Case 2:22-cv-00198-JRG Document 18 Filed 07/20/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 719
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`ADIDAS AG; ADIDAS INTERNATIONAL
`MARKETING B.V.; ADIDAS AMERICA,
`INC.; AND RUNTASTIC GMBH,
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00198-JRG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`NIKE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT NIKE, INC.’S OPPOSED MOTION TO
`SET ASIDE CLERK’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00198-JRG Document 18 Filed 07/20/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 720
`
`Plaintiffs adidas AG, adidas International Marketing B.V., adidas America, Inc., and
`
`runtastic GmbH (collectively “adidas”) Respond to Nike, Inc.’s (“Nike”) Motion to Set Aside
`
`Clerk’s Entry of Default (Dkt. 17) (the “Motion”). adidas does not oppose the relief requested
`
`by the Motion. adidas made this point clear to counsel for Nike via email on the day the Motion
`
`was filed. Morlock Declaration, Ex. A. at 4. However, adidas requested an opportunity to
`
`review the Motion before filing to confirm. Id. Upon review of the Motion, counsel for adidas
`
`provided minor edits to remove statements that are (1) factually inaccurate, (2) irrelevant to the
`
`relief requested, and (3) sought to incorporate admissions of non-infringement and invalidity
`
`via an agreement not to oppose. Specifically, adidas requested that counsel for Nike edit the
`
`following paragraph from Section III.A.3 of the Motion as shown below:
`
`Here, although Nike has not yet responded to the Complaint, Nike has identified
`several meritorious defenses in this case. Indeed, the accused Nike mobile
`applications and products identified by adidas have all been sold or otherwise
`made available to customers for years, and adidas had never previously alleged or
`even suggested that it believed Nike infringes any of those patents, for good
`reason—Nike contends that it does not infringe the asserted patents. Moreover,
`Nike contents that there are substantial invalidity questions regarding the adidas
`asserted patents. As just one example, several of the patents include claims
`directed to abstract concepts such as fitness performance tracking and providing
`feedback to a user regarding their fitness or movement progress and are not
`eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. adidas’s entire case is a
`transparent attempt to create settlement leverage with respect to Nike’s ITC
`litigation against adidas, and Nike intends to defend itself in this litigation. This
`factor therefore also weighs in favor of finding good cause to set aside the Clerk’s
`Entry of Default.
`
`Morlock Decl., Ex. A at 3. adidas made clear that, with these edits, it would not oppose the
`
`Motion. Id. Nike refused to revise the Motion. Id. at 2. adidas thus opposed.1
`
`To be clear, adidas does not oppose the relief requested in the Motion. adidas does
`
`oppose Nike’s attempt to create a false record and obtain admissions via an unopposed Motion.
`
`1 Nike’s counsel emailed counsel for adidas after business hours asking “whether [a]didas opposes the requested
`relief or statements contained in the motion?” Morlock Decl. Ex. A at 1. Counsel for Nike did not wait for a
`response from adidas and instead filed the Motion approximately one hour later at 8:00 PM (Eastern).
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00198-JRG Document 18 Filed 07/20/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 721
`
`Dated : July 20, 2022
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Michael T. Morlock
`MELISSA R. SMITH
`(Texas State Bar No. 24001351)
`HARRY L. GILLAM, JR.
`(Texas State Bar No. 07921800)
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`Email: gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`MITCHELL G. STOCKWELL (GA Bar No. 682912)
`MICHAEL T. MORLOCK (GA Bar No. 647460)
`1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Telephone: (404) 815-6500
`Facsimile: (404) 815-6555
`Email: mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Email: mmorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`MATIAS FERRARIO (NC Bar 38723)
`ANDREA A. ANDERSON (pro hac vice)
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`Telephone: (336) 607-7300
`Email: mferrario@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Email: andie.anderson@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`EDWARD J. MAYLE (pro hac vice)
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: (303) 571-4000
`Email: tmayle@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`CHRISTOPHER P. DAMITIO (pro hac vice)
`1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3700
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 467-9600
`Email: cdamitio@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`adidas AG, adidas International Marketing B.V.,
`adidas America, Inc., and runtastic GmbH
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00198-JRG Document 18 Filed 07/20/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 722
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 20, 2022, 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 pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(3):
`
`/s/ Michael T. Morlock
`Michael T. Morlock
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`