Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 14352
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,213,970
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 14353
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Asserted Claims Of The ʼ970 Patent ................................................................2
`
`Narrowing Amendments During Prosecution Of The ’970 Patent ..........................2
`
`The Accused “Lost Mode” Feature..........................................................................3
`
`Mr. McAlexander’s Doctrine of Equivalents Analysis............................................5
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment .................................................................................................5
`
`Prosecution History Estoppel ...................................................................................5
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ....................................6
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment Of Non-Infringement Is Warranted Because There Is
`No Dispute Over How The Apple Accused Feature Operates, And That
`Feature Does Not Meet Every Claim Limitation. ....................................................7
`
`AGIS Is Estopped From Asserting Infringement Of The ’970 Patent Under
`The Doctrine Of Equivalents. ..................................................................................8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Estoppel Bars Any Assertion Of Infringement Under The Doctrine
`Of Equivalents For The “Means For Requiring A Required Manual
`Response From The Response List” Limitation Of Claim 1. ......................8
`
`Estoppel Bars Any Assertion Of Infringement Under The Doctrine
`Of Equivalents For The “Providing A Manual Response List On
`The Display Of The Recipient PC Or PDA/Cell Phone” Limitation
`Of Claim 6..................................................................................................10
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 14354
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Pages
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ............................................................................................................ 6
`
`GeoTag, Inc. v. Frontier Commc'ns Corp.,
`No. 2:10-CV-00265-JRG, 2014 WL 28273 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2014) .................... 6, 9, 10
`
`Iris Connex, LLC v. Acer Am. Corp.,
` No. 2:15-CV-1909-JRG, 2016 WL 4596043 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2016) ........................... 5
`
`Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
`37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`843 F.3d 942 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................. 5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 14355
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`McAlexander Infringement Report Excerpts
`’970 File History Excerpt – 2010-09-20 Office Action
`’970 File History Excerpt – 2010-12-17 Reply to Office Action
`’970 File History Excerpt – 2011-03-11 Office Action
`’970 File History Excerpt – 2011-09-09 Reply to Office Action
`Find My iPhone Support Document
`McAlexander Deposition Excerpts
`Zingde Deposition Excerpts
`Declaration of Paul C. Clark
`
`Exhibit Number
`Ex. 1
`Ex. 2
`Ex. 3
`Ex. 4
`Ex. 5
`Ex. 6
`Ex. 7
`Ex. 8
`Ex. 9
`Ex. 10
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 14356
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple moves for summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`
`(the “’970 patent”). According to the ’970 patent’s Summary of the Invention, the patent provides
`
`“a method in which by sending a forced [] message to a recipient or a group of recipients, a sender
`
`can compel an automatic acknowledgment of receipt from each recipient’s PC or PDA/cell phone
`
`and require a manual response from the recipient via the recipient’s cell phone before the
`
`message can be cleared.” (Ex. 1 at 2:49-55.)1 To that end, every asserted claim (claims 3, 5, and
`
`8) requires displaying a “response list” on a recipient device that cannot be cleared unless and until
`
`the recipient selects a “response” from that list:
`
`
`
`Claim 1, from which asserted claims 3 and 5 depend, recites: “means for requiring
`
`a manual response from the response list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s
`
`response list from recipient’s cell phone display”
`
`
`
`Claim 6, from which asserted claim 8 depends, recites: “providing a manual
`
`response list on the display of the recipient PDA/cell phone that can only be cleared by
`
`the recipient providing a required response from the list”
`
`But there is no dispute that Apple’s accused feature—the “Lost Mode” feature of the Find
`
`My iPhone app—does not work that way. Rather , the parties’ experts agree that the alleged
`
`“response list” displayed on the recipient device can be cleared from the recipient device’s display
`
`without a “manual response” or “required response” being selected from the “response list.”
`
`Because selection of a “response” from the “response list” is not required to clear the “response
`
`list,” as mandated by the claims, summary judgment of non-infringement is warranted.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been added.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 14357
`
`
`
`Additionally, AGIS’s expert
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Claims Of The ʼ970 Patent
`
`AGIS alleges that Apple infringes claims 3 and 5 of the ’970 patent, which depend from
`
`claim 1, and claim 8 of the ’970 patent, which depends from claim 6. (Ex. 2 ¶ 1.) Claim 1 of the
`
`’970 patent recites, inter alia, “means for requiring a required manual response from [a] response
`
`list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from recipient’s cell phone display.”
`
`(Ex. 1 at 9:24-26.) The Court construed the term as a means-plus-function term governed by 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(6). The claimed function is “requiring a required manual response from the response
`
`list by the recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from recipient’s cell phone display.”
`
`(Dkt. No. 205 at 22.) The corresponding structure is “a PC or PDA/cell phone configured to
`
`implement the algorithm disclosed in the ʼ970 Patent at 8:37-57; and equivalents thereof.” (Id.)
`
`Claim 6 of the ’970 patent recites, inter alia, “providing a manual response list on the display of
`
`the recipient PDA/cell phone that can only be cleared by the recipient providing a required
`
`response from the list.” (Ex. 1 at 10:34-36; see also id. at 10:39-41 (“the response list … can only
`
`be cleared by manually selecting and transmitting a response to the manual response list.”).)
`
`B.
`
`Narrowing Amendments During Prosecution Of The ’970 Patent
`
`The Patent Office rejected the original claims of the ’970 patent’s application as anticipated
`
`and obvious, citing a number of prior art references. (Ex. 3 at 2-12.) In response, AGIS added the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 14358
`
`
`
`
`
`
`limitation “providing a manual response list on the display of the recipient PC or PDA/cell phone.”
`
`(Ex. 4 at 5) In doing so, AGIS argued that the prior art lacked disclosure of the new limitation.
`
`(Id. at 10-11.) The Patent Office rejected the amended claims, too. (Ex. 5 at 2-12.) AGIS then
`
`added the limitation “means for requiring a required manual response from the response list by the
`
`recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from recipient’s cell phone display.” (Ex. 6 at
`
`3.) Citing that new limitation, AGIS argued that the prior art lacked “the requirement … that the
`
`recipient must respond with a particular answer selected from previously provided list of
`
`potential answers especially before the recipients [sic] display screen can be cleared.” (Id. at 8.)
`
`The Patent Office allowed the amended claims, which issued as the ’970 patent. (Ex. 1.)
`
`C.
`
`The Accused “Lost Mode” Feature
`
`AGIS’s expert, Mr. McAlexander,
`
`
`
`id. at A-a10-A-a14, A-a60-A-a70.) The accused Find My iPhone application permits a user (on a
`
`first device) to place a second device (the “recipient device”) into “Lost Mode.” (Ex. 7 at 1-2; see
`
` (Ex. 2 ¶¶ 157, 274; see also
`
`also Ex. 2 ¶ 157.) Mr. McAlexander contends
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 2 at A-a60; see also id. ¶¶ 151, 157 and A-a15, A-a26, A-a27, and A-a111-13.) Mr.
`
`McAlexander
`
`(id. at A-a113):
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 14359
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As Mr. McAlexander acknowledges, there are at least three different ways that this alleged
`
`“response list” can be cleared from the recipient’s display in Apple’s Lost Mode feature. First, on
`
`the recipient device itself, one can unlock the lost device by selecting “unlock,” and then entering
`
`the lost device’s correct passcode. (Ex. 7 at 1-2; see also Ex. 2 at A-a62, A-a65; Ex. 8 at 277:7-
`
`9.) Second, using a different Apple device running the Find My iPhone application (i.e., a device
`
`other than the recipient device on which the claimed “response list” is displayed), one can select
`
`“Turn Off Lost mode,” thereby clearing the alleged “response list” from the recipient’s screen.
`
`(Ex. 7 at 1-2; Ex. 8 at 266:17-267:13; Ex. 9. at 142:22-143:17, 144:25-145:18; see also Ex. 2 at
`
`A-a65.) Third, again using a different device than the recipient device—any networked computer
`
`device—one can log onto Apple’s iCloud website and choose “Stop Lost Mode,” thereby clearing
`
`the alleged “response list” from the recipient’s screen. (Ex. 7 at 1-2; Ex. 8 at 266:17-267:13; see
`
`also Ex. 2 at A-a65.) In both the second and third approaches, the alleged “response list” is cleared
`
`from the recipient device without providing a “manual response” or “required response” from the
`
`alleged “response list.” (See Ex. 8 at 266:17-267:13; Ex. 10 at ¶¶ 427-28.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 14360
`
`
`
`D. Mr. McAlexander’s Doctrine of Equivalents Analysis
`
`AGIS’s expert, Mr. McAlexander,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` As detailed below, the prosecution history does not permit such assertions.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`A movant is entitled to summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
`
`fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex
`
`Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A dispute of fact is “genuine” only if evidence
`
`presented “is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
`
`party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “[T]he party moving for
`
`summary judgment must ‘demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,’ but need
`
`not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s case.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075
`
`(5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323) (emphases in original). “[S]ummary judgment
`
`of noninfringement is proper when no reasonable factfinder could find that the accused product
`
`contains every claim limitation or its equivalent.” Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 843 F.3d 942,
`
`949 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History Estoppel
`
`“A narrowing amendment to a claim creates a presumption that prosecution history bars a
`
`later equivalency by the patentee in an infringement action.” Iris Connex, LLC v. Acer Am. Corp.,
`
`No. 2:15-CV-1909-JRG, 2016 WL 4596043, at *20 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2016). The presumption
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 14361
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“is that the patentee has surrendered all territory between the originally claimed invention and the
`
`claims as written, and the burden lies with the Plaintiff to prove otherwise.” GeoTag, Inc. v.
`
`Frontier Commc'ns Corp., No. 2:10-CV-00265-JRG, 2014 WL 282731, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24,
`
`2014) (citing Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 740-41
`
`(2002)). To avoid summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to “all equivalents,” a
`
`plaintiff must “specify and prove any particular equivalents that were unforeseeable or otherwise
`
`not within the scope of the patentee’s surrender.” Geotag, 2014 WL 282731, at *2 (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`1.
`
`Whether summary judgment of non-infringement is warranted where (1) the
`
`asserted claims require displaying on a recipient device a “response list” which cannot be cleared
`
`from the recipient device’s screen unless and until the recipient provides a “manual response” or
`
`“required response” from that list, and (2) there is no factual dispute that the alleged “response
`
`list” in the accused Apple Lost Mode feature can be cleared from the recipient device’s screen
`
`without the recipient providing a “manual response” or “required response” from the claimed
`
`“response list.”
`
`2.
`
`Whether AGIS’s claim amendments made during prosecution to avoid prior art
`
`estop it from asserting infringement of those same limitations under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 14362
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment Of Non-Infringement Is Warranted Because There Is
`No Dispute Over How The Apple Accused Feature Operates, And That
`Feature Does Not Meet Every Claim Limitation.
`
`Every asserted claim (claims 3, 5, and 8) requires displaying on recipient devices a
`
`“response list” which cannot be cleared from the recipient’s screen unless and until the recipient
`
`provides a “manual response” or “required response” from that list:
`
` Claim 1: “means for requiring a manual response from the response list by the
`
`recipient in order to clear recipient’s response list from recipient’s cell phone
`
`display”2
`
` Claim 6: “providing a manual response list on the display of the recipient PDA/cell
`
`phone that can only be cleared by the recipient providing a required response
`
`from the list”3
`
`AGIS and Mr. McAlexander do not (and cannot) dispute that (1) there are at least three
`
`ways to clear the alleged “response list” from a lost device (the alleged “recipient” device) in
`
`Apple’s accused Lost Mode feature, and (2) at least two of those ways do not require selecting any
`
`“response” from the “response list” displayed on the recipient device in order to clear the “response
`
`
`2 The corresponding structure is “a PC or PDA/cell phone configured to implement the algorithm
`disclosed in the ’970 Patent at 8:37–57; and equivalents thereof.” (Dkt. No. 205 at 22.) That
`portion of the specification makes clear that the “response list” is displayed on the recipient device,
`and that the recipient must select the “response” from the recipient device in order to clear the
`recipient’s screen. See Ex. 1, ʼ970 Patent at 8:40-46 (“[T]he forced voice alert software application
`program causes the text message and the response list to be shown on the display of the recipient
`PC or PDA/cell phone until a manual response is selected from the response list. Upon selection
`of the desired response, the forced alert text data is cleared from the recipient PC or PDA/cell
`phone display.”)
`3 See also Ex. 8 at 266:8-16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 14363
`
`
`
`
`
`
`list,” as mandated by the claims. Instead, a Find My iPhone user can use a different device (i.e.,
`
`the sender device and/or any other networked computer) to select “Turn Off Lost Mode” in the
`
`Find My iPhone application, or, alternatively, select “Stop Lost Mode” on the iCloud website—
`
`either of which results in clearing the alleged “response list” from the recipient device without
`
`providing a “response” from the “response list” displayed on the recipient device. (See supra at
`
`3-4; see also Ex. 7 at 1-2; Ex. 2 at A-a65; Ex. 8 at 266:17-267:13; Ex. 9 at 142:22-143:17, 144:25-
`
`145:18; Ex. 10 ¶¶ 427-30.) Because the alleged “response list” is therefore cleared from the
`
`recipient’s device in Apple’s accused Lost Mode feature by actions other than selecting a
`
`“response” from the “response list” on the recipient device, the accused feature does not meet the
`
`“means for requiring a required manual response from the response list by the recipient in order to
`
`clear recipient’s response list from recipient’s cell phone display” limitation (claim 1) or the
`
`“providing a manual response list on the display of the recipient PDA/cell phone that can only be
`
`cleared by the recipient providing a required response from the list” limitation (claim 6). Summary
`
`judgment of non-infringement is therefore warranted.
`
`B.
`
`AGIS Is Estopped From Asserting Infringement Of The ’970 Patent Under
`The Doctrine Of Equivalents.
`
`AGIS is estopped from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because
`
`narrowing amendments during prosecution added (1) the “means for requiring a required manual
`
`response from the response list” in claim 1 and (2) “providing a manual response list on the display
`
`of the recipient PC or PDA/cell phone” in claim 6 to overcome prior art rejections.
`
`1.
`
`Estoppel Bars Any Assertion Of Infringement Under The Doctrine Of
`Equivalents For The “Means For Requiring A Required Manual
`Response From The Response List” Limitation Of Claim 1.
`
`AGIS added the “means for requiring a required manual response from the response list”
`
`limitation in claim 1 of the ’970 patent specifically to narrow the scope of the claim and avoid
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 14364
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prior art. See GeoTag, 2014 WL 282731, at *2 (“Clearly, a claim that requires [an added
`
`limitation] is narrower than one which does not.”). AGIS explicitly argued that the prior art did
`
`not disclose the added limitation. (Ex. 6 at 8.) In particular, AGIS used that additional language
`
`to argue that the prior art “ha[d] nothing to do with [the] claimed invention providing a forced
`
`message alert and requiring a specific response from a recipient selected from the prepared list of
`
`responses prior to the recipients [sic] display being cleared of the message and required response.”
`
`(Id.) Accordingly, there can be no legitimate dispute that the amendment was directly related to
`
`patentability. Therefore, AGIS is presumed to have “surrendered all territory between the
`
`originally claimed invention and the claims as written, and the burden lies with [AGIS] to prove
`
`otherwise.” GeoTag, 2014 WL 282731, at *2.
`
`Mr. McAlexander
`
` but AGIS makes no
`
`showing that any overcomes the presumption of estoppel. In order to avoid estoppel, AGIS must
`
`show that each of those alleged equivalents was unforeseeable or otherwise not within the scope
`
`of the prosecution surrender. Geotag, 2014 WL 282731, at *2. Yet there is no evidence, in Mr.
`
`McAlexander’s report or elsewhere, to establish either exception. Accordingly, AGIS is estopped
`
`from arguing any equivalents.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14365
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Estoppel Bars Any Assertion Of Infringement Under The Doctrine Of
`Equivalents For The “Providing A Manual Response List On The
`Display Of The Recipient PC Or PDA/Cell Phone” Limitation Of
`Claim 6.
`
`The step of “providing a manual response list on the display of the recipient PC or PDA/cell
`
`phone” was added during prosecution to narrow the scope of claim 6 to avoid prior art. (Ex. 4 at
`
`5.) As with AGIS’s other amendments, AGIS added that language to distinguish prior art and
`
`secure allowance. (Id. at 10-11.) In particular, AGIS explicitly referenced the newly-added
`
`limitation, arguing that it was “not taught or suggested in the references when viewed together
`
`cited by the Examiner.” (Id.) Accordingly, the amendment was related to patentability and AGIS
`
`is presumed to have “surrendered all territory between the originally claimed invention and the
`
`claims as written, and the burden lies with [AGIS] to prove otherwise.” GeoTag, 2014 WL
`
`282731, at *2.
`
`With respect to this claim requirement,
`
` (Ex. 2 ¶ 161.) In other words,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AGIS cannot—and has not
`
`attempted to—meet its burden to show that such equivalent was unforeseeable or otherwise not
`
`within the scope of the prosecution surrender. AGIS should therefore be estopped from arguing
`
`any infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for that limitation as well. GeoTag, 2014 WL
`
`282731, at *2.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant summary
`
`judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims (claims 3, 5, and 8) of the ’970 patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 14366
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 14, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa Richards Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Tel: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`John M. Desmarais
`Paul A. Bondor
`Michael P. Stadnick
`Ameet A. Modi
`Cosmin Maier
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek
`Brian Matty
`Tom BenGera
`Kathryn Bi
`Francesco Silletta
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: (212) 351-3400
`Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
`Email: jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: pbondor@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: amodi@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: cmaier@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: bmatty@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: tbengera@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: kbi@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: fsilletta@desmaraisllp.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 239 Filed 12/18/18 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 14367
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). Plaintiff’s counsel of record were served with a true and
`
`correct copy of the foregoing document by electronic mail on December 14, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`