Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 217 Filed 08/01/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 3702
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§ 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
`
`EXPEDITED OPPOSED MOTION BY DEFENDANTS PIRIFORM, INC.,
`ADP, LLC, BIG FISH GAMES, INC., BLACKBOARD INC.,
`BOX, INC., AND ZENDESK INC. FOR LEAVE TO FILE
`SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§ 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
`
`EXPEDITED OPPOSED MOTION BY DEFENDANTS PIRIFORM, INC.,
`ADP, LLC, BIG FISH GAMES, INC., BLACKBOARD INC.,
`BOX, INC., AND ZENDESK INC. FOR LEAVE TO FILE
`SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEFING
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 217 Filed 08/01/17 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 3703
`
`On July 5, 2017, this Court ordered the captioned parties inter alia to file a new Joint
`
`Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement “reflecting the parties’ final claim construction
`
`positions by Tuesday, July 11, 2017” and to file supplemental claim construction briefing. (2:16-
`
`cv-00741-RWS D.I. 199 at 2; 2:16-cv-00393-RWS D.I. 168 at 2.)
`
`Prior to the Court’s order, the parties, pursuant to P.R. 4-1, agreed that the system claims
`
`in suit each invoke pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶6, and, pursuant to P.R. 4-2 and 4-3, had
`
`exchanged multiple proposals of “structure(s), act(s), or material(s)” corresponding to each of the
`
`over 100 distinct asserted claim elements invoking § 112 ¶6. However, as indicated in the
`
`parties’ previous joint claim construction filings, those efforts had not resulted in agreement at
`
`the time of the Court’s July 5 order. (See 2:16-cv-00741-RWS D.I. 148 and 186; 2:16-cv-00393-
`
`RWS D.I. 135 and 159.)
`
`In the July 11, 2017 Joint Statement, Defendants Piriform, Inc., ADP, LLC, Big Fish
`
`Games, Inc., Blackboard Inc., Box, Inc., and Zendesk Inc. notified the Court that they were
`
`unable to reach final agreement with Plaintiffs regarding the construction of certain means-plus-
`
`function terms in the asserted claims. (2:16-cv-00741-RWS D.I. 202 at 7; 2:16-cv-00393-RWS
`
`D.I. 169 at 7.) These defendants then identified for the Court their conclusion that at least one
`
`means-plus-function term in each asserted system claim of the patents-in-suit rendered that claim
`
`indefinite, and suggested that arguments regarding this issue could be “addressed within the
`
`parties’ supplemental claim construction briefing and heard at the August 10 Markman hearing.”
`
`(Id. at 9.)
`
`This issue is ripe for resolution, as the “determination of the contours of the
`
`corresponding structure in a means-plus-function claim . . . is a matter of law for courts to decide
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 217 Filed 08/01/17 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3704
`
`because it is a question of claim construction.” Smiths Indus. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc.,
`
`183 F.3d 1347, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`In Its July 5 Order, the Court instructed all defendants to file a responsive supplemental
`
`claim construction brief today, August 1. Because that Order only authorized the parties to file
`
`supplemental briefs “with respect to the two newly-disputed terms,” (2:16-cv-00741-RWS D.I.
`
`199 at 3; 2:16-cv-00393-RWS D.I. 168 at 3), the moving defendants have not included
`
`arguments regarding indefiniteness of the means-plus-function terms in their responsive
`
`supplemental claim construction brief. Nevertheless, as Plaintiffs continue to allege infringement
`
`of claims containing means-plus-function terms against all defendants, for efficiency sake, and in
`
`view of the Docket Control Order’s instruction that the parties include arguments related to
`
`indefiniteness in their Markman briefing (see 2:16-cv-00741-RWS D.I. 143 at 5; 2:16-cv-00393-
`
`RWS D.I. 73 at 5) the moving defendants acknowledge that the Court may wish to address these
`
`issues at the August 10 Markman hearing.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants Piriform, Inc., ADP, LLC, Big Fish Games, Inc., Blackboard
`
`Inc., Box, Inc., and Zendesk Inc. respectfully request that the Court grant them leave to submit a
`
`supplemental brief of no more than 10 pages regarding the indefiniteness of the terms they
`
`identified in the July 11, 2017 Joint Statement. Copies of Defendants’ proposed brief and
`
`exhibits are attached to the declaration of Matthew J. Moffa, provided herewith. Should the
`
`Court enter Defendants’ proposed brief before the August 10 Markman hearing, Defendants
`
`further ask that the Court give Plaintiffs the opportunity to respond within three days of entry of
`
`Defendants’ brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 217 Filed 08/01/17 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 3705
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`/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)
`
`Dated: August 1, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 217 Filed 08/01/17 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 3706
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`(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.
`
`
`/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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 217 Filed 08/01/17 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 3707
`
`
`
`
`/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.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-00741-RWS Document 217 Filed 08/01/17 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 3708
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are
`
`being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-
`
`5(a)(3) on August 1, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Moffa
`Matthew J. Moffa
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 1, 2017, Matthew J. Moffa, counsel for
`
`ADP, LLC and representing consolidated defendants Big Fish Games, Inc., Blackboard Inc.,
`
`Box, Inc., and Zendesk Inc., and Mark Zambarda, counsel for Piriform, Inc., conducted a meet
`
`and confer with James J. Foster, counsel for Plaintiffs. During that conference, the
`
`parties discussed the moving Defendants’ intent (a) to seek leave from the Court to file a
`
`supplemental claim construction brief addressing the indefiniteness of the terms they first
`
`identified in the Parties’ July 11, 2017 Joint Claim Construction Statement, (b) to provide a copy
`
`of that brief with their motion for leave, and (c) for Plaintiffs to file a responsive brief. At the
`
`end of the conference, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that Plaintiffs would not join in Defendants’
`
`motion or otherwise agree to the relief sought by Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Moffa
`Matthew Moffa
`
`6
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
