communications with inventors of the patents it sought to acquire, even
`
`though they contained analysis of the patents and identification of potential litigation
`
`targets); Thought, 2014 WL 3940294, at *3 (compelling production of patentee’s
`
`failed negotiations with NPEs to assign and jointly monetize the patents-in-suit).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11262 Filed 09/27/23 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`Neo’s “common legal interest” argument is also undermined by the fact that Avanci
`
`permitted at least one of its licensees (Ford) to produce licensing communications in
`
`this case. (Ex. H.) Neo’s assertion is improper, and the Court should overrule it.
`
`B. Neo’s communications with Avanci about a “group resolution of this
`litigation” are relevant and are not privileged
`
`Neo admits it is withholding “distinct discussions about a possible group
`
`resolution of this litigation.” (Ex. E.) Neo never identifies the “group” to which it
`
`refers (and the Defendants have not received any “group settlement” offer), but such
`
`communications are relevant to Avanci’s valuation of the asserted patents and thus
`
`the reasonable royalty inquiry. As explained above, Neo’s communications with
`
`Avanci are not attorney work product and do not qualify for any “common interest
`
`privilege.” Further, to the extent Neo asserts an objection under F.R.E. 408, it is
`
`improper. See Phoenix Sols., 254 F.R.D. at 582-583 (rejecting patentee’s Rule 408
`
`objection noting “[r]elevancy for discovery is flexible and has a broader meaning
`
`than admissibility at trial”).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, the Court should compel Neo to turn over and
`
`supplement its discovery responses with respect to all communications and other
`
`exchanges with Avanci relating to the asserted patents.
`
`Date: September 27, 2023
`/s/ John S. LeRoy
`
`
`John S. LeRoy (P61964)
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Peter J. Brennan
`
`Reginald J. Hill (IL Bar #6225173)
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11263 Filed 09/27/23 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`Christopher C. Smith (P73936)
`Kyle G. Konz (P79452)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Telephone: (248) 358-4400
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brookskushman.com
`kkonz@brookskushman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`Ford Motor Company
`
`
`/s/ Joseph A. Herriges
`
`
`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, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-5070
`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
`mckeon@fr.com, chu@fr.com,
`hartzman@fr.com, carrigan@fr.com
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Thomas H. Reger II
`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
`
`Elizabeth Ranks
`Massachusetts Bar No. 693679
`ranks@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1 Marina Park Drive
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11264 Filed 09/27/23 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Prkwy., Ste.
`100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`mhuget@honigman.com,
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants General
`Motors Company and General
`Motors LLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
`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) 822-7800
`seyferth@bsplaw.com
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`FCA US LLC
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Prkwy., Ste. 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`mhuget@honigman.com
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Tesla, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Deirdre M. Wells
`Susan M. McKeever
`Justin B. Weiner
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 West Big Beaver Rd., 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
`1101 K Street, NW, 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`rrichardson@sternekessler.com
`wmilliken@sternekessler.com
`aphillips@sternekessler.com
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 182, PageID.11265 Filed 09/27/23 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants Volkswagen
`Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen
`Group of America Chattanooga
`Operations, Inc.
`
`/s/ Paul R. Steadman
`
`
`Paul R. Steadman (Illinois Bar No.
`6238160)
`Matthew Satchwell (Illinois Bar No.
`6290672)
`Shuzo Maruyama (Illinois 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 America, Inc.
`and Toyota Motor Credit
`Corporation
`
`
`/s/ John T. Johnson
`
`
`John T. Johnson (New York Bar
`No.2589182)
`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 (New York Bar No.
`2589182)
`Benjamin J Christoff
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Ave., S.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
`E-mail: Cordell@fr.com
`
`Thomas Branigan (P41774)
`Matin Fallahi (P84524)
`Bowman and Brooke LLP
`41000 Woodard Avenue, 200 East
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Telephone: (248) 205-3300
`Facsimile: (248) 205-3399
`thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
`matin.fallahi@browmanandbrook.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and
`Honda Development & Manufacturing of
`America, LLC
`
`13
`
`
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
