throbber
Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 96, PageID.2770 Filed 10/21/22 Page 1 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.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.,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket