Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1226
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00992-JRG
`
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`HTC AMERICA, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00989-JRG
`
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT HTC AMERICA, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`STRIKE PLAINTIFFS’ INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS (DKT. 133) AND
`RESPONSE TO UNILOC’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS INFRINGEMENT
`CONTENTIONS (DKT. 146)
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 1227
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
`A.
`Uniloc’s Original And Amended Contentions Should Both Be Stricken
`Because They Fail To Disclose Uniloc’s Specific Theories Of
`Infringement. ............................................................................................................3
`Uniloc’s Amended Identification of Accused Devices Should Be Limited
`To Those Identified In Uniloc’s Complaint. ............................................................7
`Uniloc’s Doctrine Of Equivalents Contentions Should Also Be Stricken. ............10
`C.
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................11
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 1228
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. C-13-01776-PSG (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2015) ......................................................................... 2
`ASUS Computer Int’l v. Round Rock Research, LLC,
`No. 12-cv-02099, 2014 WL 1463609 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11 2014) .............................................. 10
`Connectel LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`391 F. Supp. 2d 526 (E.D. Tex. 2005) .................................................................................... 3, 5
`Mobile Telecommc’ns Techs., LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00832, 2014 WL 12609359 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2014) ......................................... 8
`Rules
`
`P.R. 3-1(b) .............................................................................................................................. passim
`P.R. 3-1(c) ....................................................................................................................................... 2
`P.R. 3-1(g) ............................................................................................................................. 1, 6, 10
`P.R. 3-4(a) ....................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 1229
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In response to HTC’s Motion to Strike (the “Motion”), Uniloc concedes that its original
`
`contentions failed to comply with the Court’s Local Patent Rules by cross-moving for leave to
`
`amend its original infringement contentions (the “Cross-Motion”). Uniloc’s proposed amended
`
`contentions are deficient just like the original contentions. For example, in response to the
`
`Motion, Uniloc acknowledges that HTC does not directly infringe the “server,” “communication
`
`platform system,” and “message database” limitations of the asserted ’890, ’622, and ’433
`
`patents. Uniloc’s amended contentions assert that these three limitations are found only in third-
`
`party networks—not in any HTC accused device. Because Uniloc’s amended contentions do not
`
`disclose any plausible claim for infringement of those claims, they should be stricken from the
`
`case with prejudice.
`
`Uniloc belatedly contends for each and every other claim limitation of each and every
`
`asserted claim that the limitation is a “software limitation,” invoking P.R. 3-1(g). Uniloc’s
`
`original contentions did not assert that any claim limitation was a “software limitation.” Because
`
`Uniloc’s “software-limitation” assertion is more than 5 months late and merely serves as another
`
`end-run around this Court’s Local Patent Rules (and the undisputed obligation to disclose its
`
`specific theories as to how HTC allegedly infringes), the amended contentions should be stricken
`
`with prejudice.
`
`Additionally, Uniloc does not dispute that its original contentions failed to specifically
`
`identify the accused devices by name or model number as is required by Local Patent Rule 3-
`
`1(b). In its original contentions, Uniloc accused four “lines” of HTC devices with the Android
`
`operating system. Because Uniloc’s original contentions failed to specifically identify the
`
`accused devices, HTC relied on the 19 devices identified by name or model number in Uniloc’s
`
`Complaint to produce technical documents and provide discovery responses. In its amended
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 1230
`
`contentions, Uniloc now seeks to add 179 devices to the ones identified in Uniloc’s Complaint.
`
`Uniloc’s identification of accused devices in its amended contentions is improper because Uniloc
`
`(1) adds 81 devices that are unrelated to the previously accused “lines” of devices; (2) accuses 23
`
`devices that operate on a non-Android operating system, which was not previously disclosed in
`
`the original contentions; and (3) now accuses 117 devices from among the previously accused
`
`“lines” more than 5 months after Uniloc was obligated to accuse them. Because the name and
`
`model number of all HTC devices is publicly available and Uniloc cannot (nor has it made any
`
`attempt to) show good cause for its failure to comply with P.R. 3-1(b) in its original contentions,
`
`the accused products should be limited to the 19 HTC devices operating on the Android
`
`operating system that Uniloc identified in its Complaint.
`
`Uniloc’s counsel is well aware that flouting a court’s local patent rules can be case-
`
`dispositive, having failed repeatedly to comply with them in previous cases. See Adaptix, Inc. v.
`
`Apple, Inc., No. C-13-01776-PSG, Dkt. 489 at 34, 39 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2015) (Mr. Foster: “I
`
`guess I haven’t practiced in this district long enough with these patent local rules, but I guess the
`
`way that the courts do it, you do enforce them very rigidly in the dates. … [B]ut for our
`
`unfamiliarity with the way the rules work here, we might now be appellee in front of the Federal
`
`Circuit instead of appellate.”).
`
`Because Uniloc has still not corrected the deficiencies in its contentions (and, in fact,
`
`deleted the infringement theories that appeared in its original contentions) and has wholly failed
`
`to comply with the Local Patent Rules requiring Uniloc to crystallize its infringement case and
`
`provide its specific theories of infringement, HTC respectfully requests that the Court strike
`
`Uniloc’s contentions for failure to comply with P.R. 3-1(b) and (c) with prejudice.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 1231
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Uniloc’s Original And Amended Contentions Should Be Stricken With
`Prejudice Because They Fail To Disclose Uniloc’s Specific Theories Of
`Infringement.
`
`As demonstrated in the Motion, Uniloc’s original contentions failed to disclose any
`
`specific
`
`infringement
`
`theories—particularly
`
`for
`
`the
`
`“server,”
`
`“network
`
`interface,”
`
`“communication
`
`platform
`
`system,”
`
`“encryption/decryption
`
`system,”
`
`and
`
`“compression/decompression system” limitations. See Dkt. 133 at 5-10. In response, Uniloc
`
`concedes (by failing to dispute) that its original contentions failed to satisfy the Local Patent
`
`Rules, but instead proffers amended contentions that (1) delete Uniloc’s prior assertions and (2)
`
`assert for the first time that each and every claim limitation is either a “software limitation” or
`
`found in a “third party network.” See, e.g., Dkt. 146-5. Instead of crystalizing its infringement
`
`theories, Uniloc’s amended contentions remove any indication of what in the accused HTC
`
`devices Uniloc contends satisfies each and every limitation of each and every asserted claim.
`
`Instead Uniloc provides a solely perfunctory submission. That type of gamesmanship is why
`
`HTC declined to give Uniloc an unconditional agreement to amend its contentions. As a result,
`
`Uniloc’s proposed amended contentions should be stricken with prejudice for failing to state
`
`Uniloc’s “specific theories of infringement.” See Connectel LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 391 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 526, 527-28 (E.D. Tex. 2005).
`
`(a)
`
`“Server,” “Communication Platform System,” and “Message
`Database”
`
`The asserted claims of the ’890 and ’622 patents require a “server,” “external server
`
`system,” or “communication platform system.”1 Uniloc’s original contentions failed to identify
`
`1 Specifically, claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 23 of the ’890 patent and claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-19, 21, and 23-26
`of the ’622 patent require a “server” and/or “a communication platform system.” In its amended contentions, Uniloc
`drops its assertions of claims 40, 42, 43, 51, 53, 54, and 57 of the ’890 patent and claims 1 and 13 of the ’747 patent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 1232
`
`both the allegedly infringing server and communication platform system. See Dkt. 133 at 6-9.
`
`In fact, Uniloc does not (because it cannot) identify an infringing HTC server or communication
`
`platform system because HTC does not make, offer to sell, sell, or import servers or
`
`communication platform systems. Uniloc admits this fact in its Opposition and now asserts that
`
`the server and communication platform system “are found in the third party networks of
`
`telephone carriers, such as AT&T and Verizon.” Dkt. 146 at 3-4; see also Dkt. 146-5 (asserting
`
`that the “server” and “external server” limitations of the ’890 patent are found in “Third Party
`
`Network (e.g., ATT, Verizon)”), Dkt. 146-6 (asserting that the “communication platform
`
`system” limitations of the ’622 patent are found in “Third Party Network (e.g., ATT, Verizon)”),
`
`Dkt. 146-7 (asserting that the “server” limitation of claims 17, 25, and 26 of the ’622 patent are
`
`found in “Third Party Network (e.g., ATT, Verizon)”). Similarly, for the “message database”
`
`limitation of claim 1 (and its dependents) of the ’433 patent, Uniloc asserts that this element is
`
`found in a “Third Party Network (e.g., ATT, Verizon).” Dkt. 146-7 at 2-3; see also Dkt. 146-6 at
`
`3-5, 9 (same for claims 10, 15, and 29 of the ’622 patent). Because Uniloc does not (because it
`
`cannot) identify an HTC device that satisfies these claim limitations, Uniloc’s amended
`
`contentions for claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of the ’890 patent; claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-
`
`19, 21, 23-26, and 29 of the ’622 patent; and claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-17, 25, and 26 of the
`
`’433 patent should be stricken with prejudice. And Uniloc’s allegations of infringement of those
`
`claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`(b)
`
`“Network Interface,” “Encryption/Decryption System,” and
`“Compression/Decompression System”
`
`For the “network interface,” “encryption/decryption system,” and “compression/
`
`decompression system” limitations, Uniloc’s original contentions failed to identify any
`
`components in the accused HTC devices that satisfy the limitations and how the associated
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 1233
`
`function was infringed by the accused HTC devices. See Dkt. 133 at 7-10. For the
`
`“encryption/decryption system” and “compression/ decompression system” limitations, Uniloc
`
`merely alleged that “upon information and belief” the limitations were satisfied. See id. at 9-10.
`
`In its Opposition and amended contentions, Uniloc now contends that these limitations are
`
`“software limitations found in HTC’s Messages App code.” Dkt. 146 at 4; see also Dkt. 146-6 at
`
`2, 6-8, 10-11, Dkt. 146-7 at 2-3. Uniloc states that “[s]oftware limitations are subject to P.R. 3-
`
`1(g), and Uniloc will provide further details after it inspects HTC’s source code.” Dkt. 146 at 4.
`
`Uniloc’s amended contentions make the same “software limitation” allegation for each and every
`
`claim limitation of each and every asserted claim, except for those admitted to be found in third-
`
`party networks. See Dkt. 146-5, 146-6, 146-7. An exemplary reproduction of Uniloc’s amended
`
`contention is reproduced below for claim 1 of the ’433 patent.
`
`Claim
`
`Where Element is Found
`
` 1. A system comprising: an instant
`voice messaging application
`including
`a client platform system for
`generating an instant voice message
`and
`a messaging system for transmitting
`the instant voice message over a
`packet-switched network via a
`network interface;
`wherein the instant voice messaging
`application displays a list of one or
`more potential recipients for the
`instant voice message;
`wherein the instant voice messaging
`application includes a message
`database storing the instant voice
`message,
`wherein the instant voice message is
`represented by a database record
`including a unique identifier; and
`
`Software limitation – HTC Messaging
`App code (see screenshots below)
`
`Software limitation – HTC Messaging
`App code (see screenshots below)
`
`Software limitation – HTC Messaging
`App code (see screenshots below)
`
`Software limitation – HTC Messaging
`App code (see screenshots below)
`
`Software limitation – HTC Messaging
`App code (see screenshots below)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 1234
`
`Third Party Network (e.g., ATT,
`Verizon)
`
`wherein the instant voice messaging
`application includes a file manager
`system performing at least one of
`storing, deleting and retrieving the
`instant voice messages from the
`message database in response to a
`user request.
`
`Dkt. 146-7 at 2.
`
`Uniloc’s amended contentions are wholly deficient because they fail to identify any
`
`infringement theory and instead provide a perfunctory allegation that each and every claim
`
`limitation is a “software limitation” or found in a third-party network. See Connectel, 391 F.
`
`Supp. 2d at 527-28 (“Compliance with Patent Rule 3-1 therefore demands [infringement
`
`contentions] that set forth particular theories of infringement with sufficient specificity to
`
`provide defendants with notice of infringement beyond that which is provided by the mere
`
`language of the patent claims themselves.”). Uniloc has used its “software limitation” assertion
`
`as justification for not identifying specific components that allegedly satisfy each and every
`
`asserted claim limitation and as cover for its refusal to provide HTC with notice of Uniloc’s
`
`actual infringement theories. Uniloc’s tactic undermines the very purpose of the Local Patent
`
`Rules and its infringement contentions requirements.
`
`In addition, Uniloc’s reliance on P.R. 3-1(g) from the Court’s discovery order is untimely
`
`and improper. The Court’s discovery order provides that
`
`P.R. 3-1(g): If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim element
`is a software limitation, the party need not comply with P.R. 3-1 for those claim
`elements until 30 days after source code for each Accused Instrumentality is
`produced by the opposing party. Thereafter, the party claiming patent
`infringement shall identify, on an element-by-element basis for each asserted
`claim, what source code of each Accused Instrumentality allegedly satisfies the
`software limitations of the asserted claim elements.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 1235
`
`Dkt. 142 at 3. If Uniloc believed that a claim limitation was a software limitation, it was
`
`required to make that assertion five months ago with its original contentions on January 23,
`
`2017. It did not do so.
`
`HTC made its source code available for inspection on March 28, 2017. Apreotesi Decl. ¶
`
`2. Uniloc has had access to HTC’s source code and technical documents for over three months
`
`and has chosen not to inspect the source code. Uniloc cannot hide behind source code that it has
`
`failed to review and at the same time assert—for the first time five months after the infringement
`
`contentions were due—that it still cannot identify the allegedly infringing components and
`
`functionality. Review of HTC’s source code, if Uniloc had chosen to review it, should merely
`
`confirm or negate the findings of Uniloc’s pre-suit investigation. No legitimate basis or excuse
`
`exists for Uniloc’s failure to timely identify its infringement theories and belatedly assert that
`
`each and every claim limitation is a “software limitation.” Accordingly, Uniloc’s amended
`
`contentions should be stricken with prejudice.
`
`B.
`
`Uniloc’s Amended Identification of Accused Devices Should Be Limited To
`Those Identified In Uniloc’s Complaint.
`
`P.R. 3–1(b) requires Uniloc to identify “each accused apparatus, product, device, process,
`
`method, act, or other instrumentality.” The rule requires that Uniloc’s “identification shall be as
`
`specific as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus must be identified by name or model
`
`number.” P.R. 3–1(b). In its original contentions, Uniloc failed to specifically identify any
`
`accused device by name or model number and instead simply pointed to “lines” of devices
`
`operating on the Android operating system. Uniloc identified the accused devices as
`
`[A]ll mobile telephones, tablets, and/or other devices manufactured by HTC and
`operating the Android OS platform, including but not limited to the 10, Desire
`and One lines of smart phones; and the Nexus line of tablets, on which HTC’s
`Messages app is installed and provides instant voice and/or video messaging
`functionality in conjunction with HTC’s servers or substantially similar
`technology that have the features and capability shown in the claim charts[.]
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 1236
`
`Dkt. 133-6 at 2 (emphasis added). In its amended contentions, Uniloc identifies the accused
`
`devices as
`
`HTC infringes by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the 10,
`Desire, and One lines of smartphones, and the Nexus line of tablets, on which
`HTC’s Messages App is installed, as well as any substantially similar HTC
`products having the features and capabilities shown in Exhibits A through C
`(“Accused Products”).
`
`Dkt. 146-4 at 1 (emphasis added). In Exhibit 4 to its Opposition, Uniloc now identifies 198
`
`devices, whereas the original contentions failed to identify a single accused device properly, by
`
`name or model number. Uniloc’s amended identification of accused devices is problematic for
`
`several reasons.
`
`First, Uniloc improperly broadens its identification of accused devices to include 81
`
`devices that are not part of the “10, Desire, and One lines of smartphones” or the “Nexus line of
`
`tablets.” See Dkt. 146-8 (Exhibit 4); see also Ex. 1 (highlighting in yellow the newly accused
`
`devices not included within the previously-identified lines of devices). Uniloc’s original
`
`infringement contentions expressly limited its identification of accused devices to the 10, Desire,
`
`One, and Nexus lines of devices. Dkt. 133-6 at 2. Uniloc’s Complaint similarly only identified
`
`devices from the 10, Desire, One, and Nexus lines. See Ex. 2 (reproduction of website printout
`
`in Exhibit E to Uniloc’s complaint). The Court should not allow Uniloc to use the “but not
`
`limited to” placeholder in its original contentions to now add 81 accused devices that could and
`
`should have been identified in its original contentions. See Mobile Telecommc’ns Techs., LLC v.
`
`Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 2:12-cv-00832, 2014 WL 12609359, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2014).
`
`(“Simply appending the words ‘but not limited to’ in its identification of devices cannot excuse
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 1237
`
`[the plaintiff] from its obligations under the local patent rules and thus, has no legal effect.”).2
`
`While this Court allows a plaintiff to provide exemplary infringement charts (see Dkt. 146 at 5),
`
`the Local Patent Rules still require Uniloc to specifically identify each accused device “by name
`
`or model number.” See P.R. 3-1(b). Uniloc failed to do so in its original contentions and does
`
`not provide any explanation of why it was unable to do so as previously ordered by the Court.
`
`See Dkt. 95. Uniloc’s improper attempt to belatedly add 81 accused devices five months after
`
`the infringement contentions were due should be rejected and stricken.
`
`Second, Uniloc improperly adds 23 non-Android devices to its identification of accused
`
`devices. In its original contentions, Uniloc expressly limited the accused devices to those
`
`“operating Android OS platform.” Dkt. 133-6 at 2; see also Dkt. 133-7 at 2 n.1 (same); Dkt. 133-
`
`8 at 2 n.1 (same). Similarly, Uniloc’s complaint limited the accused devices to “HTC Android
`
`IVM smartphones.” Case 2:16-cv-989, Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 11-28. In its proposed amended contentions,
`
`Uniloc removes the express limitation to Android devices and identifies 23 non-Android devices
`
`that operate on the Windows Phone or Windows Mobile operating systems. Ex. 1 (highlighting
`
`in green the new Windows OS devices). Because Uniloc seeks to add 23 accused devices
`
`operating on operating systems that Uniloc expressly excluded in its original contentions and for
`
`which it has provided no infringement theory Uniloc’s identification of the 23 non-Android
`
`devices should be stricken.
`
`Third, Uniloc cannot use its open-ended identification of “lines” of devices in the original
`
`contentions to now identify 98 new devices from among the 10, Desire, One and Nexus lines of
`
`devices. By identifying devices by name and model number in its amended contentions, Uniloc
`
`concedes that it could and should have made the same identification, as required by the Local
`
`2 Similarly, Uniloc’s use of the words “as well as any substantially similar HTC products” in its amended
`contentions to reserve identification of additional accused devices is improper and cannot be used as a placeholder
`for Uniloc to add devices at a later date.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 1238
`
`Patent Rules, in its original contentions. In its March 3, 2017 letter to Uniloc, HTC specifically
`
`requested that Uniloc “specifically identify which devices among the ‘10, Desire, and One lines
`
`of smartphones’ and the ‘Nexus line of tablets’” were accused. Dkt. 133-2 at 6. Uniloc refused
`
`to do so. As a result, HTC relied on Uniloc’s Complaint, specifically Exhibit E to the
`
`Complaint, to identify the accused devices, provide discovery responses, and comply with P.R.
`
`3-4(a). Compare 2:16-cv-00989, Dkt. 1-5, with Ex. 2 (identifying 19 accused Android devices).
`
`HTC produced documents and provided discovery responses for the following 19 HTC Android
`
`devices that Uniloc identified in the Complaint: the HTC 10, Desire 510, Desire 512, Desire
`
`520, Desire 526, Desire 530, Desire 612, Desire 626, Desire 816, Desire Eye, One (M7), One
`
`A9, One E8, One max, One M8, One M8 Harman/Kardon, One M9, and One remix phones, and
`
`the Nexus 9 tablet. Uniloc amended contentions should be limited to these 19 devices because
`
`Uniloc does not show good cause (because it cannot) for why it was unable to timely identify
`
`the other 98 devices from among the 10, Desire, One, and Nexus lines of devices.
`
`Because its original contentions failed to comply with P.R. 3-1(b), Uniloc’s identification
`
`of accused devices from the 10, Desire, One, and Nexus lines of HTC devices should be limited
`
`to the 19 Android devices identified in the Complaint. See ASUS, 2014 WL 1463609, at *7
`
`(“The Court therefore grants ASUS’s motion to strike products within a series not specifically
`
`identified by model number.”)
`
`C.
`
`Uniloc’s Doctrine Of Equivalents Contentions Should Also Be Stricken.
`
`Uniloc concedes that its original contentions under the doctrine of equivalents were
`
`insufficient by omitting those assertions from the amended contentions. Uniloc’s amended
`
`contentions, however, purport to reserve a right to add infringement theories under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents if “(1) the Court’s construction so requires; or (2) discovery – in particular review
`
`of source code – reveals HTC’s products operate differently from what Uniloc had contended.”
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 1239
`
`Dkt. 146 at 5-6. As discussed above, Uniloc’s recent recitation to 3-1(g) is untimely and without
`
`good cause.3 Uniloc cannot reserve a right to amend its contentions once again, more than six
`
`months after its original contentions were due, to identify infringement allegations under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons provided above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an
`
`order (1) striking Uniloc’s original and amended contentions with prejudice and in their entirety;
`
`(2) striking with prejudice Uniloc’s assertion of infringement of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 19,
`
`20, and 23 of the ’890 patent; claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-19, 21, 23-26, and 29 of the ’622 patent; and
`
`claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-17, 25, and 26 of the ’433 patent; and (3) limiting identification of
`
`accused devices to the 19 Android devices identified in Exhibit E to Uniloc’s Complaint.
`
`Dated: June 13, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams (Lead Attorney)
`State Bar No. 00794855
`fwilliams@velaw.com
`Jonathan L. Hardt
`State Bar No. 24039906
`jhardt@velaw.com
`Mario A. Apreotesi
`State Bar No. 24080772
`mapreotesi@velaw.com
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100
`Austin, TX 78746
`Tel: 512.542.8400
`Fax: 512.542.8610
`
`3 It’s unclear against what Uniloc will compare the accused devices. Uniloc proposes to replace its original
`contentions with its amended contentions, which wholly fail to provide Uniloc’s infringement theory for each and
`every limitation.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 156 Filed 06/13/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 1240
`
`Eric J. Klein
`State Bar No. 24041258
`eklein@velaw.com
`Todd E. Landis
`State Bar No. 24030226
`tlandis@velaw.com
`VINSON & ELKINS LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: 214.220.7700
`Fax: 214.220.7716
`
`Attorneys for HTC America, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`consented to electronic service are being served on June 13, 2017, with a copy of the foregoing
`document via the Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`/s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`
`12
`
`