1N 'i’flii‘; {LENITIEZIL} VI’HEW PAWC‘EENV‘? AN!) TRAEDEMARK (73}?QWCE
`
`HIEZFC}RE: "FEE PATENI TRIAL ANl} Afi’Pilflxxh BOARD
`
`SA‘fWISELi'T‘JG $311,EEZiLL‘Ti”RCTZEN'I CE; {I‘lfifi’éw Hf"?
`
`my; $91,331:,
`
`BLACK Iél’KLIJS M’EEITIEA 1M2?
`
`Farm]: (f)wner.
`
`Case: IPRZO} 4~007 I. ’2'
`
`Patent No. ($108,686
`
`PETI’I‘JONER’S OPPOSITION TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR
`
`ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY BY PATENT OWNER
`
`DC}: 5425526~ I 3
`
`
`
`HIEZFC}RE: "FEE PATENI TRIAL ANl} Afi’Pilflxxh BOARD
`
`SA‘fWISELi'T‘JG $311,EEZiLL‘Ti”RCTZEN'I CE; {I‘lfifi’éw Hf"?
`
`my; $91,331:,
`
`BLACK Iél’KLIJS M’EEITIEA 1M2?
`
`Farm]: (f)wner.
`
`Case: IPRZO} 4~007 I. ’2'
`
`Patent No. ($108,686
`
`PETI’I‘JONER’S OPPOSITION TO SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOR
`
`ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY BY PATENT OWNER
`
`DC}: 5425526~ I 3
`
`
`
`w!
`A
`E EVE} 21‘,
`
`«
`:3 E ELL—(TEE)? E f
`
`'EQIECEEEEWE‘. E43 0. {3.3 LZEEEEEE V ELEEEL? ZZMEJEEEE E
`
`1mm ()1? {TUH’E’"E€TE¢{’S
`
`E
`
`EL
`
`EN”’E”IEEE35%]{EEE'E‘EEQEE‘E .........
`
`............
`
`,,,,, E. .................., ..........
`
`,,,,, WE,
`
`EEEELEWEE 53313E€3E3{fi'wuz—‘E’ETEEEEN "FEEL/33‘ {363C312}Mi MAE?) “EE‘EEEEEEEEEEEEEE; ATE???
`
`A LI333(")RE’I'Y3 ELEV133R E3 AMEN .1 N Ci ’ E5 13133 F EEENE? E3 E E? N CW
`
`E'EI”I{3W}IE,'"E"‘E{*L.EELE 113% ’E‘E'ETEE EVAC’EEES ......
`
`.......
`
`EEEEEEEE
`
`3
`
`Av
`
`B.
`
`Sarrwung Mainmirmd afid {Mziiumim “(.L‘E)t1,t,mi and A‘LEEhcrrity"
`(War its 134:, {bum in, the: II‘EEQE‘WEECE(313.313, Trade (.fffcuinmigfigiun
`
`Litigatim EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
`
`.........
`
`............ ............... 4
`
`3321111511112; EV'IaiI’Emitmd and Ev’lz:;ti,131tai1‘13 “(3011301 and AL)E1"1.<)I.'i‘tj~/”
`(DE/m 115-;
`I?Z>:3f“c:r1.s;e: in. the 3332;133:1111 I‘Disg‘trict 0E” 1mm Ii..,i”tig;;at,'ion ...............
`
`5
`
`HE
`
`lJTEAfP’IfNfl WHERE/E, "131313 MAID/E TO £3C)N'EI‘I-E€)E,
`
`('EEV'E?EI{”'.E,‘1T~IEE‘F’Rlfi
`
`PURE, SEEKS/("731133EA'EEQN
`
`EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
`
`................................. ‘7
`
`IV ”Hi-“H73 RJEZQU[715971313113 If‘f)ISC(')VEiiRY IS LINNECESSARY IN {HEIGHT OF
`334”?) CHC) [MEEC‘E'L/ARAEI‘ION AND DCHFFJS NU!" SA'E‘ESI’EY "131135
`
`GARMIN EF‘AC' FORS ......................................................................................... 8
`
`a
`
`V
`
`V"
`J .J .. L
`.
`.
`(""‘ONC‘I 1‘ I‘S‘I‘ON
`
`vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
`
`10
`
`
`
`EE7‘7-CICEE44,3537 E7
`
`E33131:1:15-31 N13 1E12EEE’E‘EE CECElELZEEI-LEEEEEEI
`
`
`
`.----,E-.--g--:
`
`I
`IECEI3
`311713.131 1121113111
`7333.11.111111131 111.1«33,1111-2133133
`
`
`III/1111111.
`(.111
`(Eu/1111.1 7
`14(21 ImI11111I1EIE (‘12,
`“II/1.111
`177/1116
`1E1
`ICE11111111-
`101711} I171
`{I974}
`I” 11111
`I13cI111111I1z1gy
`1‘11
`I- 11211111111;
`7311-11111:E-.--
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`“1411111111 111 1111111111111.I11 Em111113111111111 211111 81111110111111.
`Memomndmn 111i GoogIc I111": Infernational Irade Con1111i313i011
`Ilwcbus-Inmn N131 33 7IE\_2187 (IIC I111 79320317)
`N11111<1 11E I7I1Ii1w 11f .I'Cuqumln111 [111131 I72111<31~1 Rum-3w 11EIIIe
`I
`’2111311113 I1131,1111flied111 the I 2151113111 13151114131 11E M11211, I111" C 11111:
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Ex. I007:
`7'
`
`3 I7.x 10L?!
`I-
`-
`
`-
`
`1
`I
`
`
`
`..1.533.311.0113 79IRCE (.111 May7 I. 2014.
`',
`
`IE I009 j.'.'_‘ff.‘__--‘
`
`I311" I010
`11121111111111 EVIL 121, I ..
`1, 01113113161111 I11C1111113I<111111 1: M01111n
`3‘33t11 Imwvcnc (Inv N11 317[/3\£387) 333 3333333
`I101]
`Ordm N11 I7: INIIIAI I3EII1RMINAIIC)N (112111111113. (10111371
`7.119 “IE-14121101119.IIIESILYQ-Ilfi? Hwy-.1352 3.37.7-11-8332) ----W.
`7E7In211 Initial Determination Distribution IEst (1111/ N1). 337EA—
`882) ---.
`
`
`
`-31..
`
`
`
` ll‘t’’3WKill ,7
`
`L
`
`I, N".l7lélt)ii)[7(17'173;()N
`
`Black. Hillls MediM :7 (“film/l7J”) Substitute Motion l‘iiJr AdthJoJJJJJ Insectr}
`
`{ihtper
`
`i :5 MeJon"J'J‘J‘JJJJJ galtllfittfig 'lfiilectrrJJJJJJJs Cow,
`
`.37...th
`
`iiiaJJJsJJJJJJ;
`
`iiiee‘t,rJ:JJJ.iJ.:s
`
`J‘JJJJericzsa
`
`§.J:JJ::., and SarnsungclceouununJJJJJJJJJ
`
`J=ilJ..JJJericaj
`
`1.3.9177
`
`t’_“$amsung”)
`
`shuttle be JfchJieJ'l because (730%ng {no ”“JJJJJJJJi_e“)
`
`is not a real JJJJJJJJ»»interest
`
`(“Rfl,"l“} in tins p1tkctuLill'lttq and becauseBl,lM hwe not detnonstmtcd that its tequestecd
`
`additional dist’JveJ‘y is “necessary in the interest ofjustice.” 35 1.17.817;
`
`{i 3lo(a)(’f§);
`
`37f. lRJJJi{3)(WJJ
`
`lTDistj‘JJ/ery in inter [76777633 JevievvtH’R‘WJ s‘tless than what
`
`is nonnaily
`
`availab lcJJJ district court patent litigation” becawuseConartss intended inter partes
`
`review to beJa quick. Jnd cost ei'iliective alternative to litigation.” IPR2013~00080,
`
`f’aper 18 at 3. The Board must therefore be “conservative in authorizing additional
`
`discovery.” Id. Additional discovery»»»»»»like that requested in Bl‘l’M’s Motion—~»-~~should
`
`only l. e permitted where such discovery is “in the interests ofjustice.” 1d. at 4. And
`
`the requested discovery must be more than a speculation or “mere possibility.” Id.
`
`There must be “factual evidence or support” underlying a request for additional
`
`discovery that demonstrates that “something useful
`
`[to the proceeding] will be
`
`found.” Id.
`
`In support of its request, BHM invokes an expired Mobile Application
`
`Distribution Agreement (“MAD/V”) (Ex. 2002) that BHM admits was not in effect at
`
`
`
`ii” 3535.250 443%? ii i '3’
`
`ifftotititet iii 55.. (iii ’2 513.49 553613 23 M if?
`
`{i i
`
`the time the iiiisputes hetrween iii‘iifiyi said Sai‘nsting arose Paper ifh pt ‘3; [in 12002, p
`
`i; Est mm, p i; i534;
`
`ilt'iti'fl p,
`
`:5.
`
`i‘v‘lorerwen iiifilM has provided, no explanation tor
`
`./
`wiry stator; i .3 either hifirttilmt which w‘ditns than; it: appiies to “any third part3 iwmu
`
`or proceedi r13; httnight MW {Sainstttigif should apply to the. pree‘sent
`
`lis’ii
`
`proceeding, brought QR Sanisurig.
`
`iix. 20%;; p,
`
`i ii
`
`{3
`
`i, i .i
`
`(emphasis added},
`
`Aeeordirigl'yt mama disemery request is based on enroneous speculatiom not facts.
`
`Beet-tum lf3i-ifl‘vil has not: proffered evidence tending to show beyond speculation that
`
`something nsetiti wiii i5<5 disetwered, iriHMis Motitm, should. he denied.i Paper 85, pg. 1%.
`
`in addition, as noted.
`
`in:
`
`the Order Authorizing Motion,
`
`for Additionai
`
`Diserwery (“‘Ch‘tier”;
`
`iE’apeir 8), “[cjounsei for Petitioner [] stated that Googie has
`
`not exercised control over the petitions in the subject proceedings [lPR2014~007l7
`
`and ll’RZOl 4~OU735].” ’T’aper 85 p, 2. The accompanying, Declaration of Mr. Sungil
`
`1 in the OrderiAuthorizing Motion for Additional Discovery, the Board noted that
`
`“Andrew Grain, counsel for 5 )atcnt Owner, argued that a recently discovered
`
`mobile application distribution agreement (MADA) between Google and at least
`
`one of the Petitioner entities constitutes circumstantial evidence that Google, Inc,
`
`is a real party~in~intercst in. the subject proceedings.” Paper 8, p. 2 (emphasis
`
`added). BHM’S motion, which by its own admission is premised on “circumstantial
`
`evidence,” is precisely the type of “fishing expedition” the Board has cautioned
`
`against. [PR2013—00566, Paper 20, p. 5.
`
`i\>
`
`
`
`.1111111-1111"?1 "'2"
`'
`
`
`1131111111121: 111% 11311211 1191113331 “71.131173 1
`
`‘11
`
`C5111;
`
`("13321.
`
`11.11.1111 confirnm that (Boogie has not: exercised. direrzt'éor‘r or centred 1.111111
`
`Sarmun(11011'11st 1111 t<1un;;cl)w<ith115111.111:othe petitions in {1’11“01401.1111} and;
`
`117111.111} 11-13111.
`
`11111-1211‘1
`
`11711.11
`
`1.11111111111 ‘11 111.111 W1 1111.11.
`
`12111311;111:111 1 or <1or1tr<11 111/111“
`
`3111111111111; or its co tinsel with 11.111111:
`
`to 1131122111<1w1fi1tt7lZ7 and.
`
`11311.21)l,»i1-«--t107.3:§,
`
`Cin<j1ggl<1 is not an 11H it: these tnoccctlnive and 11111110111 1111;
`
`12121.11no:ted dis,soot/cry
`
`cannot be in. the: interest oit'justice.
`
`lh<~1 crux of 1311M a argument is that[ilust as Googlc 21211111111111(.1 ‘l‘ull control
`
`and authority over the defense" in the Apple l.‘it1gz.1t‘i<;1n2,tthe MAI.)A and the
`
`1.11111erlying claims 01' 17:3<t<2nt 11111111110111nt in the 1"X'11 l) Compiaint make it 1111;11th
`
`likely that Google has done so here.” Paper 15. p. 4. As discussed below, BllM's
`
`argur‘nent is misplaced because it fails to address the facts and circumstances ol" the
`
`l'l'C and district court proceedings between Bl-IM and Samsung, which are entirely
`
`different from those between Apple and Samsung. In fact, BHM’S assertion is
`
`contrary to the facts underlying the litigation between. BImllVl' and Samsung, and
`
`Bl‘lM'S attempt
`
`to extrapolate from the circumstances oi" those proceedings to
`
`assert
`
`that Google has alleged “control and authority” over the instant
`
`lPR
`
`proceeding constitutes an unfounded leap oflogic. Paper 15, pp. 2, 4.
`
`II.
`
`BHM’S SPECULATION THAT GOOGLE HAS “CONTROL AND
`
`AUTHORITY” OVER SAMSUNG’S DEFENSE IS NOT SUPPORTED
`
`BY THE FACTS
`
`
`
`iii’itllit‘} I it» ~tltl‘t "I l. ”7
`
`ii'hfittitet Not {iii MEI/Ti ti . {3333 III fit} I,
`
`"to obtain additional diatom-“era 'Btihi‘i must: presets evidence “’tentiing to ftlhitW
`
`beyond speculation that i n. that something; ttseftti will he nnmweredfi“ Pianist? 8, p. 3. in
`
`this eontmh thiail‘vi innnt sittw ti'tat ti’te dummy it set wilt shots: tilfis't a party othet‘
`
`than fiamsttntt ”hauls and tiireets anti etn‘nrtols’" {Santststgis itwolvetnei'tt
`
`in this
`
`ijirritteetgling, or that ngttfnsanggs petition was tiled at
`
`the behest of another party“;
`
`iiIIEEIX/i has not: and cannot: tin so.
`
`It is telling that Bill‘s/l relies on the .x’rtpple litigation as the "foundation for its
`
`speculative discovery request, yet tails to thirty inform the Board about
`
`the lift?
`
`litigation tiny", his. I337~TIIA~I§§¢82} and the i€£215tem District ol‘Iexas litigation (“IELUI‘X
`
`litigation”; Case No. CZ:i,3MCV~379wJRGWRSI’) that BHM initiated against Sa'msung in
`
`May 20l3. The circumstances of the disputes between Bil-I'M and Samsung are of
`
`course much more relevant here than the dispute between Apple and Samsung, and in
`
`the context of the BI-IM/Samsung disputes, Samsung and Google were represented
`
`by separate counsel. in the [TC litigation, and Google is not even a party to the district
`
`court litigation.
`
`A.
`
`Samsung Maintained and Maintains “Control and Authority”
`()ver Its Defense in the International Trade Commission
`
`Litigation
`
`Google has not assumed any control or authority over the defense to claims of
`
`patent infringement asserted by BHM against Samsung in the ITC Investigation. Ex
`
`
`
`WWW IIIIII? I "I
`
`IZIIIehet I‘Ii‘}. BLIZI’IIIQ.IIIIBLIMIIEII'LII
`
`IIIIJ? 333i ”LII VI, and If? ”I‘I‘IIII
`
`is; oII'idIII'I'IeeII by {Inogneig .Iniy 22:6. LIME Motion to
`
`intervene in the II”?( IIII eSI33;IIIIIIII IIIIIIeh indie:314.“ that. (Titiiogie and Satnau'ng were
`
`IfeggneeeI 333:3
`
`33y
`
`Iii II.
`
`”3333‘; Iowa? Ila.
`
`IIIIII;
`
`333:3.
`
`III.
`
`II; and I3.
`
`III'IV'II'I'Iggi't‘m.
`
`I’IEIII‘CBIEIQ’IIISII, and eIII‘ItiI’IIIeII to Ire3;II*eIIeIIt; SIIII’IIIIIng, in the TIC? Iitigation with I‘eggatd to
`
`all? ”IitigateII iIIIIIIIeII;
`
`itIII;:I.I.,IIiI.iII3; timee pentainiiig In the aeeneed Bantenng; products; and
`
`to the Boogie anniieaiione IIIIII/e:I by the amused Sainenng; prodIIeIII. See. I133; III.
`
`III]it), 3::III; 33x. It)“. 333). /9;l:7:ix. 1032, pp la. in, the III? litigation; Satnsnng and
`
`in: nounaeIw-wnot (jiooglo~-mmaintIIIned and IIIIIIIIIIIIII “control. and antitotity” over
`
`Banishing; 5: tietome
`
`SIIII’IIIIIIIng control and authority over its defense in the WC litigation is;
`
`countetthetual
`
`to BHM’II allegations with regard to the Apple litigation. This is
`
`presumably why BlM focuses on the “Apple litigation” where 'BH’M was not a
`
`party, rather than BI—IM73 own ITC litigation initiated against Samsung. BHM does
`
`not even attempt to explain or justify Why it utilizes the Apple litigation as the
`
`springboard for its Speculation, rather than the facts and Circumstances of the ITC
`
`litigation in which BIS-"1M as Complainant. sued Samsung.
`
`B.
`
`Samsung Maintained and Maintains “Control and Authority”
`Over Its Defense in the Eastern District of Texas Litigation
`
`Nor has (ioogie assumed any control or authority over the defense to claims of
`
`patent infringement asserted by BHM against Samsung in the EDTX litigation,
`
`in
`
`
`
`Wilt-3.2301?iii-{iii}?'7’
`
`{Etfia‘ii‘ifii hie. t,t‘;ii.ZZ.-¢3iriii§i..tiltikifi.w ifs/{iii
`
`Witieh iiiétlwifiafl asserted the ‘otiti patent} liijixa. 22003., 2.004. <Xs etiitiennod hy the only
`
`tiling; with the court stgtltisequent to the stay, hainsungls Mutter: (affiiiinyf tifiliergirestr
`
`e; fitter Flatter Rarities/ii it'gf’rhe [flirrenzrwirrwfi‘air {“Notgiee”j}.
`
`tiji‘t‘nfination aiso repr’esents
`
`Earrisnngg, in the liiiyix litigation. {Pix 100%. p. 2.
`
`in addition Saitis‘ttrigg has paid and
`
`is paying alt oi“ fiitnrington’a tires; with respeet to the defense in the .tfii,13’_l7X. iitigation.
`
`la 1,009. 1i ti.
`
`tiTo‘vington represented. and continues to represent Sean‘nsung in the lit,lf)"l")<
`
`litigation with, regard to all iitigated issues. ineiuding those pertaining; to the emotion
`
`Slamming; products, and to the {ioogl .3 applications; utilized by the accused Samsung
`
`pmduets.
`
`in the
`
`ifiIfJ’iX litigation, Sarnsung and its
`
`eonnsel~~-~~—not Google—m-
`
`maintained and maintain “control and authority” over Samsung‘s defense.
`
`BHM fails to offer any credible basis»»»»»wonly erroneous speeulation~-for its
`
`postulation that
`
`it
`
`is “highly likely” that Google maintained “full control and
`
`authority over the defense” of Samsung in. the BDTX litigation with BHM. Paper l5,
`
`p. 4. Therefore, Bl-IM has not demonstrated that it possesses the requisite threshold
`
`As the Motion correctly notes, BI-{M’s litigation initiated against Samsung in the
`
`EDTX litigation is stayed, and was done so by the court on March 15., 2014. Paper
`
`15, p. 3. In the EDTX litigation, BHM asserted the “686 patent at issue in the present
`
`proceeding. Exs. 2003, 2004.
`
`“6..
`
`
`
`E ii ii 123%} E E Eh} ,7 l,
`
`'27
`
`Bosh. a t) No EELZELEiEr-EE? it??? Kiwi, E 3% {E i
`
`widenee {midi “553’;
`
`"it“:
`
`iti'ttjw Mittfli‘td Sfim‘ultltiofl
`
`that
`
`5:;(;j}1’i‘1ethimLg
`
`(gsm‘gyg Wiii
`
`ilk":
`
`disenwmwdy
`
`ESE”
`
`isié’lAEEiNfi 'EEWTEEZCEM "£73,115; MAEIZEE’E.
`
`’31}??? HE)N"E‘IZ£EL {,9 VER ”SHE 153%. 3%
`
`WHERE Sl'iii‘iifi'ii LEVHCEW
`
`1:3.i'il‘v‘i’s assertion that; the hv’lAILU-x is Widener: tei‘iding,‘ to show that (iaflgifi‘
`
`essreiseci any direction or aontrol over the 113R“ proeeedings For ti‘ie BHM patents is
`
`pure stimulation thr two reasons, Pirsh tl'ie thets show that Google has not assumed
`
`“control and ain‘ithority over the delhnse” to claims brought by BHM, as explained
`
`above in Section 'ilj.
`
`Second, Blil‘vl has provided. no explanation for why section l l of the MADA
`
`which states that it applies to “any third party lawsuit or proceeding brought (against
`
`[Sanisungr and provides that (ioogle has “Full control and authority over the
`
`defense,” (BX 200; pt
`
`ll, §§ ll.l,, 1,1,3; emphases added), should apply to the
`
`present inter partes review proceeding brought [31 Samsung.
`
`Ultimately, however,
`
`the fact: that (Boogie has not assumed “control and
`
`authority over the defense” to claims brought by BHM, is fatal to Bl'lM’s request.
`
`BHM has not demonstrated that it possesses any evidence “tending to show beyond
`
`speculation” (Paper 8, p. 3 (emphasis addedl) that the requested discovery will
`
`uncover anything showing that Google is a party that “funds and directs and
`
`controls” IPRZOl4-OO7l7 and IPR2Ol4-OO7353 as set forth in the Office Patent
`
`Trial Practice Guide. 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 760 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`i7“.
`
`
`
`iimiti 3. 4 {3(3'7‘" 3
`
`'3
`
`{Ennis-it No, £33 23:4 «"3 523 " {K3233 ii if? hi3 '3
`
`{Vi
`
`"Willi: IKIEQUES'I‘YLI) DISCGVERY if; UNNECESSAR'Y 3N LIGIEET (73F
`“iiflfiifl (Shit) DECLARNI‘ION AMI”) 3301435; NOT SA'flfilSFY "IT-Hi:
`
`GARM 1N FACTK‘ORS
`
`its; noted in the tinder, tron": Strt’rtetirtttfz"; Wit. tx::>ttt:tt;e.iie rcixpettwc tiireotion
`
`and con‘troi over
`
`the petitions in iPR’ZGVtJNWi? and.
`
`315131.201 334307333 were
`
`provided by Stiltttfiljti’tgw not
`
`tfioopio. Arty concern that Stuttering; ware receiving,
`
`direotim: and, cmitmi ‘i'i'on'i {fioogic of which. Sexrneungk iPR counuei Wilt»; not aware
`
`has; heen otiovittted through the if)ec§tirrttion of Mn Sungii (Liho tiled herewith.
`
`(:iiix.
`
`306.3(4); Dmitri of tits: petitions; in ii’ifxt2()3.4~()07 i ’7 and {PRIZOi4w00'735 were not sent
`
`to {fioopje «or to any couneei or reprenenttttive oi” {fioogie
`
`ifix 1009,, {iii 4» f3,
`
`Substantive input was. not received from (Boogie or any counsei or representative o t
`
`(lioogie regarding;
`
`the preparation or filing; of any of the petitions.
`
`[0].,
`
`1i 6.
`
`Moreover, Samsung did not receive any funding or monetary contributions From
`
`Googie for the preparation and filing of the petitions in ifPR2014-007 17 and
`
`,1PR2014—00’735, and has paid and is paying all. of Covington’s fees in connection
`
`with these proceedings.
`
`16%., W ”ME. The [Declaration of Mr. Cho removes any
`
`doubt that the petition was not filed at the behest of Googie, and that Googie does
`
`not fund, direct, controL or provide substantive input
`
`to iPRZOi4—OO717 and
`
`IP’R201.4~00735, and, therefore, is not an RP]. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide.
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 760 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`
`555555245555I5rn5ii5f5’?‘5'7”
`
`555,55555:5. 554:5} I5:5154555555,5555152545,}535:55
`
`854555553;
`
`55550555555
`
`55515555555 he 5553151513555 not:
`
`5555535 because they 55am "failed,
`
`to
`
`5.553151515555555555? possession 535755155 requisite 55555235155555 evideaoe tending to show 5756;525:1555
`
`spewiasima 555515
`
`5555515155555ng
`
`5553555555
`
`55555
`
`57552: assumew 5 53.5155.
`
`555.5255 bowie:
`
`the
`
`retitiested 5:55seosIety fails to 5.551557555511155 “‘(itir15ii555e’55tois(55355;5555 :3{505501, 5755551535 253'
`
`5:555. 5357:).
`
`In particular, Intwogatory1 ’o '5 555555; to 55555555535 (5555555551 Factors 5 and “3
`
`because it:
`
`is vastly tjixz'erwinelusive,
`
`5525511555155; Satustmg to 51,11115eeessarily 55553511555I
`
`each and every one of its 1.111252 ethniciyees who were provided a copy of a draft of
`
`the petition in the present pioeeednw $511251
`
`intbrthation,
`
`is not
`
`“1155535515”
`
`in
`
`deterrn,i,ning whether (Magic: is an RI’I.
`
`lnterroga’tory No, 2 is not clear and tinderstaudab5e, as required by Garmin,
`
`Factor 4. Given, that .BlflM’s definition, 05‘ “Petitioner” includes “counsel5” (BX. 200] ,
`
`p. 3), it is not Clear what BIIIM means by “counsel. ofrecort” in lnterrogatory No. 2.
`
`In addition,
`
`it is not clear whether “employed by” modifies both “Petitioner” or
`
`“Petitioner’s counsel~of~record” in Interrogatory No. 2. Clearly, involvement by
`
`Covington lawyers who are not “Petitioner’s counselwotlrecord, for IPR2OI4~OO757”
`
`is not use5111” in determining whether Googleis an RI’I.
`
`il'nterrogatory No. 3 is not clear and understandable with regard to “counsel of
`
`record” for the same or substantially the same reason as set forth with regard to
`
`Interrogatory No.2 Interrogatory No.33also does not rise above a mere allegation
`
`oi" something that would be useful to discern whether Google is an RPI given that
`
`
`
`EEEEEZE‘ZEEEEEMEEEE’E’EV
`
`EfZEocEsetNEE, EE E" EEEEEVE/ME} EEEEE
`
`Benetton; did not “meme any it:r:rling or E'E‘Eonetary criEntribntions from {Eoogle for
`
`the {Erenztrat'ion and things, orl’E‘ltE: E”H: petitions in the present proceedtnu E552: E009:
`
`EE 1:7,
`
`Etettt'test
`
`EEEEEs,
`
`l wit? are nothing; more them,
`
`the: “fishing; expedition“mains:
`
`which the ETanrd has cautioned.
`
`lE’E-E’Etll 00366 Pepe: 3t) p a BUM has
`
`prrwided no asEittna’rwn {or why section it of the MAEJA which states that it
`
`applies toany:third potty lawsuit or pmcccdtno broughttgainw {Santsungl and
`
`provide” hot {Eooole has “hill control and authority over th E de Eng,” (Eli's. 2003, p:
`
`it, EE§ ll 1 ll 3; emplmac: added), should applyto the present mteI paI1:7: review
`
`proceeding brought
`
`[11g Samsnng.
`
`BE‘E‘M, has failed to offer reasoning beyond
`
`allegation and speculation that something; t‘lsel’ul would he discovered, while the
`
`facts confirm that Google has not assumed “control and authority over the defense”
`
`to:laims btouOht by BEEM: which is fatal to .Bl-EM’S requests.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`"the present Opposition demonstrates that BHM has failed to meet its burden
`
`that it possesses the requisite threshold evidence, and the Declaration of Mr. Cho
`
`renders moot the need for any of the additional discovery. Therefore: granting
`
`Bl'EMs Motion in any respect would not be in the interest of justice, nor would it
`
`“secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution” of the subject proceedings. 37
`
`CPR. <§ 42.l(b). Therefore, BHM’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`"10..
`
`
`
`E PR 12%} E 6%» £36“? 7 ”a ”.33
`
`3.3m: km: N {in 03% .2 NJ , {){33 “if“; f} ‘2.
`
`11mm: Strpi’mrr’ibcr 8, 20142
`
`Ra»:HpSCt'l’ufiy 5541mm E'tieizgrh
`
` fifif
`
`“
`x‘fi’zi‘itm (TIE. m :91“;
`Ragfistratiam No.2 36,2553
`fircgcwy S {Dimher
`Regitst'mxticm. N0. 42,488
`(ZOVITNGTUN & B URUN ('3 ME
`
`12201 Permsylr‘vania, Ayn-"Hum NW
`Washingmn, DC? ZOOMWMOE
`(202,) 662«6()00
`Atmrneys for Paddomr
`
`,fH“.
`
`
`
`11’7‘111'1’11111 ‘1'”?
`
`1111111111 1111;: 1114H1}.11113211113111,
`
`{TERI} 1171(319171'13 (31'1“ 1131111112. VIQE
`
`1.31.2.1’1L11E1L111 1'11 371317. F R45; M 1111111111 131111111 111111111111111118111111131111 “11211111111111: 2.1111
`
`1.111;: 11.111
`1111.1;1721;111:11111111'11111211111131111.11111111.1 111111111111 1'1": 3111111 1 111”1111:1111111'1111131111113111111:1131
`
`
`1.111 F111111.11. (112111111 1111113111121 with 1111111111111 1'1 111111111» 1911151 10071113131, W111; 111111111133 141.171
`
`131.1113'11’1’01’111: 1111-111 by 111:1?13131'11111'11 111' 111.11 13111111111 1:111 1111 .111111‘111/11'111 13111111131121 1111111111111 1111'
`
`13111 11.11 171111111.
`
`N. [111111111114 6.3111111:
`
`R111 111-3111 (.1 1131:1111 i :1
`
`K11111116111. "14.111011“
`
`7111111111151 141111111131111131111' 1.1.191
`Andrew (31.11111 (1111110111 11111011116111135111' com
`R.01:11‘:1'1.(.111111111161111111111151111151111’113/121 com
`Kenny.R1111x.(q1111.1311111111101stm.1111y1:11.c11111
`
` Dale: September 8, 2014
`
`1 -‘x
`AndreaG. R111ster.13qu
`Registration No: 36 253
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
