Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 129 Filed 11/23/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3762
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SAMSUNG DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL
`PRODUCTION OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATION DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 129 Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3763
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(k), Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”) respectfully request leave to file a motion to compel
`
`Plaintiff Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP”) to produce all draft agreements and other
`
`communications between GTP and Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc.
`
`(“Huawei”) relating to their negotiation of an agreement to resolve GTP’s claims against Huawei
`
`based on the Asserted Patents (“Huawei Agreement”).1
`
`
`
`Good cause exists to grant leave in light of GTP’s and Huawei’s recent Joint Motion to
`
`Stay Certain Deadlines and Notice of Partial Settlement, Dkt. 101, and GTP’s stated refusal to
`
`produce the requested settlement negotiation documents. The case law is clear that “settlement
`
`negotiations related to reasonable royalties and damage calculations are not protected by a
`
`settlement negotiation privilege.” In re MSTG, 675 F.3d 1337, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Huawei
`
`Agreement will be the only consummated license to the Asserted Patents, and the underlying
`
`negotiations are discoverable for at least the reasons this Court announced in Charles E. Hill &
`
`Associates, Inc. v. ABT Electronics, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 427 (E.D. Tex. 2012) and Clear with
`
`Computers, LLC v. Bergdorf Goodman, Inc., 753 F. Supp. 2d 662 (E.D. Tex. 2010).
`
`
`
`The documents and communications sought by Samsung are relevant (potentially highly
`
`so) to a determination of appropriate damages, if any, and Samsung has been and continues to be
`
`prejudiced by GTP’s refusal to produce these documents based on its improper assertion of a
`
`“settlement negotiation privilege” that does not exist.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 On February 4, 2021, GTP filed separate lawsuits against Samsung and Huawei, accusing each
`of infringing the same four Asserted Patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,933,431, 8,194,924, 8,553,079,
`and 8,878,949. See Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. & Huawei
`Device USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG, Dkt. 1; Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG, Dkt. 1. On April 16, 2021, the Court consolidated
`the cases for all pretrial issues. No. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG, Dkt. 14.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 129 Filed 11/23/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3764
`
`DATED: November 19, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly (TX Bar No. 00795077)
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`Radhesh Devendran (pro hac vice)
`radheshdevendran@paulhastings.com
`Boris S. Lubarsky (pro hac vice)
`borislubarsky@paulhastings.com
`David M. Fox (pro hac vice)
`davidfox@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: 202-551-1700
`Facsimile: 202-551-1705
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Robert Laurenzi
`robertlaurenzi@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX Bar No. 24001351)
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 129 Filed 11/23/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3765
`
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rules CV-7(h) and (i), counsel for Samsung has met and conferred with
`
`
`
`
`counsel for GTP. On October 25, Samsung requested that GTP produce all documents and
`
`communications reflecting or relating to the Huawei settlement, including those that “reflect or
`
`relate to the parties’ negotiations leading to the settlement.” Ex. 1. In this correspondence,
`
`Samsung requested GTP’s availability to meet and confer. Having heard no response, Samsung
`
`requested the documents and communications again on October 28. Ex. 2. Samsung articulated
`
`that it is prejudiced by delayed disclosure of these documents and communications, especially in
`
`light of the impending deadline for its rebuttal expert report on damages. Samsung also again
`
`requested GTP’s availability to meet and confer. On October 29, GTP responded by email stating
`
`its refusal to produce “[a]ny correspondence leading up to the executed license agreement.” Id.
`
`That same day, GTP’s lead counsel called Samsung’s local counsel to confirm that GTP will not
`
`produce negotiation documents leading to the Huawei Agreement. The parties are thus at an
`
`impasse. No agreement could be reached after good faith attempts to resolve the matters raised by
`
`this motion, leaving an open issue for the Court to resolve.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 129 Filed 11/23/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3766
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL
`
`I hereby certify that under Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), the foregoing document is filed under
`
`seal pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order entered in this matter.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on November 19, 2021. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this
`
`document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A) and by email.
`
` /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`