throbber
Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 51 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket