`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11426 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Reply in
`Support of Their Motion to
`Compel Production of
`Neo’s Licensing
`Negotiations with Avanci
`
`
`
`Redacted Version of
`Document to be Sealed
`Pursuant to LR
`5.3(b)(3)(B)(iii)
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11427 Filed 10/18/23 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`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’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO COMPEL
`PRODUCTION OF NEO’S LICENSING NEGOTIATIONS WITH AVANCI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11428 Filed 10/18/23 Page 3 of 12
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND ARGUMENT
`
`Neo does not dispute that the Avanci patent license and its interactions with
`
`Avanci are highly relevant. After Defendants articulated the problems with Neo’s
`
`initial position in their opening brief, Neo has conceded that it must produce
`
`documents shared with Avanci, including email correspondence and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Doc. No. 189 at 1 (“Neo has decided to produce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
` to avoid a
`
`dispute, mooting that issue.”). While Defendants disagree with much of Neo’s
`
`superfluous rhetoric on this mooted issue, they focus now on the only remaining
`
`issue: whether Neo should also have to produce other documents and
`
`correspondence that Neo shared with Avanci
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. For at least two reasons, the Court should compel Neo to produce these
`
`documents as well.
`
`First, the documents exchanged as part of Neo’s effort to persuade Avanci
`
`to facilitate
`
`
`
` are not materially different (from a discovery-
`
`disclosure standpoint) than the
`
`
`
` Neo has conceded
`
`are unprotected and must be produced. The documents related to Neo’s effort to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, which Neo has
`
`agreed to produce, were provided in an arms-length transaction to persuade Avanci
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11429 Filed 10/18/23 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See Doc. No. 181 at 8-9. While Neo attempts to
`
`draw a distinction between these admittedly non-protected documents and the
`
`
`
`
`
`, it is a distinction without relevant difference. Like
`
`the documents exchanged when Neo was seeking to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, the
`
`
`
` were exchanged as part of an arms-length transaction
`
`where Neo was trying to persuade Avanci
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Doc. No. 189-3, ¶6. This discussion does not relate to a common
`
`legal interest in the outcome of this litigation, but instead is a business negotiation
`
`wherein Neo was trying to get Avanci to perform a commercial service:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. And importantly, like the licensing
`
`negotiations, Neo provides no evidence that these arms-length negotiations over
`
`
`
`
`
` were ever consummated. See id. ¶¶6-9. There is no
`
`legitimate reason why this set of negotiations should be treated any differently than
`
`the
`
`
`
`
`
` that Neo has conceded are not protected. See
`
`Rembrandt Pat. Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. C 14-05093, 2016 WL
`
`427363, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2016) (compelling NPE to produce
`
`communications with inventors of the patents it sought to acquire, including
`
`analysis of patents and identification of potential litigation targets); Thought, Inc.
`
`v. Oracle Corp., 12-CV-05601, 2014 WL 3940294, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11,
`
`2014) (compelling production of patentee’s failed negotiation with NPEs to jointly
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11430 Filed 10/18/23 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`monetize the patents-in-suit).
`
`Neo’s cited cases do not show that the
`
`
`
`
`
` are
`
`entitled to special protection. In Xerox, for example, the entities that shared
`
`information had “entered into agreements” that provided compensation to the agent
`
`based on the outcome of litigation. See Xerox Corp. v. Google Inc., 801 F. Supp.
`
`2d 293, 303–04 (D. Del. 2011) (“[T]he documents over which Xerox is asserting
`
`privilege relate exclusively to a time frame in which IPValue was already retained
`
`by, and working for and with, Xerox”). Here, Neo has pointed to no such
`
`agreement. See Doc. No. 189-3, ¶¶9-10. Rather, the
`
`
`
`
`
` reflect the arms-length negotiations between Neo and Avanci as Neo
`
`attempted to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. See Xerox, 801 F. Supp. 2d. at
`
`304 (noting no common interest existed in case where parties were negotiating at
`
`arms-length when documents were created).
`
`Second, even if the
`
`
`
`
`
` are differently situated
`
`from the
`
`
`
`, Neo waived protection over such documents
`
`by disclosing them to Avanci.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`). Indeed, Neo provides only the unilateral, self-serving testimony
`
`of its CEO that he had some vague
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11431 Filed 10/18/23 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id. ¶9. The only document that Neo’s CEO
`
`points to is the parties’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id. ¶10. But again, the parties entered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` f
`
`
`
`
`
` negotiations. It makes no reference to any
`
`“common legal interest,” includes no agreement to receive privileged information
`
`from the other party, and contains no obligation to maintain that information as
`
`privileged. See Doc. No. 182-8 (Defs. Ex. G). Neo cites Dura Global to support
`
`its argument, but that case shows why Neo’s position fails. In that case, the party
`
`seeking to avoid waiver included specific confidentiality restrictions related to the
`
`disclosed documents and had an “indemnification agreement [that] revealed . . .
`
`that the disclosure of the attorney opinion letters was due to a common legal
`
`interest . . . .” See Dura Global Techs., Inc. v. Magna Donnelly Corp., 2:07-cv-
`
`10945, 2008 WL 2217682, at *3 n.3 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2008). No such facts
`
`exist here. Here, Avanci has an existing commercial relationship with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; it had no existing
`
`commercial relationship with Neo. By disclosing information to Avanci, Neo
`
`“substantially increased the opportunities for potential adversaries to obtain the
`
`information” and therefore waived work product protection. Appleton Papers, Inc.
`
`v. EPA, 702 F.3d 1018, 1025 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ.
`
`§ 2024 (3d ed.)); see also United States v. MIT, 129 F.3d 681, 687 (1st Cir. 1997)
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11432 Filed 10/18/23 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`(“[D]isclosing material in a way inconsistent with keeping it from an adversary
`
`waives work product protection.” (emphasis added)). For this additional reason,
`
`the Court should compel production of all information exchanged with Avanci.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`For the forgoing reasons, the Court should order Neo to produce any and all
`
`correspondence, documents, or information exchanged between Neo and Avanci.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 18, 2023
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/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
`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
`
`
`
`/s/ Justin B. Weiner (with consent)
`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
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11433 Filed 10/18/23 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`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)
`
`
`rrichardson@sternekessler.com
`wmilliken@sternekessler.com
`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
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11434 Filed 10/18/23 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`Bowman and Brooke LLP
`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
`
`Elizabeth G.H. Ranks
`Massachusetts Bar No. 693679
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11435 Filed 10/18/23 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 822-780
`seyferth@bsplaw.com
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`FCA US LLC
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11436 Filed 10/18/23 Page 11 of 12
`
` /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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`AMERICA, INC. AND TOYOTA
`MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 191-1, PageID.11437 Filed 10/18/23 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that on October 18, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will
`
`send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Joseph A. Herriges
`Joseph A. Herriges
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-5070
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`herriges@fr.com
`MN Bar No. 390350
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
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
