`
`IN THE 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
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11402-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
`INC. AND HONDA DEVELOPMENT
`& MANUFACTURING OF
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11403-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2771 Filed 10/21/22 Page 2 of 42
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA, INC. & VOLKSWAGEN
`GROUP OF AMERICA
`CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS,
`LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.
`AND NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
`a/k/a NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11404-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11405-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2772 Filed 10/21/22 Page 3 of 42
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH
`AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR
`SALES, U.S.A., INC., & TOYOTA
`MOTOR ENGINEERING &
`MANUFACTURING NORTH
`AMERICA, INC., & TOYOTA
`MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION,
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY &
`GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TESLA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11406-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11407-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11408-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2773 Filed 10/21/22 Page 4 of 42
`
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`FCA US, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11769-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11770-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION
`TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`Defendants Ford Motor Company, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda
`
`Development & Manufacturing of America, LLC, Volkswagen Group of America,
`
`Inc., Volkswagen Group Of America Chattanooga Operations, LLC, Nissan North
`
`America Inc., Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation a/k/a Nissan Motor
`
`Acceptance Company LLC, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North
`
`America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering &
`
`Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, General
`
`Motors Company, General Motors LLC, Tesla, Inc., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, and
`
`FCA US, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) respectfully request the Court issue an
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2774 Filed 10/21/22 Page 5 of 42
`
`
`
`order requiring Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to reduce the number of
`
`asserted patent claims to no more than three claims per patent-in-suit identified in
`
`its infringement contentions by November 23, 2022 (at least one week prior to the
`
`preliminary identification of disputed claim terms to be construed on December 1,
`
`2022) to ensure that the Court’s claim constructions will be directed to those claims
`
`Plaintiff will actually assert at trial. The complete bases for Defendants’ motion are
`
`set forth in Defendants’ Joint Brief in Support of Motion to Reduce the Number of
`
`Asserted Claims, submitted herewith.
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), the parties met and conferred on this motion.
`
`Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion.
`
`A proposed order is being submitted herewith via email.
`
`Dated: October 21, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew Moore
`Matthew J. Moore
`Michael A. David
`Benjamin L. Smith
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (202) 637-2000 / Fax: (202) 637-2201
`matt.moore@lw.com
`michael.david@lw.com
`ben.smith@lw.com
`
`Clement J. Naples
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`1271 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020
`Tel: (212) 906-1200 / Fax: (212) 751-4864
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2775 Filed 10/21/22 Page 6 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`clement.naples@lw.com
`
`Gabrielle A. LaHatte
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 391-0600 / Fax: (415) 395-8095
`gabrielle.lahatte@lw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Ford Motor
`Company
`
`/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
`Tel: 212.765.5070
`Fax: 212.258.2291
`jjohnson@fr.com
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell (DC Bar No. 445801)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W. Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Tel: 202.783.5070
`Fax: 202.783.2331
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2776 Filed 10/21/22 Page 7 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants American Honda
`Motor Co., Inc. and Honda Development &
`Manufacturing Of America, LLC
`/s/ Deirdre M. Wells
`
`Susan M. McKeever
`Justin B. Weiner
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 West Big Beaver Road
`Suite 400
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 822-7851
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`weiner@bsplaw.com
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Ryan C. Richardson
`William H. Milliken
`Anna G. Phillips
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C
`1100 New York Avenue NW
`Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`dyonan@sternekessler.com
`dwells@sternekessler.com
`rrichardson@sternekessler.com
`wmilliken@sternekessler.com
`aphillips@sternekessler.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Volkswagen Group
`of America, Inc. and Volkswagen Group of
`America Chattanooga Operations, Inc.
`/s/ Peter J. Brennan
`
`Reginald J. Hill (IL Bar #6225173)
`Peter J. Brennan (IL Bar #6190873)
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 N. Clark St.
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2777 Filed 10/21/22 Page 8 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 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/ Matthew Satchwell
`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 North
`America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
`Inc. and Toyota Motor Engineering &
`Manufacturing North America, Inc. and
`Toyota Motor Credit Corporation
`/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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2778 Filed 10/21/22 Page 9 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, 3200 RBC Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 335-5070
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`herriges@fr.com, gosen@fr.com, huguein-
`love@fr.com
`
`Michael J. McKeon, DC Bar No. 459780
`Christian Chu, DC Bar No. 483948
`Jared Hartzman, DC Bar No. 1034255
`Joshua Carrigan, VA Bar No. 96911
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 783-5070
`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/ Thomas H. Reger II
`
`Thomas H. Reger II
`Texas Bar No. 24032992
`reger@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2779 Filed 10/21/22 Page 10 of 42
`
`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, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 892-5005
`
`Elizabeth Ranks
`Mass Bar No. 693679
`ranks@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1 Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`
`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 Defendant Tesla, Inc
`/s/ Damon M. Lewis
`
`Celine J. Crowson
`Joseph J. Raffetto
`Damon M. Lewis
`Nicholas W. Rotz
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`555 Thirteenth St, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2780 Filed 10/21/22 Page 11 of 42
`
`Telephone: (202) 637-5703
`Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
`Email: celine.crowson@hoganlovells.com
`Email: joseph.raffetto@hoganlovells.com
`
`James A. Martone
`Dickinson Wright PLLC
`2600 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 300
`Troy, MI 48084-3312
`Tel: 248-433-7391
`Fax: 248-433-8284
`Email: Jmartone@dickinsonwright.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA,
`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) 822-780
`seyferth@bsplaw.com
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`
`Counsel for FCA US LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2781 Filed 10/21/22 Page 12 of 42
`
`IN THE 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
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11402-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
`INC. AND HONDA DEVELOPMENT
`& MANUFACTURING OF
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11403-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2782 Filed 10/21/22 Page 13 of 42
`
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA, INC. & VOLKSWAGEN
`GROUP OF AMERICA
`CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS,
`LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.
`AND NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
`a/k/a NISSAN MOTOR
`ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11404-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11405-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2783 Filed 10/21/22 Page 14 of 42
`
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH
`AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR
`SALES, U.S.A., INC., & TOYOTA
`MOTOR ENGINEERING &
`MANUFACTURING NORTH
`AMERICA, INC., & TOYOTA
`MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY &
`GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TESLA, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11406-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11407-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11408-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2784 Filed 10/21/22 Page 15 of 42
`
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`FCA US, LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11769-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11770-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO
`REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2785 Filed 10/21/22 Page 16 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`Whether Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC should be required to reduce the number
`
`of asserted patent claims from 65 total asserted claims to no more than three claims
`
`per patent-in-suit identified in its infringement contentions by November 23, 2022,
`
`at least one week prior to the preliminary identification of disputed claim terms to
`
`be construed on December 1, 2022, to ensure that the Court’s claim constructions
`
`will be directed to those claims Neo Wireless, LLC will actually assert at trial.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ answer: Yes.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2786 Filed 10/21/22 Page 17 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOST CONTROLLING OR APPROPRIATE LEGAL AUTHORITIES
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(2), the controlling or most appropriate authority
`
`for this brief includes the following:
`
`• In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011);
`
`• Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., 437 F. App’x 897 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
`
`• O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
`
`• Gentherm Canada, Ltd. v. IGB Auto., Ltd., No. 13-cv-11536, 2016 WL
`
`1170801 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2016);
`
`• Norgren Automation Sols. v. PHD, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-13400, 2015 WL
`
`10735173 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 22, 2015);
`
`• Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13-cv-13615,
`
`2014 WL 645246 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2014); and
`
`• 3D Systems, Inc. v. Envisiontec, Inc., No. 05-cv-74891, 2011 WL 4691937
`
`(E.D. Mich. Oct. 6, 2011).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2787 Filed 10/21/22 Page 18 of 42
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`I.
`RELEVANT CASE LAW ............................................................................... 5
`II.
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 7
`A. Neo Should Be Required To Make An Initial Reduction Of The
`Number Of Asserted Claims Prior To Claim Construction .................. 7
`B. Narrowing Claims Will Not Prejudice Neo ........................................ 12
`IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2788 Filed 10/21/22 Page 19 of 42
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`CASES
`
`3D Systems, Inc. v. Envisiontec, Inc.,
`No. 05-cv-74891, 2011 WL 4691937 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 6, 2011) ................ 5, 9, 12
`Deere & Co. v. Agco Corp.,
`No. 18-cv-00827, D.I. 72 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2019) ............................................... 10
`Gentherm Canada, Ltd. v. IGB Auto., Ltd.,
`No. 13-cv-11536, 2016 WL 1170801 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2016) ....................6, 9
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
`967 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................. 13
`Impact Engine, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`No. 19-cv-1301, D.I. 41 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019) .............................................. 10
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 5, 6, 7, 8
`In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 5
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 13-cv-13615, 2014 WL 106926 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 10, 2014) ......................... 10
`Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Ford Motor Co.,
`No. 13-cv-13615, 2014 WL 645246 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2014) ......................6, 9
`Norgren Automation Sols. v. PHD, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-13400, 2015 WL 10735173 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 22, 2015) ......... 6, 9, 12
`Noven Pharm., Inc. v. Alvogen Pine Brook LLC,
`No. 17-cv-01429, D.I. 198 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2018) ............................................. 10
`O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................... 6, 5, 8
`Softview, LLC v. Apple, Inc. & AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`No. 10-cv-00389, D.I. 105 (D. Del. Sept 20, 2011) ............................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2789 Filed 10/21/22 Page 20 of 42
`
`
`
`Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc.,
`437 F. App’x 897 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................ 5, 6, 9
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`574 U.S. 318 (2015) ................................................................................................ 5
`Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 12-cv-05601, 2013 WL 5587559 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) .................... 7, 13
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................... 5
`Unified Message Sols. LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-00120, 2012 WL 11606516 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2012) ....................... 11
`Universal Elecs. Inc. v. Roku Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-1580, 2019 WL 1878351 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) ................... 11, 12
`
`X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 3:18-cv-01394, D.I. 138 (D. Or. Feb. 14, 2019) ............................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2790 Filed 10/21/22 Page 21 of 42
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”) has sued nine different automakers or
`
`distributors, alleging infringement of the same six patents and the same 65 total
`
`claims. Defendants1 request that the Court order Neo to initially reduce the number
`
`of asserted claims from 65 to no more than three per patent, for a maximum of 18
`
`claims, by November 23, 2022, approximately one week before December 1, 2022,
`
`the deadline for preliminary identification of disputed claims to construe during
`
`claim construction.
`
`Neo will never try 65 claims before the jury. Not even close. Courts routinely
`
`limit plaintiffs like Neo to 18 claims or fewer before claim construction in order to
`
`promote judicial efficiency and to conserve party and judicial resources. Given the
`
`significant overlap in claims and issues and the impractically large size of its case,
`
`Neo should reduce its asserted claims before claim construction. Doing so will allow
`
`the parties to effectively streamline this multi-district litigation and will ensure the
`
`
`1 Defendants Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Volkswagen Group of
`America Chattanooga Operations, LLC (collectively, “Volkswagen”); Nissan
`North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (collectively,
`“Nissan”); American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda Development &
`Manufacturing of America, LLC (collectively, “Honda”); Ford Motor Company
`(“Ford”); Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Sales USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North
`America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (collectively, “Toyota”);
`Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”); Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“Mercedes”); FCA US LLC
`(“FCA”) and General Motors Co. and General Motors LLC (collectively, “GM”)
`(all collectively, “Defendants”).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2791 Filed 10/21/22 Page 22 of 42
`
`
`
`Court is not wasting its time and resources construing claims that will never see the
`
`light of day.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Neo filed nine actions in seven different district courts against nine different
`
`defendants. Neo first filed against seven different automakers or distributors
`
`(Volkswagen, Nissan, Honda, Ford, Toyota, Tesla, and GM), and shortly thereafter
`
`filed suit against two additional automakers or distributors (FCA and Mercedes). In
`
`all nine cases, Neo alleged Defendants infringed the six asserted patents because
`
`Defendants’ products implement the LTE standard. In re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent
`
`Litig., No. 2:22-md-3034, Dkt. No. 1 at 2 (E.D. Mich. June 23, 2022); see also Exs.
`
`A (Neo’s Infringement Contentions for U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 for all
`
`Defendants); B (same as to U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941); C (same as to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,447,450); D (same as to U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302); E (same as to U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,833,908); and F (same as to U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512). Neo then
`
`moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize these cases into a multi-district litigation
`
`(“MDL”).
`
`The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) granted Neo’s
`
`request and transferred the cases filed against Volkswagen, Nissan, Honda, Ford,
`
`Toyota, GM, and Tesla to the Eastern District of Michigan on June 23, 2022, and
`
`then transferred the FCA and Mercedes actions on August 1, 2022. The MDL panel
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2792 Filed 10/21/22 Page 23 of 42
`
`
`
`found even at the earliest stages of these cases that “the patents and claims asserted
`
`in these actions overlap completely.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Additionally, “[w]hile there
`
`may be variations in the specific wireless features used in defendants’ vehicles,” “all
`
`[defendants] are alleged to have infringed the same patents by merely implementing
`
`LTE.” Id. Accordingly, the MDL Panel centralized the cases, because
`
`“[c]entralization offers substantial savings in terms of judicial economy by having a
`
`single judge become acquainted with the complex patented technology and
`
`construing the patent[s] in a consistent fashion (as opposed to having [seven] judges
`
`separately decide such issues).” Id.
`
`Following centralization, the parties met and conferred to develop a schedule
`
`for these cases. During that process, Defendants proposed that Neo reduce its
`
`asserted claims to no more than three claims per patent (no more than 18 total claims)
`
`before claim construction to narrow the disputes. Dkt. No. 81 at 22. After hearing
`
`argument on the issue at the September 16, 2022 status conference, the Court denied
`
`the request without prejudice and said that Defendants could raise the issue of claim
`
`reduction if it later became an issue. The Court entered a scheduling order that
`
`required Neo to provide its infringement contentions against all nine Defendants on
`
`September 28, 2022. Dkt. No. 84. Defendants are required to serve their invalidity
`
`contentions on November 16, 2022. The parties are then required to meet and confer
`
`to identify any claim construction disputes, beginning with the initial identification
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2793 Filed 10/21/22 Page 24 of 42
`
`
`
`of disputed claims terms on December 1, 2022 and ending with the final
`
`identification of disputed claims terms on January 18, 2023. Id. After the parties
`
`crystallize the claim construction disputes, the parties must brief all claim
`
`construction issues in 25 pages or less.2
`
`On September 28, Neo served its infringement contentions, asserting the same
`
`65 claims against all Defendants:
`
`Asserted Patent Asserted Claims
`
`8,467,366
`10,075,941
`10,447,450
`10,771,302
`
`1-5, 17, 20-21
`8, 10, 12-13, 14
`7-8, 10-11
`1-2, 4-7, 23-24, 26-
`29
`1-30
`10,833,908
`15, 20-21, 23, 28-29
`10,965,512
`Total Number of Asserted Patent
`Claims
`
`Number of
`Asserted Claims
`8
`5
`4
`12
`
`30
`6
`65
`
`
`
`Exs. A-F. Neo’s infringement contentions confirm that Neo intends to pursue the
`
`same theory of infringement against all defendants—infringement based on use of
`
`
`2 Under the Court’s scheduling order, Neo may also file a reply brief that shall not
`exceed 7 pages, but is not required to do so. Dkt. No. 84 at 23-24.
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2794 Filed 10/21/22 Page 25 of 42
`
`
`
`the LTE standard. Accordingly, Neo’s infringement theories (and asserted claims)
`
`are uniform as to all defendants. Id.
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT CASE LAW
`The Supreme Court has ruled that claim construction is an issue of law. Teva
`
`Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331 (2015). While this does not
`
`mean district courts need to construe every limitation in a claim, courts do need to
`
`resolve the construction of any disputed terms for use in infringement or invalidity
`
`determinations before the matter is tried to a jury. O2 Micro Int’l v. Beyond
`
`Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008); U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon,
`
`Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, when a party presents a “dispute
`
`regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro,
`
`521 F.3d at 1362.
`
`District courts “have broad discretion to administer” patent proceedings. In re
`
`Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(quoting In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1232
`
`(9th Cir. 2006)). This includes limiting the number of patent claims for the sake of
`
`judicial
`
`economy
`
`and management
`
`of
`
`a
`
`court’s
`
`docket.
`
`
`
`Id.;
`
`Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., 437 F. App’x 897, 902 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also
`
`3D Sys., Inc. v. Envisiontec, Inc., No. 05-cv-74891, 2011 WL 4691937, at *6 (E.D.
`
`Mich. Oct. 6, 2011) (explaining the discretion to manage a case includes “limiting
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2795 Filed 10/21/22 Page 26 of 42
`
`
`
`the number of claims that can be asserted.”). To efficiently streamline cases, courts
`
`often order claim reduction before claim construction. In re Katz, 639 F.3d at 1309;
`
`Stamps.com, 437 F. App’x at 902 (limiting the Plaintiff to 15 claims total across 11
`
`patents having at least four different specifications, i.e., under 1.5 claims per patent,
`
`before claim construction).
`
`For example, in another MDL case, In re Katz, the plaintiff was required to
`
`reduce the number of asserted claims to just over one claim per patent before the
`
`deadline to select terms for claim construction. 639 F.3d at 1309. Initially, the
`
`plaintiff asserted 1,975 claims from 31 patents against 165 defendants in 25 different
`
`cases. Id. To manage the MDL before claim construction, the court ordered the
`
`plaintiff to select no more than 40 claims per defendant group, and after discovery
`
`(but before claim term selection for claim construction), the court further ordered
`
`Katz to select just 16 claims per defendant group across fourteen patents with several
`
`different specifications. Id. To ensure there would be no undue prejudice to the
`
`plaintiff, the court added a proviso that the plaintiff could add new claims under
`
`certain conditions. Id.
`
` “In determining whether to require parties [to] limit the number of claims
`
`asserted, courts look to the number of patents and claims at issue and the feasibility
`
`of trying the claims to a jury. Courts should also look to whether the patents at issue
`
`have common genealogy, whether the patents contain terminal disclaimers, and
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2796 Filed 10/21/22 Page 27 of 42
`
`
`
`whether the asserted claims are duplicative.” Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 12-
`
`cv-05601, 2013 WL 5587559, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) (citing In re Katz, 639
`
`F.3d at 1311).
`
`A.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`Neo Should Be Required To Make An Initial Reduction Of The
`Number Of Asserted Claims Prior To Claim Construction
`Neo represented at the Rule 26(f) conference that it will assert only a handful
`
`of claims at trial. Given the undisputed fact that Neo will try only a small fraction
`
`of its 65 asserted claims, it makes no sense for the parties to brief claim constructions
`
`and for the Court to expend time and resources construing claims that will never be
`
`tried. Neo should make an initial reduction of its claims to no more than three
`
`asserted claims per patent, for a maximum of 18 claims, so that this Court can
`
`prepare these cases for trial in the courts in which they were originally filed and the
`
`parties can focus on the important issues.
`
`The purpose of an MDL is to efficiently manage complex patent cases.
`
`“[H]aving a single judge become acquainted with the complex patented technology
`
`and construing the patent in a consistent fashion (as opposed to having [seven]
`
`judges separately decide such issues),” “offers substantial savings in terms of
`
`judicial economy.” Dkt. No. 1 at 2. To achieve this goal, the presiding MDL judge
`
`resolves all pretrial issues before sending the cases back to the transferor courts for
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2797 Filed 10/21/22 Page 28 of 42
`
`
`
`trial. This includes claim construction. Otherwise, the purpose of the MDL is
`
`defeated.
`
`That is why in a similar MDL, the Katz court ordered the plaintiff to reduce
`
`claims before claim construction. In fact, in Katz, the court required the plaintiff to
`
`narrow a much larger number of asserted claims (1,975), from a much larger number
`
`of patents (31), against a much larger number of defendants (165) to an even lower
`
`number of claims (16) than Defendants seek here. 639 F.3d at 1309. If Neo is not
`
`required to similarly limit its claims, there will be significant adverse consequences.
`
`With its unlimited assertion of claims, Neo can use the Court’s claim
`
`construction process as a practice run to test the strength of its case. If the Court
`
`issues unfavorable claim constructions, Neo will simply abandon those claims and
`
`select from its remaining bevy of available claims to take to trial. Those new claims
`
`with new terms could raise additional claim construction disputes. As a result, this
`
`Court will need to allow additional claim construction discovery and conduct a
`
`second claim construction hearing to resolve the additional claim construction
`
`disputes. See O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362. If not, this Court will be forced to send
`
`these cases back to their original districts without the benefit of a second Markman,
`
`requiring the trial courts to construe these additional terms and creating the risk of
`
`inconsistent rulings. Requiring this additional judicial process would contravene the
`
`very reason these cases were centralized in an MDL in the first place—to ensure
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2798 Filed 10/21/22 Page 29 of 42
`
`
`
`efficiency and judicial economy. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Neo asked for these cases to be
`
`centralized. Neo should not be permitted to waste judicial and party resources, at
`
`the risk of inconsistent judgements across multiple litigations, due to its refusal to
`
`manage its own case.
`
`The Federal Circuit endorses limiting claims in patent cases generally, and
`
`courts in this district routinely require plaintiffs to limit the number of asserted
`
`claims before claim construction. See, e.g., Stamps.com, 437 F. App’x at 902
`
`(limiting the Plaintiff to 15 claims across 11 patents having at least four different
`
`specifications, i.e., fewer than 1.5 claims per patent, before claim construction);
`
`Gentherm Canada, Ltd. v. IGB Auto., Ltd., No. 13-cv-11536, 2016 WL 1170801, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25, 2016) (ordering plaintiff to limit the number of claims to
`
`no more than 14 claims before claim construction); Norgren Automation Sols. v.
`
`PHD, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-13400, 2015 WL 10735173, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 22,
`
`2015), accepting and adopting Special Master’s Rep. and Recommendation, 2015
`
`WL 5693038 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2015) (limiting patent owner to 10 claims from
`
`35 claims prior to claim construction); Joao Control & Monitoring Sys.,