Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:2135
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` James R. Asperger (Bar No. 83188)
` jamesasperger@quinnemanuel.com
` 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
` Los Angeles, CA 90017
` Telephone: (213) 443-3000
` Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`
` Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
` kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
` 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
` Redwood Shores, CA 94065
` Telephone: (650) 801-5000
` Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION
` Edward R. McGah, Jr (SBN 97719)
` Vice President, Deputy General Counsel – Litigation
` 41 Ticknor Place
` Laguna Niguel, California 92677
` Telephone: (+1) 650-581-4750
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`BlackBerry Limited
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED, a
`)
`
`Canadian corporation,
`)
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`)
`CASE NO. 2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`
`)
`CASE NO. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`
`v.
`)
`
`
`)
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware
`)
`corporation, WHATSAPP INC., a
`)
`Delaware corporation, and
`)
`INSTAGRAM, INC., a Delaware
`)
`corporation, and INSTAGRAM, LLC,
`)
`a Delaware limited liability company
`)
`
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`SNAP INC., a Delaware corporation
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`JOINT CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`-i-
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0001
`
`SNAP INC. v. BLACKBERRY LIMITED
`IPR2019-00714
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:2136
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Joint Status Hearing of January 10, 2019 (See Hearing Tr. at
`4:25-6:6, January 10, 2019), the Court’s Order (Dkt. 107), and S.P.R. 3.4, Plaintiff
`BlackBerry Limited (“BlackBerry”) and Defendants Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”),
`WhatsApp, Inc. (“WhatsApp”), Instagram, LLC (“Instagram”), and Snap Inc.
`(“Snap”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby submit the Joint Claim Construction
`and Prehearing Statement for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,372,961 (“’961 Patent”), 8,279,173
`(“’173 Patent”), 8,209,634 (“’634 Patent”), 8,301,713 (“’713 Patent”), 8,429,236
`(“’236 Patent”), 8,677,250 (“’250 Patent”), and 9,349,120 (“’120 Patent”),
`8,301,713 (“’713 Patent”), 8,296,351 (“’351 Patent”), 8,676,929 (“’929 Patent”),
`8,825,084 (“’084 Patent), and 8,326,327 (“’327 Patent) (collectively, the “patents-
`in-suit” or the “Asserted Patents”).1
`I.
`AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS (S.P.R. 3.4.1)
`The Parties stipulate to the constructions for the following terms:
`Claim Term
`Patent
`Agreed Construction
`“dynamic
`“advertising information that
`advertising
`regularly changes”
`information”
`“advertising information that
`relates to the identity of an
`advertiser or that does not often
`change”
`“advertising information that
`changes rarely”
`
`’351, ’929
`
`’351, ’929
`
`’351, ’929
`
`“static advertising
`information”
`
`“default
`advertising
`information”
`“channel” /
`“memory location
`channel”
`“resumption
`message”
`
`
`
`’351, ’929
`
`“memory location”
`
`’713
`
`“message after a period of
`interruption”
`
`
`1 The Asserted Patents may be categorized as Facebook-only patents (the ’120,
`’250, ’173, ’961, and ’236 patents), Facebook and Snap patents (the ’713, ’351,
`’929, and ’634 patents), and Snap-only patents (the ’327 and ’084 patents).
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-2-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0002
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:2137
`
`
`BlackBerry and the Facebook Defendants stipulate to the construction for the
`following term from the Facebook only patents:
`
`
`Claim Term
`“recipient
`application”
`
`Patent
`’236
`
`Agreed Construction
`“software, hardware,
`component, or collection of
`components that processes
`status updates from a mobile
`communications device and
`generates an output based on the
`status updates”
`
`
`II. THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS (S.P.R. 3.4.2)
`Appendix A (Terms in Dispute) sets forth proposed constructions of each
`disputed term, together with an identification of all references from the specification
`or prosecution history that support that construction, and an identification of any
`extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support or
`its proposed construction or to oppose any proposed construction, including, but not
`limited to, as permitted by law, dictionary definitions, citations to learned treatises
`and prior art, and testimony of percipient and expert witnesses. Terms in Appendix
`A are not ranked in any fashion. Each disputed term is accompanied by each
`parties’ statement as to the impact of the term.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-3-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`BlackBerry and Snap stipulate to the construction for the following term from
`the Snap only patents:
`
`
`
`
`Claim Term
`“action spot”
`
`Patent
`’327, ’084
`
`Agreed Construction
`“location or event where at least
`one activity is occurring relative
`to the current location of
`another mobile device”
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0003
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:2138
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`III. TOP TEN TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION (S.P.R. 3.4.3)
`The parties jointly identify the following ten (10) claim terms as the most
`significant at this time to resolution of the case. (Tr. at 4:25-5:15; S.P.R. 3.4.3.)2
`Terms are not ranked in any fashion.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Patent
`
`BlackBerry’s
`Construction
`
`“wireless communication
`device”
`
`’634
`
`“small-screen wireless
`mobile device”
`
`“icon”
`
`’634
`
`“messaging correspondent”
`
`’634
`
`“picture or symbol
`representing a computer
`application or function”
`
`“distinct sender of an
`electronic message to the
`user of the wireless
`communication device”
`
`“predetermined duration of
`time”
`
`’713
`
`“duration of time
`determined in advance”
`
`“proxy content server”
`
`’351
`
`“server that aggregates
`information from an
`information source for
`distribution to a device”
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`No construction
`required; in the
`alternative, “device that
`can communicate
`without wires”
`
`“graphical image”
`
`“a person from whom
`messages may be
`received”
`
`“a length of time set in
`advance before the first
`messaging
`communication is sent”
`
`“a computer that
`receives information
`over a computer
`network and provides it
`to another device”
`
`
`2 As noted below, the parties have different interpretations of the Court’s request
`for ranked lists.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-4-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0004
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:2139
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`“meta tag for one or more
`advertisements to be
`displayed with the content
`information”
`
`’929
`
`“embedded control
`sequence inserted to
`indicate when advertising
`should be inserted for
`one or more
`advertisements to be
`displayed with the
`content information”3
`
`“content information”
`
`’351,
`’929
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning; alternatively
`“information other than
`advertising information”
`
`“reducing mod q”
`
`’961
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“determine / determining at
`least one action spot within
`a predetermined distance
`from the current location of
`the mobile device”
`
`’084,
`’327
`
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`“meta tag for one or
`more advertisements to
`be displayed at the same
`time as the content
`information”
`“Meta tag” does not
`need to be construed
`and should be given its
`plain and ordinary
`meaning. To the extent
`it is construed as
`BlackBerry contends, a
`“meta tag” is “one or
`more characters
`containing information
`about a file, record type
`or other structure,
`where the characters
`and information cannot
`be viewed by a user”
`
`
`“Information, other
`than advertising
`information and meta
`tags, which is displayed
`for viewing by the user”
`
`“computing the
`remainder of dividing a
`value by q”
`
`“Determine /
`determining each action
`spot within a specific
`distance from the
`current location of the
`[first] mobile device, the
`specific distance being
`set prior to this
`determining step”
`
`
`3 BlackBerry contends that the constituent term “meta tag” be construed as
`“embedded control sequence inserted to indicate when advertising should be
`inserted,” and the remainder of the phrase be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-5-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0005
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:2140
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`“activity level”
`
`’084,
`’327
`
`“measure of the actions
`taken by one or more
`mobile devices”
`
`“The number of actions
`where the [second]
`mobile device is being
`used to observe and
`make note of a location
`or event currently
`occurring at the
`location of the [second]
`mobile device”
`
`
`The Parties’ top ten terms are noted in Appendix A with an asterisk. Terms in
`Appendix A are not ranked in any fashion.
`The above list covers all patents at issue in both lawsuits. As explained
`below, the parties have a disagreement regarding the process for selecting the
`disputed terms.
`Blackberry’s Statement:
`As an initial matter, BlackBerry objects to Defendants’ proposed construction
`for “content information” and their alternative construction for the constituent term
`“meta tag.” Despite numerous exchanges and meet and confer sessions, both of
`these constructions were offered for the first time when Defendants provided their
`portion of this Joint Statement on February 14 at 6:43 p.m. (43 minutes after the
`agreed upon filing time). The proposed construction for meta tag is particularly
`prejudicial since Defendants had previously represented that they believed the
`constituent term had a “plain and ordinary meaning.” BlackBerry respectfully
`requests that the Court decline to consider these tardy constructions.
`Regarding the term selection process, BlackBerry believes that the Court’s
`guidance for selecting disputed terms was clear and unambiguous. At the January
`10, 2019 Status Conference, the Court first asked the parties to “reduce” the
`disputed terms to the maximum extent possible. Tr. at 4:22-24. To the extent the
`parties proposed more than ten terms, the Court set forth a very specific procedure,
`directing the parties to provide an unranked list of 10 terms agreed by both sides,
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-6-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0006
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:2141
`
`
`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
`
`
`and to provide a ranked list of additional terms, alternating in selection by side. Tr.
`at 5:5-6:6.
`Later in the hearing, Facebook asked whether the “ranking” should be done
`“in the three different buckets” of patents at issue, and the Court answered “Yes.”
`Tr. at 8:9-15. Defendants have seized upon this later exchange to derail the orderly
`selection of disputed terms for construction. According to Defendants, the Court’s
`answer about “ranking” “in the three different buckets” superseded its earlier
`instructions, and instead called for three separate lists (presumably of up to ten terms
`each), which would have vastly expanded the scope of the claim selection process
`set forth earlier in the hearing.
`But, BlackBerry did not understand the Court’s answer to Facebook’s
`ambiguous question to override the Court’s earlier guidance to produce a single list
`of 10 terms agreed to by both sides. Specifically, BlackBerry did not understand the
`Court’s answer about “ranking” to apply to the unranked list of 10 terms at all. And,
`to the extent the answer applied to the ranked list of additional terms, BlackBerry
`understood the Court to merely confirm that the parties should account for all the
`patents at issue.
`Defendants’ view of the process also makes no practical sense. Under
`Defendants’ proposal, the Court would receive three separate lists of terms with no
`guidance from the parties as to the relative importance of terms across lists. This
`would have left the Court guessing as to which terms the parties truly felt were the
`most important across the case. It is for this reason that BlackBerry insisted that the
`parties attempt to come to agreement on a single list of 10 terms.
`The process was successful. The top 10 terms set forth above include 4 terms
`that were independently identified as amongst the top ten by all three parties. The
`remaining 6 terms, were allocated to the three parties (2 terms apiece) to use as they
`saw fit. The result is a list comprising terms from 7 common patents, 2 Snap
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-7-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0007
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:2142
`
`
`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
`
`
`patents, and 1 Facebook patent. Facebook could have selected a second term from a
`Facebook-specific patent, but it declined to do so with its second discretionary pick.
`The argument by Facebook and Snap that they should now be permitted to
`unilaterally inject additional terms is baseless. The Court set forth a procedure for
`terms beyond the top 10—the parties were to provide such additional terms in a
`rank-ordered list with terms selecting in alternating order by side. Tr. at 5:5-6:6.
`Although BlackBerry does not believe additional terms require construction at this
`time, it nonetheless invited Defendants to participate in selecting additional terms
`according to this alternating process. But, Defendants refused to do unless
`BlackBerry was willing to limit its identification of additional terms to the
`“common” patents only. The reason for this position was obvious—Defendants
`sought to game the selection process by seeking to place their preferred “common”
`terms as high as possible on the list, while simultaneously preserving their ability to
`ask the Court to make a special dispensation for their party-specific terms. The
`Court should not reward this gamesmanship.
`The parties’ agreed-upon top 10 list was selected in a fair and equitable
`manner and consistent with the Court’s guidance. If Defendants desired additional
`terms be proposed for construction they should have engaged in the rank-ordered,
`alternating selection process directed by the Court. Because they refused to do so,
`the Court should limit its consideration to the parties’ agreed-upon top 10 terms.
`Defendants’ Statement:4
`In addition to the top ten terms, the Facebook Defendants request that the
`Court also construe three terms from the patents asserted only against the Facebook
`
`
`4 BlackBerry’s objection to Defendants’ constructions of “content information”
`and “meta tag” lacks merit. Defendants’ changes to the constructions better
`crystalize the disputes between the parties for the Court’s consideration and do not
`prejudice BlackBerry in any way.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-8-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0008
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:2143
`
`
`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
`
`
`defendants (the “Facebook Patents”). At the last hearing, the following exchange
`occurred about creating three different ranking lists:
`MR. BRIGHAM: The second point is on this ranking, if your Honor
`recalls, we have basically three buckets of patents. We have
`Facebook-only patents, we have Facebook and Snap patents, and we
`have Snap only patents.
`
`Should we do that ranking in the three different buckets?
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`(1/10/19 Transcript at 8:9-15).
`However, during the process of putting together a joint submission,
`BlackBerry disagreed and insisted on one list of ten terms covering all eleven
`patents (4 common patents, 5 Facebook Patents, 2 Snap Patents). In the interests of
`moving forward, Facebook and Snap cooperated with BlackBerry in trying to put
`together a list of ten terms covering all patents and all defendants. Not surprisingly,
`Facebook did not choose terms from the patents asserted against Snap to be in the
`top ten, nor did Snap choose terms from the Facebook Patents to be in the top ten.
`As a result, only one term from the five Facebook Patents made it onto the global
`top ten list. In many cases, though, the term’s lack of appearance on the top ten was
`not a reflection of the lack of relative importance to the case. The term’s exclusion
`from the list was more a reflection of different patents being asserted against
`different unrelated entities with different priorities because their products operate
`differently.
`BlackBerry’s interpretation of the ranking process is inapplicable here. This
`is not a case where a Plaintiff and Defendant with the same number of patents,
`claims, and terms at issue trade turns on equal footing. Rather, BlackBerry’s
`process results in BlackBerry taking spots in the top ten away from one Defendant
`by choosing to construe terms in patents not asserted against that Defendant and
`making the Defendants choose between each other who should get the higher
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`
`-9-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0009
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:2144
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`“ranking”. Again, Facebook and Snap are not related, are accused of different
`patents and different claims, and have products that operate in different ways.
`The narrowing process was successful and Defendants are not proposing three
`lists of ten terms. Rather, Defendants simply seek the construction of a few more
`terms in order to reduce disputes later in the case. Indeed, Blackberry’s efforts to
`limit the Court’s involvement highlights that actual disputes exist between the
`parties with respect to these additional terms, disputes that the Court can resolve at
`this time to help streamline the case going forward. As a result, Facebook requests
`that the following three terms (listed in order of importance) from the Facebook
`Patents be briefed and construed:
`Term
`
`“notification”
`“message transmission mode”
`“flag”
`
`Patent
`’120
`’236
`’120
`
`Facebook Defendants currently believe that the construction of “notification”
`and “flag” will assist with the determination of noninfringement of the ‘120 patent
`because there is a dispute about whether the information the user still receives after
`silencing a message thread qualifies as a “notification” and whether the accused
`functionality uses a “flag.”
`Facebook Defendants currently believe that the construction of “message
`transmission mode” will assist with the determination of noninfringement of the
`‘236 patent because there is a dispute about whether the communications Blackberry
`has identified are properly classified as two different “message transmission
`modes.”
`Snap requests that the following terms also be construed:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-10-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0010
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:2145
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent
`’929
`
`’634
`
`Term
`“when the information relevant to the
`detected triggering event comprises
`advertisement, transmitting the
`advertisement to the mobile device
`instead of the content information
`that includes the meta tag”
`“a numeric character representing a
`count of the plurality of different
`message correspondents for which
`one or more of the electronic
`messages have been received and
`remain unread”
`
`Snap believes that the construction of the “when the information . . .” phrase
`will demonstrate that dependent claim 2 of the ’929 patent is broader than
`independent claim 1 of the ’929 patent and therefore invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶
`4. Snap also believes that construction of the “a numeric character . . .” phrase will
`assist with the determination of noninfringement of the ‘634 patent because there is
`a dispute as to whether the accused functionality meets this claim limitation.
`IV. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TIME FOR HEARING
`Pursuant to S.P.R. 3.4.4, the Parties each request at least 90 minutes total for
`respective presentations at the claim construction hearing. The Parties believe the
`additional time is necessary given the number of patents and terms at issue.
`V.
`IDENTIFICATION OF HEARING WITNESSES (S.P.R. 3.4.5)
`Pursuant to S.P.R. 3.4.5, each party individually responds to whether they
`propose to call one or more witnesses at the claim construction hearing:
`BlackBerry: BlackBerry does not currently intend to present live testimony
`but reserves the right to do so consistent with the declarations it served on January
`24, 2019, which are attached together here as Exhibit 1.
`Defendants did not identify any live testimony, experts or expert testimony
`during claim construction discovery as required under S.P.R. 3.2. Defendants
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-11-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0011
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:2146
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`similarly do not identify any witnesses or testimony in the attached appendix of this
`Joint Claim Construction Statement—other than deposition citations to
`BlackBerry’s experts. BlackBerry has been afforded no opportunity to take
`discovery regarding any opinions of Defendants’ unknown and as-yet unidentified
`experts or their opinions on claim construction. BlackBerry thus objects to
`Defendants presenting any “rebuttal declarations” as referred to below. BlackBerry
`will move to strike any reliance on such untimely declarations or live testimony
`because they were not appropriately disclosed during claim construction discovery.
`Defendants: Defendants do not currently intend to present live testimony but
`reserve the right to do so consistent with any rebuttal declarations to be served with
`the parties’ responsive claim construction briefs. See Dkt. 84.
`VI. TUTORIAL MATERIALS (S.P.R. 3.5)
`S.P.R. 3.5 contemplates that tutorial materials would be submitted with
`responsive claim construction briefs. In light of the live tutorial set for March 21,
`2019, it is the parties’ understanding, and agreement, that this rule does not apply.
`The parties request clarification if the Court disagrees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-12-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0012
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:2147
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`DATED: February 14, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /s/ James R. Asperger
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
` James R. Asperger (Bar No. 83188)
` jamesasperger@quinnemanuel.com
` 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
` Los Angeles, CA 90017
` Telephone: (213) 443-3000
` Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`
` Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
` kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
` Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
` victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
` 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
` Redwood Shores, CA 94065
` Telephone: (650) 801-5000
` Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION
` Edward R. McGah, Jr (SBN 97719)
` Vice President, Deputy General Counsel
` 41 Ticknor Place
` Laguna Niguel, California 92677
` Telephone: (+1) 650-581-4750
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-13-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0013
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:2148
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`DATED: February 14, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /s/ Chad J. Peterman
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY (SB# 175421)
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`PHILIP OU (SB# 259896)
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`DAVID OKANO (SB#
`278485)
`davidokano@paulhastings.com
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: 1(650) 320-1900
`
`CHAD J. PETERMAN (Pro Hac Vice)
`chadpeterman@paulhastings.com
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Telephone: (212) 319-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`THOMAS ZACCARO (SB# 183241)
`thomaszaccaro@paulhastings.com
`515 South Flower Street
`Twenty-Fifth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone: (213) 683-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 996-3146
`
`Attorney for Defendant Snap Inc.
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-14-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0014
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:2149
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`DATED: February 14, 2019
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /s/ Mathew J. Brigham
`COOLEY LLP
` Matthew J. Brigham (191428)
`
` HEIDI L. KEEFE (178960)
` (hkeefe@cooley.com)
` MARK R. WEINSTEIN (193043)
` (mweinstein@cooley.com)
` MATTHEW J. BRIGHAM (191428)
` (mbrigham@cooley.com)
` LOWELL D. MEAD (223989)
` (lmead@cooley.com)
` 3175 Hanover Street
` Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
` Telephone: (650) 843-5000
` Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
`
`COOLEY LLP
` MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
` (rhodesmg@cooley.com)
` 101 California Street
` 5th Floor
` San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
` Telephone: (415) 693-2000
` Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Facebook, Inc.,
`WhatsApp Inc., Instagram, Inc., and
`Instagram LLC
`
`
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-15-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0015
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 110 Filed 02/14/19 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:2150
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION
`
`In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-4.3.4(a)(2)(i), I attest that all other
`
`signatories listed, and on whose behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s
`
`content and have authorized the filing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /s/ James R. Asperger
`James R. Asperger
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-02693 GW(KSx)
`-16-
`2:18-cv-01844 GW(KSx)
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Snap Inc. Ex. 1014 Page 0016
`
`