Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 1 of 17 PagelD #: 597
`
`IN T H E UN ITE D ST AT ES DI STRI CT CO URT
`FOR THE EAST E RN DI STRICT O F T EXAS
`MAR SHAL L DIVISIO '
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAM SUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et aI.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`RA YTHEON COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY KABUS H1KI KAISHA, et aI.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.2: IS-CV-341-JRG-RSP
`L EAD CASE
`
`Case No.2: IS-CV -342-JRG-RSP
`Consolidated Case
`
`DU-EN DANTS' MOTION TO STAY CASES PEN DI NG I TER PA RT ES REV IEW
`
`000001
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 2 of 17 PagelD #: 598
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CO TENTS
`
`INTRODUCTIO N .... ............. .
`
`Page
`
`..... I
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND.
`
`... .. ..........
`
`. .. ............ ........ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural Background ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Overview of IPR Proceedings ................................................................................. 2
`
`111.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Raytheon ......................................................... 4
`
`The Relatively Early Stage of these Cases Favors a Stay ....................................... 5
`
`A Stay Will Likely Result in Simpli fying the Issues in these Cases ...................... 6
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`000002
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 3 of 17 PagelD #: 599
`
`TABLE OF AUTHO RI T I ES
`
`CASES
`
`Pagers)
`
`Audio MPEG, Illc. v. Hew/ell-Packard ('0 .,
`No. 15-cv-73, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126016 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21 , 2015) .......................... 4
`
`Evolulionary Intelligence, LLC v. LivingSocia/, Inc.,
`No. l3-cv-04205-WHO, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6804, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 20 14) ... .......... 7
`
`IntelleClual Ventures 11 LLC v. Commerce Bancshares. Inc.,
`No. 2: 13-cv-04160 (W.O. Mo. June 4, 2014) .... ........................... .. .............. ............ .......... 5
`Intellectual Ventures /I LLC v. u.s. BancOlp,
`No. 0: I 3-cv-0207 I, U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 153638 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 20 14) ...... ............ .......... 7
`
`MemSmarl Semiconductor CO/p o v. AA C Techs. Pie. Ltd.,
`No. 14-cv-1 \o7-JRG, slip op. (E.D. Tex. July 10, 2015) .................................................... 3
`
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Alii .• Inc. ,
`No. 13-cv- 1058, 2015 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 29573 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) .......... .3, 4, 5, 6
`
`Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Chlys/er Group LLC,
`No. 13-cv-278, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182788 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 20 14) ........................ ..4
`
`Richmond v. Ningbo Hangshull Elec. Co.,
`No. 3: I 3-cv-0 1 944, 20 15 U.S. Dist. LEXJS 125658 (D. N.J. Sep. 15,2015) ............ .......... 6
`
`VirluolAgilily, Inc. v. Sales force. com, Inc. ,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 20 14) ... ......... ... ................... ......... ....................... .. .. ......... ... ....... .. .3
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 USc. § 315(e)(2) ... ......... ... ........... ... ......... ... ............ ...... ................................. ... ......... ... . .3, 6,8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316 (a)( II ) ................................................................................................................ 2, 4
`
`-11-
`
`000003
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 4 of 17 PagelD #: 600
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony
`
`Mobile Communications (USA) Inc .• Sony Semiconductor Corporation, Sony EMCS
`
`Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB,
`
`(collectively. "Sony defendants"), OmniVision Technologies, Inc. ("OmniVision"), and Apple
`
`lnc. (an indemnitee of Sony and OmniVision) ("App le"), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. (co llectively, "Samsung")
`
`(Sony defendants, OmniVision, Apple, and Samsung collectively, "Defendants") hereby move to
`
`slay these cases until the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (" PTO") Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board ("PTAB") concludes the Inter ParIes Review (" LPR") of U.S. Patent No. 5,591 ,678 ("the
`
`'678 patent").
`
`As explained below, a stay of these cases pending the conclusion of the IPR is warranted
`
`under controlling law. Indeed, all three of the relevant stay factors weigh in favor of granti ng
`
`this motion. First, Raytheon will not suffer any undue prejudice from a stay because the ' 678
`
`patent expired more than a year before Raytheon filed its complaints in these cases, its recovery
`
`is limi ted to monetary damages, and any delay resulting from the stay can be redressed
`
`adequately through the award of prej udgment interest. Second, both of these cases are still in
`
`their earl y stages: no claim construction briefs have been filed, no depositions have been
`
`noticed, and no expert discovery has taken place. Third, a stay likely will simplify the issues in
`
`these cases (if not entirely e liminate them). The PT AS has instituted IPR with respect to all
`
`claims of the ' 678 patent -
`
`the sole patent asserted in both cases -
`
`because it found a
`
`reasonable likelihood those claims are inva lid over prior art. A finding of invalidity for one or
`
`more of those claims will simplify or eliminate the issues in these cases, result in substantial
`
`savings to the parties, and conserve judicial resources.
`
`-1-
`
`000004
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 5 of 17 PagelD #: 601
`
`11_
`
`"ACTUAL BACKGROU D
`
`A.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`Raytheon filed its complaints in March 2015, accusing Defendants of infringing the '678
`
`patenllhrough their alleged importation, sale, oITer for sale or use in the United States of certain
`
`image sensors, and products incorporating those image sensors. (-341 Okt. No. I; -342 Dkt. No.
`
`I). The Court consolidated these cases for pretrial purposes in June 2015 . (Dkt No. 029.)'
`
`Raytheon served its infringement contentions on each Defendant, in July 2015, identifying
`
`claims I, 5, 6- 10, 13, and 18 as the asserted claims. (Dkt. No. 31, Stringfield Dec!. ~ 2). The
`
`Court entered a docket control order in August 20 I 5. (Dkt. No. 60). It scheduled a Markman
`
`heari ng for February 26, 2016 and the close of fact discovery on April 19, 2016. (Dkt. No. 60).
`
`Trial is scheduled for September 6, 20 16. (ld.).
`
`B.
`
`Overview of IPR Proceedings
`
`The Sony defendants fi led a petition for inter partes review in May 2015, roughly two
`
`months after Ra)1heon filed its complaints and before Raytheon served its infringement
`
`contentions. The petition, now assigned case number IPR20 15- 120 I, all eges that claims 1- 18 of
`
`the '678 patent are invalid over prior art. (Billah Decl. at ~ 4.) The PTAB instituted review, on
`
`December 2, 2015, on all grounds of invalidity that were presented in the petition. (Billah Decl.
`
`at ~ 5.) Under 35 U.S .c. § 3 16 (a)( I I), this [PR proceeding must conclude by December 2,
`
`2016, absent an extension up to six months for good cause.
`
`The Sony defendants fi led a second petition for inter parIes rev iew on November 18,
`
`2015. The second petition, now assigned case number IPR2016-0209, alleges that claims 1- 18
`
`of the '678 patent are inva li d over a second set of prior art. The PTAB has yet to institute this
`
`more recent IPR, but a decision on in stitution is expected in the spring of2016. (Billah Decl. at
`
`~ 6.) Ifit does, the fi nal deteonination would be due in spring 2017. 35 U.S.c. § 3 16 (a)(II).
`
`Unless otherwise indicated, "Okt. No." refers to the docket numbers in the -34 1 case.
`
`-2-
`
`000005
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 6 of 17 PagelD #: 602
`
`On December 2, 20 15, the same day on which the PT AB instituted inter parIes review of
`
`the patent in suit, the Sony defendants requested Raytheon 's consent to the instant motion to
`
`stay_ In response, Raytheon requested information from the non-Sony defendants, particularl y,
`
`whether they would join the motion and the extent to which they would agree to be bound by the
`
`outcome of the [PRo (Billah Decl. at ~ 7.) The parties negotiated parameters of a potential stay
`
`over the course of the following weeks. Ulti mately, each non-Sony defendant expressed its
`
`willingness to agree to be bound by the outcome of the first and second IPRs under the estoppel
`
`provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Raytheon's counsel notified the Defendants on December
`
`23, 20 15, that Raytheon wou ld not agree to the stay as proposed. (Billah Dec!. at ~ 8).
`
`Thereafter, the Defendants filed this motion.
`
`III.
`
`A RG UMENT
`
`Last year, the Federal Circuit decided VirluaIAg;Jily, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759
`
`F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cif. 2014), which although in the context ofa motion to stay pending covered
`
`business method (CBM) review, involved a closely related analysis to a motion to stay pending
`
`rPR. As Federal Circuit Judge William C. Rryson (s itting by designation in the Eastern l1istrict
`
`of Texas) recently noted, "since the circuit court's decision in V;rlllaIAgility, courts have been
`
`nearly unifonn in granting motions to stay proceedings in the trial court after the PTAB has
`
`instituted inter partes rev iew proceedings." NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 13-cv- IOS8,
`
`20 15 U.S. Dis!. LEX IS 29573, at * 18 (E. D. Tex. Mar. 11 ,2015) (citing cases); see, e.g.,
`
`MemSmarl Semiconductor Corp. v. AAC Techs. Pte. LId., No. 14-cv-II 07-JRG, s li p op. (E.D.
`
`Tex. Ju ly 10, 2015). This "near-uniform line of authori ty refl ects the principal poi nt made by the
`
`court in VirlUalAgilit~lhat after the PTAB has instituted review proceedings, the para ll el
`
`district court litigation ordinarily should be stayed." Id. at 20.
`
`" District courts typicall y consider three factors when determining whether to grant a stay
`
`pending inter partes review of the patent in suit: (I ) whether the stay will unduly prejudice the
`
`nonmoving party, (2) whether the proceedings before the court have reached an advanced stage,
`
`-3-
`
`000006
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 7 of 17 PagelD #: 603
`
`including whether discovery is complete and a trial date has been set, and (3) whether the stay
`
`wi ll likely result in si mpli fying the case before the court." NFC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEX1S 29573,
`
`at *5. Here, all three factors weigh in favor of a stay.
`
`A.
`
`A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice Raytheon
`
`Raytheon will not suffer any undue prejudice fro m a stay, for several reasons. First, the
`
`'678 patent expired in 2014, long before Raytheon filed its complaints in these cases. (Dkt. No.
`
`I, filed March 6, 20 15). Accordingly, Raytheon has no right to an injunction, and its recovery for
`
`any infringement is limited to monetary damages. Audio MPEG, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`
`No. 15-cv-73, 20 15 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126016, at '13 (E.D. Va. Sept. 2 1, 20 15) ("[BJecause the
`
`patents at issue have expired, monetary damages will be sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for
`
`any infringement.").
`
`Second, Raytheon 's own delay in filing suit negates any alleged prejudice from a stay.
`
`Raytheon alleges in its complaints that it notified Defendants of their potential infringement in
`
`the summer of 20 13.2 Raytheon could have filed suit at that time but chose not to. Instead,
`
`Raytheon waited for more than a year and a halfafter notifying Defendants of the alleged
`
`infringement before filing suit, allowing the patent to expire in the intervening period.
`
`Third, IPR proceedings have statutori ly-imposed deadlines that generally require the
`
`PTAB to issue a final written deci sion withi n one year from institution. 35 U.S.c. § 316 (a)(II).
`
`" Limi ting the stay to the culmination of IPR proceedings will ensure that the delay is m inimal
`
`while still a llowing for the benefit of the PTO's review." Norman IP Holdings. LLC v. CJuys/er
`
`Group LLC, No. 13-cv-278, 2014 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 182788, at '6 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 8,2014).
`
`Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
`
`Specifically. Raytheon alleges that it provided notice to Samsung in June 2013 (Dkt. No. I at
`, t 8), the Sony defendants in August 2013 (-342 Dkt. No. I at ~ 28), and OmniVision and Apple
`in September 2013 (-342 Dkt. No. I at ~~ 36, 43).
`
`-4-
`
`000007
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 8 of 17 PagelD #: 604
`
`B.
`
`The Relatively Early Stage of these Cases Favors a Stay
`
`These cases are still at an early stage. No claim construction briefs have been filed. No
`
`depositions have been noticed or taken. Most of the significant work, including substantive
`
`ex pert discovery and summary judgment motions, remains to be compl eted. Accordingly. the
`
`bulk of expenses for all parties are still in the future, and granting a stay at this earl y stage will
`
`help all parties to avo id these potentially unnecessary expenses. NFC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`29573, at * I 0 ("[ DJenying a stay because of progress of the case to this point would impose
`
`significant expenses on the parties that might be avoided jfthe stay results in the simplification
`
`(or obviation) of further court proceedings."); see also Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Commerce
`
`Bancsharcs, Inc., No. 2:13 CV 04 160 NKL, at 7 (W.O. Mo. June 4, 20 14) ("it is nearly a year
`
`before tri al, there have been no depositions, the claim construction hearing has not occurred, and
`
`significant work, including substanti ve expert di scovery and summary judgment motions,
`
`remains to be completed after the claim construction hearing ... Thus, substantial time and
`
`resources may be conserved by staying this case pending the resolution of the lPR proceedings")
`
`(ECF No. 60-2, at 8).
`
`"Another consideration that bears on this factor is whether the defendant acted with
`
`reasonable di spatch in filing its petitions for inter partes review and then, after the petitions were
`granted, in filing its motion for a stay." NFC, 2015 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 29573, at * 10. Here, the
`
`rPR was filed two months after the case was fil ed, and two months before receiving Raytheon's
`
`infringement contentions. This Court in NFC recognized that an IPR petition filed within four
`months after receiving infringement contentions is considered timely. Id. at * 11 (citing cases).
`
`Here, the Defendants acted with reasonable dispatch in filing their motion for stay. The
`
`PTAB instituted review of the patent-in-suit on December 2, 2015 . On that same day,
`
`Defendants asked Raytheon's counsel whether Raytheon wou ld oppose a motion to stay. in
`
`accordance with the Court's rules. In response, Raytheon requested additional information from
`
`the non-Sony Defendants. (Billah Dec!. at ~ 7.) Over the course of the next three weeks or so,
`
`the parties engaged in good faith di scussions over the parameters ofa potential stay. The issues
`
`-5-
`
`000008
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 9 of 17 PagelD #: 605
`
`incl uded whether the stay should include any appeal of the [PR, whether the stay should
`
`encompass the second [PR if instituted, and whether the non-Sony defendants who had not fil ed
`
`any LPRs would nonetheless agree to estoppel in these proceedin gs based on the Sony
`
`defendants ' LPRs. Despite each of the non-Sony defendants' wi llingness to agree to be estopped
`
`fro m raisi ng prior art invalidity challenges in the district court under 35 U.S.c. § 3 15(e)(2),
`
`Raytheon's counsel informed Defendants on December 23, 20 15, that Raytheon would not agree
`
`to the proposed stay. (Billah Decl . at ~ 8). Unable to reach a timely agreement with Raytheon,
`
`Defendants thereafter acted promptly in filin g this motion. Accordingly, by all measures the fPR
`
`petition and this stay motion were fil ed with reasonable di spatch.
`
`Therefore, th is factor weighs in favor of a stay.
`
`C.
`
`A Stay Will Likely Result in Simplifying the Issues in these Cases
`
`As Judge Bryson recogn ized, "the most important factor beari ng on whether to grant a
`
`stay in th is case is the prospec t that the inter partes review proceeding will resu lt in
`
`si mplification of the issues before the Court." NFC, 2015 U.S. Dis!. LEX1S 29573, at * 12. The
`
`benefits of awa iti ng the outcome of an insti tuted IPR proceeding are similar to those of th e
`
`reexaminat ion process: ( I) all prior art presented to the Court will have been first considered by
`
`the PTO, with its particular expertise, (2) many di scovery problems relating to prior art can be
`
`alleviated by the PTO examination, (3) in those cases resulting in effecti ve inva lidity of the
`
`patent, the suit will like ly be di smissed, (4) the outcome of the reexamination may encourage a
`
`settl ement without the further use of the Court, (5) the record of reexamination would likely be
`
`entered at trial, thereby reducing the compl exity and length of the litigation, (6) issues, defenses,
`
`and evidence will be more easily limited in pre-tria l conferences afte r reexamination, and (7) the
`
`costs will likely be reduced both for the parti es and the Court. Id. at * 12- 13; Richmond v.
`
`Ningbo Hangshun Elec. Co., No.3: l3-cv-01944, 20 15 U.S. Dis!. LEX IS 125658, * 12 (D.N.J .
`
`Sep. 15, 201 5).
`
`-6-
`
`000009
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 10 of 17 PagelD #: 606
`
`Because the PT AB has already instituted the Sony defendants' first [PR, there is a hi gh
`
`likelihood that some or all of those benefits will be realized. NFC, 2015 U.S. Dis!. LEXIS
`29573, at * 13-14 ("[TJhe PT AB's decision to institute inter partes review ordinarily means that
`
`there is a s ubstanti al likelihood o f simplification of the district court litigation."); ~'ee also
`
`Intellectual VenllIres II LLCv. U.S. Bancorp, No. 0: l3-cv-0207 I, U.S. Dis!. LEXIS 153638, at
`
`* 19-20 (D. Minn. Aug. 7,2014) (co ncluding that a stay was likely to simply the issues because,
`
`among other thi ngs, "[t]hc PTO has already instituted IPR proceedings on the '666 Patent and
`
`thus, has already found that there is a ' reasonable likelihood ' that the asserted claims of the '666
`
`Patent are invalid based on prior art.")
`
`Moreover, here, the PTAB has instituted IPR for all claims of the ' 678 paten!. (Billah
`
`Dec!. at 5.) Accordingly. if the proceedings result in cancellation of the asserted cla ims, there
`
`will be no issues left to try in either case-the enti re litigation will come to an end. Even if onl y
`
`some of the asserted claims are cancelled during the [PR, these cases wi ll be simplified as a
`
`result and the PTAB 's anal ysis will ass ist the Court in evaluating any potential claim
`
`construction issues. See, e.g., EvolUliof1wy intelligence, LLC v. LivingSocial, Inc., No. l3-C V-
`
`04205-WHO, U.S. Dis!. LEX IS 6804, at *6 (N .D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2014) ("This case will be
`
`si mplified if the PTO narrows or cancels any of the asserted claims, even if other claims remain
`in their original foml .") (original emphasis); intellectual Ventures 11 v. u.s. Bancorp, U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 153638, at *20 ("The PTO's rejection or amendment of any of the asserted claims will
`
`unavoidab ly impact the infringement anal ysis and its review of the claims will assist the Court
`
`during claim construction. ")
`
`Finall y, while Samsung, OmniVision and Apple did not file their own lPRs or join in the
`
`Sony defendants' IPRs and therefore are not subj ect to the estoppel provisions of AlA, if the
`
`Court deems it a necessary condition to granting Defendants' stay motion, Samsung,
`
`Om niVision and Apple (an indemnitee of Sony and OmniVision) are each willing to agree to
`
`-7-
`
`000010
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 11 of 17 PagelD #: 607
`
`estoppel in any subsequent distri ct court proceedings under 35 U.S.c. § 3 15(e)(2) as if they filed
`
`the LPRs in their own names. 3 Such agreement, if made a necessary condition of the stay, would
`
`ensure that post-stay proceedings before the di strict court would be simplified even if the PT AB
`
`were to confirm all of the asserted claims.
`
`Therefore, this factor too weighs in favor of a stay.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the forego ing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court vacate a ll
`
`deadlines in the lead and consolidated cases, and stay those cases in all respects pending the
`
`PTAB's final decision in LPR201 5-1 201 or, if instituted, the PTAB's final decision in LPR2016-
`
`0209.
`
`J Section 315(e)(2) provides:
`
`The petitioner in an inter partes rev iew ofa claim in a patent underthis chapter th at
`results in a final written decision under section 3 18(a), or the real party in interest or
`pri vy of the petitioner, may not assert either in a ci vil action arising in whole or in part
`under section 1338 of titl e 28 or in a proceeding before the International Trade
`Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that the claim is inva lid on any
`ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have rai sed during that inter partes
`review.
`
`35 USc. § 3 15(e)(2).
`
`-8-
`
`000011
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 12 of 17 PagelD #: 608
`
`Dated: January 4, 20 16
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Deron R. Dacus
`Deroo R. Dacus
`State Bar No. 00790553
`Peter Kerr
`State Bar No. 24076478
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.c.
`82 1 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 7570 1
`Tel: 903/705-1117
`Fax: 903158 1-2543
`ddacus@dacusfinn. com
`pkerr@daeusfirm.eom
`
`T. Cy Walker
`Robert L. Hails Jr.
`BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
`Washington Square
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100
`Washington, D.C. 20036-5304
`Tel: 202.861.1500
`Fax: 202.86 1.1 783
`cwalker@bakerlaw.com
`rhails@bakerlaw.com
`
`J ohn Flock
`Zaed M. Billah
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, New York 10004-1 050
`tel.: (2 12)425-7200
`fax: (2 12) 425-5288
`jfloek@kenyon.eom
`zb illah@kenyon.com
`
`Counsel for De/em/allts Sony Corporatiolt,
`SOllY Corporatioll 0/ AmericlI, SOllY
`Electronics IIlC., SOllY Mobile
`COlllmmricfltiOIlS (USA) IIlC., SOllY
`Semiconductor Corporation, SOllY EMCS
`Corporlltiofl, SOllY Mobile
`COlllmunications IIIC., and SOllY Mobile
`Communications AB
`
`-9-
`
`000012
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 13 of 17 PagelD #: 609
`
`Is/ James Yoon
`James Yoon
`jyoon@wsgr.com
`California Bar No. 261726
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: 650.849.3022
`Fax: 650.493.681 1
`
`Albert Shih
`ash ih@wsgr.com
`California Bar No. 261726
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: 650.849.3022
`Fax: 650.493.681 1
`
`Adam Burrowbridge
`aburrowbridge@wsgr.com
`Virginia Bar No. 81921
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
`Professional Corporation
`1700 K Street NW, Fifth Floor
`Washington, DC 20006
`Phone: 202-973-8800
`Fax: 202-973-8992
`
`A ttorneys/or De/em/alit OnmiVisioJ1
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`- 10-
`
`000013
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 14 of 17 PagelD #: 610
`
`Is/ John Hutchins
`Melissa R. Smith
`State Bar No. 2400 135 1
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall , Texas 75670
`tel: (903) 934-8450
`fax: (903) 934-9257
`me lissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`John Hutchins
`Adeel Haroon
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`1500 K Street, NW
`Suite 700
`Wa~h i ngt un , DC 20005
`tel. : 202-220-4200
`fax : 202-220-4201
`jhutchins@kenyon.com
`aharoon@kenyon.com
`
`Coullsel /or Defendant Apple fllc.
`
`-1 1-
`
`000014
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 15 of 17 PagelD #: 611
`
`/s/ Stephen K. Shahida
`Mark G. Davis
`Bar No. 4 12228 (DC)
`Ronald J. Pabi'
`Bar No.4 73023 (DC)
`Stephen K. Shahida
`Bar No. 454970 (DC)
`Patrick J. McCarthy
`Bar No. 990490 (DC)
`Minsoo Kim
`Bar No. 5328026 (NY)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`21 01 L. Street, N. W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202) 33 1-3104
`Facsimile: (202) 33 1-3101
`Email : t1av isrna@ gllaw.colTl
`pabisr@gtl aw.com
`shahidas@gtlaw.com
`mccarthyp@gtl aw.com
`kimmin@gtlaw.com
`Melissa Richards Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`Gillam & Smith, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email : melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Coullsel/or De/em/allts SamSllJlg
`Electronics Co., LTD., Samstlllg
`Electronics America, Inc., alUl Salllslllrg
`Semiconductor Inc.
`
`-12-
`
`000015
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 16 of 17 PagelD #: 612
`
`CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on this 4th day of January. 20 16, all counsel of record who
`
`are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of th is document
`
`through the Court's CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record
`
`will be served by a facsimile transmission and/or fi rst class mail.
`
`lsi Deron R. Dacus
`Deron R. Dacus
`
`-1 3-
`
`000016
`
`

`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 93 Filed 01104116 Page 17 of 17 PagelD #: 613
`
`CE RT IFICA n: O F CONFE RENCE
`
`This is to certify that, per the requ irement of Local Rule CY-7(h), Cy Walker on behalf of
`
`Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony
`
`Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Semiconductor Corporation, Sony EMCS
`
`Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Albert Shih
`
`on behalf of Defendant OmniVision Technologies, lnc., John Hutchins on behalf of Defendant
`
`Apple Inc., and Ron Pabis on behalf of Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor Lnc. conferred with Tom Filarski on
`
`bdmlr Plaintirr Raytht:on, by It:kphunt: and t:rnail on st:vt::m l ul.:l.:asiuns frurn Dt::celTlbt::r 3 tu
`
`December 30, 2015. in a good faith attempt to reso lve the matter without court intervention, but
`
`were unable to reach agreement.
`
`Dated: January 4, 20 16
`
`/s/ T. Cy Walker
`
`-1 4-
`
`000017