Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 1of15PagelD#: 424
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALLDIVISION
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CoO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC,;
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”) moves to modify the Protective
`
`Order (Dkt. No. 36) to permit it to produce discovery provided by Defendants SamsungElectronics
`
`Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”) in this case in pending
`
`andrelated patent infringementactionsalso before this Court.!-* Cobblestone has already received
`
`technical discovery from Samsung and anticipates receiving additional technical discovery from
`
`' The pending andrelated patent infringement actions are Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile
`USA, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T
`Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corp., Case No. 2:22-cv-00474-JRG-RSP (E.D.
`Tex.); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:22-
`cv-00478-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T
`Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP (E.D.
`Tex.); and Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Tex.) (collectively, the “Carrier Actions”).
`To ensureall interested parties have the opportunity to be heard on this issue, Plaintiff is serving
`this motion on the Samsung defendants in this case as well as the defendants from the Carrier
`Actions.
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00001
`Ex. 1238.00001
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 2 of 15 PagelD #: 425
`
`Samsung in this case that will be relevant to the Carrier Actions, in which the same patents are
`
`asserted.
`
`As is commonin patent cases, the parties in this case agreed to a protective order, which,
`
`among other provisions, prohibits certain information produced in this case from being used in
`
`another. Dkt. No. 36. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires “good cause” to be shown to
`
`impose or maintain limitations on access and use of discovery, and Cobblestone submits (i) good
`
`cause exists to narrowlytailor the protective order in this case such that Cobblestone be permitted
`
`to produce and rely on in the Carrier Actions the same documentary and source code discovery
`
`provided to Cobblestone by Samsungin this case and(ii) there is no good cause to maintain the
`
`blanket limitation that Cobblestone’s proposed modification would narrowlytailor.
`
`Because Samsungis not a defendantin the Carrier Actions, Cobblestone served subpoenas
`
`duces tecum and ad testificandum on Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`in those actions.
`
`Cobblestonehas also attempted to serve subpoenas duces tecum andadtestificandum on Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) but SEC’s counsel—the same counsel representing SEA—refused
`
`to accept or waive service. Given the difficulties Cobblestone has faced in obtaining discovery in
`
`the Carrier Actionsthat it already has(or will have) by way of the Samsung Action, the efficiencies
`
`in permitting Cobblestone to produce and rely on the same documentary and source code discovery
`
`provided to Cobblestone by Samsung in this Samsung Action, and the lack of harm or prejudice
`
`to Samsung, Cobblestone requests the Court modify the Protective Order entered in this case (Dkt.
`
`No. 36) to permit Cobblestone to produce materials produced by Defendants Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the co-pending and related Carrier Actions.
`
`The Carrier Actions are subject to virtually identical Protective Orders, and Cobblestone would
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00002
`Ex. 1238.00002
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 3 of 15 PagelD #: 426
`
`apply the same designationsto the materials or whatever designations Samsung chooses. Samsung
`
`has refused to agree to this requested modification andhasindicated it will oppose this motion.’
`
`1.
`
`RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Because the instant motion requests the Court modify the Protective Order in this case to
`
`permit Cobblestone to use discovery already provided (or expected to be provided) by Samsung
`
`in this case in co-pending and related patent infringementactions also before this Court, a brief
`
`summary of those co-pending and related cases is below. Specifically, Cobblestone filed
`
`complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to the
`
`following patent infringementactions asserting the samepatents at issue in this case:
`
`Collectively referred to as
`
`
`
`Case
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA,
`Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP(E.D.
`Tex.)
`(Lead Case
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Services
`Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corp.,
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00474-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No.
`2:22-cv-00478-JRG-RSP(E.D. Tex.
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No.
`2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead
`Case
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Services
`Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corp.,
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.
`
`“First Carrier Actions”
`
`“Carrier Actions”
`
`“Second Carrier
`Actions”
`
`3 Cobblestone further understands that the defendants in the Carrier Actions object to the relief
`Cobblestone seeks, because outside counsel for the Carrier Action defendants participated in the
`Local Rule CV-7(h) lead and local conference related to this motion, where they objected to
`Cobblestone’s requested relief as “unfair”. But as this Court recognized in granting a similar
`motion to modify the protective order in Maxell, Lid. v. Apple Inc., “[a] request to use relevant,
`already produced materials in a parallel proceeding is not an ‘unfair and unwarranted attempt to
`rewrite’ the protective order” as the objecting party in that case contended. Case No. 5:19-cv-
`00036-RWS(E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2021).
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00003
`Ex. 1238.00003
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 4 of 15 PagelD #: 427
`
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA,
`
`Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP(E.D.
`
`Collectively referred to as
`
`There is complete overlap between the patents asserted in this Samsung Action and the
`
`Carrier Actions:
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`Asserted In
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The First Carrier Actions
`
`The First Carrier Actions, initiated via complaints filed by Cobblestone on December 15
`
`and December 16, 2022, allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,891,347 (the “347 patent”),
`
`9,094,888 (the “’888 patent”), 10,368,361 (the “’361 patent”), and 8,554,196 (the “’196 patent’).
`
`See e.g., Complaint, Case 2:22-cv-00477, Dkt. No.
`
`1
`
`(E.D. Tex.). Those allegations of
`
`infringement stem from the carrier defendants’ “acts of infringementof Plaintiff's patents in this
`
`District by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering to sell, and selling products
`
`and/or services that infringe the asserted patents, including without limitation the tablets and
`
`phones accused of infringementin this case andcellular services offered by” defendants. Jd.
`
`(emphasis added). Because the “tablets and phones accusedofinfringement and cellular services
`
`offered by” the carrier defendants in the First Carrier Actions include Samsung mobile devices
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00004
`Ex. 1238.00004
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 5 of 15 PagelD#: 428
`
`and base stations, Cobblestone served document and deposition subpoenas on Samsung on July
`
`20, 2023 in the First Carrier Actions. Ex. 1.
`
`After serving the subpoenas on Samsungin the First Carrier Actions, Samsung’s in-house
`
`counsel emailed Cobblestone’s counsel to request “i) a courtesy extension of 14 days until 8/17/23
`
`to respond to the subpoenas, 2) a courtesy 30-day extension for any document production in
`
`response to the document subpoena until 9/13/23.” Ex. 2. Cobblestone agreed to the extensions.
`
`Samsung, however, did not serve any responses or objections to Cobblestone’s subpoena
`
`by August 17, 2023, as agreed. Two weekslater, on August 31, 2023, Cobblestone’s counsel
`
`contacted Samsung’s in-house counsel, whofinally served responses and objections on September
`
`1, 2023—two weeksafter the agreed upon deadline. Ex. 3. Samsung also did not produce any
`
`documents in response to the subpoena on or before September 13, 2023, as they had agreedto do.
`
`In fact, Samsung did not produce any documents until February 14, 2024, more than five months
`
`after it had committed to do so. But Samsung’s belated production—while appreciated—doesnot
`
`render the relief requested by this motion moot, because Samsung hasalready confirmed to
`
`Cobblestone through meet and confers that Samsung will not produce to Cobblestone in the Carrier
`
`Actions all of the discovery it has produced and will produce in this case, despite the complete
`
`overlap of Asserted Patents and Samsung Productsat issue.
`
`B.
`
`The Second Carrier Actions
`
`The Second Carrier Actions, initiated via complaints filed by Cobblestone on August 25,
`
`2023, allege infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 (the “’802 patent”). See e.g., Complaint,
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00382, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex.). Again, those allegations of infringement stem from
`3
`66
`
`defendants’
`
`“acts of infringement of Plaintiffs patents in this District by, among other things,
`
`making, using, importing, offering to sell, and selling products and/or services that infringe the
`
`asserted patents, including without limitation the tablets and phones accusedof infringementin
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00005
`Ex. 1238.00005
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 6 of 15 PagelD #: 429
`
`this case andcellular services offered by” defendants. Jd. (emphasis added). Because the “tablets
`
`and phonesaccused of infringement and cellular services offered by” defendants in the Second
`
`Carrier Actions once again includes Samsung mobile devices and base stations, Cobblestone
`
`served document and deposition subpoenas on Samsung on February 14, 2024. Ex. 4. Though
`
`Samsung’s response date to those subpoenashasnot yet passed, Samsung’s outside counsel has
`
`madeclear, including through a lead and local meet and confer and related email correspondence,
`
`that Samsung doesnot agree to produce to Cobblestone in the Carrier Actionsall of the discovery
`
`it has produced and will producein this case, despite the complete overlap of Asserted Patents and
`
`Samsung Products at issue.
`
`C.
`
`This Action Against Samsung (“Samsung Action”)
`
`Cobblestone filed the complaint giving rise to this case on June 16, 2023, alleging
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,924,802 (the “’802 Patent”), 8,554,196 (the “’196 Patent”),
`
`8,891,347 (the “’347 Patent”), 9,094,888 (the “’888 Patent”), and 10,368,361 (the “’347 Patent”).
`
`Dkt. No. 1. The patents asserted against Samsungin this case are the samepatents asserted in the
`
`Carrier Actions. The allegations of infringement stem from Samsung’s “acts of infringementin
`
`this District by, among other things, making,using, offering tosell, selling, and importing products
`
`that infringe the Asserted Patents.” Jd. at
`
`5. Specifically, the Samsung products at issue in this
`
`case include both Samsung’s “cellular base stations” and Samsung’s “mobile devices.” Jd. at J]
`
`17, 25, 33, 41. Samsungfiled its answer to the complaint on October 10, 2023. Dkt. No. 24.
`
`On November10, 2023, Samsungserved Initial Disclosures under FRCP 26(a), the Local
`
`Rules, and the Court’s Docket Control and Discovery Orders. Dkt. No. 34. In those Initial
`
`Disclosures, Samsung confirmed that the following “documents, data compilations, and tangible
`
`things” are “in Samsung’s possession, custody, or control...” Ex. 5.
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00006
`Ex. 1238.00006
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 7 of 15 PagelD #: 430
`
`e
`
`e
`
`e
`
`e
`
`limited to,
`including, but not
`“Documents relating to the accused products,
`documents concerning the design, development, and manufacturing of said
`products”
`
`“Source code for the accused products”
`
`“Documents relating to the sales and marketing of the accused products”
`
`“Documents relating to ETSI, 3GPP standards issued by or considered by ETSI,
`IPR policies adopted by ETSI, and development of various 3GPP standards”
`
`Id. Samsung further represented that “[a]ll such documents are located at Samsungoffices or at
`
`the offices of Samsung’s counsel in this matter, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.”Jd.
`
`Also on November 10, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Motion For Entry of Disputed
`
`Protective Order, Dkt. No. 32, and the Court entered the Protective Order on December 1, 2023.
`
`Dkt. No. 36.
`
`On December27, 2023, Samsung served its Patent Rule 3-3 and 3-4 Invalidity Contentions
`
`and represented that “Samsung is concurrently producing and/or making available for inspection
`
`source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation
`
`sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements for the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`identified by Cobblestone in its P.R. 3-1(c) chart.” Ex. 6. Concurrent with that disclosure, Samsung
`
`produced documents Bates-numbered SEA-COBB-0000001 through SEA-COBB-0110993 and
`
`SEC-COBB-0000001 through SEC-COBB-0254561, the majority of which Samsung designated
`
`as “Restricted — Attorney’s Eyes Only” under the Protective Order. Samsunghasstill not yet made
`
`any source code available for review or inspection.
`
`Il.
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“The court enjoys broad discretion in entering and modifying [a protective] order.”
`
`Raytheon v. Indigo Sys. Corp., No. 4:07-cv-109, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18,
`
`2008). This Court has recognized that “protective orders should generally be modified to allow
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00007
`Ex. 1238.00007
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 8 of 15 PagelD #: 431
`
`discovery in other actions.” Team Worldwide Corp. v. Walmart Inc., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00235,
`
`(E.D. Tex Jan. 24, 2019) (quoting Stack v. Gamill, 796 F.2d 65, 68 (Sth Cir. 1986)).
`
`Generally, “[i]n deciding whether to modify a stipulated protective order at the behest of a
`
`party that originally agreed to the order for reasonsrelated 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 the issuance ofthe order, of the modification requested, (3) the parties'
`
`reliance on the order, and most significantly (4) whether good cause exists for modification.” Jd.
`
`This Court has also recognized that the “typical factors assessed by a court when deciding
`
`whether to modify a protective order are therefore not as salient in a case... where it appears that
`
`the protected information will in fact remain protected.” Infernal Technology, LLC, v. Electronics
`
`Arts Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01523-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017).
`
`TI.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The relief sought herein is simple—modification of the protective order to permit
`
`Cobblestone to use discovery produced by Samsung in this case in the co-pending and related
`
`Carrier Actions. Specifically, as set forth in the Proposed Order being filed herewith, Cobblestone
`
`requests that the Protective Order be modified to include the following paragraph:
`
`37. Documentary discovery and source code discovery produced or made available
`by Samsungin this case may be produced by Cobblestone in Cobblestone Wireless,
`LLC vy. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead
`Case) and Cobblestone Wireless, LLC vy. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead Case) with the
`same Bates numberand confidentiality designations.
`
`Because the information Cobblestone seeks to use in the Carrier Actions will remain
`
`protected by the protective orders already issued by this same Court in those cases, the Court need
`
`not even evaluate the “typical factors” in granting Cobblestone’s motion. See Infernal Technology,
`
`LIC, v. Electronics Arts Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01523-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017). But
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00008
`Ex. 1238.00008
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 9 of 15 PagelD #: 432
`
`even if such an evaluation of the typical factors were necessary, it favors granting the instant
`
`motion to modify the Protective Order as Cobblestone requests.
`
`A.
`
`The Nature Of The Current Protective Order
`
`Underthe current Protective Order, materials designated confidential may only be used in
`
`this case, and not for any other purpose. See Dkt. No. 36 at 8. That is why Cobblestone, through
`
`this motion, asks the Court to modify the Protective Order so that Cobblestone may use materials
`
`produced by Samsung and designated confidential in this case in the co-pending andrelated Carrier
`
`Actions, and subject to virtually identical Protective Orders. Compare Ex. 7 (First Carrier Actions
`
`Protective Order) with Dkt. No. 36; compare Ex. 8 (Second Carrier Actions Protective Order) with
`
`Dkt. No. 36. Thus, the scope and breadth of the requested modified Protective Order would protect
`
`Samsung’s documents and information just as forcefully as the current Protective Order, and this
`
`factor thus weighsin favor of granting Cobblestone’s motion. Cf Maxell, Lid. v. Apple Inc., Case
`
`No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS(E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2021) (granting plaintiffs motion to amend the
`
`protective order to “allow [plaintiff's] narrowly tailored use of [defendant and third-party’s]
`
`previously produced materials.”’)
`
`The Foreseeability, At The Time Of The Issuance Of The Order, Of The
`B.
`Modification Requested
`
`The Protective Order, entered by this Court on December1, 2023, Dkt. No. 36, was based
`
`on a joint motion filed Cobblestone and Samsung on November10, 2023. Dkt. No. 32. At the time
`
`Cobblestone joined the motion for the current Protective Order on November 10, 2023, it could
`
`not have known that Samsung would refuse to agree to a cross-use betweenthis case andthe related
`
`Carrier Actions and that Samsung would refuse to provide, in the Carrier Actions, the same
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00009
`Ex. 1238.00009
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 10 of 15 PagelD #: 433
`
`discovery it was providing in this case.* Rather, Cobblestone had been communicating directly
`
`with Samsung’s in-house counsel about the subpoenasin the Carrier Actions for four months when
`
`Cobblestone and Samsung(via outside counsel) filed the joint motion for the current Protective
`
`Orderin this case, and Cobblestone understood from those communications that Samsung would
`
`be providing the documents requested by Cobblestone’s subpoena promptly. See Ex. 2.
`
`It was not until after the Protective Order issued in this Action that Samsung’s in-house
`
`counsel abruptly stopped communicating and first referred Cobblestone to Samsung’s outside
`
`counsel (who also represents Samsung in this action) on December 11, 2023. Ex. 9. Thus,
`
`Cobblestone’s requested modification of the Protective Order was not reasonably foreseeable on
`
`December 1, 2023, when the current Protective Order was issued. “To require [a party] to have
`
`negotiated the original protective order with every possible parallel proceeding in mindis both
`
`impractical and burdensome.” Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS(E.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 27, 2021). This factor thus weighs in favor or granting Cobblestone’s motion.
`
`C.
`
`The Parties' Reliance On The Order
`
`Underthe current Protective Order, materials designated thereunder may only be used in
`
`the instant case, and not for any other purpose. See Dkt. No. 36 at § 8. Again, that is why
`
`Cobblestone seeks the Court’s permission to modify the Protective Order entered in this case so
`
`that Cobblestone may use materials produced by Samsung and designated confidential in this case
`
`‘ Tt is also important to point out that Cobblestone’s motion is not requesting this Court compel
`Samsung to produce any specific documents, categories of document, or source code in this case
`or in the Carrier Actions (although Cobblestone reserves the right to do so later). That is not
`necessary because Samsung hasalready confirmed, via its November 10, 2023 Initial Disclosures
`in this case, that the relevant “documents, data compilations, and tangible things”are already “in
`Samsung’s possession, custody, or control...” and “[a]ll such documents are located at Samsung
`offices or at the offices of Samsung’s counsel in this matter, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
`LLP.”Id.
`
`10
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00010
`Ex. 1238.00010
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 11 of 15 PagelD #: 434
`
`in the co-pending and related Carrier Actions, and subject to virtually identical Protective Orders.
`
`Compare Ex. 7 (First Carrier Actions Protective Order) with Dkt. No. 36; compare Ex. 8 (Second
`
`Carrier Actions Protective Order) with Dkt. No. 36. Those protective orders, like the Protective
`
`Order in this case, protect all “DESIGNATED MATERIALS”and only permit their use in the
`
`specific cases in which they are produced. See Ex. 7 (First Carrier Actions Protective Order) at
`
`9; Ex. 8 (Second Carrier Actions Protective Order) at § 9. Moreover, the protective orders in the
`
`Carrier Actions
`
`contain the
`
`same
`
`three
`
`levels of designation—‘CONFIDENTIAL,”
`
`“RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” and “RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL
`
`SOURCE CODE”—asthe Protective Orderin this case. See Ex. 7 (First Carrier Actions Protective
`
`Order) at § 1; Ex. 8 (Second Carrier Actions Protective Order) at § 1; Dkt. No. 36 at §1.
`
`Thus,
`
`the Carrier Actions’ protective orders will protect Samsung’s documents and
`
`information just as forcefully as the current Protective Order, and this factor weighs in favor of
`
`granting Cobblestone’s motion. Thisis particularly relevant because this Court has recognized that
`
`the “typical factors assessed by a court when deciding whether to modify a protective order are
`
`therefore not as salient in a case... where it appears that the protected information will in fact
`
`remain protected.” Infernal Technology, LLC, v. Electronics Arts Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01523-
`
`JRG-RSP(E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017).
`
`D.
`
`Whether Good Cause Exists For Modification
`
`Lastly, good cause exists to grant Cobblestone’s motion and to modify the existing
`
`Protective Order to permit Cobblestone to produce the discovery provided by Samsungin this case
`
`in the Carrier Actions, subject to the same confidentiality designations. Good cause exists because
`
`the patents asserted in this case against Samsung are the samepatents asserted against the carrier
`
`defendants in the Carrier Actions. Good cause further exists because the Samsung mobile devices
`
`and basestationsat issue in this case are the same Samsung products at issue in the Carrier Actions.
`
`i
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00011
`Ex. 1238.00011
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 12 of 15 PagelD #: 435
`
`Modification of the Protective Order to allow Cobblestone to use in the Carrier Actions the
`
`discovery produced by Samsung in this case and designated confidential will ensure a complete
`
`record in all of the cases and lessen the burden onall parties and the courts by reducing, if not
`
`eliminating, discovery disputes related to Samsung’s (non)compliance with the subpoenas in the
`
`Carrier Actions. See Team Worldwide Corp. v. WalmartInc., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00235, (E.D. Tex
`
`Jan. 24, 2019) (granting as modified a motion to amend the protective order and noting that
`
`“protective orders should generally be modified to allow discovery in other actions.”) This factor
`
`thus weighsin favor of granting Cobblestone’s motion.
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Asset forth above, and in the interests of justice, the Court should grant Cobblestone’s
`
`motion and modify the Protective Order to allow Cobblestone to produce materials produced by
`
`Samsung and designated confidential pursuant to this Court’s Protective Order in the co-pending
`
`and related Carrier Actions. Specifically, as set forth in the Proposed Order being filed herewith,
`
`Cobblestone requests that the Protective Order be modified to include the following paragraph:
`
`37. Documentary discovery and source code discovery produced or made available
`by Samsungin this case may be produced by Cobblestone in Cobblestone Wireless,
`LLC vy. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead
`Case) and Cobblestone Wireless, LLC vy. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) (Lead Case) with the
`same Bates numberand confidentiality designations.
`
`Dated: February 22, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`CA State Bar No. 246953
`Marc A.Fenster
`CA State Bar No. 181067
`Neil A. Rubin
`CA State Bar No. 250761
`
`V
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00012
`Ex. 1238.00012
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 13 of 15 PagelD #: 436
`
`Christian W. Conkle
`CA State Bar No. 306374
`Jonathan Ma
`CA State Bar No. 312773
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Telephone: 310-826-7474
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Email: nrubin@raklaw.com
`Email: cconkle@raklaw.com
`Email: jma@raklaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC
`
`13
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00013
`Ex. 1238.00013
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 14 of 15 PagelD #: 437
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consentedto electronic
`
`service are being served this 22nd day of February, 2024, with a copy of this documentvia the
`
`Court’s CM/ECFsystem per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served
`
`by electronic mail on this samedate.
`
`Further, as noted above, counsel of record in the following co-pending actions are also
`
`being served by electronic mail on this same date: Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA,
`
`Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP(E.D. Tex.); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Services
`
`Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corp., Case No. 2:22-cv-00474-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.);
`
`Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:22-cv-
`
`00478-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`
`Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T
`
`Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP (E.D.
`
`Tex.); and Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP
`
`(E.D. Tex.).
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`M4
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00014
`Ex. 1238.00014
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 43 Filed 02/22/24 Page 15 of 15 PagelD #: 438
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned certifies that counsel complied with the requirements of Eastern District
`
`of Texas Local Rule CV-7(h). Lead and local met and conferred on the substance of this motion
`
`on Tuesday, February 6, 2024. Samsung opposesthe motion.
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`Is
`
`IPR2024-00137
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners’ Ex. 1238
`Petitioners' Ex. 1238
`Ex. 1238.00015
`Ex. 1238.00015
`
`