Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 54-6 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 886
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 54-6 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 886
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-OOO40-JRG Document 54-6 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #: 887
`
`PAUL
`
`HASTINGS
`
`June 21, 2021
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Fred Williams
`Williams Simons & Landis PLLC
`
`327 Congress Ave, Suite 490
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Re:
`
`Gesture Techno/09y Partners LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, at al., Plaintiff‘s Amended
`Infringement Contentions
`
`Counsel:
`
`Inc. (together,
`On behalf of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`”Samsung"), we write regarding GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions as to US. Patents 8,194,924
`(“’924 Patent”); 7,933,431 (“’431 Patent”); 8,878,949 (“’949 Patent”); and 8,553,079 (“’079 Patent”)
`(together, “Asserted Patents”), served on June 16, 2021. More specifically, we write regarding what we
`believe are continued, material failures to satisfy the requirements of the federal and local rules to provide
`full, fair, and timely notice to Samsung of GTP's infringement allegations in this case.
`
`You will recall our letters of May 7 and May 19, our email of May 28, and multiple meet and confer
`discussions detailing what we believe are serious deficiencies of GTP’s Infringement Contentions. GTP’s
`Amended Infringement Contentions address some of the concerns Samsung raised, namely, withdrawing
`most (but not all) Accused Products not sold in the United States by Samsung, and withdrawing certain (but
`not all) Accused Features offered by manufacturers other than Samsung. However, several of the serious
`deficiencies we raised remain unaddressed.
`
`First, in our May 28 email Samsung identified 11 Accused Products that are not sold in the United
`States. GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions withdraw and no longer accuse 10 of these 11 Accused
`Products. However, GTP continues to accuse the Galaxy Note Fan Edition. Samsung reiterates that the
`Galaxy Note Fan Edition is not sold in the United States and GTP’s allegations against that product should
`be withdrawn. Please confirm that GTP will do so.
`If GTP believes it has a good faith basis for continuing
`to accuse this product, please provide it for our consideration.
`
`Second, GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions improperly add a new, previously unaccused
`product, the Galaxy 85. As you know, pursuant to the local rules “supplementation of any Infringement
`Contentions
`may be made only by order of the Court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of
`good cause.” PR. 3-6(b). As GTP has not sought (much less obtained) leave of Court and no exceptions
`to that requirement apply, the addition of this product is improper and should be withdrawn. Please confirm
`that GTP will do so.
`If GTP believes It has a good faith basis for seeking leave of Court for the addition of
`this product, please provide it for our consideration.
`
`Third, to the best of Samsung’s knowledge, the “Live Masks Track/Apply” Accused Feature is not
`a Samsung feature but rather a Facebook feature. “Facebook (F8) is
`adding “Live Masks," Snapchat-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-OOO40-JRG Document 54-6 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 4 PagelD #: 888
`
`PAUL
`
`HASTINGS
`
`Fred Williams
`
`June 21, 2021
`Page 2
`
`like lenses that allow users to use special effects during broadcasts.”1 Accordingly, GTP’s allegations with
`respect to “Live Masks Track/Apply” should be withdrawn. Please confirm that GTP will do so.
`If GTP
`believes it has a good faith basis for maintaining its allegations with respect to this feature, please provide
`it for our consideration.
`
`Fourth, GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions continue to fail to provide documentation or
`other identifying information regarding each Accused Feature sufficient to allow Samsung to understand
`what GTP is actually accusing. GTP’s continued allegations with respect to Facebook’s ”Live Masks
`Track/Apply” feature, and GTP’s recently—withdrawn allegations with respect to Goog/e's “Motion Sense”
`and Sony’s “Smile Shutter” features, illustrate the necessity for GTP to provide documentation or other
`identifying information for each Accused Feature. Each Accused Feature is unique, with its own individual
`functions and operations. GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions, however, are unchanged in this
`regard, and fail to address in any way Samsung’s previously articulated concerns. See, e.g., May 7, 2021
`Letter from C. Kennerly to F. Williams at 2. GTP’s failure to provide documentation or other identifying
`information for each Accused Feature continues to significantly hamper Samsung’s ability to identify and
`provide discovery or to prepare its defenses in this case.
`
`In particular, three of the four Asserted Patents require a “gesture” as an explicit claim limitation,
`yet GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions fail to identify the purported ”gesture” for each Accused
`Feature. GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions do not identify a single gesture by name — rather, for
`each patent they merely list Accused Features and provide the same three website links, without any
`explanation relating the links to the Accused Features. More specifically, the first link does not include any
`information regarding gestures, but relates to “Use of Facial recognition security on your Galaxy Phone.”2
`Even assuming this link relates to the “Facial Recognition (face unlock)” feature, the Amended Infringement
`Contentions still fail to identify the claimed “gesture” for this Accused Feature. The second and third links
`may relate to gestures, but do not identify any of the Accused Features that supposedly utilize a gesture.
`The second link discusses how “Air Gestures let you control your mobile device,”3 but ”Air Gestures“ is not
`one of the Accused Features. The third link describes “[h]ow to use Palm Gesture to take [a] Selfie,”4 but
`neither the Amended Infringement Contentions nor the link identifies the Accused Features to which the
`Palm Gesture relates so as to meet the claim limitations. Even assuming Air Gestures and/or Palm Gesture
`relates to “Gesture Detection” and GTP alleges (without stating so) that they constitute the claimed
`“gesture” for that Accused Feature, the Amended Infringement Contentions still fail to identify a single
`alleged gesture for any of the other Accused Features. Further, the Amended Infringement Contentions
`also provide no information regarding how determination of the claimed gesture relates to the other claim
`limitations of any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`“[Tlhe breadth of the accused products does not excuse Plaintiff from the duty of providing
`infringement contentions that are reasonably precise and detailed to provide defendants with adequate
`notice of the plaintiff's theories of infringement.” U/timatePointer, LLC v. Nintendo Co., No. 6:11-CV—496,
`2013 US. Dist. LEXIS 200122, at *15—16 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2013) (holding that plaintiff must supplement
`its infringement contentions to include a description of how each accused instrumentality meets each claim
`
`
`1 https://fortune.com/2016/10/27/facebook-Iive-masks/
`2 https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/AN800062630/
`3 https://www.samsung.com/ie/support/mobile—devices/how-can-i—controI—gaIaxy-sS—using—physical—
`gestures—instead—of—just—touch-orvvoice/
`4 https://www.samsung.com/sg/support/mobiIe-devices/how-to-use—palm-gesture—to-take-selfie—on-
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 54-6 Filed 07/14/21 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #: 889
`
`PAUL
`
`HASTINGS
`
`Fred Williams
`
`June 21,2021
`Page 3
`
`limitation.) GTP’s Amended infringement Contentions fall well short of Patent Rule 3—1(c)’s requirements,
`and should be supplemented (or stricken) accordingly.
`
`Fifth, GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions fail to identify how any of the Accused Features
`allegedly meet the claim limitations of the Asserted Patents. GTP must specify how the Accused Features
`allegedly meet the limitations of the asserted claims P.R. 3-1(c). See also Rapid Completions LLC v.
`Baker Hughes Inc., No. 6:15-CV-724, 2016 US. Dist. LEXIS 80327, at *21 (ED. Tex. June 21, 2016) (“it is
`not a defendant's job to assume how a plaintiff believes each claim element is met or to assume how a
`plaintiff alleges the Accused lnstrumentality infringes”). GTP’s Amended infringement Contentions provide
`no description of the Accused Features, no documentation or other information for the vast majority of the
`Accused Features, and no infringement analysis whatsoever with respect to the Accused Features. GTP’s
`Amended infringement Contentions do not allege that any Accused Feature is representative of others,
`such that its bare-bone allegations relating to a small handful of the Accused Features bears no relevance
`to other features for which GTP continues to provide no analysis at all. As you know, the local rules require
`“[a] chart identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each Accused
`lnstrumentality.” PR. 371(c). GTP’s Amended Infringement Contentions fail
`to do so and should be
`supplemented (or stricken) accordingly.
`In fact, GTP’s Amended infringement Contentions are unchanged
`in this regard, and fail to address in any way Samsung‘s previously articulated concerns. See, 6.9., May 7,
`2021 Letter from C. Kennerly to F. Williams at 2.
`
`As we have repeatedly raised these same concerns both in written correspondence and in multiple
`meet and confer discussions, and as GTP has repeatedly declined to address these deficiencies other than
`to disagree that they exist, we believe the parties are clearly at an impasse on these issues. However,
`if
`GTP believes in good faith that additional meet and confer discussions may be productive in resolving the
`parties' dispute, in that GTP may be willing to provide additional information to address Samsung’s stated
`concerns, please let us know. Samsung would strongly prefer to resolve these issues without the Court’s
`assistance, and its repeated good faith efforts to bring about such resolution attest to that; however, absent
`GTP's agreement to promptly provide the requested supplementation, Samsung expects to bring a Motion
`to Strike and/or Compel.
`
`We kindly request GTP’s response, in writing, no later than Wednesday, June 23.
`
`Chris Kennerly
`of PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`CK
`
`