IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SAMSUNG S OPPOSITION TO
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00001
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD..........................................................................................................4
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Nature Of the Current Protective Order Weighs Against Modifying It ...........4
`
`The Requested Modification Was Foreseeable At The Time The Order
`Issued .......................................................................................................................6
`
`The Samsung Defendants Have Relied On The Current Protective Order..............9
`
`There Is No Good Cause For Modification ...........................................................11
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................14
`
`i
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00002
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
`2017 WL 772486 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017) ...........................................................4, 6, 8, 9, 11
`
`In the Matter of Certain Integrated Cirs., Mobile Devices Containing the Same, &
`Components Thereof
`USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1335 (Jan. 11, 2023)........................................................................13
`
`In the Matter of Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules &
`Components Thereof,
`USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1378 (Jan. 8, 2024)..........................................................................14
`
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless,
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP, ECF No. 49 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2023)............................3
`
`Diamond Consortium, Inc. v. Manookian,
`2017 WL 2364040 (E.D. Tex. May 31, 2017)...........................................................................9
`
`Infernal Technology, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc.,
`Case No. 2:15-cv-01523-JRG-RSP, ECF No. 133 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017).........................10
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`2021 WL 3012355 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2021)....................................................................5, 7, 8
`
`MyChoice, LLC v. Taiv, Inc.,
`2024 WL 69063 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2024)................................................................................12
`
`In re OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.,
`2021 WL 4130643 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2021) .........................................................................13
`
`Peoples v. Aldine Indep. School Dist.,
`2008 WL 2571900 (S.D. Tex. June 19, 2008) ...........................................................................5
`
`Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Sys. Corp.,
`2008 WL 4371679 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2008) ......................................................4, 5, 8, 10, 11
`
`Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Nokia Corp.,
`2009 WL 10677277 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2009) .........................................................................9
`
`Team Worldwide Corp. v. Walmart Inc., et al.,
`2019 WL 13078780 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2019)..................................................................11, 12
`
`,
`2016 WL 278968 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2016)........................................................................9, 11
`
`ii
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00003
`
`

`

`Statutes and Rules
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1781..............................................................................................................................4
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1782......................................................................................................................5, 6, 8
`
`Rule 26 .............................................................................................................................................1
`
`Rule 4(f)(3) ....................................................................................................................................13
`
`iii
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00004
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Cobblestone chose to file three separate sets of lawsuits
`
`two against certain wireless
`
`carriers, and this one against the Samsung defendants
`
`accusing the same Samsung products of
`
`infringing the same patents in the same way. Knowing it had done so, Cobblestone voluntarily
`
`agreed to a protective order in this case that did not include a cross-use provision allowing it to use
`
`discovery produced in this case in the Carrier Cases
`
`and in fact included a provision expressly
`
`forbidding cross-use of discovery produced in this case in any other case. Cobblestone now seeks
`
`to undo that decision, asking the Court to modify the protective order in this case such that
`
`discovery Samsung produces in this case can also be used in the Carrier Cases.
`
`request is improper and should be denied for failure to satisfy Rule 26 or any of the criteria courts
`
`consider when analyzing a request to modify a stipulated protective order.
`
`Indeed, as shown
`
`below, Cobblestone does not even attempt to engage with the law governing such requests.
`
`Additionally, Cobbles
`
`proposed modification would allow it to use discovery produced by
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`a Korean corporation from whom third-party discovery
`
`in the Carrier Cases is available only under the Hague Convention without following the
`
`procedures laid out in that Convention.
`
`sets of cases asserting
`
`the same patents against the same products, while bizarre and inefficient, may have been within
`
`its rights. But Cobblestone caused any perceived inefficiencies resulting from that choice. And
`
`c
`
`requested end-
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`for itself does not justify its
`
`Cobblestone brought its first set of cases against wireless carriers (what Cobblestone calls
`
`, asserting four of the five patents it now
`
`1
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00005
`
`

`

`asserts against Samsung. Mot. at 4.
`
`alleged
`
`d of infringement in this case, which Cobblestone
`
`Id. at 4-5 (emphasis removed).
`
`Cobblestone also acknowledges that it subpoenaed Samsung
`
`US subsidiary
`
`in those cases and that SEA has produced documents in response to those
`
`subpoenas. Id. at 5.
`
`Cobblestone brought what it calls the Second Carrier Actions on August 25, 2023, alleging
`
`infringement of the fifth and final patent it now asserts against the Samsung defendants. Id. Again,
`
`Cobblestone accused
`
`tablets and phones . . . includ[ing] Samsung mobile devices and base
`
`Id. at 5-6. Cobblestone again subpoenaed SEA; the response date for those subpoenas
`
`has not passed. Id. at 6. While Cobblestone faults the Samsung defendants
`
`produce to Cobblestone in the Carrier Actions all of the discovery it has produced and will produce
`
`Mot. at 6, it omits that its subpoenas in the Carrier Actions include no such request.
`
`Exs. A, B. Cobblestone also omits that the discovery it seeks from the Samsung defendants in this
`
`action is broader and materially different from the discovery it seeks from SEA for either Carrier
`
`Case subpoena. See, e.g., Ex. C (Request Nos. 18-25, 27-34, 36-62, 66-72, 74-86).
`
`Cobblestone sued the Samsung defendants on June 16, 2023. ECF No. 1. As Cobblestone
`
`[t]he patents asserted against Samsung in this case are the same patents asserted in the
`
`he accused products in this case include the same mobile devices and base
`
`stations accused in the Carrier Cases. Mot. at 6. The parties extensively negotiated a proposed
`
`protective order, and on November 10, 2023 filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Disputed Protective
`
`Order. ECF No. 32. The sole dispute was
`
`e printed
`
`Id. The undisputed portion of the Protective Order included a provision prohibiting
`
`2
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00006
`
`

`

`using designated discovery in any other action, stating
`
`[d]ocuments, information or material
`
`produced pursuant to any discovery request in this Action, including but not limited to Protected
`
`Material designated as DESIGNATED MATERIAL, shall be used by the Parties only in the
`
`litigation of this Action and shall not be used for any other purpose
`
`-1
`
`8
`
`(emphasis added). The Court entered the Protective Order, including that provision, on December
`
`1, 2023. ECF No. 36 8.
`
`Thus, Cobblestone has thus far filed three sets of lawsuits accusing the same products of
`
`infringing the same patents.
`
`to file its cases in this piecemeal manner
`
`a quagmire that potentially includes up to seven trials,
`
`three different scheduled Markman hearings, three different pre-trial conference dates, three
`
`different discovery periods, and three different rounds of potential dispositive motions before the
`
`Court
`
`the carriers moved to consolidate the Carrier Cases on December 15, 2023. See
`
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv-
`
`00382-JRG-RSP, ECF No. 49 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2023).1 Cobblestone opposed. See id., ECF
`
`No. 86 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2024).
`
`case in the Carrier Cases. Mot. at 8. SEC is a corporation headquartered in, and organized under
`
`the laws of, the Republic of Korea. ECF No. 1 2. The United States and the Republic of Korea
`
`are both signatories to the 1970 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or
`
`Commercial Matters.2
`
`1 The carriers filed the same motion in each of the carrier cases.
`2 See HCCH Members https://www.hcch.net/en/states/hcch-members (last visited Mar. 7, 2024);
`see also 28 U.S.C. § 1781.
`
`3
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00007
`
`

`

`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`In deciding whether to modify a stipulated protective order at the behest of a party that
`
`originally agreed to the order for reasons related to the private interests of the parties to the action,
`
`the court considers four factors: (1) the nature of the protective order, (2) the foreseeability, at the
`
`time of issuance of the order, of the modification requested, (3) the parties reliance on the order;
`
`Raytheon Co. v. Indigo
`
`Sys. Corp., 2008 WL 4371679, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2008) (footnote and internal quotation
`
`omitted).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Nature Of the Current Protective Order Weighs Against Modifying It
`
`Pharmaceuticals USA, 2017 WL 772486, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017) (internal quotation
`
`Allergan, Inc. v. Teva
`
`omitted). Specifically, this factor focuses
`
`protective order[]
`
`order[]
`
`et protective order[]
`
`ing by
`
`designate as protected that information that each side reasonably believes to be particularly
`
`Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2. Specific protective orders are the least prone to
`
`modification, umbrella protective orders are the most, and
`
`Id. This factor disfavors modification where the protective order is
`
`stipulated because
`
`will weigh against its motion for
`
`modification. Peoples v. Aldine Indep. School Dist., 2008 WL 2571900, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June
`
`19, 2008) (internal quotation omitted); Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2.
`
`4
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00008
`
`

`

`Here, this factor weighs against modification. The Protective Order in this case is a blanket
`
`protective order
`
`Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2; see also
`
`ECF No. 36 1. The Protective Order in this case was also stipulated, except as to one narrow
`
`provision (involving the number of source code pages a party can print) not implicated by
`
`. ECF Nos. 32, 32-1. In Raytheon, the court confronted a nearly identical
`
`situation with respect to this factor: a stipulated blanket protective order. The court there noted
`
`nature of the protective order
`
`Raytheon, 2008 WL
`
`4371679, at *2. The same result is proper here.
`
`under the proper legal standard as
`
`laid out in Raytheon. Instead, Cobblestone simply asserts that, because it claims the Carrier Cases
`
`ders . . . this factor [] weighs in favor of granting
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple
`
`Inc., 2021 WL 3012355 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2021). But Maxell was a Section 1782 opinion
`
`concerning
`
`previously-produced documents in a co-
`
`pending German litigation. Id. at *1. The court there held, after a detailed analysis of the Section
`
`1782 Intel factors (id. at *3-4), that
`
`w
`
`Id. at *4.
`
`That Section 1782 analysis (of four entirely distinct factors from those used in analyzing motions
`
`to amend protective orders) has nothing to do with the facts or legal issues here. Even setting that
`
`aside,
`
`assertion that
`
`5
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00009
`
`

`

`Protective Order prevents the Samsung
`
`materials from being used in any other case (ECF No. 36
`
`modifications would allow it to use those materials in other cases, to which the Samsung
`
`defendants are not parties, however it saw fit. Mot. at 12. That is by definition not the same level
`
`of protection. Thus, the nature of the Protective Order in this case weighs against modification.
`
`B.
`
`The Requested Modification Was Foreseeable At The Time The Order Issued
`
`Allergan, 2017 WL
`
`772486, at *5. Cobblestone admits that the Protective Order
`
`based on a j
`
`portion of the Protective Order included a provision barring use of discovery produced in this case
`
`for any purpose other than the litigation of this case. Mot. at 9; ECF No. 32-1
`
`8; ECF No. 36
`
`8. But Cobblestone asserts that
`
`have known that Samsung would refuse to agree to a cross-use between this case and the related
`
`The agreed facts here squarely rebut that assertion: the parties
`
`negotiated and stipulated to a Protective Order that expressly bans cross-use, ordering that
`
`shall be used by the Parties only in the litigation of this Action and shall not be used for any other
`
`purpose ECF No. 32-1 8; ECF No. 36 8 (emphasis added).
`
`Thus, Cobblestone not only could have known the Samsung defendants would not agree to
`
`cross-use, it did know that the Samsung defendants wanted a provision prohibiting cross-use
`
`and Cobblestone agreed to that provision.
`
`known . . . that Samsung would refuse to provide, in the Carrier Actions, the same discovery it was
`
`help its argument. Mot. at 9-10. The Samsung defendants, which are not
`
`6
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00010
`
`

`

`parties to the Carrier Cases, had (and have
`
`cases they are
`
`they are parties. That is particularly true because
`
`Cobblestone is seeking materially different discovery in this action from the Samsung defendants
`
`compared to the subpoena it served in the Carrier Cases on SEA. Cobblestone has subpoenaed
`
`SEA (the US entity) in both sets of Carrier Cases; SEA has produced responsive documents in the
`
`first set of Carrier Cases and its production is not yet due in the second. Supra at 2. Cobblestone
`
`does not meaningfully argue that
`
`productions in the Carrier Cases are deficient and, indeed,
`
`expressly states that it is not asking the Court to compel further production from the Samsung
`
`defendants in this case or the Carrier Cases. Mot. at 10 n.4. In any event, if Cobblestone took
`
`issue with the Samsung
`
`third-party productions in the Carrier Cases, the remedy would
`
`not be to circumvent the rules of discovery and allow it to use discovery from this case in those
`
`cases.
`
`Again, the only case Cobblestone cites in support of its argument on this factor is Maxell,
`
`Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 3012355 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2021). Again, that case does not support
`
`There, Maxell filed its first German case about a month after the
`
`protective order was entered. Id. at *1. When Apple raised certain non-infringement positions in
`
`the German proceedings, Maxell sought amendment of the protective order to allow it to use
`
`previously-produced materials in the German case. Id. The court
`
`after, again, a detailed analysis
`
`of the entirely distinct Section 1782 Intel factors
`
`allowed Maxwell to do so. Id. at *3-5. In the
`
`original protective order with every possible parallel proceeding in mind is both impractical and
`
`Id. at *4. Here, no one expected Cobblestone to
`
`possible parallel
`
`just the two sets of already-
`
`7
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00011
`
`

`

`pending cases in which Cobblestone accused the same products of infringing the same patents. In
`
`stark contrast to Maxell, where the parallel German case had not yet been filed when the court
`
`entered the protective order at issue, here both sets of Carrier Cases were pending when the parties
`
`negotiated the Protective Order in this case. Supra at 2. Maxell, again, does not apply to the facts
`
`before the Court here.
`
`Instead, this case is again very similar to Raytheon. There, the court phrased the
`
`foreseeability
`
`been reasonably expected to anticipate the
`
`exigency which prompted the instant
`
`Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2. With that
`
`standard in mind, the court found that the moving party which sought to gain access to
`
`confidential materials for certain in-house employees
`
`had known since the beginning of the case
`
`that those employees were accused of wrongdoing and thus that it might be useful for them to have
`
`access to discovery materials. Id. So too here: Cobblestone has known since it filed this case that
`
`it had co-pending lawsuits against the carriers in which it accused the same Samsung products of
`
`infringing the same patents, and nonetheless agreed to a provision that bans the type of cross-use
`
`it now asks the Court to allow. Supra at 2-3.
`
`to secure [its
`
`desired cross-use provision] was an oversight or a result of the balance struck between the parties
`
`regarding the competing interests addressed in the protective order, [Cobblestone] should not now
`
`be allowed to dramatically and unilaterally reposition that balance at this stage in the litigation.
`
`Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679 at *2; see also Allergan, 2017 WL 772486, at *5 (this factor weighed
`
`against modification where moving party
`
`. . . at the time [it]
`
`United States v. Ocwen Loan Serv g, LLC, 2016 WL
`
`278968, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2016) (foreseeability factor weighed against modification where
`
`8
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00012
`
`

`

`C.
`
`The Samsung Defendants Have Relied On The Current Protective Order
`
`relied on the protective order in deciding the manner in which documents would be produced in
`
`Allergan, 2017 WL 772486, at *5 (quoting
`
`, 2016 WL 278968, at
`
`*2).
`
`which the non-moving party has reasonably relied. Id. As a result, this factor weighs against
`
`modification where the non-moving party ha
`
`governing protective order
`
`Id. at
`
`*6. As Cobblestone admits, the Samsung defendants have done just that: they have produced
`
`nearly half a million pages of documents between them, and designated most of them as
`
`That alone tilts this factor against
`
`modification. Allergan, 2017 WL 772486, at *5; see also O
`
`, 2016 WL 278968,
`
`[B]ecause Defendants relied on the Protective Order when producing documents . . . the
`
`third factor weighs against modification of the Protective Order
`
`Saxon Innovations, LLC v.
`
`Nokia Corp., 2009 WL 10677277, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2009) (reliance factor weighed against
`
`-moving party] did not rely
`
`Diamond
`
`Consortium, Inc. v. Manookian, 2017 WL 2364040, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 31, 2017)
`
`factor thus weighs against modifying the protective order
`
`extent to which the party opposing the modification relied on the protective order in deciding the
`
`(quoting Raytheon, 2008 WL
`
`4371679 at *3)).
`
`Again, Cobblestone does not meaningfully engage with the law governing this factor.
`
`9
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00013
`
`

`

`Instead, Cobblestone simply declares that this factor favors modification because the protective
`
`orders in the Carrier Cases are similar to the Protective Order in this case. Mot. at 10-11. But
`
`Cobblestone does not explain why that means the Samsung defendants could not have reasonably
`
`relied on the Protective Order in this case in deciding what and how to produce in this case. And
`
`the only case Cobblestone cites in this section is Infernal Technology, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc., Case
`
`No. 2:15-cv-01523-JRG-RSP, ECF No. 133 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017), which Cobblestone cites
`
`for the proposition that the
`
`a protective order are therefore not as salient in a case . . . where it appears that the protected
`
`information will in fact remain protect
`
`Mot. at 11. But Infernal Technology is readily
`
`distinguishable. There, the moving party sought to modify the protective order
`
`material that has been designated confidential under the protective order in related inter partes
`
`Id. at 1. The Court heavily relied on the fact that the related
`
`proceedings were IPRs in granting the motion, noting that the non-
`
`about the scope of IPR discovery is one for the Patent O
`
`Id. at 2. That case
`
`has no bearing here, where the related proceeding is another district court case in which the
`
`Samsung defendants are not parties
`
`and in which discovery is available from SEC only via the
`
`Hague Convention. Cobblestone also reads the language of Infernal Technology far too broadly:
`
`if Cobblestone were right that this sort of modification is appropriate wherever the parallel
`
`proceedings also had a protective order, the effect would be to create an almost automatic cross-
`
`use provision in every case where either party wants one, even where (as here) the parties had
`
`previously agreed to a protective order that expressly forbids cross-use.
`
`Thus, the Samsung defendants
`
`weighs
`
`10
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00014
`
`

`

`D.
`
`There Is No Good Cause For Modification
`
`Allergan, 2017 WL 772486, at *6 (quoting
`
`, 2016 WL
`
`278968 at *4).
`
`s need for modification against the other
`
`party s need for protection, and ought to factor in the availability of alternatives to better achieve
`
`both sides goals.
`
`Id.
`
`[b]ecause the protective order was entered for good cause, it is the
`
`[moving part
`
`Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679
`
`at *3 (footnote omitted). Again, Cobblestone does not try to engage with the legal standard
`
`governing this factor
`
`in other words, Cobblestone does not and cannot suggest that any changed
`
`circumstances warrant its proposed modification. Instead, it simply asserts that good cause exists
`
`because the patents and products at issue in this case are the same as those at issue in the Carrier
`
`Cases, so allowing Cobblestone to use discovery from this case as though it was also produced in
`
`those cases would create efficiencies across the cases. Mot. at 11-12. But those supposed
`
`efficiencies (which Cobblestone itself rejected in favor of filing three sets of lawsuits and rejected
`
`again in opposing their consolidation) are
`
`to modify a stipulated protective order. Allergan, 2017 WL
`
`772486, at *6.
`
`Indeed, the only case Cobblestone cites as supporting its position is Team Worldwide Corp.
`
`v. Walmart Inc., et al., 2019 WL 13078780 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2019). But Team Worldwide, like
`
`Infernal Technology, concerned use of discovery from a district court case in a parallel IPR
`
`proceeding, as well as an arbitration. Id. at *1.
`
`modification to the protective order
`
`amending the Protective Order to
`
`permit the use of information produced in this matter to also be used before the PTAB does not
`
`mean that such material is discoverable (or can in fact be used) at the PTAB
`
`the
`
`11
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00015
`
`

`

`should the PTAB authorize additional discovery on any documents
`
`covered by the Protective Order . . . TWW may produce information from this litigation without
`
`.
`
`Id. at *2. Here, Cobblestone is not asking for
`
`authorization to use a relatively small number of documents (only 55 were at issue in Team
`
`Worldwide) should the Court in the Carrier Cases authorize it to do so; it is asking for blanket
`
`authority to use hundreds of thousands of pages (and eventually source code) produced in this case
`
`in other cases as it sees fit.
`
`That would be improper even if all affected parties were US-based companies. But as
`
`discussed above (supra at 3-4), SEC is a Korean corporation, and thus third-party discovery is only
`
`available from it via the Hague Convention
`
`[t]he Hague Convention procedure is
`
`MyChoice, LLC v. Taiv, Inc., 2024 WL 69063, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2024) (internal quotation omitted); see also Hague Convention, 20 U.S.T. at
`
`362 ( The present Convention shall apply in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there
`
`) (emphasis added).
`
`Cobblestone has made no effort to serve SEC via the required Hague procedures.
`
`Instead,
`
`Cobblestone, by asking the Court to allow it to use discovery taken from a Korean company in this
`
`case in other cases in which that company is not a party, seeks an end run around the Hague
`
`convenient (for Cobblestone) do not justify the relief it seeks. See Mot. at 11-12. The Federal
`
`Circuit has cautioned
`
`albeit in the context of requests for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3)
`
`doing so would be more
`
`that
`
`In re OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 2021 WL 4130643, at *3 4 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Sept. 10, 2021). The same logic should apply here, and Cobbles
`
`12
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00016
`
`

`

`mandatory requirements imposed by a treaty to which the United States is a signatory further
`
`precludes a finding of good cause.
`
`would force SEC to
`
`incur the significant time and expense of complying with Korean law governing the export of
`
`technology
`
`administers
`
`Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, commonly
`
`Lee, 2 Trade Secrets Throughout the World § 24:26 (2023).
`
`Information designated National
`
`See Seok Hee Lee, John J. Kim & Ho-Yeon
`
`Core Technology
`
`Technology Protection Committee. Id.; see also Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection
`
`of Industrial Technology, Act No. 19166, 03 Jan. 2023, Partial Amendment, Article 9-2.
`
`the ITA subject to penalties.
`
`Id. Article 14(5).
`
`from MOTIE is a violation of
`
`related to 4G and 5G technology are
`
`designated as national core technology subject to the ITA, and ITA compliance regularly takes
`
`Samsung considerable time and expense when Samsung technology is at issue in U.S. litigation.
`
`See, e.g., In the Matter of Certain Integrated Cirs., Mobile Devices Containing the Same, &
`
`Components Thereof USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1335 (Jan. 11, 2023) (granting in-part mot. to
`
`amend procedural schedule) (noting
`
`s ability to produce certain materials
`
`subject to the restrictions imposed by the Korean Ministry of Technology, Industry and Energy
`
`; In the Matter of Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules &
`
`Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1378 (Jan. 8, 2024) (adopting procedural schedule)
`
`13
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00017
`
`

`

`Indeed, Samsung is
`
`currently working through the process to secure MOTIE approval to produce documents and
`
`source code in this case. But MOTIE approval for such production would be limited to this case.
`
`additional time and expense to secure MOTIE approval to produce the relevant documents and
`
`source code in the Carrier Cases as well. This additional burden further cuts against a finding of
`
`-use provision, SEC would incur significant
`
`good cause.
`
`Ultimately, Cobblestone asks the Court to relieve it of its obligations under the Protective
`
`Order in this case, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Hague Convention, and to subject
`
`Samsung to additional burdens under the ITA all to ease the burden it imposed on itself by
`
`choosing to file three sets of cases accusing the same products of infringing the same patents.
`
`Cobblestone has failed to show good cause for its requested modification of the Protective Order.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Samsung respectfully requests that the Court deny
`
`.
`
`14
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00018
`
`

`

`Dated: March 7, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Victoria F. Maroulis
`California Bar No. 202603 (admitted in E.D. Tex.)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: 650-801-5000
`Fax: 650-801-5100
`
`Sean Pak
`California Bar No. 219032 (pro hac vice)
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`Iman Lordgooei
`California Bar No. 251320 (admitted in E.D. Tex.)
`imanlordgooei@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415-875-6600
`Fax: 415-875-6700
`
`Kevin Hardy
`D.C. Bar No. 473941 (admitted in E.D. Tex.)
`kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: 202.538.8000
`Fax: 202.538.8100
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Phone: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`
`15
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00019
`
`

`

`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`16
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00020
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on March 7, 2024, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served
`
`with a copy of the foregoing via the Court s CM/ECF system.
`
`Dated: March 7, 2024
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`17
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1233
`Ex. 1233.00021
`
`