`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`MOLO DESIGN LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`CHANEL, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`No. 1:21-cv-01578 (VEC)
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF MOLO DESIGN LTD.’S NOTICE
`REGARDING CHANEL’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION POSITIONS
`
`On September 24, 2021, Plaintiff Molo Design, Ltd. (“Molo”) and Defendant Chanel, Inc.
`
`(“Chanel”) submitted a Joint Disputed Claim Terms Chart pursuant to Local Patent Rule (“LPR”)
`
`11, which identified a number of patent claim terms for construction. Dkt. 38. Molo subsequently
`
`filed its Opening Claim Construction Brief pursuant to LPR 12(a) on October 25, 2021 (Dkt. 41),
`
`Chanel filed its Claim Construction Brief pursuant to LPR 12(b) on November 30, 2021 (Dkt. 43),
`
`and Molo filed its Reply Claim Construction Brief pursuant to LPR 12(c) on December 9, 2021
`
`(Dkt. 45). In connection with the parties’ claim construction briefs, Molo respectfully requests
`
`that the Court consider Chanel’s petitions for inter partes review (“IPR petitions”), which were
`
`recently filed with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on February 4, 2022. The
`
`IPR petitions are attached to Chanel’s pending Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review. See
`
`Dkt. 48-1, Dkt. 48-2, Dkt. 48-3, and Dkt. 48-4.
`
`During the claim construction proceedings in this case, Chanel has taken the position that
`
`multiple claim terms require construction by the Court. See, e.g., Dkt. 38; Dkt. 41. Critically,
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2003
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 51 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`however, in each of its recent IPR petitions, Chanel directly contradicted its previous claim
`
`construction positions and unequivocally stated that the PTAB “need not construe any terms in
`
`order to resolve the underlying controversy.” Dkt. 48-1 at 25; Dkt. 48-2 at 22; Dkt. 48-3 at 22-
`
`23; Dkt. 48-4 at 22 (emphasis added).
`
`Molo respectfully submits that the IPR petitions bear on Chanel’s argument that this Court
`
`should construe the claim terms identified in the Joint Disputed Claim Terms chart and the parties’
`
`claim construction briefs. Given Chanel’s clear and unequivocal acknowledgement to the PTAB
`
`that none of the claim terms require construction, Molo asserts that additional claim construction
`
`activities are not needed, and respectfully submits that it is appropriate for the Court to issue a
`
`claim construction order stating that no further claim construction is necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 18, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BRACEWELL LLP
`
`
`/s/ Conor Civins
`
`Conor Civins (pro hac vice)
`BRACEWELL LLP
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 472-7800
`Fax: (800) 404-3970
`conor.civins@bracewell.com
`
`Jared Schuettenhelm (pro hac vice)
`BRACEWELL LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: (206) 204-6200
`Fax: (800) 404-3970
`jared.schuettenhelm@bracewell.com
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2003
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 51 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`David A. Shargel
`BRACEWELL LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Americas, 49th Floor
`New York, NY 10020
`Telephone: (212) 508-6154
`Fax: (800) 404-3970
`david.shargel@bracewell.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Molo Design Ltd.
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2003
`Page 3
`
`