From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Counsel,
`
`Jun Zheng <Jun_Zheng@txwd.uscourts.gov>
`Friday, August 20, 2021 9:04 AM
`Luke Nelson; Daniel Hipskind
`Dorian Berger; Erin McCracken; Elizabeth DeRieux; Heidi Peterson; Emerson, Russ;
`Sivinski, Stephanie; Fox, Caroline; Anthony Garza; John Heuton; Steven Callahan; Chris
`Bovenkamp
`RE: Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00175-ADA and
`Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00261-ADA - Request for
`Telephone Conference
`
`In the Court’s previous email, the Court intended the 1-week extension for Markman hearing to be added to the 4-week
`extension for preliminary invalidity contentions – that is, a total 5 weeks of extension for the Markman hearing. Thus,
`the Markman hearing will be scheduled for January 12, 2022.
`
`-Jun
`
`Jun Zheng
`Law Clerk to the Honorable Alan D Albright
`United States District Court, Western District of Texas
`
`From: Luke Nelson <lnelson@ccrglaw.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 8:38 AM
`To: Jun Zheng <Jun_Zheng@txwd.uscourts.gov>; Daniel Hipskind <dph@bergerhipskind.com>
`Cc: Dorian Berger <dsb@bergerhipskind.com>; Erin McCracken <eem@bergerhipskind.com>; Elizabeth DeRieux
`<ederieux@capshawlaw.com>; Heidi Peterson <hpeterson@capshawlaw.com>; Emerson, Russ
`<Russ.Emerson@haynesboone.com>; Sivinski, Stephanie <Stephanie.Sivinski@haynesboone.com>; Fox, Caroline
`<Caroline.Fox@haynesboone.com>; agarza_ccrglaw.com <agarza@ccrglaw.com>; John Heuton
`<jheuton@ccrglaw.com>; Steven Callahan <scallahan@ccrglaw.com>; Chris Bovenkamp <cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00175-ADA and Sable Networks, Inc., et
`al. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00261-ADA - Request for Telephone Conference
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
`
`Mr. Zheng,
`
`Thank you for your email. The parties have begun to meet and confer to submit a proposed scheduling order, but have
`not yet reached agreement as each side is reading the Court’s email differently regarding the Markman timeline. The
`parties respectfully request clarification as to whether the Court instructs the proposed schedule be based on a
`Markman hearing date of December 15, 2021 or January 12, 2022. Once this date is decided, the parties believe they
`will be able to reach agreement on the remaining proposed schedule. The parties’ respective positions on
`the Markman hearing date are set forth briefly below.
`
`Summary of Issue
`
`Plaintiffs’ Requested
`Relief
`
`Defendants’
`Requested Relief
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1033 page 1
`
`

`

`Plaintiffs respectfully
`request the Court deny
`Defendants' request
`that the Court
`reconsider its August 16
`Email Order providing
`for a one-week
`extension of
`the Markman Hearing
`date, which would set a
`December 15,
`2021 Markman Hearing.
`
`The parties will
`submit a proposed
`schedule based on
`a Markman date of
`January 12, 2022 (i.e.,
`a 5-week total
`extension of the
`Markman hearing
`based on the 4-week
`extension for
`preliminary invalidity
`contentions and
`related production
`and the additional 1-
`week extension for
`the Markman hearing
`following Plaintiffs’
`claim reduction).
`
`Whether the Court instructs the proposed schedule be
`based on a Markman hearing date of December 15,
`2021 or January 12, 2022.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement: Defendants' suggestion that there
`is a misunderstanding of the Court's August 16 Email
`Order is a transparent request for reconsideration
`without a change in any facts or law. Defendants
`requested two departures from the Court's Default
`Schedule: (1) an eight-week extension on their invalidity
`contention deadlines, and (2) a 12-week extension of
`the Markman Hearing date. Plaintiffs opposed both
`requests. The Court granted a four-week extension on
`Defendants' invalidity contentions and a one-week
`extension of the Markman Hearing date. The Default
`Schedule provided for a Markman Hearing date of
`December 8, 2021; therefore, incorporating the Court's
`one-week extension from the August 16 Email Order,
`the Markman Hearing date for this case should be
`December 15, 2021.
`
`Consistent with the Court's FAQs, Plaintiffs' have already
`agreed with Defendants to limit the number of asserted
`claims to 45 claims per case one week after Defendants
`provide invalidity contentions. As mentioned earlier,
`Plaintiffs are concerned that Defendants' repeated
`posturing with respect to the case schedule is motivated
`by the Fintiv factors regarding discretionary denial by
`the PTAB and how the Court's schedule will affect
`Defendant Cloudflare's pending IPR petitions rather than
`genuine concern about the Parties' ability to present the
`merits of this case.
`
`Defendants’ Statement: Defendants respectfully read
`the Court’s email as extending the date of
`the Markman hearing by a total of 5 weeks consistent
`with the two-fold manner Defendants
`requested, i.e. extension of the preliminary invalidity
`contentions/related production deadline and
`additionally of the Markman date, once Plaintiffs narrow
`the asserted claims. Plaintiffs’ interpretation, in effect, is
`that the Court extended the preliminary invalidity
`contentions/related production deadline by four weeks
`and then moved Markman backwards by three weeks
`relative to the default schedule as extended. That is, if
`the 1-week extension of Markman is not additional to
`the earlier 4-week extension, the net effect would be
`to shorten the time for the parties to brief and prepare
`for Markman (contra the Court’s FAQ guidance),
`because Plaintiffs are unwilling to reduce their 113 total
`asserted claims down to 45-90 claims for Markman (45
`claims in each case) until after preliminary invalidity
`
`2
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1033 page 2
`
`

`

`contentions. Plaintiffs’ position would create undue
`burden and inefficiency, for example in that Plaintiffs
`currently propose the parties exchange claim terms and
`prepare proposed constructions before Plaintiffs reduce
`their asserted claims from 113 claims to 45-90 claims.
`
` Best regards,
`
`Luke Nelson
`
`Luke Nelson
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`lnelson@ccrglaw.com | 469.587.7261
`ccrglaw.com | 3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460 Dallas, TX 75219
`
`From: Jun Zheng <Jun_Zheng@txwd.uscourts.gov>
`Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 1:28 PM
`To: Daniel Hipskind <dph@bergerhipskind.com>; Luke Nelson <lnelson@ccrglaw.com>
`Cc: Dorian Berger <dsb@bergerhipskind.com>; Erin McCracken <eem@bergerhipskind.com>; Elizabeth DeRieux
`<ederieux@capshawlaw.com>; Heidi Peterson <hpeterson@capshawlaw.com>; Emerson, Russ
`<Russ.Emerson@haynesboone.com>; Sivinski, Stephanie <Stephanie.Sivinski@haynesboone.com>; Fox, Caroline
`<Caroline.Fox@haynesboone.com>; Anthony Garza <agarza@ccrglaw.com>; John Heuton <jheuton@ccrglaw.com>;
`Steven Callahan <scallahan@ccrglaw.com>; Chris Bovenkamp <cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00175-ADA and Sable Networks, Inc., et
`al. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00261-ADA - Request for Telephone Conference
`
`Counsel,
`
`Given that the plaintiff has asserted over 100 claims, the Court will allow a 4-week extension for preliminary invalidity
`contentions and related production. The Court will also allow a 1-week extension for the Markman hearing date. Please
`meet and confer and submit a proposed scheduling order according to these extensions.
`
`-Jun
`
`Jun Zheng
`Law Clerk to the Honorable Alan D Albright
`United States District Court, Western District of Texas
`
`From: Daniel Hipskind <dph@bergerhipskind.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 12:36 PM
`To: Jun Zheng <Jun_Zheng@txwd.uscourts.gov>; Luke Nelson <lnelson@ccrglaw.com>
`Cc: Dorian Berger <dsb@bergerhipskind.com>; Erin McCracken <eem@bergerhipskind.com>; Elizabeth DeRieux
`<ederieux@capshawlaw.com>; Heidi Peterson <hpeterson@capshawlaw.com>; Emerson, Russ
`<Russ.Emerson@haynesboone.com>; Sivinski, Stephanie <Stephanie.Sivinski@haynesboone.com>; Fox, Caroline
`<Caroline.Fox@haynesboone.com>; agarza_ccrglaw.com <agarza@ccrglaw.com>; John Heuton
`<jheuton@ccrglaw.com>; Steven Callahan <scallahan@ccrglaw.com>; Chris Bovenkamp <cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00175-ADA and Sable Networks, Inc., et
`al. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00261-ADA - Request for Telephone Conference
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
`
`3
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1033 page 3
`
`

`

`Mr. Zheng,
`
`Thank you for your email. Please find below a table summarizing the Parties’ issues and the requested relief.
`
`Plaintiffs’
`Requested Relief
`Plaintiffs
`respectfully request
`the Court enter
`Plaintiffs’ Proposed
`Schedule attached
`as Exhibit B to the
`Parties’ Joint
`Motion.
`
`Defendants’
`Requested Relief
`Defendants
`respectfully request
`the Court enter
`Defendants’
`Proposed Schedule
`attached as Exhibit
`C to the Motion.
`
`Summary of Issue
`
`The Parties have presented competing proposed case
`schedules. See Case No. 21-cv-175, Dkt. 16; Case No. 21-
`cv-261, Dkt. 23 (“Joint Motion”). The Parties’ positions
`are explained fully in the Joint Motion.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Statement: (1) Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule
`incorporates the Court’s Default Schedule from the
`Order Governing Proceedings; (2) Defendants seek
`significant departures from the Court’s Default
`Schedule—15 weeks to serve invalidity contentions
`(instead of the standard 7) and a further 4 week
`extension to the Court’s standard Markman Hearing; (3)
`this case is no more complex than those routinely
`handled by this Court; (4) Plaintiffs have already agreed
`to reduce the number of asserted claims in each case to
`45 or fewer before the Markman exchanges begin; and
`(5) Plaintiffs are concerned Defendants’ proposed
`departures to the Court’s default Scheduling Order are
`actually motivated by the schedule of pending Inter
`Partes Review petitions rather than a good-faith need
`for more time here.
`
`Defendants’ Statement:
`
`Defendants submit that there are two main issues in
`dispute:
`
`First issue: Defendants request an 8-week extension (to
`October 13, 2021) of the deadline for preliminary
`invalidity contentions and related production.
`
`Basis: Plaintiffs currently assert 113 total patent claims
`in the two actions (6 asserted patents total; 110
`asserted patent claims in case no. 21-175 against
`Riverbed, 90 patent claims in case no. 21-261 against
`Cloudflare, and 87 claims overlapping between the two
`cases). (The Motion recites 121 total asserted claims;
`Plaintiffs dropped 8 claims against both Defendants on
`August 12, 2021).
`
`Defendants’ position is that Plaintiffs’ proposed deadline
`of August 18, 2021 (the Court’s default timing, 7 weeks
`
`4
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1033 page 4
`
`

`

`after the CMC date) is unduly burdensome given the
`large number of patents and asserted claims, and fails to
`take into account this Court’s past guidance. E.g.,
`Onstream Media Corp. v. Facebook Inc., No. 1:20-CV-
`00214-ADA (W.D. Tex. June 30, 2020) (ECF No. 34 at 5-6
`(hearing transcript) (“I’m going to make sure that I
`adjust the schedule to make sure that the defendant has
`a sufficient amount of time to do everything that it
`needs to do in terms of invalidity contentions . . . . If it’s
`90 claims, all those seem to kind of exponentially ramp
`up the amount of work that a defendant would have to
`do and I want to – I’m very conscious of that additional
`work.”)).
`
`Second issue: Defendants respectfully request a further
`4-week extension (to March 2, 2022) of the Markman
`timeline.
`
`Basis: Plaintiffs have agreed to reduce, at a future date,
`the number of asserted claims to 45 claims per case—
`i.e., between 45 and 90 total asserted patent claims for
`Markman. Defendants’ position is that a modest
`extension of the Markman timeline is needed in order
`for the parties to have time to properly consider, confer,
`and attempt to narrow and brief claim-construction
`issues after Plaintiffs reduce the number of asserted
`claims (particularly in light of the Court’s presumed limit
`of 12 claim terms at Markman, on the 6 total patents at
`issue here).
`
`Remaining dates: Defendants propose other pre-
`Markman dates based on the above-requested 12-week
`total extension of Markman (not “nearly five months,”
`as Plaintiffs assert in the Motion at 4), and Defendants
`propose a Markman-to-trial timeline consistent with the
`Court’s default Markman-to-trial interval (i.e., trial at 52
`weeks after Markman).
`
`Best regards,
`
`Dan Hipskind
`
`From: Jun Zheng <Jun_Zheng@txwd.uscourts.gov>
`Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 5:18 PM
`To: Luke Nelson <lnelson@ccrglaw.com>
`Cc: Daniel Hipskind <dph@bergerhipskind.com>; Dorian Berger <dsb@bergerhipskind.com>; Erin McCracken
`<eem@bergerhipskind.com>; Elizabeth DeRieux <ederieux@capshawlaw.com>; Heidi Peterson
`<hpeterson@capshawlaw.com>; Emerson, Russ <Russ.Emerson@haynesboone.com>; Sivinski, Stephanie
`<Stephanie.Sivinski@haynesboone.com>; Fox, Caroline <Caroline.Fox@haynesboone.com>; agarza_ccrglaw.com
`<agarza@ccrglaw.com>; John Heuton <jheuton@ccrglaw.com>; Steven Callahan <scallahan@ccrglaw.com>; Chris
`5
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1033 page 5
`
`

`

`Bovenkamp <cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com>
`Subject: RE: Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00175-ADA and Sable Networks, Inc., et
`al. v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00261-ADA - Request for Telephone Conference
`
`Counsel,
`
`My apologies for the delayed response. Pursuant to the Court general requirements for requesting telephonic
`conferences, please submit a chart that summarizes the issue(s) in dispute along with the parties’ respective
`positions and specific relief requested and the Court will assess whether a conference will be necessary.
`
`-Jun
`
`Jun Zheng
`Law Clerk to the Honorable Alan D Albright
`United States District Court, Western District of Texas
`
`From: Luke Nelson <lnelson@ccrglaw.com>
`Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 5:41 PM
`To: TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright <TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright@txwd.uscourts.gov>
`Cc: Daniel Hipskind <dph@bergerhipskind.com>; Dorian Berger <dsb@bergerhipskind.com>; Erin McCracken
`<eem@bergerhipskind.com>; Elizabeth DeRieux <ederieux@capshawlaw.com>; Heidi Peterson
`<hpeterson@capshawlaw.com>; Emerson, Russ <Russ.Emerson@haynesboone.com>; Sivinski, Stephanie
`<Stephanie.Sivinski@haynesboone.com>; Fox, Caroline <Caroline.Fox@haynesboone.com>; agarza_ccrglaw.com
`<agarza@ccrglaw.com>; John Heuton <jheuton@ccrglaw.com>; Steven Callahan <scallahan@ccrglaw.com>; Chris
`Bovenkamp <cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com>
`Subject: Sable Networks, Inc., et al. v. Riverbed Technology, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00175-ADA and Sable Networks, Inc., et al.
`v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00261-ADA - Request for Telephone Conference
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
`
`To the Honorable Court:
`
`Defendants Cloudflare, Inc. (case no. 21-261) and Riverbed Technology, Inc. (case no. 21-175) (collectively with
`Cloudflare, Inc., “Defendants”) respectfully request a telephone hearing on the Joint Motion for Entry of Scheduling
`Order (the “Motion”) submitted July 14, 2021 in each of these related actions (ECF no. 16 in case no. 21-175; ECF no. 23
`in case no. 21-261). Plaintiffs Sable Networks, Inc. and Sable IP, LLC state that they do not believe a hearing is necessary,
`but do not oppose a telephonic hearing if the Court believes one will be helpful.
`
`The Motion sets forth the parties’ respective scheduling proposals and positions. Defendants request a telephone
`hearing at this time because a disputed deadline is approaching on August 18, 2021.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Luke Nelson
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`lnelson@ccrglaw.com | 469.587.7261
`ccrglaw.com | 3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460 Dallas, TX 75219
`
`6
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1033 page 6
`
`

`

`CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
`attachments or clicking on links.
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
`attachments or clicking on links.
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening
`attachments or clicking on links.
`
`7
`
`Cloudflare - Exhibit 1033 page 7
`
`