Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 166 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:7795
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`Case No. CV 18-1844-GW(KSx)
`CV 18-2693-GW(KSx)
`BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al
`BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc.
`
`Title
`
`Date April 22, 2019
`
`Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`Javier Gonzalez
`Katie E. Thibodeaux
`Tape No.
`Deputy Clerk
`Court Reporter / Recorder
`Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
`Attorneys Present for Defendants:
`James R. Asperger
`Heidi L. Keefe - Facebook
`Patrick Schmidt
`Matthew J. Brigham
`Dena Chen
`Yar R. Chaikovsky - Snap, Inc.
`Chad J. Peterman
`David Beckwith
`
`PROCEEDINGS:
`
`STATUS CONFERENCE
`
`The Court’s Initial Thoughts regarding Joint Report is circulated and attached hereto. Counsel are to file
`a joint report by May 6, 2019.
`
`Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review [161], set for hearing on May 16, 2019, is
`continued to May 20, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.
`
`CV-90 (06/04)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`Initials of Preparer
`
`JG
`
`:
`
`05
`
`BlackBerry Ex. 2002, Page 1
`Facebook v. BlackBerry, IPR2019-00942
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS Document 166 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:7796
` 
`
`BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-(KSx) (Lead Case)
`BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-(KSx)
`Initial Thoughts regarding Joint Report
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Joint Report (Docket No. 158), Defendants request that the Court stay the matter
`pending inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`(“PTAB”). Defendants note that many IPR petitions have been filed. Defendants have
`now filed a Motion to Stay (Docket No. 161), which is currently set for May 16. The Court
`notes, however, that it is this Court’s practice to deny motions to stay until after the PTAB
`has made a decision regarding whether it will actually institute an IPR; and it may also
`deny the stay even if an IPR has been granted if the issues raised in the IPR would not
`strongly impact the litigation or if a party has dallied in filing the IPR request.
` Defendants express some concerns about the numerous asserted claims and prior art
`invalidity grounds currently at issue in these cases. Case narrowing procedures were
`previously adopted during a status conference. See Docket No. 84. Those procedures
`require the parties to continue narrowing the asserted claims and prior art grounds in
`dispute 28 days after the claim construction determination.
` Defendants have filed an Application for an Order for the Issuance of Letters of Request
`for International Judicial Assistance. See Docket No. 164. The Court would require
`Plaintiff to respond to that application. However, the Court would note that as to certain
`countries (e.g. China), their responses to such requests often take an inordinate amount of
`time with little to no assurance that the requests will be acted upon. Therefore, if the Court
`would grant the application, it would only be with a deadline consistent with the scheduling
`that the Court would adopt as referenced in the following paragraph.1
` Defendants request that dates be specifically incorporated into a case schedule for filing
`early dispositive motions on issues related to § 101 and § 112. Defendants do not propose
`a schedule for all dates in this matter up to and including trial, and instead propose that
`those dates be set after a determination is made on: 1) Defendants’ request for a stay; and
`2) Defendants’ contemplated dispositive motions. The Court prefers to set a trial date now,
`and finds Plaintiff’s proposal reasonable (particularly when no alternative proposal has
`been submitted by Defendants), except that Plaintiff fails to consider the issue of
`Defendants’ request of letters rogatory. To the extent Defendants seek to file early
`summary judgment motions, they may do so at any time up to and including the date set
`for Last Day to File Motions. If Defendants would like their disputes on these issues
`resolved early, they should raise them as soon as possible, but consistent with the
`applicable rules.
`
` 
`
`                                                            
`1 It would be noted that Case No. CV-18-1844 has been pending since March 6, 2018.
`
` 
`
`BlackBerry Ex. 2002, Page 2
`Facebook v. BlackBerry, IPR2019-00942
`
`