`
`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
`
`