Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:704
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 15-cv-00799
`
`Honorable Judge Joan H. Lefkow
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 15-cv-10603
`
`Honorable Judge Joan H. Lefkow
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 15-cv-10605
`
`Honorable Judge Joan H. Lefkow
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP., an Illinois
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., a California Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP., an Illinois
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`HIGH TECH COMPUTER CORP., a/k/a HTC
`CORP., a Foreign Corporation, and HTC
`AMERICA INC., a Washington Corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP., an Illinois
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., a
`Foreign Corporation, and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
`York Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[additional parties on following page]
`
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0001
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:705
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 15-cv-10608
`
`Honorable Judge Joan H. Lefkow
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 15-cv-10611
`
`Honorable Judge Joan H. Lefkow
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP., an Illinois
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS CO., a Foreign
`Corporation, and LG ELECTRONICS USA
`INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS CORP., an Illinois
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORT OF THE PARTIES’ PLANNING MEETING
`
`Plaintiff Rosetta-Wireless Corp. and Defendants Apple Inc.; Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”); Motorola
`
`Mobility LLC; LG Electronics Co., LG Electronics USA Inc. (collectively, “LG”); and
`
`HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation (collectively, “HTC”) (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) hereby submit their report of their planning meeting.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0002
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:706
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The following persons participated in a Rule 26(f) conference on January 26,
`2016 by phone conference.
`
`Daniel Zaheer of Kobre & Kim LLP representing Rosetta-Wireless Corp.
`
`Ericka J. Schulz of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP representing HTC
`
`America, Inc. and HTC Corporation.
`
`Julian Moore of Ropes & Gray LLP, representing Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`Jenny Colgate of Rothwell Figg LLP, representing LG Electronics Co. and
`
`Electronics USA Inc.
`
`Matthew J. Rizzolo and Jeff Bushofsky of Ropes & Gray LLP, representing
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC. (“Motorola”)
`
`David DesRosier and Megan Wantland of Weil, Gotshal & Manges, representing
`
`Apple, Inc..
`
`2.
`
`Initial Disclosures.
`
`Rosetta-Wireless served the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and Local
`
`Patent Rule 2.1 upon the non-Apple Defendants on January 6, 2016.
`
`HTC America Inc. and Motorola served the initial disclosures required by Rule
`
`26(a)(1) and Local Patent Rule 2.1 upon the Plaintiff on January 6, 2016.
`
`LG Electronics USA Inc. served the disclosures required by Local Patent Rule 2.1
`
`upon the Plaintiff on January 6 and the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) on
`
`January 11, 2016.
`
`Samsung served the initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) and Local Patent
`
`Rule 2.1 upon the Plaintiff on January 8, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0003
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:707
`
`
`
`3.
`
`case.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`Disclosures and Discovery Pursuant to Local Patent Rules.
`
`The parties acknowledge that the requirements of the Local Patent Rules apply to this
`
`Additional Discovery Plan.
`
`The parties propose the following in addition to the discovery plan addressed in the
`Local Patent Rules, and in conjunction with the requirements of the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure. Where the parties have been unable to reach an agreement, each
`side’s positions are set forth.
`
`The parties will continue to meet and confer on the disputed topics, and to the
`extent they are unable to reach agreement, will present their dispute to the
`Court for resolution at the March status conference.
`
`(a)
`
`Interrogatories: Rosetta may serve a maximum of 25 interrogatories on each
`
`Defendant Group.1 Interrogatories may be served during the fact discovery period prescribed by
`
`Local Patent Rule 1.3. Responses to interrogatories shall be due 30 days from the date of service
`
`of the same.
`
`Disputed issues:
`
`Plaintiff’s position: Defendants may serve a maximum of 15 joint interrogatories
`
`on Rosetta. Each Defendant Group may also serve a maximum of an additional 3
`
`individual interrogatories on Rosetta.
`
`Defendants’ position: Each Defendant Group may serve up to 25 interrogatories
`
`on Rosetta.
`
`
`
`(b)
`
`Requests for Admission: Rosetta may serve a maximum of 25 requests for
`
`admission on each Defendant Group. Requests for admission to authenticate a document do not
`
`count against these limits. Requests for admission may be served during the fact discovery
`
`period prescribed by Local Patent Rule 1.3. Responses to requests for admission shall be due 30
`
`
`1 A “Defendant Group” is any grouping of Defendants that are corporate parents, subsidiaries or affiliates of each
`other, or are under common corporate control (direct or indirect) with each other.
`
`
`
`4
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0004
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:708
`
`
`
`days from the date of service of the same.
`
`Disputed issues:
`
`Plaintiff’s position: Defendants may serve a maximum of 15 joint requests for
`
`admission on Rosetta. Each Defendant Group may also serve a maximum of an
`
`additional 3 individual requests for admission on Rosetta.
`
`Defendants’ position: Each Defendant Group may serve up to 25 requests for
`
`admission on Rosetta.
`
`(c)
`
`Total Deposition Time: Rosetta may take a maximum of 140 hours total of
`
`deposition of Defendant and third-party witnesses, exclusive of designated expert witnesses, not
`
`exceeding 45 hours of deposition testimony (questions and answers) for any one Defendant
`
`Group. If any deponent requires interpretation, then every hour of deposition time will count as
`
`40 minutes.2
`
`Disputed Issues:
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: Defendants collectively may take a maximum of 90 hours
`
`total of deposition testimony of Rosetta and third-party witnesses, exclusive of
`
`designated expert witnesses.
`
`Defendants’ Position: Defendants collectively may take a maximum of 240
`
`hours total deposition testimony of Rosetta and third-party witnesses, exclusive of
`
`designated expert witnesses.
`
`(d)
`
`Scheduling and Noticing of Depositions: Except as otherwise provided herein, no
`
`witness examined in his or her individual capacity will be required to sit for more than a single
`
`deposition. Any notice of deposition will be served on all parties. The parties will negotiate in
`
`
`2 As with the other limitations set forth herein, the foregoing time limitation may be revised by agreement of the
`parties or by Court order upon a showing of good cause.
`
`
`
`5
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0005
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:709
`
`
`
`good faith to schedule such depositions, including coordination among Defendants and between
`
`Defendants and Rosetta
`
`(e)
`
`Coordination with regard to Depositions: If any party is negotiating or
`
`coordinating dates for any such deposition with the deponent or his counsel in advance of service
`
`of formal notice, then that party will ensure that other parties are informed so that they may
`
`participate in the negotiations or coordination.
`
`(f)
`
`Individual Deposition Time Limits: As previously indicated, if any deponent
`
`requires interpretation, then every hour of deposition time will count as 40 minutes.
`
`Disputed Issues:
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: No deposition of any witness examined in his or her
`
`individual capacity may exceed 7 hours excluding breaks, except by mutual
`
`agreement or court order upon a showing of good cause.
`
`Defendants’ Position: Depositions shall be limited to 7 hours (1 day) excluding
`
`breaks, except for six witnesses of Plaintiff (including the three inventors of the
`
`patent-in-suit) which shall be limited to 14 hours (2 days) excluding breaks. The
`
`foregoing may be changed by mutual agreement or court order.
`
`
`
`(g)
`
`Discovery on Claims Not Pleaded: Discovery is permitted with respect to
`
`claims of willful infringement and defenses of patent invalidity or unenforceability not
`
`pleaded by a party, where the evidence needed to support these claims or defenses is in
`
`whole or in part in the hands of another party.
`
`(h)
`
`Service of Discovery Responses on other Parties:
`
`Disputed Issues:
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: All discovery responses, documents, and reports produced
`
`
`
`6
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0006
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:710
`
`
`
`by any party in one of the above captioned case should be automatically served on
`
`all other parties, and can be used by any party in any of the above captioned cases.
`
`The extent to which co-defendants are able to access each other’s confidential
`
`information shall be governed by the forthcoming agreed protective ordered in
`
`this matter.
`
`Defendants’ Position: All discovery responses, documents, and reports produced
`
`by Rosetta in one of the above captioned case should be automatically served on
`
`all other parties, and can be used by any party in any of the above captioned cases.
`
`(i)
`
`Use of Deposition Testimony in Other Cases:
`
`Disputed Issues:
`
`Plaintiff’s Position: Testimony from depositions taken in one of the above
`
`captioned cases may be used by all parties in any of the above captioned
`
`cases. The extent to which co-defendants are able to access each other’s
`
`confidential information shall be governed by the forthcoming agreed
`
`protective ordered in this matter.
`
`Defendants’ Position: Testimony from Rosetta and third party depositions
`
`taken in one of the above captioned cases may be used by all parties in any of
`
`the above captioned cases.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`Alternative Discovery Plan. The parties propose a discovery plan that differs from
`that provided in the Local Patent Rules, for the reasons described with particularity
`in Exhibit A to this Report:
`
`The parties’ proposed schedule is attached as Exhibit A. The parties reserve the right to
`
`seek extensions of time or to alter the plan upon a showing of good cause with leave of Court.
`
`Other Dates:
`
`(a)
`
`The parties will supplement their initial disclosures as required under the Local
`
`7
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0007
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:711
`
`
`
`Patent Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties agree that the final day to
`
`amend their disclosures will be two weeks before the deadline for filing dispositive motions
`
`under the Local Patent Rules.
`
`(b)
`
`The Court has set a status hearing for February 9, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`(c)
`
`Plaintiff may only amend its pleadings subject to FRCP 15. Subject to the
`
`Federal Rules, the parties request that the final date for Plaintiff to join parties be May 27,
`
`2016. Subject to the Federal Rules, Plaintiff may only join parties after that date with leave of
`
`the Court upon a showing of good cause.
`
`(d)
`
`Each Defendant may only amend its pleadings subject to FRCP 15. Subject to the
`
`Federal Rules, the parties request that the final date for Defendant to join parties be June 10,
`
`2016. Subject to the Federal Rules, each Defendant may only join parties after that date with
`
`leave of the Court upon a showing of good cause.
`
`Other Items:
`
`7.
`
`
`(a)
`
`The parties have discussed settlement and were unable to reach an agreement
`
`regarding resolution of their dispute.
`
`(b)
`
`The parties believe that pre-trial mediation may enhance settlement prospects.
`
`(c)
`
`Communications between a party’s attorney and a testifying expert relating to the
`
`issues on which he/she opines, or to the basis or grounds in support of or countering the opinion,
`
`are subject to discovery by the opposing party only to the extent provided in Rule 26(b)(4)(B)
`
`and (C).
`
`(d)
`
`In responding to discovery requests, each party shall construe broadly terms of art
`
`used in the patent field (e.g., “prior art”, “best mode”, “on sale”), and read them as requesting
`
`discovery relating to the issue as opposed to a particular definition of the term used. Compliance
`
`with this provision is not satisfied by the respondent including a specific definition of the term in
`
`
`
`8
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0008
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:712
`
`
`
`its response, and limiting the response to that definition.
`
`(e)
`
`The parties agree the video “An Introduction to the Patent System” distributed by
`
`the Federal Judicial Center, should be shown to the jurors in connection with its preliminary jury
`
`instructions.
`
`(f)
`
`The parties do not agree that the provisions of Sections 3A, B and C of the
`
`America Invents Act concerning the revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§102, 103 apply to all patents-in-
`
`suit in this case.
`
`Date: February 8, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`
`
`/s/ Daniel A. Zaheer
`Michael Ng (pro hac vice)
`Daniel A. Zaheer (pro hac vice)
`Michael C. Fasano (pro hac vice)
`Kobre & Kim LLP
`150 California, 19th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`michael.ng@kobrekim.com
`daniel.zaheer@kobrekim.com
`michael.fasano@kobrekim.com
`(415) 582-4803
`
`STADHEIM & GREAR, LTD.
`
`Rolf O. Stadheim
`Kyle L. Harvey
`Robert M. Spalding
`Christopher H. St. Peter
`400 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`stadheim@stadheimgrear.com
`harvey@stadheimgrear.com
`spalding@stadheimgrear.com
`stpeter@stadheimgrear.com
`(312) 755-4400
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Rosetta-Wireless Corp.
`
`
`9
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0009
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:713
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Martin R. Bader
`Stephen S. Korniczky (pro hac vice)
`Martin R. Bader (pro hac vice)
`Ericka J. Schulz (pro hac vice pending)
`Ryan P. Cunningham (pro hac vice)
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA 92130-2006
`858-720-8900
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`rcunningham@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Bradley C. Graveline
`Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
`70 West Madison Street, 48th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60602
`312-499-6300
`bgraveline@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC
`America, Inc.
`
`
`
`/s/ __David M. DesRosier______________
`Stacie R. Hartman (SBN 6237265)
`A. Taylor Corbitt (SBN 6299553)
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600
`Chicago, IL 60611
`(312) 258-5607
`(312) 258-5600 FAX
`shartman@schiffhardin.com
`tcorbitt@schiffhardin.com
`
`Brian E. Ferguson (pro hac vice)
`Anish R. Desai (pro hac vice)
`David M. DesRosier (pro hac vice)
`Megan H. Wantland (pro hac vice)
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 682-7000
`(202) 857-0940 FAX
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0010
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:714
`
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Rizzolo_______________
`Jeffrey J. Bushofsky
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`191 North Wacker Drive
`32nd Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 845-1200
`jeffrey.bushofsky@ropesgray.com
`
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice pending)
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1900 University Avenue
`6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`(650) 617-4000
`james.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`
`Steven Pepe (pro hac vice pending)
`Alexander E. Middleton (pro hac vice pending)
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`(212) 596-9000
`steven.pepe@ropesgray.com
`alexander.middleton@ropesgray.com
`
`Matthew J. Rizzolo (pro hac vice pending)
`Ropes & Gray LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 508-4600
`matthew.rizzolo@ropesgray.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC
`
`
`
`/s/_Jenny Colgate_____________ _____
`Steven Lieberman
`Jenny Colgate
`Brian A. Tollefson
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0011
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:715
`
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`607 14th Street, NW
`Washington, District of Columbia 20005
`+1 (202) 783-6040
`slieberman@rfem.com
`jcolgate@rfem.com
`btollefson@rfem.com
`
`James R. Figliulo
`Lisa Michelle Mazzone
`Thomas Daniel Warman
`Figliulo & Silverman
`10 South LaSalle Street
`Suite 3600
`Chicago, IL 60603
`(312) 251-4600
`jfigliulo@fslegal.com
`lmazzone@fslegal.com
`twarman@fslegal.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and
`LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0012
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136-1 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:716
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136-1 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 1 of 2 Page|D #:716
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`ROSE'|'|'A-2017
`
`0013
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0013
`
`

`
`Case: 1:15-cv-00799 Document #: 136-1 Filed: 02/08/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:717
`
`
`
`ROSETTA-WIRELESS—PROPOSED SCHEDULE
`
`
`
`
`Action
`
`Scheduling Conference
`
`Motorola, Samsung, LG, and HTC Initial Non-Infringement,
`Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions Due
`
`Document Production Accompanying Initial Invalidity
`Contentions (disclosure of a copy of any additional items of prior
`art identified pursuant to LPR 2.3 that does not appear in the file
`history of the patent(s) at issue) for Motorola, Samsung, HTC and
`LG.
`
`Plaintiff’s Resp. to Initial Invalidity Contentions of Motorola,
`Samsung, HTC and LG Due
`
`Plaintiff’s Final Infringement Contentions Due
`
`Defendants’ Final Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions
`Due/Document Production Accompanying Final invalidity
`Contentions
`
`Defendants’ Final Non-Infringement Contentions Due
`
`Plaintiff’s Final Contentions in Response to any Final
`Unenforceability and Invalidity Contentions Due
`
`Exchange of Proposed Claim Terms to be Construed along with
`Proposed Constructions
`
`The parties must meet and confer and agree upon no more than ten
`(10) terms or phrases to submit for construction by the court.
`
`Initial Fact Discovery Closes
`
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Briefs Due
`
`The parties shall file a Joint Appendix containing the patent(s) in
`dispute and the prosecution history for each patent.
`
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief Due
`
`Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief Due
`
`Parties to File Joint Claim Construction Chart and Joint Status
`Report
`
`Final Day to Hold Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Fact Discovery Resumes
`
`Fact Discovery Closes
`
`1
`
`Deadline
`
`Tue, 09 Feb 2016
`
`Wed, 09 Mar 2016
`
`Wed, 09 Mar 2016
`
`Wed, 27 Apr 2016
`
`Thu, 01 Sep 2016
`
`Thu, 01 Sep 2016
`
`Thu, 29 Sep 2016
`
`Thu, 29 Sep 2016
`
`Thu, 13 Oct 2016
`
`Thu, 20 Oct 2016
`
`Thu, 10 Nov 2016
`
`Thu, 17 Nov 2016
`
`Thu, 17 Nov 2016
`
`Thu, 15 Dec 2016
`
`Thu, 12 Jan 2017
`
`Thu, 19 Jan 2017
`
`Thu, 09 Feb 2017
`
`Date of CC Order
`(subject to LPR 1.3)
`
`42 days after CC Order
`(subject to LPR 1.3)
`
`ROSETTA-2017
`
`0014