Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 2914
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 12-1701-RGA
`
`
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC and GOOGLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P., SPRINT
`COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. and
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 12-1702-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 12-1703-RGA
`
`T-MOBILE USA INC. and GOOGLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 2915
`
`
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, D.B.A. VERIZON
`WIRELESS, and GOOGLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC; BLACKBERRY
`CORP., and BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`
`C.A. No. 12-1704-RGA
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-1788-RGA
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY
`PROCEEDINGS ON THE ’970 PATENT PENDING
`INTER PARTES REVIEW BY THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 2916
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &TUNNELL LLP
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Paul Saindon (#5110)
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`psaindon@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Google, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James F. Hurst
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-5600
`(312) 558-5600
`
`jhurst@winston.com
`
`Scott R. Samay
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Krishnan Padmanabhan
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-4193
`(212) 294-6700
`
`ssamay@winston.com
`plambrianakos@winston.com
`kpadmanabhan@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`Megan E. Dellinger (#5739)
`Eleanor G. Tennyson (#5812)
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`mdellinger@mnat.com
`etennyson@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Sprint Nextel Corp.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Kirk R. Ruthenberg
`Mark L. Hogge
`Shailendra K. Maheshwari
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 2917
`
`SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (Bar No. 2237)
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (Bar No. 4601)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`cseitz@seitzross.com
`bschladweiler@seitzross.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant AT&T Mobility, LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Joseph P. Zammit
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
`666 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10103-3198
`(212) 318-3000
`jzammit@fulbright.com
`
`Daniel S. Leventhal
`Brett McKean
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
`Fulbright Tower
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77010-3095
`(713) 651-5151
`dleventhal@fulbright.com
`bmckean@fulbright.com
`
`Mark C. Nelson
`Matthew P. Harper
`Daniel A. Valenzuela
`DENTONS US LLP
`2000 McKinney Avenue
`Suite 1900
`Dallas, TX 75201-1858
`(214) 259-0900
`mark.nelson@dentons.com
`matthew.harper@dentons.com
`daniel.valenzuela@dentons.com
`
`CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
`Arthur G. Connolly, III (#2667)
`The Brandywine Building
`1000 West Street, Suite 1400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 888-6318
`Email: AConnolly@connollygallagher.com
`
`Attorneys For T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Ramsey M. Al-Salam (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: RAlsalam@perkinscoie.com
`Kaustuv M. Das (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: KMDas@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`Tel: (206) 359-8000
`Fax: (206) 359-9000
`
`Kirk R. Ruthenberg (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`kirk.ruthenberg@dentons.com
`Mark L. Hogge (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: mark.hogge@dentons.com
`Shailendra K. Maheshwari (admitted Pro Hac
`Vice)
`Email: shailendra.maheshwari@dentons.com
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 408-6400
`Fax: (202) 408-6399
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 2918
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`Colm F. Connolly (Bar No. 3151)
`Jody C. Barillare (Bar No. 5107)
`cconnolly@morganlewis.com
`jbarillare@morganlewis.com
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street
`Suite 501
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 574-3000
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Research In Motion Ltd., and Research In
`Motion Corp.
`
`Eric Kraeutler (Pa. I.D. No. 32189)
`John V. Gorman (Pa. I.D. No. 80631)
`Andrew C. Whitney (Pa. I.D. No. 201534)
`Squire J. Servance (Pa. I.D. No. 207623)
`Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
`1701 Market Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
`Telephone: 215.963.5000
`Fax: 215.963.5001
`ekraeutler@morganlewis.com
`jgorman@morganlewis.com
`awhitney@morganlewis.com
`sservance@morganlewis.com
`
`SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (Bar No. 2237)
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (Bar No. 4601)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`cseitz@seitzross.com
`bschladweiler@seitzross.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Verizon
`Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership
`d/b/a Verizon Wireless
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Kevin P. Anderson
`Karin A. Hessler
`Paul M. Kim
`WILEY REIN LLP
`1776 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 719-7000
`kanderson@wileyrein.com
`khessler@wileyrein.com
`pkim@wileyrein.com
`
`July 14, 2014
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 2919
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. A Stay Will Simplify The Issues For Trial ................................................................3
`
`B. This Case Is In The Early Stages Of Litigation .........................................................5
`
`C. CallWave Fails To Demonstrate Undue Prejudice. ...................................................6
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 2920
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Sci., Inc.,
` No. 12-cv-133-GMS, 2013 WL 2462105 (D. Del. June 6, 2013) .............................................7
`
`Davol, Inc. v. Atruim Med. Corp.,
` No. 12-958-GMS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84533 (D. Del. June 17, 2003) ..............................7
`
`ImageVision.Net, Inc. v. Internet Payment Exchange, Inc.,
` No. 12-054-GMS-MPT, 2013 WL 663535 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2013) .......................................7
`
`ImageVision.Net, Inc v. Internet Payment Exchange, Inc.,
` No. 12-054-GMS-MPT, 2012 WL 5599338 (D. Del. Nov. 15, 2012) ....................................3
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. XILINX, Inc.,
` No. 10-1065-LPS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33687 (D. Del. Mar. 5, 2014) ................................5
`
`Neste Oil OYJ v. Dynamic Fuels, LLC,
`No. 12-1744-GMS, 2013 WL 3353984 (D. Del. July 2, 2013) ..............................................3,5
`
`
`Parallel Networks, LLC v. KOG Games, Inc.,
` No. 13-178-RGA (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2013) ...............................................................................4, 5
`
`TruePosition, Inc. v. Polaris Wireless, Inc.,
` No. 12-646-RGA/MPT, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150764 (D. Del. Oct. 21, 2013) ...................5
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 2921
`
`
`
`Defendants Google Inc., Blackberry Corp., Blackberry Ltd., AT&T Mobility LLC, Sprint
`
`Spectrum L.P., Sprint Communications Company L.P., T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Verizon
`
`Communications, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) file this brief in reply to Plaintiff
`
`CallWave Communications, LLC’s (“CallWave”) Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay
`
`the ’970 Track pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,970 (“the ’970
`
`patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`CallWave opposes the Motion to Stay the ’970 Track by (a) ignoring the simplification of
`
`the issues that the rulings of the PTAB will provide in the pending IPR that was granted on May
`
`9, 2014 and the fact that the second Petition for IPR filed on June 9, 2014, could moot
`
`CallWave’s case entirely, (b) claiming undue prejudice notwithstanding that CallWave does not
`
`manufacture any products and is not a competitor of Defendants, and (c) seeking to portray
`
`Defendants as dilatory by attributing to Defendants actions of non-parties over whom Defendants
`
`have no control and notwithstanding that the motion was filed soon after the PTAB granted the
`
`first petition.
`
`Contrary to CallWave’s position, the PTAB rulings will simplify these proceedings.
`
`Even though the first petition involves only Claim 18, the PTAB’s decision will be instructive
`
`with regard to claim construction and invalidity issues for the other asserted claims because they
`
`are based upon similar claim language and are variations of the claimed invention. CallWave
`
`also fails to acknowledge that the second Petition for IPR challenging the ’970 patent could moot
`
`this case by invalidating all of the claims. This Court has stayed other actions under similar
`
`circumstances where the PTAB has not yet decided whether to institute the IPR. CallWave also
`
`provides no support for its position that the stay of the ’970 Track while the ’933 Track and the
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 2922
`
`Call Processing Track proceed will complicate and multiply discovery. Given the differing
`
`technologies and witnesses, there is simply no support for the notion that staying proceedings
`
`with regard to the ’970 Track will create any waste or inefficiency. To the contrary, staying
`
`the ’970 Track will both avoid wasting the resources of the Court and parties by deferring
`
`litigating issues that may be resolved by the PTAB and simplify the case by allowing the Court
`
`and parties to focus on the ’933 and Call Processing Tracks. Further, in an attempt to portray
`
`Defendants as controlling the IPR process, CallWave seeks to attribute all of the actions of the
`
`IPR requestor Location Labs to the Defendants. But none of the relationships cited by CallWave
`
`make Defendants in any way responsible for the IPRs filed by Location Labs. The fact that
`
`Location Labs is a vendor to and has an indemnification relationship with three of the six
`
`defendants in the ’970 Track does not mean that defendants control the IPR process. AT&T,
`
`Sprint and T-Mobile have no contractual right to exercise control over the IPR. Moreover, the
`
`other three defendants have no such relationship with Location Labs and are strangers to the IPR
`
`process.
`
`Finally, CallWave’s claims of delay tactics are illogical, inconsistent and do not
`
`withstand close scrutiny. While claiming on the one hand that Defendants should have filed their
`
`Motion to Stay much sooner after Location Labs filed its First Petition, it also claims that the
`
`motion is premature because the PTAB has not yet acted on the Second Petition. This is a
`
`classic “heads we win, tails you lose” proposition. Further, it was not until February 25 of this
`
`year, after the Court had ruled on the Motions to Dismiss and Defendants filed their answers to
`
`CallWave’s Second Amended Complaint, that the upcoming activity in the case warranted
`
`consideration of the stay. There simply has not been any material delay that could justify forcing
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 2923
`
`the parties to now expend massive time, resources and money litigating a case that may be
`
`mooted and will certainly be affected by the pending decisions of the PTAB.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`CallWave failed to rebut Defendants’ showing in their opening brief that the three factors
`
`for granting a stay have been satisfied.
`
`A.
`
`A Stay Will Simplify The Issues For Trial.
`
`
`
`A stay will simplify the issues in this case either by invalidation of the entire ’970 patent
`
`in the second IPR or by decisions of the PTAB in either proceeding that will bring clarity to
`
`claim construction and invalidity issues affecting all claims. CallWave asserts that the requisite
`
`simplification will not arise from an IPR where a defendant has challenged patentability on
`
`grounds not addressable in IPR proceedings (e.g., patentable subject matter under § 101 and
`
`indefiniteness under § 112) (CallWave’s Opp., D.I. 116 in C.A. No. 12-1701-RGA, at 9-10).
`
`Contrary to CallWave’s argument, “the ‘issue simplification’ factor does not require complete
`
`overlap.” Neste Oil OYJ, No. 12-1744-GMS, 2013 WL 3353984 at *5 (D. Del. July 2, 2013);
`
`see ImageVision.Net, Inc. v. Internet Payment Exchange, Inc., No. 12-054-GMS-MPT, 2012
`
`WL 5599338, at *4 (D. Del. Nov. 15, 2012) (“While the issues that would remain for litigation
`
`do exceed those that might be resolved through the reexamination process, it is still the case
`
`that a stay could yield some measure of issue simplification.” (emphasis added)). Indeed,
`
`were CallWave’s argument correct, no stay would ever be granted because the PTAB does not
`
`have authority to address all issues that can be addressed in litigation.
`
`CallWave further argues that a stay will not simplify issues where one or more of the
`
`asserted claims in the litigation was not included in the IPR petition. (CallWave’s Opp., D.I. 116
`
`in C.A. No. 12-1701-RGA, at 9). However, all of the asserted claims are included in the Second
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 2924
`
`Petition for IPR. Additionally, although the PTAB instituted Claim 18 of the ’970 patent in the
`
`first petition, many of the claim terms at issue in Claim 18 are identical or similar to the claim
`
`terms in the claims asserted by CallWave, and the PTAB’s decision regarding Claim 18 should
`
`be instructive to the Court in construing the terms of Claims 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19. Thus, the
`
`overlap of the terms and phrases will simplify invalidity and claim construction issues even if the
`
`Second Petition were not instituted.
`
`CallWave’s remaining arguments about the purported inefficiency of staying the ’970
`
`track while proceeding with the ’933 and Call Processing Tracks should likewise be rejected.
`
`(CallWave’s Opp., D.I. 116 in C.A. 12-1701-RGA, at 9-10).1 There is simply no support for the
`
`notion that staying proceedings with regard to the ’970 Track will create any waste or
`
`inefficiency in light of the different technologies and witnesses. To the contrary, by simplifying
`
`the issues on the ’970 Track, the IPR will permit the parties and the Court to either avoid
`
`litigating the ’970 Track or simplify the proceedings once they resume. Staying the ’970 Track
`
`will allow the parties and the Court to focus their efforts on the ’933 and Call Processing Tracks.
`
`CallWave further attempts to argue that the likelihood of institution is “doubtful.”
`
`(CallWave’s Opp., D.I. 116 in C.A. No. 12-1701-RGA, at 10). The Second Petition, however,
`
`cites additional prior art that address claim elements the PTAB believed to be missing in the first
`
`petition. This Court in Parallel Networks, LLC v. KOG Games, Inc.,2 has stayed other actions
`
`under similar circumstances where the PTAB has not yet decided whether to institute the IPR.
`
`
`1 Separate trials are likely in any event. As pointed out in Defendants’ Brief in Support of the
`Motion to Sever and Coordinate (filed as D.I. 48 in C.A. No. 12-1701-RGA), Defendants believe
`that the ’970 Track claims should be severed and should be tried separately. The Court decided
`to keep the cases together and organize the issues by track for discovery purposes but indicated it
`would address the issue of holding separate trials at a later stage of the litigation.
`
`2 Exhibit 1, C.A. No. 13-178-RGA, Tr. at 66:16-19 (D. Del. Dec. 6, 2013).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 2925
`
`Finally, CallWave argues a simplification of the issues will not result from a stay of
`
`the ’970 Track because none of the Defendants requesting a stay admit to being Real Parties-in-
`
`Interest in the IPR proceedings to avoid the estoppel effect of the IPR in these lawsuits.
`
`(CallWave’s Opp., D.I. 116 in C.A. No. 12-1701-RGA, at 4, 11). This argument is contrary to
`
`logic, because “if the claims of the [patent undergoing IPR] are cancelled during review, it will
`
`not matter that [other defendants] were not parties to those proceedings.” Neste Oil, 2013 WL
`
`3353984 at *5. Moreover, this Court has recognized limited estoppel issues and “part of the
`
`simplification is probably [the PTAB] [does not] want to turn the IPR into a mirror of District
`
`Court litigation[.]” See Exhibit 1, Parallel Networks, Tr. at 52:7-8.
`
`B.
`
`This Case Is In The Early Stages Of Litigation.
`
`Contrary to CallWave’s attempts to portray this case as too far along for a stay, it is an
`
`appropriate time because the Court and the parties can avoid the resource intensive discovery
`
`issues (including searching of ESI) and claim construction proceedings that will occur in the near
`
`future. The cases CallWave cites are inapposite because they were in their late stages of
`
`litigation with completed claim construction briefing and recent Markman hearings. See
`
`TruePosition, Inc. v. Polaris Wireless, Inc., No. 12-646-RGA-MPT, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`150764, at *11 (D. Del. Oct. 21, 2013) (finding that significant discovery and resolution of
`
`discovery disputes had occurred that weighed against granting a stay); see also Intellectual
`
`Ventures I LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 10-1065-LPS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33687, at *5 (D. Del.
`
`Mar. 5, 2014) (finding that late stages of a proceeding with completed fact and expert discovery,
`
`claim construction done, and little more than two months away from trial weighed against a stay).
`
`Here, no depositions have taken place. Claim construction is in its infancy: the parties have only
`
`exchanged claim terms to be construed. No Markman briefs have been filed, and no expert
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 2926
`
`reports or motions for summary judgment have been filed. ESI discovery has not yet
`
`commenced. Any reasons for continuing this litigation are far outweighed by the significant,
`
`substantive benefits (including possibly ending this litigation for the ’970 Track) that a stay
`
`would afford.
`
`C.
`
`Callwave Fails To Demonstrate Undue Prejudice.
`
`CallWave cannot demonstrate any claims of undue prejudice because, as it does not
`
`contest, CallWave is not a competitor and does not manufacture any products. CallWave’s
`
`argument that Defendants are seeking a tactical advantage is premised on its baseless claim that
`
`Defendants have control over the IPR process and that one of the dozens of attorneys who have
`
`filed appearances in these cases also is representing Location Labs in the IPR. CallWave spins
`
`out an elaborate theory about why Location Labs filed the Petitions for IPR when it did, but it is
`
`a theory that is unsupported by evidence or common sense. First, CallWave ignores the fact that
`
`Location Labs indemnifies only three of the six defendants accused of infringing the ’970 patent.
`
`Also, CallWave has the legal relationship involving indemnification completely backwards. As
`
`an indemnitor, it is Location Labs, and not its customers, who control the IPR proceedings.
`
`None of the defendants have the right to control the IPR proceedings and there is no legal basis
`
`for attributing the acts of Location Labs to the Defendants.
`
`The Court should also give no weight to CallWave’s complaint that if this case is stayed
`
`it will not get the discovery it needs regarding the IPR proceeding. If the case is stayed,
`
`CallWave can seek discovery in those separate proceedings. Moreover, certain Defendants are
`
`providing discovery concerning their relationship with Location Labs.
`
`While accusing Defendants of a grand scheme to gain advantage, in reality, CallWave is
`
`seeking its own tactical advantage. By refusing to consent to a stay and pressing forward with
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 2927
`
`the District Court litigation while the PTAB is considering the validity of the ’970 patent,
`
`CallWave is attempting to force Defendants to spend enormous amounts defending the case in
`
`the hope it can force a settlement.
`
`In addition, CallWave attempts to manufacture undue prejudice by postulating (without
`
`evidentiary support) that the Second IPR petition could last for nearly two years. (CallWave’s
`
`Opp., D.I. 116 in C.A. No. 12-1701-RGA, at 14). In fact, the PTAB will decide whether to
`
`institute the IPR by December 9, 2014 and a decision is due by May 9, 2015. However, “it is
`
`well-established that the potential for litigation delay, by itself, is insufficient to demonstrate that
`
`[a patentee] will be unacceptably prejudiced and is, therefore not dispositive in the analysis.”
`
`See BodyMedia, Inc. v. Basis Sci., Inc., No. 12-cv-133-GMS, 2013 WL 2462105, at *1 n.l (D.
`
`Del. June 6, 2013).
`
`Finally, some of CallWave’s cited cases involve parties that are direct competitors. See
`
`Davol, Inc. v. Atruim Med. Corp., No. 12-958-GMS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84533, at *14 (D.
`
`Del. June 17, 2003) (finding undue prejudice for plaintiff because plaintiff was a direct
`
`competitor of defendant); see also ImageVision.net, Inc. v. Internet Payment Exchange, Inc., No.
`
`12-054-GMS-MPT, 2013 WL 663535, at *6 (D. Del. Feb. 25, 2013) (finding that “[i]t is well-
`
`established that courts are generally reluctant to stay proceedings where the parties are direct
`
`competitors” (internal quotations omitted)). Here, CallWave can show no undue prejudice
`
`because it does not compete with the Defendants as explained in the opening brief (D.I. 104 in
`
`C.A. No. 12-1701-RGA).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Judicial and party resources would be wasted by continuing to litigate these cases until
`
`the PTAB issues its final written decision on both petitions for IPR. A stay is warranted both by
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 2928
`
`the IPR that has been instituted and by the Second IPR Petition to the PTAB, whose decision on
`
`institution is due December 9, 2014, with a final decision by May 9, 2015. Accordingly, the
`
`Defendants respectfully ask the Court to stay any further proceedings in the ’970 Track pending
`
`the PTAB’s final rulings in the Instituted IPR and the Pending Petition.
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &TUNNELL LLP
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Paul Saindon
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Paul Saindon (#5110)
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`psaindon@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James F. Hurst
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-5600
`(312) 558-5600
`
`jhurst@winston.com
`
`Scott R. Samay
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Krishnan Padmanabhan
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166-4193
`(212) 294-6700
`
`ssamay@winston.com
`plambrianakos@winston.com
`kpadmanabhan@winston.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Megan E. Dellinger
`Karen Jacobs (#2881)
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`Megan E. Dellinger (#5739)
`Eleanor G. Tennyson (#5812)
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`kjacobs@mnat.com
`skraftschik@mnat.com
`mdellinger@mnat.com
`etennyson@mnat.com
`Attorneys for Sprint Spectrum L.P. and Sprint
`Communications Company L.P.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Kirk R. Ruthenberg
`Mark L. Hogge
`Shailendra K. Maheshwari
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 2929
`
`CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
`
`SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Benjamin J. Schladweiler
`Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (Bar No. 2237)
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (Bar No. 4601)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`cseitz@seitzross.com
`bschladweiler@seitzross.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Joseph P. Zammit
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
`666 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10103-3198
`(212) 318-3000
`jzammit@fulbright.com
`
`Daniel S. Leventhal
`Brett McKean
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
`Fulbright Tower
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77010-3095
`(713) 651-5151
`dleventhal@fulbright.com
`bmckean@fulbright.com
`
`Mark C. Nelson
`Steven M. Geiszler
`Daniel A. Valenzuela
`DENTONS US LLP
`2000 McKinney Avenue
`Suite 1900
`Dallas, TX 75201-1858
`(214) 259-0900
`mark.nelson@dentons.com
`steven.geiszler@dentons.com
`daniel.valenzuela@dentons.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Arthur G. Connolly, III
`Arthur G. Connolly, III (#2667)
`The Brandywine Building
`1000 West Street, Suite 1400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 888-6318
`Email: AConnolly@connollygallagher.com
`
`Attorneys For T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Ramsey M. Al-Salam (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: RAlsalam@perkinscoie.com
`Kaustuv M. Das (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: KMDas@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`Tel: (206) 359-8000
`Fax: (206) 359-9000
`
`Kirk R. Ruthenberg (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`kirk.ruthenberg@dentons.com
`Mark L. Hogge (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Email: mark.hogge@dentons.com
`Shailendra K. Maheshwari (admitted Pro Hac
`Vice)
`Email: shailendra.maheshwari@dentons.com
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 408-6400
`Fax: (202) 408-6399
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 2930
`
`SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Jody C. Barillare
`Colm F. Connolly (Bar No. 3151)
`Jody C. Barillare (Bar No. 5107)
`cconnolly@morganlewis.com
`jbarillare@morganlewis.com
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street
`Suite 501
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 574-3000
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Blackberry Corp.,
`and Blackberry Ltd..
`
`Eric Kraeutler (Pa. I.D. No. 32189)
`John V. Gorman (Pa. I.D. No. 80631)
`Andrew C. Whitney (Pa. I.D. No. 201534)
`Squire J. Servance (Pa. I.D. No. 207623)
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1701 Market Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
`Telephone: 215.963.5000
`Fax: 215.963.5001
`ekraeutler@morganlewis.com
`jgorman@morganlewis.com
`awhitney@morganlewis.com
`sservance@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Benjamin J. Schladweiler
`Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (Bar No. 2237)
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (Bar No. 4601)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`cseitz@seitzross.com
`bschladweiler@seitzross.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Verizon
`Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership
`d/b/a Verizon Wireless
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Kevin P. Anderson
`Karin A. Hessler
`Paul M. Kim
`WILEY REIN LLP
`1776 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 719-7000
`kanderson@wileyrein.com
`khessler@wileyrein.com
`pkim@wileyrein.com
`
`July 14, 2014
`8386414
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 2931
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 14, 2014, I caused the foregoing to be electronically
`
`
`
`
`
`filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to all
`
`registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`July 14, 2014, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`
`Edmond D. Johnson
`James G. McMillan
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`1313 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1709
`Wilmington, DE 19809-1709
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`William D. Belanger
`Noah V. Malgeri
`Benjamin M. Snitkoff
`Lauren Reznick
`Leah R. McCoy
`PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
`High Street Tower, 19th Floor
`125 High Street
`Boston, MA 02110
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Karen Jacobs
`Stephen J. Kraftschik
`Eleanor G. Tennyson
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 N. Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`Attorneys for Sprint Spectrum L.P. and Sprint
`Communications Company L.P.
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 2932
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Kirk R. Ruthenberg
`Mark L. Hogge
`Shailendra K. Maheshwari
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`Attorneys for Sprint Spectrum L.P. and Sprint
`Communications Company L.P.
`
`Arthur G. Connolly, III
`CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
`The Brandywine Building
`1000 West Street, Suite 1400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 888-6318
`Attorneys for T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`Ramsey M. Al-Salam
`Kaustuv M. Das
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`(206) 359-8000
`Attorneys for T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`Kirk R. Ruthenberg
`Mark L. Hogge
`Shailendra K. Maheshwari
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 408-6400
`Attorneys for T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler
`SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`Counsel for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC
`and Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 2933
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Joseph P. Zammit
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
`666 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10103-3198
`(212) 318-3000
`Counsel for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`Daniel S. Leventhal
`Brett McKean
`FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
`Fulbright Tower
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77010-3095
`(713) 651-5151
`Counsel for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`Mark C. Nelson
`Matthew P. Harper
`Daniel A. Valenzuela
`DENTONS US LLP
`2000 McKinney Avenue
`Suite 1900
`Dallas, TX 75201-1858
`(214) 259-0900
`Counsel for Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`Kevin P. Anderson
`Karin A. Hessler
`Paul M. Kim
`WILEY REIN LLP
`1776 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 719-7000
`Counsel for Defendants Verizon
`Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership
`d/b/a Verizon Wireless
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2015
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-01701-RGA Document 125 Filed 07/14/14 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 2934
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Colm F. Connolly
`Jody C. Barillare
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street
`Suite 501
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 574-3000
`Attorneys for Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Blackberry Ltd., and Blackberry Corp.
`
`Eric Kraeutler
`John V. Gorman
`Andrew C. Whitney
`Squire J. Servance
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1701 Market Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
`(215