throbber
Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8082 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`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,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11402-TGB
`
`v.
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
`INC. AND HONDA DEVELOPMENT
`& MANUFACTURING OF
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11403-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8083 Filed 11/14/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`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. 98, PageID.8084 Filed 11/14/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`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,
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11408-TGB
`
`v.
`
`TESLA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8085 Filed 11/14/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11769-TGB
`
`v.
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11770-TGB
`
`v.
`
`FCA US, LLC,
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION
`TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8086 Filed 11/14/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1
`
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Reduction Should Occur Before Claim Construction ................ 2
`
`Federal Circuit Case Law Supports Defendants’ Request .................... 6
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 7
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8087 Filed 11/14/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................... 3, 4, 6, 7
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`WDTX 6-21-cv-00026 (Jan. 13, 2021) ................................................................. 3
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`WDTX 1:22-cv-00060 (Jan. 12, 2021) ................................................................. 3
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`WDTX 6-21-cv-00025 (Jan. 13, 2021) ................................................................. 3
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`L.R. 7.1(a) .................................................................................................................. 2
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8088 Filed 11/14/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”)’s response does not dispute that:
`
` Neo asserts 65 claims against all nine Defendant groups;
`
` The law requires the Court to construe all disputed claim terms;
`
` Neo will assert only a handful of claims at trial;
`
` It is a waste of judicial resources for this Court to construe all the disputed
`terms from 65 claims when only a fraction of those claims will be tried;
`
` Courts routinely require plaintiffs to limit the number of asserted claims; and
`
` Under Defendants’ proposal, Neo will not have to select its claims for
`reduction until after receiving Defendants’ invalidity contentions.
`
`The issue is whether Neo should limit its claims before or after claim
`
`construction. The express purpose of this MDL is to efficiently manage multiple
`
`complex patent cases through pretrial. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Neo’s proposal to carry 65
`
`asserted claims (with the option to add new claims later) into the claim construction
`
`process—even though it admits it will assert significantly fewer at trial (Dkt. No. 97
`
`at 17)—runs contrary to this MDL’s governing principles. It also ensures the Court
`
`will waste significant time and resources construing dozens of claims that ultimately
`
`will not matter (and possibly having to conduct a second Markman) before sending
`
`the cases back to the trial courts. Defendants’ motion should be granted.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Neo complains about the meet and confer process, but its factual recitation
`
`confirms that the parties are at impasse. Dkt. No. 97 at 8 (“Defendants may contend
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8089 Filed 11/14/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`… that Neo would never agree to the specific, one-sided relief they have requested
`
`(and they would be right).”).1 Notably absent from Neo’s recitation is that Neo has
`
`already previously litigated four of the asserted patents against three other
`
`defendants in three other cases, based on the same infringement contentions it asserts
`
`here. See infra at 3. As Neo’s infringement contentions are materially identical to
`
`the assertions in those cases—i.e., based on the LTE standard—Neo already has an
`
`advanced understanding of its infringement case, the relevant invalidity defenses,
`
`and the claims it intends to take to trial.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Claim Reduction Should Occur Before Claim Construction
`
`Neo contends Defendants’ motion is “premature,” because Neo is “willing to
`
`continue conferring with Defendants about reciprocal narrowing at the proper time,
`
`and to organically narrowing its case as soon as it is able.” Dkt. No. 97 at 8. This
`
`functionally meaningless language speaks volumes. The claim construction process
`
`begins on December 1 with the initial identification of disputed claim terms. Dkt.
`
`No. 84 at 2. The “proper time” to reduce claims is now; otherwise, the parties will
`
`begin this process construing dozens of claims that will never matter.
`
`
`1 Neo’s argument that Defendants did not comply with Local Rule 7.1(a) thus fails.
`Dkt. No. 97 at 7-8. Neo admits that the parties conferred regarding Defendants’
`request to limit claims during the Rule 26(f) discussions, and Neo’s opposition
`to that request was known to all.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8090 Filed 11/14/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`Neo’s delay here is particularly concerning because Neo already knows which
`
`claims matter: Neo has litigated the asserted patents multiple times under the exact
`
`same standards-based theory. Neo asserted four of the asserted patents against
`
`Apple, LG, and Dell, and, in all three cases, Neo asserted infringement based on the
`
`LTE standard. See Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., WDTX 1:22-cv-00060 at
`
`Dkt. 1 (Jan. 12, 2021) and exhibits; Neo Wireless LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., WDTX
`
`6:21-cv-00025 at Dkt. 1 (Jan. 13, 2021) and exhibits (same); Neo Wireless LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., WDTX 6:21-cv-00026 at Dkt. 1 (Jan. 13, 2021) and exhibits (same). Neo
`
`has thus long known its infringement theories because the allegations in Dell, LG,
`
`and Apple closely match those served here. Compare, e.g., Dell at Dkt. No. 1-6
`
`(’366 Patent claim chart) with Dkt. No. 96, Ex. A (’366 Patent claim charts).
`
`Neo also argues that narrowing the case denies Neo due process, and that any
`
`narrowing must be reciprocal. Dkt. No. 97 at 7-10, 18. But Defendants’ proposal is
`
`based on In re Katz claim reduction protocol. Dkt. No. 96 at 6-8.2 And the Katz
`
`court already rejected Neo’s due process arguments. In re Katz Interactive Call
`
`Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1310-13 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In fact,
`
`
`2 Neo contends that in Katz, claim construction occurred after fact discovery. Dkt.
`No. 97 at 9 n.1. Neo is wrong. The Katz court required Katz to first narrow to
`40 claims, and following “Core Discovery,” further narrow to 16. See In Re Katz,
`CDCA 2:07-ml-01816 at Dkt. No. 221. “Core Discovery” in that case is
`analogous to initial technical discovery Neo has already received or will receive
`by November 16. See id. at Dkt. No. 179 pp. 6-11 (defining “Core Discovery”),
`pp. 16-20 (outlining additional fact discovery, “Common Discovery”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8091 Filed 11/14/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`Defendants’ proposal is more lenient than Katz, where the court required the plaintiff
`
`to narrow a much larger number of asserted claims (1,975 vs. 65), from a much larger
`
`number of patents (31 vs. 6) against a much larger number of defendants (165 vs. 9),
`
`to an even lower number of claims (16 vs. 18). Neo can always attempt to show
`
`“good cause” for relief from this order (though unfavorable constructions are not
`
`“good cause”). And while Katz did not require defendants to limit prior art and
`
`reduction of prior art is not needed to ensure efficient claim construction, Defendants
`
`remain willing to narrow their prior art to a proportional number of primary
`
`references within six weeks of Neo’s claim reduction. There is thus no reason why
`
`Neo cannot reduce its claims by November 23, before the start of claim construction.
`
`Indeed, Neo does not dispute that courts in this District routinely require
`
`plaintiffs to limit the number of asserted claims before claim construction. See Dkt.
`
`No. 96 at 9 (collecting cases). Instead, Neo contends those cases are inapposite,
`
`because the claim reduction in some of those cases occurred after fact discovery.
`
`Dkt. No. 97 at 12 n.3. But Neo’s insistence that it needs additional fact discovery to
`
`understand its case is contradicted by the facts of this case and Neo’s own conduct.
`
`
`
`First, Neo’s infringement contentions are common across all Defendants, and
`
`are based on the LTE standard. Dkt. No. 96 at 2, 12-13; Exs. A-F. These are the
`
`same infringement theories Neo asserted multiple times in other cases, including
`
`through claim construction. See supra at 3. Neo thus already has all the information
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8092 Filed 11/14/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`it needs to form its claim construction positions, especially considering it already
`
`briefed its positions in the Dell case. See Ex. H (Neo’s claim construction brief).
`
`Second, if Neo contends it nevertheless needs additional discovery, Neo still
`
`has not issued subpoenas to Defendants’ chipmakers, despite recognizing those
`
`parties are relevant. See, e.g., Ex. I (Neo’s Sept. 14, 2022 Initial Disclosures)
`
`(identifying chipmaker Qualcomm as a relevant party). Neo should not be permitted
`
`to parlay its dilatory efforts to conduct discovery into a delay of claim selection.
`
`Finally, if the Court permits Neo to further delay claim selection, Neo will
`
`simply use the claim construction process to test-drive its theories and then change
`
`its asserted claims in view of the Court’s constructions. Neo admits this, asserting
`
`that “claim construction is in fact a key aspect of the ‘proposed defenses’ Neo must
`
`have the opportunity to understand” before deciding whether it wants to assert
`
`additional, different claims. Dkt. No. 97 at 9. Thus, without any limits before claim
`
`construction, Neo admits that it may try to assert additional claims later, which
`
`would necessitate additional claim construction. This is precisely what this MDL
`
`was designed to avoid, and precisely why Neo’s claim reduction should occur now.
`
`Neo should not be permitted to play games with claim construction, at the expense
`
`of judicial and party resources, by resetting its asserted claims and starting over if it
`
`is not satisfied with the Court’s claim constructions.3
`
`
`3 If the Court wants to provide Neo more time to obtain discovery or select its
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8093 Filed 11/14/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`B.
`
`Federal Circuit Case Law Supports Defendants’ Request
`
`Neo contends that case law does not support Defendants’ case narrowing
`
`proposal. Dkt. No. 97 at 12. Neo is wrong.4 In re Katz is directly on point. There,
`
`as here, multiple cases were consolidated into an MDL, where the MDL court needed
`
`to construe all the disputed terms before it could return the individual cases to the
`
`trial courts. In Katz, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s requirement
`
`that plaintiff narrow its claims twice before claim construction. 639 F.3d at 1309.
`
`The model orders that Neo cites were not meant for cases like this. See Dkt.
`
`No. 97 at 10. Those orders were not for an MDL where there is a greater need to
`
`identify and limit the claim terms, so the MDL court can construe all disputed terms
`
`before returning the cases to the trial courts. Nor do those orders consider a patent
`
`owner asserting 65 claims and trying to reserve the right to select new claims later.
`
`These considerations make claim limits before claim construction more important to
`
`prevent wasting judicial and party resources and potentially conducting a second
`
`round of claim construction. Moreover, Neo has significant experience litigating
`
`these patents and therefore unique insight into the issues. See supra at 3. And unlike
`
`the model orders, Neo asserts that its patents are standard essential, further allowing
`
`
`claims, the Court could also delay the claim construction deadlines.
`4 Despite arguing that the law does not support Defendants’ request, Neo
`ultimately concedes that “the parties agree that this decision rests entirely within
`the Court’s discretion, based on the facts of the case.” Dkt. No. 97 at 13.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8094 Filed 11/14/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`for prompt narrowing. Id. As a result, the Katz MDL case is much more on point
`
`than the model orders. In any event, this District often limits plaintiffs to fewer
`
`claims than Defendants propose here, and done so before claim construction. See
`
`Dkt. No. 96 at 9.
`
`Neo’s remaining arguments that Defendants failed to show similarity of the
`
`issues lack merit. Dkt. No. 97 at 13-16. Defendants have demonstrated the
`
`similarity of allegations across Defendants, and across claims. Dkt. 96 at 12-14;
`
`Exs. A-F (overlap across Defendants); Ex. G (overlap across claims). Neo’s
`
`arguments regarding similarity across patents misses the similarity across claims, as
`
`discussed by Katz, and improperly attempts to shift the burden. Indeed, Defendants’
`
`proposal does not require Neo to drop any patents. Also, in Katz, the Federal Circuit
`
`affirmed “requir[ing] [plaintiff] to point out those unselected claims that raised
`
`separate issues of infringement and invalidity rather than requiring the defendants to
`
`prove that all of the unselected claims were duplicative.” Katz, 639 F.3d at 1312.
`
`That is, the analysis was framed as a claim-specific one (not patent-specific), and
`
`the burden was on plaintiff to show separate issues of infringement and invalidity.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Defendants request that the Court grant this Motion and its relief requested.
`
`Dated: November 14, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Moore
`Matthew J. Moore
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8095 Filed 11/14/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`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
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8096 Filed 11/14/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8097 Filed 11/14/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8098 Filed 11/14/22 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`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.,
`Toyota Motor Corporation, 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
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8099 Filed 11/14/22 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8100 Filed 11/14/22 Page 19 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`Fax: (734) 418-4255
`mhuget@honigman.com,
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Tesla, Inc.
`
`
`
`/s/ Celine J. Crowson
`Celine J. Crowson
`Joseph J. Raffetto
`Damon M. Lewis
`Nicholas W. Rotz
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`555 Thirteenth St, NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`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
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8101 Filed 11/14/22 Page 20 of 21
`
`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
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 98, PageID.8102 Filed 11/14/22 Page 21 of 21
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned herby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and
`
`foregoing document has been served on all counsel of record, via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF electronic notification system on November 14, 2022.
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Moore
`Matthew J. Moore
`
`
`
`
`
`

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