Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 3190
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00393-RWS
`§
`
`LEAD CASE
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00394-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00396-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00397-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00871-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00872-RWS
`
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00741-RWS
`§
`
`LEAD CASE
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00858-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00859-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00860-RWS
`§ Case No. 2:16-cv-00863-RWS
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., et al,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`AVG TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`BITDEFENDER INC.,
`PIRIFORM, INC.,
`UBISOFT, INC.,
`KASPERSKY LAB, INC.,
`SQUARE ENIX, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., et al,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ADP, LLC,
`BIG FISH GAMES, INC.,
`BLACKBOARD, INC.,
`BOX, INC.,
`ZENDESK, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND
`PREHEARING STATEMENT PURSUANT TO P.R. 4-3
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3, the Court’s Docket Control Orders, and the Court’s Order of July 5
`
`(2:16-cv-00393-RWS Dkt. No. 168; 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Dkt. No. 199), Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (collectively “Uniloc”), and Consolidated Defendants ADP,
`
`LLC (“ADP”), Big Fish Games, Inc. (“Big Fish”), Bitdefender Inc. (“Bitdefender”), Blackboard,
`
`Inc. (“Blackboard”), Box, Inc. (“Box”), Kaspersky Lab, Inc. (“Kaspersky”), Piriform, Inc.
`
`(“Piriform”), Square Enix, Inc. (“Square Enix”), Ubisoft, Inc. (“Ubisoft”) and Zendesk, Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 3191
`
`(“Zendesk”) (collectively, “Defendants”), submit the parties’ Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`P.R. 4-3(a): AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`There are four patents in suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,069,293 (the “’293 patent”); 6,728,766
`
`(the “’766 patent”); 6,510,466 (the “’466 patent”); and 6,324,578 (the “’578 patent”)1
`
`(collectively “patents-in-suit”). The parties have reached agreement as to the construction of the
`
`following claim terms/phrases recited in one or more of the patents-in-suit:
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`CLAIMS
`’293 patent claims
`1, 12, 17
`
`’766 patent claims
`1, 7, 13
`
`’766 patent claims
`1, 7, 13
`
`’293 patent claims
`1, 12, 17
`’766 patent claims
`3, 9, 15
`
`’293 patent claims
`1, 12, 17
`
`TERMS AND PHRASES
`a segment configured to
`initiate registration
`operations
`license management policy
`information
`
`license management server
`
`centralized network
`management server
`on demand server
`
`target on-demand server
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION
`portion of the file packet that
`includes software to initiate
`registration operations
`a set of rules that determine whether
`users can obtain a license to use a
`particular application
`a server that determines license
`availability based on license
`management policy information
`centralized server for managing the
`network
`a server delivering applications as
`needed responsive to user requests as
`requests are received
`a server delivering applications as
`needed responsive to user requests as
`requests are received at the server,
`where those applications are
`distributed from a centralized
`network management server
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`‘466 Patent claims
`1, 15, 16
`
`
`1 Only the’466, ’578, and ’293 patents are asserted against Big Fish, Blackboard, Box, and Zendesk.
`These defendants join in this statement only with respect to the patents on which they have been sued.
`Should Uniloc later assert other patents against any of these defendants, they may seek to address claim
`construction regarding the added patents at an appropriate time.
`2
`
`installing a plurality of
`application programs at the
`server
`
`7.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3192
`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`TERMS AND PHRASES
`installing [an / a second]
`application program having a
`plurality of configurable
`preferences and a plurality of
`authorized users on a server
`coupled to the network
`authorized user / [for which
`the] user [is (not)] authorized
`
`AGREED CONSTRUCTION
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`user set
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`CLAIMS
`’578 patent claims
`1, 14, 15,17, 30, 32,
`45
`
`’466 claims 1, 2, 8,
`15, 17, and 23)
`
`’578 patent claims
`1, 7, 10, 12-17, 23,
`26, 32, 38, and 41-
`46
`’578 patent claims
`1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11,
`14-18, 20, 22, 24,
`26, 30-33, 35, 37,
`39, 41, 42, 45 and
`46
`
`P.R. 4-3(b): DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(b), the parties' proposed constructions of disputed claim terms,
`
`phrases, or clauses are reflected in the tables attached as Exhibits A, B and C as listed below.
`
`
`
`The chart attached as Exhibit A to this Joint Claim Construction Statement contains the
`
`disputed claim terms, phrases and clauses.
`
`
`
`Uniloc will provide as a separate filing an Exhibit B adding an identification of intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic evidence supporting its proposed constructions for the two newly-disputed terms.
`
`
`
`The chart attached as Exhibit C to this Joint Claim Construction Statement contains
`
`Defendants’ identification of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence supporting its proposed
`
`constructions. Defendants rely on the intrinsic evidence as a whole relating to the patents-in-suit,
`
`including the claim language, the specification and figures, the file history, and the references
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 3193
`
`cited on the face of the patent. In Exhibit C, Defendants cite to specific figures and text as
`
`examples of intrinsic evidence to support proposed constructions to particular claim elements but
`
`further state that the cited evidence is applicable to all claim terms, phrases, and clauses
`
`identified in Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`Exhibit D contains copies of the preliminary extrinsic evidence that the Defendants’
`
`anticipate relying on.
`
`The parties expressly reserve the right to rely on any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence
`
`identified by another party. The parties expressly reserve the right to amend, correct, or
`
`supplement their claim construction positions and supporting evidence in response to any change
`
`of position by another party, or for other good cause.
`
`Additionally, the parties agree that many of the claim terms in dispute are drafted in
`
`“means-plus-function” format and are thus subject to construction according to 35 U.S.C. §112,
`
`¶ 6. Their competing positions as to these terms are set forth below.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Position
`
`Uniloc learned yesterday that a group of defendants want to add indefiniteness
`
`arguments as to most of over 100 means-plus-function terms. Uniloc opposes that request,
`
`as a violation of the Court’s Docket Control Orders.
`
`A.
`
`The Docket Control Orders required timely briefing of indefiniteness
`arguments.
`This Court’s Docket Control Order in the - 00393 cases provided:
`
`Indefiniteness: in lieu of early motions for summary judgment, the parties are directed
`to include any arguments related to the issue of indefiniteness in their Markman briefing,
`subject to the local rules’ normal page limits.
`
`(Dkt. 73, p. 7).
`
`Judge Gilstrap’s Docket Control Order in the -00741 cases identically provided:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 3194
`
` Indefiniteness: in lieu of early motions for summary judgment, the parties are directed
`to include any arguments related to the issue of indefiniteness in their Markman briefing,
`subject to the local rules’ normal page limits.
`
`
` (Dkt. 143, p.5).
`
`
`
`B. Defendants briefed only two indefiniteness arguments.
`In their Markman briefing, Defendants raised but two indefiniteness arguments (see Dkt.
`
`135-1, pp. 5-6 (April 20, 2017); Dkt. 150, pp.15-19 (June 10, 2017)); applying to eight means-
`
`plus-function clauses.
`
`As regards the over 100 other means-plus-function clauses, Defendants did not raise or
`
`brief any indefiniteness issues. Instead, Uniloc and Defendants together began the time-
`
`consuming and tedious task of meticulously combing through the written descriptions of the
`
`patents in suit (and two other patents, incorporated by reference) to catalog the multitude of
`
`structures that corresponded to the claimed functions. The attached Exhibits E, F, and G
`
`comprise 54 pages representing the parties’ progress.
`
`Although not having enough time to finish the job by the last joint submission, the parties
`
`did not encounter any significant differences. Thus, the parties reported to the Court, on June
`
`16, 2017 (Dkt. 159, p.2):
`
`The parties have exchanged several-rounds of competing identifications of specific
`structure for each of these [means-plus-function] terms, and are continuing to work in
`good faith to resolve their remaining disagreements. At this time, the parties do not
`believe that the Court needs to address these disagreements as part of the claim
`construction process.
`
`When the Court rescheduled the Markman hearing from July 7 to August 10, 2007, Uniloc wrote
`
`to Defendants: “Guys – This is good news. Now maybe we can finish the MPF project!” (Ex.H).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 3195
`
`C. Defendants’ July 10, 2017 attempt to add indefiniteness arguments as
`to over 100 means-plus-function clauses violates the Docket Control
`Order.
`Yesterday, Uniloc received notice that six of the ten Defendants had decided to change
`
`strategy and, for the first time in the entire Markman process, argue indefiniteness as to virtually
`
`all of the (over 100) means-plus-function clauses. This change was not a result of oversight; nor
`
`was this change a mere tweak. Rather, it was a radical change in defense strategy, being
`
`implemented long after the deadlines this Court (and Judge Gilstrap) had imposed.
`
` These six Defendants had not disclosed, or even hinted, in previous communications
`
`with Uniloc, or in filings with this Court, they would attempt this. They did not mention this in
`
`the June 16 joint filing (Dkt. 159), nor in the emergency motion Defendants filed on June 23
`
`(Dkt. 162).
`
`Defendants’ simply adding this as an “additional issue” to the Joint Claim Construction
`
`and Prehearing Statement violates the Docket Control Order. It contravenes this Court’s
`
`requirements that parties act diligently, and formulate positions and arguments in a timely
`
`manner. See Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 896, 901 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2006)(“[t]he Local Patent Rules ‘exist to further the goal of full, timely discovery and provide all
`
`parties with adequate notice and information with which to litigate their cases, not to create
`
`supposed loopholes through which parties may practice litigation by ambush.”); see also
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 307 F. Supp. 2d 845, 849 (E.D. Tex. 2004) (“[t]he
`
`Court's Patent Rules are specific exceptions to the normal pretrial procedures that the Court has
`
`enacted to effectuate an orderly and efficient pretrial process”).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 3196
`
`Defendants’ Position2
`
`Further to the Defendants’ reservation of rights in Paragraph I of their original Joint
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing statement dated April 20, 2017, (2:16-cv-00393-RWS Dkt.
`
`No. 135; 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Dkt. No. 148), Defendants supplement their position on the
`
`means-plus-function terms in the asserted claims as follows.
`
`Computer-implemented means-plus-function terms are limited to algorithms disclosed in
`
`the specification. WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`Each means-plus-function term must be supported by an algorithm “clearly linked or associated
`
`with the claimed function.” See Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361,
`
`1363 (2012) (quoting Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elektra AB, 344 F.3d 1205,
`
`1219 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). A narrow exception is granted for terms whose functions which “can be
`
`achieved by any general purpose computer.” Id. at 1364-65 (citing In re Katz Interactive Call
`
`Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
`
`Here, the specifications of the patents-in-suit fail to disclose specific associated
`
`algorithms for many if not all of the individual functions in the means-plus-function terms of the
`
`asserted claims. Plaintiffs’ past proposals identifying structure to Defendants relied on passages
`
`and figures in the patents-in-suit (and in patents incorporated by reference thereby) which
`
`arguendo correspond to the claimed methods as a whole. But Defendants have carefully
`
`reviewed those disclosures and cannot find therein “step-by-step procedure[s] for
`
`accomplishing” each of the individual functions recited in the claims. Id. at 1365 (quoting
`
`Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Nor are the
`
`claimed functions so generic as to be eligible for the exception set forth in In re Katz.
`
`
`2 For purposes of this section, “Defendants” include Piriform, Inc.; ADP, LLC; Big Fish Games, Inc.;
`Blackboard, Inc.; Box, Inc.; and Zendesk, Inc.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 3197
`
`Defendants ask the Court to find that all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit containing
`
`means-plus-function terms are indefinite because at least one function therein is neither
`
`supported by an algorithm sufficiently disclosed in the specification and linked therein to that
`
`function, nor capable of being achieved by a general purpose computer. As non-limiting
`
`examples sufficient to show the invalidity of all such claims, Defendants ask the Court to
`
`consider the following specific limitations in the independent claims (however, Defendants
`
`believe that many other terms in the claims similarly lack support):
`
`• “means for preparing a file packet associated with the application program, the file packet
`
`including a segment configured to initiate registration operations for the application
`
`program at the target on-demand server” (’293 Patent Claim 12);
`
`• “computer readable program code that prepares a file packet associated with the
`
`application program, the file packet including a segment configured to initiate registration
`
`operations for the application program at the target on-demand server” (íd. Claim 17);
`
`• “means for establishing a user desktop interface at the client associated with the user
`
`responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop interface including a plurality
`
`of display regions associated with the set of the plurality of application programs
`
`installed at the server for which the user is authorized” (’466 Patent Claim 15);
`
`• “computer readable program code means for establishing a user desktop interface at the
`
`client associated with the user responsive to the login request from the user, the desktop
`
`interface including a plurality of display regions associated with the set of the plurality of
`
`application programs installed at the server for which the user is authorized” (id. Claim
`
`16);
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 3198
`
`• “means for obtaining a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences from one of
`
`the plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program” (’578 Patent
`
`Claims 16 and 17);
`
`• “means for providing to the server a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences
`
`from one of a plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program to
`
`the server” (id. Claim 16);
`
`• “means for providing a user set of the plurality of configurable preferences from one of a
`
`plurality of authorized users executing the application launcher program to the server”
`
`(id. Claim 31);
`
`• “computer readable program code means for obtaining a user set of the plurality of
`
`configurable preferences from one of the plurality of authorized users executing the
`
`application launcher program” (id. Claim 32);
`
`• “computer readable program code means for providing a user set of the plurality of
`
`configurable preferences from one of a plurality of authorized users executing the
`
`application launcher program to the server” (id. Claim 46);
`
`• “means for maintaining license management policy information for a plurality of
`
`application programs at a license management server, the license management policy
`
`information including at least one of a user identity based policy, an administrator policy
`
`override definition or a user policy override definition” (’766 Patent Claim 7); and
`
`• “computer readable program code means for maintaining license management policy
`
`information for a plurality of application programs at a license management server, the
`
`license management policy information including at least one of a user identity based
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 3199
`
`policy, an administrator policy override definition or a user policy override definition”
`
`(id. Claim 13).
`
`Defendants believe that this argument can be addressed within the parties’ supplemental
`
`claim construction briefing and heard at the August 10 Markman hearing. Alternatively, if the
`
`Court prefers, the parties can address these indefiniteness arguments in briefs separate from the
`
`claim construction process.
`
`
`
`III. P.R. 4-3(c): LENGTH OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`
`
`The parties anticipate that the claim construction hearing will require a total of four
`
`hours. This would allow each side two hours to argue the disputed terms, phrases, and clauses.
`
`
`
`IV. P.R. 4-3(d): LIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY
`
`The parties do not anticipate introducing experts at the claim construction hearing.
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`P.R. 4-3(e): OTHER ISSUES
`
`Defendants ADP, Big Fish, Blackboard, and Box respectfully suggest that their pending
`
`motions to dismiss (2:16-cv-00741-RWS Dkt. Nos. 17, 80, 58 and 89, respectively) should be
`
`taken up at a pre-hearing conference. Defendants Piriform and Ubisoft also respectfully suggest
`
`that the Court hear their motions to transfer or dismiss for improper venue (2:16-cv-00393-RWS
`
`Dkt. No. 153 and 2:16-cv-00397-RWS Dkt. No. 31, respectively) prior to the Markman hearing
`
`on August 10. These defendants propose July 27, August 3 or August 4 — or, if the Court would
`
`entertain a telephone hearing, any date other than August 1.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 3200
`
`Uniloc opposes holding a pre-hearing conference on the pending motions. Blackboard is
`
`being deposed on July 17 on venue issues, and Box, likewise, on July 19. The Court will be
`
`advised of the information those depositions establish. But if the Court wants to discuss any
`
`venue, or other, issues at a hearing, the obvious time for that would be August 10, the date of the
`
`Markman hearing, when counsel for the parties will otherwise be in the courtroom.
`
`The parties otherwise do not currently have any issues that need to be taken up with the
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Court at a prehearing conference.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 11, 2017
`
`
`
`/s/ James J. Foster, with permission by Matthew
`J. Moffa
`Paul J. Hayes
`Kevin Gannon
`James J. Foster
`Prince Lobel Tye LLP
`One International Place - Suite 3700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Tel: 617-456-8000
`Email: phayes@princelobel.com
`Email: kgannon@princelobel.com
`Email: jfoster@princelobel.com
`
`Edward R. Nelson III
`ed@nelbum.com
`Texas State Bar No. 00797142
`Anthony M. Vecchione
`anthony@nelbum.com
`Texas State Bar No. 24061270
`NELSON BUMGARDNER PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Phone: (817) 377-9111
`
`James L. Etheridge
`Texas State Bar No. 24059147
`Ryan S. Loveless
`Texas State Bar No. 24036997
`Brett A. Mangrum
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Moffa
`William J. McCabe
`E-Mail: WMcCabe@perkinscoie.com
`Matthew J. Moffa
`E-Mail: MMoffa@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10112-0085
`Telephone: (212) 262-6900
`Facsimile: (212) 977-1649
`
`Victoria Q. Smith
`E-Mail: vsmith@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 838-4321
`Facsimile: (650) 838-4350
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Texas Bar No.: 10929400
`E-Mail: mikejones@potterminton.com
`POTTER MINTON, PC
`110 North College Suite 500
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Telephone: (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile: (903) 593-0846
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ADP, LLC
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 3201
`
`
`
`/s/ Douglas F. Stewart, with permission by
`Matthew J. Moffa
`Douglas F. Stewart
`doug.stewart@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6200
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7018
`(206) 204-6200 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`
`David J. Ball
`david.ball@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, New York 10020
`(212) 508-6100 (t)
`(800) 404-3970 (f)
`
`Timothy R. Geiger
`tim.geiger@bracewelllaw.com
`Bracewell LLP
`711 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`(713)-223-2300
`(800)-404-3970
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BIG
`FISH GAMES, INC.
`
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24065671
`Travis Lee Richins
`Texas State Bar No. 24061296
`ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC
`2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324
`Southlake, Texas 76092
`Telephone: (817) 470-7249
`Facsimile: (817) 887-5950
`Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com
`Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com
`Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com
`Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
`
`
`/s/ Ray Zado, with permission by Matthew J.
`Moffa
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Telephone: (903) 657-8540
`Facsimile: (903) 657-6003
`mark@themannfirm.com
`
`Kevin Johnson
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Victoria Maroulis
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`Ray Zado
`rayzado@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: 650-801-5000
`Fax: 650-801-5100
`
`Sam Stake
`samstake@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415-875-6600
`Fax: 415-845-9700
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 3202
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`ZENDESK, INC.
`
`
`/s/ Christopher D. Bright, with permission by
`Matthew J. Moffa
`J. Thad Heartfield
`The Heartfield Law Firm
`2195 Dowlen Road
`Beaumont, Texas 77706
`(409) 866-3318
`Daniel R. Foster
`Christopher D. Bright
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`4 Park Plaza, Suite 1700
`Irvine, California 92614
`(949) 851-0633
`
`Michael S. Nadel
`MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`(202) 756-8000
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`BLACKBOARD INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Adams, with permission by
`Matthew J. Moffa
`Daniel H. Wu (Cal. Bar No. 198925)
`Admitted E.D. Texas
`daniel.wu@squirepb.com
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 624-2500
`Fax: (213) 623-4581
`
`Christopher W. Adams (Virginia Bar No.
`74611)
`Admitted E.D. Texas
`christopher.adams@squirepb.com
`SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
`2550 M Street, NW
`
`13
`
`/s/ Seth B. Herring, with permission by Matthew
`J. Moffa
`John P. Bovich (Lead counsel, Pro Hac Vice)
`jbovich@reedsmith.com
`Christine M. Morgan
`cmorgan@reedsmith.com
`Seth B. Herring (Pro Hac Vice)
`sherring@reedsmith.com
`REED SMITH LLP
`101 Second Street, Suite 1800
`San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
`Telephone: 415.543.8700
`Facsimile: 415.391.8269
`
`Peter John Chassman (Texas Bar No.
`00787233)
`cchassman@reedsmith.com
`REED SMITH LLP
`811 Main Street, Suite 1700
`Houston, TX 77002-6119
`Telephone:713.469.3885
`Facsimile: 713.469.3899
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT BOX,
`INC.
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark Zambarda, with permission by
`Matthew J. Moffa
`Christopher C. Campbell
`COOLEY LLP
`ccampbell@cooley.com
`One Freedom Square
`Reston Town Center
`11951 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`(703) 456-8000
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT PIRIFORM
`INC.
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 202 Filed 07/11/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 3203
`
`Washington, DC 20037
`Telephone: (202) 457-6326
`Fax: (202) 457 6315
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`BITDEFENDER LLC
`
`
`/s/ Mark C. Lang, with permission by Matthew
`J. Moffa
`Michelle L. Marriott
`Eric A. Buresh
`Mark C. Lang
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, Kansas 66211
`Tel: (913) 777-5600
`Fax: (913) 777-5601
`
`Melissa Richards Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`903/934-8450
`Fax: 903/934-9257
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`UBISOFT, INC. AND SQUARE ENIX, INC.
`
`
`/s/ Casey A. Kniser, with permission by
`Matthew J. Moffa
`Casey A. Kniser (pro hac vice)
`Eric H. Chadwick (pro hac vice)
`kniser@ptslaw.com
`chadwick@ptslaw.com
`80 South 8th Street, Suite 4800
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Phone: (612) 349-5740
`Fax: (612) 349-9266
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`KASPERSKY LAB, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`