Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`HEIDI L. KEEFE (178960)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`MARK R. WEINSTEIN (193043)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`PHILLIP E. MORTON (pro hac vice)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`REUBEN H. CHEN (228725)
`rchen@cooley.com
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Telephone:
`(650) 843-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-7400
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Case No. 4:16-cv-01730-YGR
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION REGARDING THE
`IDENTIFICATION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`
`
`Nearly a year after filing this case, Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Windy City”) has refused
`
`to identify which of the 830 claims in the four asserted patents are asserted against Facebook, Inc.
`
`(“Facebook”). By this point, Windy City has no excuse to continue withholding which of the 830
`claims it specifically intends to assert in this case.1 Disclosure of asserted claims now will help to
`avoid the unnecessary expense and burden of analyzing invalidity and non-infringement for claims
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Facebook is not requesting early disclosure of infringement contentions, only an identification of
`the claims Windy City intends to assert. Facebook anticipates that Windy City’s disclosure of
`infringement contentions will likely proceed under the schedule set in the Patent Local Rules.
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION. RE ASSERTED CLAIMS
` NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 1
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Windy City never intends to assert. Moreover, disclosure of asserted claims now may help to
`
`narrow this litigation through the inter partes review process at the Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`With the deadline for petitions for inter partes review fast approaching on June 3, 2016, 35 U.S.C. §
`315(b)2, Facebook respectfully moves for an administrative order requiring Windy City to identify
`no more than forty asserted claims across the four asserted patents no later than May 16, 2016. 3
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`On June 2, 2015, Windy City sued Facebook in the Western District of North Carolina,
`alleging infringement of four asserted patents that collectively include a total of 830 claims. 4
`All four asserted patents share the same specification, the same named inventor, and are
`
`continuations of the same parent patent. Under the complaint’s “one count,” Windy City did not
`
`reveal a single asserted claim allegedly infringed by Facebook or clearly identify the accused
`products beyond the entirety of “Facebook.com” and “Facebook apps.”5 By refusing to identify any
`specific asserted claims or accused products, Windy City left Facebook with the burden of guessing
`
`what claims and products Windy City believes are infringing.
`
`On July 24, 2015, Facebook filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). As explained in
`
`the motion to dismiss, Windy City’s complaint failed to provide the notice required by the Federal
`
`Rules and the standards set forth by the Supreme Court. (E.g., Dkt. 20 at 2-7). In view of the recent
`amendment of the Federal Rules eliminating Form 18, the deficiencies are even more striking.6 The
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Congress created the inter partes review procedure to provide a “timely, cost-effective alternative
`to litigation.” Changes to Implement Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Post-Grant Review
`Proceedings, and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680,
`48,680 (Aug. 14, 2012) (codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, et seq.). Inter partes review allows
`petitioners to challenge the validity of patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 based on prior art
`patents and printed publications. 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(b), 316(a); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.51, 42.53.
`3 On May 3, 2016, the parties met-and-conferred telephonically, and Windy City stated that it would
`oppose this administrative motion. (Declaration of Phillip E. Morton in Support of Facebook, Inc.’s
`Administrative Motion Regarding the Identification of Asserted Claims (“Morton Decl.”), ¶ 3.)
`4 U.S. Patent No. 8,407,356 includes 37 claims. U.S. Patent No. 8,458,245 includes 58 claims.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,473,552 includes 64 claims. U.S. Patent No. 8,694,657 includes 671 claims.
`5 Facebook’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is fully briefed and pending. (Dkt. 21, 22.)
`6 Applying the newly amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in this case is “just and
`practicable.” See H.R. Doc. No. 114-33, at 2 (2015). See also Rembrandt Patent Innovations LLC
`
`2
`
`FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION. RE ASSERTED CLAIMS
` NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`complaint included broad allegations of indirect and willful infringement reciting boilerplate
`
`language without any supporting facts. Facebook filed a motion to transfer, which was pending for
`
`nearly six months before the case was transferred to the Northern District of California on March 16,
`2016.7
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`It is well-established that courts may order plaintiffs to identify and limit the number of
`
`asserted claims. See Stamps.com v. Endicia, 437 F. App’x 897, 902 (Fed. Cir. 2011), reh’g denied
`
`(Aug. 1, 2011) (unpublished); Rambus v. LSI, No. 10-cv-05446 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012) (Seeborg,
`
`J.) (Morton Decl. Ex. A at 3) (“In the patent context, the Federal Circuit has approved of district
`
`courts’ common practice of limiting the number of claims that can be asserted in order to streamline
`
`the litigation.”) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011)). For example in Rambus, this court initially limited the plaintiff to 35 claims, even
`
`though there were nine asserted patents. (Morton Decl. Ex. A at 1-2.)
`
`Facebook respectfully requests that the Court require Windy City identify no more than forty
`
`asserted claims across the four asserted patents by May 16, 2016. To facilitate Windy City’s claim
`
`selection process, Facebook has offered to make its source code available for review by Windy
`
`City’s counsel and approved experts upon entry of a protective order, which Windy City rejected
`
`
`
`v. Apple Inc., No. 14-cv-05094, 2015 WL 8607390, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2015) (Alsup, J.)
`(applying amended pleading standard in case filed prior to December 1, 2015, in the context of a
`request to amend infringement contentions); Dao v. Liberty Life Assurance Co., No. 14-cv-04749,
`2016 WL 796095, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2016) (Laporte, J.) (applying amended rules in discovery
`dispute). Given how long Windy City has had to analyze its infringement contentions and the
`burden it would impose on Facebook to prepare invalidity and non-infringement defenses for 830
`claims and an unknown number of potentially accused products, it would be just and practicable to
`narrow the issues that will actually have to be tried, not only for judicial efficiency and streamlining
`the discovery process, but also to permit Facebook to seek meaningful inter partes review by the
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) of the patents and claims truly at issue.
`7 On August 25, 2015, Facebook filed a motion to transfer this action to the Northern District of
`California. (Dkt. 25.) Windy City filed an opposition, and on September 21, 2015, Facebook filed a
`reply brief. (Dkt. 29, 30.) The motion to transfer remained fully briefed on the North Carolina
`court’s docket for nearly six months. After the case was reassigned to a different judge, the North
`Carolina court granted Facebook’s motion to transfer on March 16, 2016. (Dkt. 31.)
`
`
`3
`
`FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION. RE ASSERTED CLAIMS
` NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46 Filed 05/04/16 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`because it is not prepared to review Facebook’s source code. (Morton Decl. Ex. B.)
`
`As illustrated in the attached correspondence, Windy City would not consider any
`
`identification of asserted claims unless the Defendants (Facebook and Microsoft) agreed to reduce
`
`the prior art they may assert before Windy City has identified any information about the scope of the
`
`case, including accused products, asserted claims, and infringement contentions. (Morton Decl. Ex.
`
`B.) Facebook is willing to engage in meaningful efforts to narrow the scope of this case, including
`
`reducing asserted prior art references, but such a reduction is more appropriate after Windy City
`
`provides basic information about the asserted claims, accused products, and infringement
`
`contentions explaining how Windy City is alleging infringement by Facebook.
`
`Windy City should know which claims it intends to assert from its pre-filing diligence and
`
`upcoming infringement contentions. Windy City should not be permitted to continue to keep
`
`Facebook in the dark about the asserted claims, particularly in view of the upcoming deadline for
`
`petitions for inter partes review petitions fast approaching. See Adaptix, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 5-14-
`
`cv-01259-PSG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23134, at *25 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2015) (Grewal, M.J.)
`
`(finding that defendants would be unduly prejudiced by amendment of infringement contentions
`
`after statutory IPR deadline). Narrowing the case to forty asserted claims now will help to
`
`streamline the parties’ upcoming infringement and invalidity contentions, and focus any inter partes
`
`review petitions that may be filed before the June 3, 2015 statutory deadline.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Accordingly, Facebook respectfully requests that the Court order Windy City to identify no
`
`more than forty asserted claims by May 16, 2016.
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`4
`
`FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION. RE ASSERTED CLAIMS
` NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46 Filed 05/04/16 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`Dated: May 4, 2016
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`
`/s/ Heidi L. Keefe
`Heidi L. Keefe
`Mark R. Weinstein
`Reuben H. Chen
`Phillip E. Morton
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`5
`
`FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION. RE ASSERTED CLAIMS
` NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 5
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-1 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`HEIDI L. KEEFE (178960)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`MARK R. WEINSTEIN (193043)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`PHILIP E. MORTON (pro hac vice)
`pmorton@cooley.com
`REUBEN H. CHEN (228725)
`rchen@cooley.com
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Telephone:
`(650) 843-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 849-7400
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`WINDY CITY INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Case No. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF PHILIP E. MORTON IN
`SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC.’S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
`REGARDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF
`ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`I, Philip E. Morton, declare as follows:
`1.
`
`I am a partner at the law firm of Cooley LLP, counsel of record for defendant
`
`Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) in the above-captioned case. I have personal knowledge of the facts
`
`recited in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify competently to them.
`2.
`
`I make this declaration in support of Facebook’s Administrative Motion Regarding
`
`the Identification of Asserted Claims (“Motion”).
`3.
`
`On May 3, 2016, counsel for Windy City Innovations, LLC (“Windy City”), counsel
`
`for Microsoft Corporation, and I met-and-conferred telephonically. A stipulation could not be
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`MORTON DECL. ISO MOTION RE ASSERTED CLAIMS
` NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 6
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-1 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`obtained because counsel for Windy City stated that Windy City would oppose the requested relief
`
`and this Motion.
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Order Granting
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Limit the Number of Asserted Claims in Rambus v. LSI, No. 10-cv-05446
`
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012) (Dkt. 127).
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of emails exchanged between
`
`counsel for Facebook and counsel for Windy City, dated April 21 to May 2, 2016.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 4, 2016 in Washington, District of Columbia.
`
`
`
`/s/ Philip E. Morton
` Philip E. Morton
`
`2
`
`MORTON DECL. ISO MOTION RE ASSERTED CLAIMS
` NO. 4:16-CV-01730-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 7
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-2 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 6
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document127 Filed12/28/12 Page1 of 5Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-2 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Nos. C 10-05446 and C 10-05449
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO LIMIT THE NUMBER
`OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`
`RAMBUS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LSI CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`____________________________________/
`
`
`
`RAMBUS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.,
`STMICROELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`At the May 10, 2012, case management conference, defendants LSI Corporation (LSI) and
`STMicroelectronics, N.V. and STMicroelectronics, Inc. (STMicro), asked the Court to limit
`Rambus’s number of claims to 20. Rambus responded that 35 was the appropriate number of claims
`on which to proceed at that stage in the litigation. The Court limited the number of claims from 81
`to 35 at that time, “subject to a further reduction in the number of permitted claims at a later point.”
`
`
`
`NO. C 10-05446-RS
`ORDER
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`United States District Court
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document127 Filed12/28/12 Page2 of 5Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-2 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`Defendants argue that a further reduction in the number of claims on which Rambus is allowed to
`proceed is now appropriate, and move to reduce that number of claims to 20 presently and to 10 at
`trial. Rambus agrees that it could limit its claims to 20 at this point, but asks that the Court order
`defendants to disclose their invalidity contentions to Rambus before it selects the 20 on which it will
`proceed. Rambus further requests that the Court limit the prior art defendants are allowed to present
`with respect to each of its claims.
`
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`All parties agree that the scope of this case needs to be narrowed down in some fashion.
`Rambus currently asserts 35 claims from nine patents in the Farmwald/Howrowitz patent family.
`More than 800 products are accused of infringement. Each defendant’s contentions list includes
`slightly over 100 prior art references. For each claim, each defendant has listed a set of “primary
`references” as well as “secondary references” which may be combined with the primary references
`to form combinations rendering the claim obvious. Rambus contends that proceeding in this manner
`has allowed each defendant to allege up to 500 obviousness combinations for a single claim.
`Plantiff and defendants agree that limiting the number of claims to 20 at this point would be
`appropriate, but they disagree about how it should be accomplished.
`Some developments have occurred since the May 2012 CMC related to asserted patents.
`The USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences issued an opinion in Rambus, Inv. v.
`NVIDIA, Inc., No. 2012-000171, upholding the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14,
`26, 28-32, 34, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,260,097. The USPTO did not find claim 6, which
`Rambus asserts against defendants, unpatentable. Rambus filed a notice of appeal of the BPAI
`opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 15, 2012, the Federal
`Circuit issued an opinion in In re Rambus, Inc., No. 2011-1247, providing a claim construction for
`the term “memory device.” And of course, this Court issued its claim construction order on
`September 26, 2012. Expert discovery and dispositive motion practice have not yet begun in this
`case.
`
`Defendants served their invalidity contentions on Rambus on March 30, 2012. Yet, Rambus
`complains that defendants have thusfar refused to reveal their noninfringement theories. Rambus
`NO. C 10-04668-RS
`
`ORDER
`
`2
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`United States District Court
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 10
`
`

`
`
`
`Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document127 Filed12/28/12 Page3 of 5Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-2 Filed 05/04/16 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`served interrogatories on defendants on July 8, 2012, asking them to state the bases for their denials
`in their answers that their products infringe. LSI objected to responding to the interrogatory until
`after Rambus identified its asserted claims and the LSI products that allegedly infringe on those
`claims and after the Court issued its claim construction order. Both preconditions have now
`passed—Rambus served its infringement contentions on October 4, 2012. LSI still has not provided
`a supplemental response to this interrogatory. STMicro objected to the interrogatory as being
`premature and more properly the subject of expert testimony. It subsequently said it would reveal
`its noninfringement theories after the claim construction order was issued, but it still has not done so
`nearly two and half months after that order was issued. On their parts, defendants say that they
`cannot lock in their invalidity arguments at this time because Rambus has refused to provide
`adequately detailed infringement contentions, even in response to defendants’ requests that Rambus
`supplement them.
`
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure entrust the Court with the discretion to “secure the
`just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding” before it. In the patent
`context, the Federal Circuit has approved of district courts’ common practice of limiting the number
`of claims that can be asserted in order to streamline the litigation. See In re Katz Interactive Call
`Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`IV. DISCUSSION
`Both parties agree that 20 is an appropriate number of claims to narrow Rambus to at this
`juncture. Rambus does not argue that selecting only 20 claims on which to proceed would prevent it
`from presenting “unique issues as to liability or damages” in this case. Id. at 1312. Rambus argues
`instead that streamlining the litigation should be a two-way street and that defendants should first be
`required to reveal their noninfringement theories to allow Rambus to “choose the most appropriate
`20 claims upon which to proceed at this time in light of the defenses Defendants intend to raise.”
`Rambus also asks the Court to limit the number of prior art references that defendants may use to
`three alleged anticipatory references and three allege obviousness combinations per asserted claim.
`Rambus does not cite any law in support of its position that it must be given the benefit of knowing
`NO. C 10-04668-RS
`
`ORDER
`
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`United States District Court
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document127 Filed12/28/12 Page4 of 5Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-2 Filed 05/04/16 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`defendants’ noninfrigement theories in order to select its 20 strongest claims, or that it would be
`proper to limit the number of prior art references that defendants may use. Just recently in DCG
`Systems, Inc. v. Checkpoint Technologies, No. 11-03792-PSG, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117370 (N.D.
`Cal. Aug. 20, 2012), a judge of the Northern District remarked that a request that a defendant “be
`required to reduce proportionately the number of prior art references as [plaintiff] has reduced its
`asserted claims is without precedent.”
`Defendants object to Rambus’s proposal, arguing that it flouts the basic principle of patent
`law that invalidity is a defense to a claim for patent infringement. See 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). Indeed,
`the Northern District of California’s Patent Local Rules recognize invalidity as a defense that is
`disclosed only after a plaintiff has identified its claim assertions. See Patent L.R. 3-3. If Rambus
`believes that it is being stiffed on discovery that it is owed, it may always bring a motion to compel
`against defendants.1 That is a separate issue from whether it is entitled to advance knowledge of
`defendants’ defenses in order to most advantageously select the claims that remain in its case.
`This is an opportune time in the litigation to narrow the number of claims going forward.
`Rambus has the benefit of the court’s claim construction order. Furthermore, a smaller number of
`claims moving into expert discovery and dispositive motion practice will significantly reduce the
`financial burden on the parties and streamline the litigation to help manage the Court’s docket.
`Rambus has admitted that limiting itself to 20 claims at this point will not cause it prejudice. It is
`not entitled to advance notice of defendants’s invalidity theories before making that selection—and
`the absence of that benefit is not in itself a burden.
`It remains premature at this point to make a decision about the number of claims on which
`Rambus will be permitted to go to trial, given that expert discovery has not occurred and defendants
`still owe Rambus discovery responses. The parties may revisit that issue at a more appropriate time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Likewise, defendants can seek relief from the Court if necessary to require Rambus to supplement
`its infringement contentions.
`
`4
`
`NO. C 10-04668-RS
`
`ORDER
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`United States District Court
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document127 Filed12/28/12 Page5 of 5Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-2 Filed 05/04/16 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`V.
`CONCLUSION
`Rambus shall be limited to 20 asserted claims at this juncture of the litigation subject to a
`further reduction in the number of permitted claims at a later point in this action.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`RICHARD SEEBORG
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`Dated: 12/28/12
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`United States District Court
`
`For the Northern District of California
`
`5
`
`NO. C 10-04668-RS
`
`ORDER
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 13
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-3 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 14
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-3 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 7
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Morton, Phillip
`Monday, May 02, 2016 3:01 PM
`Warren McCarty; windycity@caldwellcc.com
`McBride, John W.; Yang, Irene; Cederoth, Richard A.; Keefe, Heidi; Rodriguez, Raquel C.
`Re: Windy City v. Facebook / Microsoft - Request to Identify Asserted Claims
`
`Warren(cid:882)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)L
`
`et’s(cid:3)talk(cid:3)tomorrow(cid:3)morning(cid:3)at(cid:3)10am(cid:3)CT.(cid:3)(cid:3)Microsoft’s(cid:3)counsel(cid:3)will(cid:3)join(cid:3)as(cid:3)well.(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)We(cid:3)can(cid:3)use(cid:3)the(cid:3)following(cid:3)dial(cid:882)in:(cid:3)(cid:3)877(cid:882)
`211(cid:882)3621(cid:3)passcode(cid:3)115(cid:3)697(cid:3)0989(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)T
`
`hanks,(cid:3)
`Phil(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)P
`
`hillip(cid:3)E.(cid:3)Morton(cid:3)
`Cooley(cid:3)LLP(cid:3)
`Direct:(cid:3)+1(cid:3)202(cid:3)728(cid:3)7055(cid:3)*(cid:3)Cell:(cid:3)+1(cid:3)703(cid:3)298(cid:3)2746(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)O
`
`n(cid:3)5/2/16,(cid:3)1:02(cid:3)PM,(cid:3)"Warren(cid:3)McCarty"(cid:3)<wmccarty@caldwellcc.com>(cid:3)wrote:(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)>
`
`Hi(cid:3)Phillip,(cid:3)
`>(cid:3)
`>It(cid:3)seems(cid:3)like(cid:3)you(cid:3)are(cid:3)determined(cid:3)to(cid:3)burden(cid:3)the(cid:3)Court(cid:3)with(cid:3)this(cid:3)issue.(cid:3)While(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City(cid:3)would(cid:3)prefer(cid:3)not(cid:3)to(cid:3)bring(cid:3)case(cid:882)
`narrowing(cid:3)disputes(cid:3)like(cid:3)this(cid:3)to(cid:3)the(cid:3)Court(cid:3)(especially(cid:3)now,(cid:3)when(cid:3)the(cid:3)dispute(cid:3)is(cid:3)in(cid:3)its(cid:3)infancy(cid:3)and(cid:3)the(cid:3)parties(cid:3)have(cid:3)not(cid:3)even(cid:3)
`discussed(cid:3)it(cid:3)via(cid:3)telephone),(cid:3)we(cid:3)cannot(cid:3)agree(cid:3)to(cid:3)drop(cid:3)95%(cid:3)of(cid:3)claims(cid:3)and(cid:3)serve(cid:3)some(cid:3)form(cid:3)of(cid:3)final(cid:3)claim(cid:3)elections(cid:3)to(cid:3)
`Defendants(cid:3)in(cid:3)a(cid:3)matter(cid:3)of(cid:3)days.(cid:3)As(cid:3)I(cid:3)stated(cid:3)before,(cid:3)we(cid:3)would(cid:3)be(cid:3)more(cid:3)than(cid:3)willing(cid:3)to(cid:3)discuss(cid:3)a(cid:3)limit(cid:3)on(cid:3)the(cid:3)number(cid:3)of(cid:3)
`claims(cid:3)that(cid:3)are(cid:3)asserted(cid:3)in(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City's(cid:3)infringement(cid:3)contentions(cid:3)(assuming(cid:3)we(cid:3)get(cid:3)some(cid:3)form(cid:3)of(cid:3)reciprocity(cid:3)from(cid:3)
`Defendants).(cid:3)But(cid:3)it's(cid:3)now(cid:3)clear(cid:3)that(cid:3)narrowing(cid:3)the(cid:3)case(cid:3)isn't(cid:3)your(cid:3)goal;(cid:3)it(cid:3)appears(cid:3)that(cid:3)you(cid:3)just(cid:3)want(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City(cid:3)to(cid:3)tell(cid:3)
`you(cid:3)which(cid:3)40(cid:3)claims(cid:3)to(cid:3)IPR.(cid:3)Besides(cid:3)being(cid:3)procedurally(cid:3)improper,(cid:3)your(cid:3)proposal(cid:3)is(cid:3)just(cid:3)way(cid:3)too(cid:3)late.(cid:3)You(cid:3)could(cid:3)have(cid:3)
`raised(cid:3)this(cid:3)months(cid:3)ago,(cid:3)but(cid:3)you(cid:3)guys(cid:3)ignored(cid:3)this(cid:3)issue(cid:3)for(cid:3)something(cid:3)like(cid:3)320(cid:3)days,(cid:3)only(cid:3)now(cid:3)to(cid:3)demand(cid:3)that(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City(cid:3)
`bail(cid:3)you(cid:3)out(cid:3)and(cid:3)enter(cid:3)into(cid:3)this(cid:3)one(cid:882)sided(cid:3)agreement.(cid:3)(cid:3)Your(cid:3)proposal(cid:3)is(cid:3)impractical,(cid:3)and(cid:3)actually(cid:3)has(cid:3)little(cid:3)to(cid:3)do(cid:3)with(cid:3)
`narrowing(cid:3)the(cid:3)district(cid:3)court(cid:3)case.(cid:3)
`>(cid:3)
`>I(cid:3)do(cid:3)appreciate(cid:3)your(cid:3)offer(cid:3)to(cid:3)allow(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City's(cid:3)experts(cid:3)to(cid:3)review(cid:3)source(cid:3)code(cid:3)before(cid:3)discovery(cid:3)opens(cid:3)in(cid:3)this(cid:3)case.(cid:3)I(cid:3)
`think(cid:3)that's(cid:3)a(cid:3)great(cid:3)idea.(cid:3)As(cid:3)I'm(cid:3)sure(cid:3)you(cid:3)will(cid:3)understand,(cid:3)it(cid:3)is(cid:3)unworkable(cid:3)to(cid:3)negotiate(cid:3)a(cid:3)protective(cid:3)order,(cid:3)get(cid:3)all(cid:3)parties(cid:3)
`to(cid:3)sign(cid:3)off(cid:3)on(cid:3)that(cid:3)order,(cid:3)hire(cid:3)source(cid:3)code(cid:3)reviewers,(cid:3)disclose(cid:3)those(cid:3)reviewers(cid:3)to(cid:3)Defendants(cid:3)and(cid:3)get(cid:3)them(cid:3)cleared,(cid:3)
`make(cid:3)them(cid:3)available(cid:3)to(cid:3)review(cid:3)code,(cid:3)send(cid:3)them(cid:3)across(cid:3)the(cid:3)country(cid:3)to(cid:3)different(cid:3)facilities(cid:3)to(cid:3)review(cid:3)code,(cid:3)analyze(cid:3)the(cid:3)
`code,(cid:3)and(cid:3)make(cid:3)these(cid:3)near(cid:882)final(cid:3)elections,(cid:3)all(cid:3)in(cid:3)a(cid:3)matter(cid:3)of(cid:3)days.(cid:3)That(cid:3)process(cid:3)takes(cid:3)months.(cid:3)I(cid:3)think(cid:3)we(cid:3)can(cid:3)go(cid:3)ahead(cid:3)
`and(cid:3)start(cid:3)working(cid:3)on(cid:3)a(cid:3)protective(cid:3)order,(cid:3)though.(cid:3)Maybe(cid:3)we(cid:3)can(cid:3)shoot(cid:3)for(cid:3)some(cid:3)early(cid:3)source(cid:3)code(cid:3)review(cid:3)days(cid:3)in(cid:3)July(cid:3)
`before(cid:3)infringement(cid:3)contentions(cid:3)are(cid:3)due.(cid:3)
`
`1
`
`Facebook's Exhibit No. 1013
`Page 15
`
`

`
`Case 4:16-cv-01730-YGR Document 46-3 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 7
`
`>(cid:3)
`>In(cid:3)short,(cid:3)if(cid:3)you(cid:3)are(cid:3)dead(cid:882)set(cid:3)on(cid:3)filing(cid:3)your(cid:3)motion,(cid:3)then(cid:3)please(cid:3)mark(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City(cid:3)as(cid:3)opposed.(cid:3)If,(cid:3)on(cid:3)the(cid:3)other(cid:3)hand,(cid:3)you'd(cid:3)
`like(cid:3)to(cid:3)have(cid:3)a(cid:3)productive(cid:3)discussion(cid:3)about(cid:3)reducing(cid:3)the(cid:3)number(cid:3)of(cid:3)claims(cid:3)and(cid:3)prior(cid:3)art(cid:3)in(cid:3)this(cid:3)case,(cid:3)I(cid:3)would(cid:3)be(cid:3)happy(cid:3)to(cid:3)
`do(cid:3)so.(cid:3)I(cid:3)am(cid:3)available(cid:3)in(cid:3)my(cid:3)office(cid:3)today(cid:3)at(cid:3)5pm(cid:3)central,(cid:3)or(cid:3)generally(cid:3)tomorrow(cid:3)morning.(cid:3)Just(cid:3)let(cid:3)everyone(cid:3)know(cid:3)if/when(cid:3)
`you(cid:3)plan(cid:3)on(cid:3)calling(cid:3)so(cid:3)we(cid:3)can(cid:3)get(cid:3)someone(cid:3)from(cid:3)Microsoft(cid:3)on(cid:3)the(cid:3)line(cid:3)too.(cid:3)
`>(cid:3)
`>Thanks,(cid:3)
`>Warren(cid:3)
`>(cid:3)
`>(cid:882)(cid:882)(cid:882)(cid:882)(cid:882)Original(cid:3)Message(cid:882)(cid:882)(cid:882)(cid:882)(cid:882)(cid:3)
`>From:(cid:3)Morton,(cid:3)Phillip(cid:3)[mailto:pmorton@cooley.com](cid:3)(cid:3)
`>Sent:(cid:3)Saturday,(cid:3)April(cid:3)30,(cid:3)2016(cid:3)6:03(cid:3)AM(cid:3)
`>To:(cid:3)Warren(cid:3)McCarty(cid:3)<wmccarty@caldwellcc.com>;(cid:3)windycity@caldwellcc.com(cid:3)
`>Cc:(cid:3)McBride,(cid:3)John(cid:3)W.(cid:3)<jwmcbride@sidley.com>;(cid:3)Yang,(cid:3)Irene(cid:3)<irene.yang@sidley.com>;(cid:3)Cederoth,(cid:3)Richard(cid:3)A.(cid:3)
`<rcederoth@sidley.com>;(cid:3)Keefe,(cid:3)Heidi(cid:3)<hkeefe@cooley.com>(cid:3)
`>Subject:(cid:3)Re:(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City(cid:3)v.(cid:3)Facebook(cid:3)/(cid:3)Microsoft(cid:3)(cid:882)(cid:3)Request(cid:3)to(cid:3)Identify(cid:3)Asserted(cid:3)Claims(cid:3)
`>(cid:3)
`>Warren(cid:882)(cid:3)
`>(cid:3)
`>Thank(cid:3)you(cid:3)for(cid:3)responding(cid:3)to(cid:3)my(cid:3)email.(cid:3)(cid:3)Below(cid:3)are(cid:3)answers(cid:3)to(cid:3)your(cid:3)questions(cid:3)on(cid:3)behalf(cid:3)of(cid:3)Facebook.(cid:3)(cid:3)Please(cid:3)confirm(cid:3)by(cid:3)
`the(cid:3)end(cid:3)of(cid:3)the(cid:3)day(cid:3)Monday(cid:3)whether(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City(cid:3)opposes(cid:3)Facebook’s(cid:3)motion.(cid:3)(cid:3)Otherwise,(cid:3)we(cid:3)will(cid:3)assume(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City’s(cid:3)
`opposition(cid:3)and(cid:3)note(cid:3)for(cid:3)the(cid:3)Court(cid:3)that(cid:3)Windy(cid:3)City(cid:3)declined(cid: