Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15865 Filed 06/20/24 Page 1 of 47
`
`Exhibit M
`
`
`
`Exhibit M
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15866 Filed 06/20/24 Page 2 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11748 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 46
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE TERRENCE G. BERG
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff: CHRISTOPHER S. STEWART
`JASON D. CASSADY
`Caldwell Cassady Curry PC
`2121 N. Pearl Street; Suite 1200
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`For the Plaintiff: JAYE QUADROZZI
`YOUNG GARCIA & QUADROZZI, PC
`27725 Stansbury Blvd; Suite 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334
`
`17
`
`For Honda:
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`JOHN T. JOHNSON
`Fish & Richardson
`7 Times Square; Suite 20th Floor
`New York, MY 10036
`
`RUFFIN B. CORDELL
`Fish & Richardson
`1425 K Street NW; 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`BENJAMIN CHRISTOFF
`Fish & Richardson
`1000 Maine Avenue SW; Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20024
`
`Detroit, Michigan
`
`November 27, 2023
`
`10:05 a.m.
`
`Case No. 22-03034
`
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`_________________________________)
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15867 Filed 06/20/24 Page 3 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11749 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 46
`
`2
`
`APPEARANCES, CONT'D:
`
`THOMAS P. BRANIGAN
`Bowman & Brooke, LLP
`41000 Woodward Avenue; 200 East
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`
`JOHN S. LEROY
`Brooks Kushman, PC
`150 W. Second St.; Suite 400
`Royal Oak, MI 48067
`
`DANIEL YONAN
`Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox
`1101 K. Street NW; Suite 10th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`SUSAN M. MCKEEVER
`Bush Seyferth Paige
`100 W. Big Beaver Road; Suite 400
`Troy, MI 48084
`
`PAUL RICHARD STEADMAN
`MATTHEW D. SATCHWELL
`MATTHEW GANAS
`DLA Piper, LLP
`444 West Lake Street; Suite 900
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`ANKUR VIJAY DESAI
`DLA Piper, LLP
`500 Eight Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`JOSEPH A. HERRIGES, JR.
`Fish & Richardson, PC
`60 South Sixth Street
`Suite 3200 RBC Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`THOMAS REGER, II
`Fish & Richardson
`1717 Main Street; Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`ELIZABETH G. H. RANKS
`Fish & Richardson
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`For Ford:
`
`For VW:
`
`12
`
`For Toyota:
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`For GM:
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`For Tesla:
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15868 Filed 06/20/24 Page 4 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11750 Filed 12/12/23 Page 3 of 46
`
`3
`
`APPEARANCES, CONT'D:
`
`For Nissan:
`
`For FCA:
`
`REGINALD J. HILL
`PETER J. BRENNAN
`PAARAS MODI
`Jenner & Block
`353 N. Clark St
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
`FRANK C. CIMINO, JR.
`JONATHAN L. FALKLER
`SUSAN M. MCKEEVER
`Venable, LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Carol M. Harrison, RMR, FCRR
`1000 Washington Avenue
`Bay City, MI 48708
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Proceedings reported by stenotype reporter.
`Transcript produced by Computer-Aided Transcription.
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15869 Filed 06/20/24 Page 5 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11751 Filed 12/12/23 Page 4 of 46
`
`4
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(At 10:05 a.m., proceedings began.)
`
`THE COURT: We are on the docket here in our case of
`
`the NEO Wireless patent litigation, and this is
`
`No. 22-md-03034, and we're just having a status conference
`
`right now.
`
`And I want to thank our court reporter, Carol
`
`Harrison, for being here this morning and taking everything
`
`down, and I want to welcome all of our counsel, who I can see
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`over our Zoom connection. And let me just allow the lawyers to
`
`11
`
`indicate who they are so we'll have a record of them, and so
`
`12
`
`we'll start with NEO. So go ahead, sir.
`
`13
`
`MR. STEWART: Good morning, Your Honor. Chris
`
`14
`
`Stewart for NEO Wireless, with me my colleague Jason Cassady
`
`15
`
`and our local counsel Jaye Quadrozzi. And we have other
`
`16
`
`members of our firm on, but the three of us will be the only
`
`17
`
`ones likely speaking.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: Welcome.
`
`MR. STEWART: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: And so let's go ahead with -- I'm just
`
`21
`
`looking at the docket order here, so how about for Honda, who
`
`22
`
`do we have?
`
`23
`
`MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, Your Honor. John
`
`24
`
`Johnson, from Fish and Richardson, and with me also from Fish
`
`25
`
`are Ruffin Cordell and Ben Christoff, and our local counsel Tom
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15870 Filed 06/20/24 Page 6 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11752 Filed 12/12/23 Page 5 of 46
`
`5
`
`Branigan from Bowman & Brooke is also here. Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, sir.
`
`And for Ford?
`
`MR. LEROY: Good morning, Your Honor. This is John
`
`LeRoy for Ford from Brooks Kushman.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. LeRoy. Nice to see you
`
`again. I see that you've managed to grow a beard since you
`
`completed our trial a few weeks ago.
`
`MR. LEROY: It's getting cold outside, Judge.
`
`THE COURT: Very good looking.
`
`Okay. And let's see, who do we have for Volkswagen?
`
`MR. YONAN: Hi, Your Honor. Good morning. Danny
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Yonan from Sterne & Kessler for Volkswagen Group of America.
`
`14
`
`With me today as well is Susan McKeever.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: Very good and welcome to both of you.
`
`And let's see, how about for Toyota?
`
`MR. STEADMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Paul
`
`18
`
`Steadman from DLA Piper. With me are Matthew Satchwell, Matt
`
`19
`
`Ganas and Ankur Desai.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`THE COURT: Good morning to you.
`
`MR. STEADMAN: Good morning.
`
`THE COURT: How about for GM?
`
`MR. HERRIGES: Good morning, Your Honor. Joe
`
`24
`
`Herriges from Fish & Richardson.
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Good morning to you, sir.
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15871 Filed 06/20/24 Page 7 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11753 Filed 12/12/23 Page 6 of 46
`
`6
`
`And how about Tesla? Let's see here, do we have
`
`anybody from Tesla? Ms. Ranks?
`
`MR. REGER: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Tom
`
`Reger on behalf of Tesla. I apologize. With me is Liz Ranks.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Welcome to you as well and good
`
`morning.
`
`And Nissan?
`
`MR. HILL: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Reggie
`
`Hill with Jenner & Block. I have my colleagues Peter Brennan
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`and Paaras Modi, M-O-D-I, with me as well.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`MR. BRENNAN: Good morning, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And good morning to you.
`
`And, let's see, how about FCA?
`
`MR. CIMINO: Good morning, Your Honor. Frank Cimino
`
`15
`
`from Venable. Along with me is Jon Falkler from Venable and
`
`16
`
`Michigan counsel Susan McKeever from Bush Seyferth.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: Welcome to you as well.
`
`And, let's see, is there anybody who I did not call?
`
`19
`
`Any defendant who I did not mention?
`
`20
`
`Okay. Very good. Well, again, welcome everyone and
`
`21
`
`good morning, and I really just wanted to have a chance to
`
`22
`
`speak with you on some of the issues that are outstanding that
`
`23
`
`we have here that I've learned about either through some of
`
`24
`
`your motions or through some email correspondence that we've
`
`25
`
`had.
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15872 Filed 06/20/24 Page 8 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11754 Filed 12/12/23 Page 7 of 46
`
`7
`
`And why don't I start with, we do have a motion to
`
`compel. We'll deal with some of these discovery matters, and
`
`that motion pertains essentially to records that relate to the
`
`plaintiff's interactions with the company Avanci -- I'm not
`
`sure if I'm pronouncing it correctly -- and I understand that
`
`you've had some progress in settling some of the matters that
`
`were raised in that motion, and so I think I might call on
`
`plaintiff first to just explain where are you with respect to
`
`that motion and what has been -- what has been happening in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`terms of trying to resolve it?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Go ahead.
`
`MR. STEWART: Sure, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Yeah, this is Docket No. 181, by the way.
`
`14
`
`MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honor. Chris Stewart
`
`15
`
`for NEO Wireless. As of the briefing I think the only
`
`16
`
`outstanding dispute was a subsidiary question about whether
`
`17
`
`defendants could ask questions in depositions or seek emails or
`
`18
`
`other related documents pertaining to an attempt by NEO to use
`
`19
`
`Avanci sort of as an agent to broker or assist with a group
`
`20
`
`settlement of this litigation.
`
`21
`
`The dispute initially started much broader about
`
`22
`
`NEO's discussions with Avanci about joining their patent pool
`
`23
`
`just as a normal patent pool member back in 2022, and we
`
`24
`
`ultimately capitulated on that and we produced all the
`
`25
`
`documents that we obtained with respect to attempting to join
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15873 Filed 06/20/24 Page 9 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11755 Filed 12/12/23 Page 8 of 46
`
`8
`
`or proposing to join that patent pool. We are searching and
`
`collecting emails pursuant to a request made by defendants and
`
`will produce those if they relate to the joining of that patent
`
`pool.
`
`So the only thing that we're holding back -- and it's
`
`really not much. It's probably just questions in a deposition
`
`that we would object to as privileged -- is to the extent NEO
`
`sought Avanci's help in actually settling this litigation,
`
`right, private conversations between the plaintiff and one of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`its agents about strategy for settling the case in a group
`
`11
`
`settlement involving all of the defendants. That's the only
`
`12
`
`thing we're holding back, and, as I understand the motion, the
`
`13
`
`defendants are still persisting in saying that they should get
`
`14
`
`to sort of peek behind that curtain and see into our sort of
`
`15
`
`private settlement deliberations, and that's the only objection
`
`16
`
`we have.
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And who would want to
`
`18
`
`take the other side of that? It looks like this motion was
`
`19
`
`filed by Ford, but it's possibly joined by everyone, so who
`
`20
`
`would like to respond to that?
`
`21
`
`MR. LEROY: Your Honor, this is John LeRoy, if I may
`
`22
`
`respond to that on behalf of the defendants. And you are
`
`23
`
`correct, we filed it, but the defendants, and to some degree
`
`24
`
`Avanci, have worked together, and we have resolved most of the
`
`25
`
`issues. I think there are two remaining. One is the one
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15874 Filed 06/20/24 Page 10 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11756 Filed 12/12/23 Page 9 of 46
`
`9
`
`Mr. Stewart raised and another was a follow-up issue that I
`
`would hope we can work out without the Court's intervention,
`
`but if I may just briefly explain the issue or address what
`
`Mr. Stewart raised.
`
`And just for background context, Your Honor, Avanci,
`
`at least from defendant's perspective, generally sets the
`
`benchmark for the evaluation of what are called the standard
`
`essential patents -- I think Your Honor already made -- is
`
`aware of that -- and NEO has agreed to turn over its exchanges
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`with Avanci, and that was the lion's share of our motion, but a
`
`11
`
`secondary piece was this attempt by NEO to work with Avanci to
`
`12
`
`resolve the case.
`
`13
`
`NEO asserts that those exchanges are privileged
`
`14
`
`and/or work product. We assert that they are not because while
`
`15
`
`NEO and Avanci have a confidentiality agreement, they don't
`
`16
`
`have any joint defense agreement. They don't have any written
`
`17
`
`exchange or even -- I don't think Avanci has ever taken the
`
`18
`
`position that its exchanges with NEO are privileged or work
`
`19
`
`product, so we believe we're entitled to that information.
`
`20
`
`It's highly relevant. It would allow the defendants to see
`
`21
`
`NEO's and/or Avanci's evaluation of the asserted patents and
`
`22
`
`really move the needle towards ultimately resolving this case.
`
`23
`
`So that's the -- that's that issue. We've cited in
`
`24
`
`our response briefing some law that says, you know, where one
`
`25
`
`party openly shares even attorney communications with a
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15875 Filed 06/20/24 Page 11 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11757 Filed 12/12/23 Page 10 of 46
`
`10
`
`third-party who's not subject to any common interest agreement,
`
`or hasn't at least agreed to treat the materials, even if not
`
`in writing, to maintain privilege of those materials, they're
`
`just not privileged, so we believe we're entitled to see them.
`
`MR. STEWART: Very briefly --
`
`THE COURT: Is there another issue, too?
`
`MR. LEROY: Yeah. The second issue, Judge, I hope we
`
`can resolve. NEO had supplemented an interrogatory response
`
`with a lot of the information we've been seeking from Avanci.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`We obviously appreciate that, but there's one missing piece of
`
`11
`
`information, and I think Mr. Stewart knows what it is.
`
`12
`
`I'll just summarize it as we know Avanci allocated
`
`13
`
`three different categories of points to NEO. Those points
`
`14
`
`translate into dollars and we received a dollar figure from
`
`15
`
`NEO, so we have three points allocations and one dollar figure,
`
`16
`
`and we just don't know how the points correspond to the
`
`17
`
`dollars, because there's three different groups of them. And
`
`18
`
`it gets a little confusing but maybe Mr. Steward can tell us
`
`19
`
`now whether there's any dispute over them providing that
`
`20
`
`information.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Understood, okay. Go ahead Mr. Stewart.
`
`MR. STEWART: Yes. As far as I'm aware, that
`
`23
`
`information just doesn't exist, but we're still, like I said,
`
`24
`
`reviewing emails exchanged between those parties for
`
`25
`
`production, and I think we're hoping to have those out this
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15876 Filed 06/20/24 Page 12 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11758 Filed 12/12/23 Page 11 of 46
`
`11
`
`week. So to the extent there is some specific allocation of
`
`those dollars to individual types of points, I think we would
`
`produce that.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And, Mr. Stewart, what do you --
`
`do you wish to respond to the legal arguments that Mr. LeRoy
`
`made regarding the information from Avanci about your
`
`settlement positions?
`
`MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. The short
`
`answer is I think there's an assumption by defendants that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`there's some sort of interplay or overlay between the
`
`11
`
`discussions about the patent pool where Avanci sets the points
`
`12
`
`and has say in the particular dollar values that go along with
`
`13
`
`those points and this other discussion about a group settlement
`
`14
`
`when there really isn't.
`
`15
`
`What we're talking about with the group settlement
`
`16
`
`discussions, and the things that we're withholding, is just NEO
`
`17
`
`asking Avanci, hey, can you go help us drum up a group
`
`18
`
`settlement since we were unable and didn't decide to join your
`
`19
`
`patent pool, can you nevertheless use your connections and help
`
`20
`
`us as an agent to go and drum up a group settlement discussion.
`
`21
`
`Here are some thoughts we have about what a settlement might
`
`22
`
`look like. So it's just purely almost akin to attorney
`
`23
`
`communications about the strategy for conducting and arriving
`
`24
`
`at a settlement with these defendants.
`
`25
`
`So what they're essentially asking for is just to
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15877 Filed 06/20/24 Page 13 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11759 Filed 12/12/23 Page 12 of 46
`
`12
`
`sort of peek behind the curtain at what NEO is thinking
`
`internally about the settlement thresholds and ranges it might
`
`agree to or the way a settlement license agreement might be
`
`structured, things that would be quintessentially privileged in
`
`any other context and definitely work product.
`
`And so our contention is by providing those -- or
`
`having those conversations and providing that information to an
`
`agent who was -- had a common interest in productively settling
`
`this litigation with NEO, there was no waiver. We maintain the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`privilege and the work product protection over those
`
`11
`
`conversations and those details because of the relationship,
`
`12
`
`the common interest relationship, between us and Avanci. It's
`
`13
`
`a standard non-waiver of work product argument as well as a
`
`14
`
`common interest privilege argument.
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you. So on this matter
`
`16
`
`I do think that I can understand why the defendants would want
`
`17
`
`to have access to this information, because it's similar to the
`
`18
`
`situation where the Court in a settlement conference would ask
`
`19
`
`the parties for their respective positions prior to the
`
`20
`
`settlement discussions and each side would indicate what the
`
`21
`
`last offer was or the demand and also what their, quote, final
`
`22
`
`position might be and indicate their strengths and weaknesses.
`
`23
`
`Of course that would be helpful to the other side to
`
`24
`
`know what that said, but I do think that there's a clear common
`
`25
`
`interest here between what the plaintiffs were trying to
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15878 Filed 06/20/24 Page 14 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11760 Filed 12/12/23 Page 13 of 46
`
`13
`
`accomplish by having Avanci represent them in contacting the
`
`companies and possibly reaching some kind of a group
`
`settlement, and so I'm not going to allow discovery into those
`
`questions about what Avanci was communicating with the
`
`plaintiffs about prior to their attempts that may have been
`
`made to try to settle the case with the defendants. So that's
`
`my ruling on that part of that motion.
`
`The other part of the motion that Mr. LeRoy was
`
`talking about is something that I think the parties can
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`continue to work out. It sounds like you're trying to work it
`
`11
`
`out and so, I'll -- I'll not say anything about that aspect of
`
`12
`
`it and I hope that you are successful in working that out. So
`
`13
`
`I think that resolves that part of the motion to compel.
`
`14
`
`I know there was also an issue -- I don't think it's
`
`15
`
`a motion -- but in the email correspondence that we've seen
`
`16
`
`there's a question -- a discovery dispute, I guess I would call
`
`17
`
`it, that was raised by Toyota concerning the infotainment
`
`18
`
`systems, and I know that we discussed this previously when we
`
`19
`
`were together when all of the parties were concerned about this
`
`20
`
`and how much information would be developed about income
`
`21
`
`derived from different systems, but I think this is the only
`
`22
`
`thing left. And although I do want to hear, of course, from
`
`23
`
`Toyota, I -- because I think the plaintiffs are in a better
`
`24
`
`position to describe how much they have agreed to disclose, I
`
`25
`
`want to hear from again Mr. Stewart on this question.
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15879 Filed 06/20/24 Page 15 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11761 Filed 12/12/23 Page 14 of 46
`
`14
`
`MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honor. That's right,
`
`so this is a follow-up to a call we had previously about
`
`financial data generally as it related to both infotainment
`
`systems and data monetization and the way that the defendants
`
`used data from the vehicles to monetize it.
`
`We compromised substantially and conferred a whole
`
`lot after the last call. We, the plaintiff, gave up on
`
`infotainment. We said fine, we'll compromise and not seek
`
`infotainment financials or any other financials related to the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`vehicle itself, and we proposed a number of compromised
`
`11
`
`proposals on data monetization that seven of the eight
`
`12
`
`defendants agreed to.
`
`13
`
`Brief summary is that they will sort of explain to us
`
`14
`
`all the ways that they do use and monetize data within their
`
`15
`
`companies. They'll produce documents that either have explicit
`
`16
`
`revenue from those efforts or that assign a value of any kind
`
`17
`
`to those efforts, and then the crux of the dispute with Toyota
`
`18
`
`is the third piece, which is for some of the companies that had
`
`19
`
`large corporate structures with maybe foreign parent companies
`
`20
`
`that for which the defendant is an American subsidiary, or in
`
`21
`
`the case of Toyota who have a bunch of different subsidiaries
`
`22
`
`that handle issues related to data that are different from the
`
`23
`
`defendants being sued who sell the cars themselves.
`
`24
`
`What we asked was, tell us all the arrangements and
`
`25
`
`sort of relationships you have with your other affiliates and
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15880 Filed 06/20/24 Page 16 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11762 Filed 12/12/23 Page 15 of 46
`
`15
`
`how you share this data with those affiliates, how they might
`
`monetize it and what your cut is. Basically tell us sort of
`
`the ecosystem of how the data that comes from the accused
`
`product vehicles is used and monetized within your corporate
`
`family so that if we need to we can go and serve a subpoena on
`
`some affiliate or we can have a dispute over whether we should
`
`be getting that information directly from you as well.
`
`The other defendants agreed to that proposal. Toyota
`
`put a caveat on it, a very important caveat, that they would
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`give us that information, but we had to pre-agree that we would
`
`11
`
`ask for nothing more, which sort of defeats the purpose of the
`
`12
`
`compromise, because the point of the compromise was to learn,
`
`13
`
`okay, what are we missing, right? What aspects of this data
`
`14
`
`monetization discovery are housed in some separate affiliate so
`
`15
`
`that we can then go and seek it if we think it's still relevant
`
`16
`
`and necessary, and Toyota wouldn't agree to give us that
`
`17
`
`opportunity to continue conferring on this.
`
`18
`
`So at this point, Your Honor, with the close of fact
`
`19
`
`discovery now kind of coming up post Markman order, I think we
`
`20
`
`really -- pending whatever Toyota says and whatever Your Honor
`
`21
`
`thinks, we might want to proceed to a motion or to a more
`
`22
`
`formal request for this information because we really just need
`
`23
`
`the information about this data monetization even if it is sort
`
`24
`
`of channeled through a sister company or an affiliate.
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And so, who would like
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15881 Filed 06/20/24 Page 17 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11763 Filed 12/12/23 Page 16 of 46
`
`16
`
`to respond to this on behalf of Toyota?
`
`MR. STEADMAN: Your Honor, this is Paul Steadman for
`
`Toyota. Briefly, I agree with Mr. Stewart that this is not
`
`really briefed or fully put before the Court, and we agree that
`
`for it to be decided as a motion, it would require full
`
`briefing from both parties. Particularly, we'd like to set out
`
`why the information they're seeking is not relevant at all.
`
`So to give a sketch of that, as Your Honor knows,
`
`these patents are five or six, depending on their motion for
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`reconsideration, among thousands of patents that deal with
`
`11
`
`encoding data for sending across a network. They have nothing
`
`12
`
`to do with the data itself. That data could be the most
`
`13
`
`valuable data on the planet, or it could be absolute nonsense,
`
`14
`
`but their patents have nothing to do with collecting data,
`
`15
`
`deciding what data to use, how to use it, how to monetize it.
`
`16
`
`So they're really in a situation where they would
`
`17
`
`have to prove entitlement to unpatented features, which is the
`
`18
`
`Rite-Hite test and somehow get beyond the LaserDynamics and
`
`19
`
`VirnetX test for apportionment in order to even be able to
`
`20
`
`begin to get this -- get this into damages somehow. So they
`
`21
`
`are well beyond where any possible discovery would go.
`
`22
`
`We attempted to strike a compromise with them and
`
`23
`
`they refused the compromise. Essentially the compromise was
`
`24
`
`they would get this data from us and then be able to
`
`25
`
`iteratively ask for more and more and more information. And we
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15882 Filed 06/20/24 Page 18 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11764 Filed 12/12/23 Page 17 of 46
`
`17
`
`said that's not really a compromise. That's just you getting
`
`more discovery so that you can get more discovery, and so that
`
`compromise is off the table. That's where the -- that's where
`
`the thing stands right now.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I'm not sure --
`
`MR. STEADMAN: We would like to fully brief it.
`
`Yeah, go ahead.
`
`THE COURT: I'm not sure I understood what you said
`
`about -- what was the compromise that you had proposed?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`MR. STEADMAN: We offered to give them some limited
`
`11
`
`information, including agreements regarding data use where the
`
`12
`
`data was actually monetized, that is money came in. Even
`
`13
`
`though we don't agree that that is relevant or can be used in
`
`14
`
`the damages case here, that is the farthest reaches of what
`
`15
`
`could possibly be relevant to damages, so we offered to give
`
`16
`
`them those agreements and tell them what data was collected, if
`
`17
`
`it resulted in money to the defendants in this case, the named
`
`18
`
`defendants.
`
`19
`
`They said they wanted all of that, but then they
`
`20
`
`would reserve the ability to ask for more, so they would ask
`
`21
`
`for additional discovery whatever, about that data, about how
`
`22
`
`it was used or whatever, and at that point negotiations broke
`
`23
`
`down because we didn't view that as a compromise.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Do you wish to respond, Mr. Stewart?
`
`MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. It
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15883 Filed 06/20/24 Page 19 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11765 Filed 12/12/23 Page 18 of 46
`
`18
`
`really -- the proposal we put forth is not that we just get to
`
`keep iteratively asking for more and more. It's really just
`
`about our dearth of knowledge right now about the ecosystem,
`
`like I was talking about earlier.
`
`And so what we are worried about is with them trying
`
`to sort of cut us off with just this cherry-picked set of data
`
`that they have self-selected for us to receive, we'll find out
`
`that, oh, actually Toyota Motor Company North America, the
`
`defendant in this case, they don't have any data monetization
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`agreements. They take the data from their cars, give it to
`
`11
`
`this subsidiary, Toyota Connected North America, and all the
`
`12
`
`agreements run through that subsidiary, even though it's the
`
`13
`
`same corporate family, it's the same data.
`
`14
`
`So our concern about reserving the right to seek more
`
`15
`
`information is making sure that we don't get hoodwinked and
`
`16
`
`agree to receive information from the defendant when it is just
`
`17
`
`actually siloed in a sister company, and so we can't --
`
`18
`
`THE COURT: Right now you have not received any
`
`19
`
`information from Toyota?
`
`20
`
`MR. STEWART: That's right. Right now we don't even
`
`21
`
`know whether Toyota North America, the actual defendant, even
`
`22
`
`has these agreements. We only know that they've agreed to
`
`23
`
`provide it from that defendant only and no other affiliates.
`
`24
`
`THE COURT: Do you -- have you received some of this
`
`25
`
`kind of information from the other defendants?
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15884 Filed 06/20/24 Page 20 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11766 Filed 12/12/23 Page 19 of 46
`
`19
`
`MR. STEWART: This is the compromise that we agreed
`
`to with all defendants back in October. No defendant has yet
`
`actually followed through on that compromise and provided the
`
`information, but one of the things we were going to maybe talk
`
`to you about today if there was time, but we're expecting,
`
`hopefully very soon, to get that information from all the other
`
`defendants.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Well, Mr. Steadman, let me just
`
`ask you this question because I'm wondering if we can possibly
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`kick the can down the road a little bit here or maybe just
`
`11
`
`resolve it if it's not going to come up again, which is what if
`
`12
`
`you were to say, okay, you will provide the information you
`
`13
`
`were initially saying that you would provide, and then if -- in
`
`14
`
`the event that Mr. Stewart ends up asking for a bunch of
`
`15
`
`additional information that you think under the different
`
`16
`
`authorities that you've raised they shouldn't be able to get,
`
`17
`
`then you can raise it at that time?
`
`18
`
`MR. STEADMAN: Well, obviously, Your Honor, we'll do
`
`19
`
`whatever you tell us to do. There's no hoodwinking going on.
`
`20
`
`There are a few limited agreements with some very limited
`
`21
`
`revenues attached to them from the defendants that are named in
`
`22
`
`this case. Notably they've had, you know, quite a long time to
`
`23
`
`name whatever defendants they wanted in this case. They've
`
`24
`
`named those defendants in this case. Those are the defendants
`
`25
`
`that are going to trial.
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15885 Filed 06/20/24 Page 21 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11767 Filed 12/12/23 Page 20 of 46
`
`20
`
`There are a handful of agreements that we've
`
`collected that could be made available, but I think that if
`
`they want -- if this is going to be a compromise, then that
`
`ought to be the limit of the discovery, and if they want more,
`
`they should have to justify wanting more to the Court. I don't
`
`think it's fair to put us in the position where we produce it
`
`and then if we don't want to produce something else, we have to
`
`come and seek a protective order. If this is the compromise,
`
`then that ought to be the compromise and then we should be
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`done.
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Well, I'd like you to be on the same
`
`12
`
`wavelength as all of the other defendants here and so that all
`
`13
`
`of the defendants who have agreed so far to provide what
`
`14
`
`they've agreed to provide will do that, so I'd like you to do
`
`15
`
`that.
`
`16
`
`And then I don't really see a big difference between
`
`17
`
`whether you object or whether he has to justify what he's
`
`18
`
`doing, what he's asking for. I mean, it may be -- I don't know
`
`19
`
`what he's going to ask for. It could be if he asks for
`
`20
`
`something that you'll say, oh, if that's all you want, then
`
`21
`
`that's fine. I just don't know what it is.
`
`22
`
`And so my feeling is let's do that, and then so,
`
`23
`
`Mr. Stewart, you know, ask for more information to Toyota, they
`
`24
`
`can object to that, and I'll have to take a look at it at that
`
`25
`
`time, okay?
`
`NEO Wireless - Status Conference - November 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 252, PageID.15886 Filed 06/20/24 Page 22 of 47
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 203, PageID.11768 Filed 12/12/23 Page 21 of 46
`
`21
`
`MR. STEWART: Very good, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. So that takes care of that.
`
`I did want to ask you about your efforts regarding
`
`possible mediation, because I know there was some back and
`
`forth regarding that as well. So, Mr. Stewart, why don't you
`
`start on that and let me know what's happening with respect to
`
`any mediation efforts.
`
`MR. STEWART: Mr. Cassady can address that, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`MR. CASSADY: Your Honor, Jason Cassady for NEO
`
`11
`
`Wireless. I think this is -- this is kind of a telling spot
`
`12
`
`for -- given the discovery fights that I've been listening to
`
`13
`
`on this call with Your Honor. I think the briefing told you a
`
`14
`
`lot of what I think needs to happen.
`
`15
`
`In this case it seems that there's a lot of parties
`
`16
`
`where information is not flowing through attorneys to their
`
`17
`
`client representatives or to certain agents and to only
`
`18
`
`other -- you know, only certain defendants, and it's one of the
`
`19
`
`reasons that we finally suggested to everybody why don't we
`
`20
`
`have a big -- let's just have a big team mediation with al
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
