throbber
Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/01/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 843
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00486-JRG (Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00496-JRG (Member
`Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`BMW’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION
`OF INTER PARTES REVIEW OF THE CHALLENGED PATENTS
`
`
`NORTHSTAR SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`VOLKSWAGEN AG,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`NORTHSTAR SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/01/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 844
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION – BMW HAS BEEN DILIGENT AND A STAY IS
`APPROPRIATE GIVEN NORTHSTAR’S FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`NorthStar, in opposition, does not argue that BMW’s motion fails to show diligence under
`
`the e-Watch standard set by this Court that “the Court must accord some weight to the timing of
`
`[defendant’s] initial motion to stay.” e-Watch v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-1061-JRG-RSP, 2015
`
`WL 12915668, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2015). Rather, NorthStar argues that this motion is early
`
`as “none of the IPRs have been instituted by the PTAB.” Op. at 5. NorthStar’s argument misses
`
`the mark because BMW’s early IPRs and early motion show the diligence that this Court has found
`
`significant in other motions to stay. Here, NorthStar cannot deny that every IPR institution decision
`
`will occur well before the Markman hearing in this case. Indeed, the majority of the institution
`
`decisions will occur far in advance of the exchange of claim terms here. Accordingly, due to
`
`BMW’s exceptionally quick IPR filings, BMW is in the exact position the defendant of e-Watch
`
`was in before institution of the IPRs, and the e-Watch case is entirely on point, that BMW has been
`
`diligent—and that needless litigation expense during IPRs should be avoided.
`
`NorthStar also ignores the mitigating factors here: NorthStar’s patent suit lacks substance.
`
`For instance, NorthStar filed the Complaint without meeting the minimum pleading standards. See
`
`Dkt. 26. And yet, without providing sufficient pleading or notice, NorthStar accuses nearly every
`
`BMW vehicle in existence of infringing its broad, software-based method claims. See Case No.
`
`22-cv-496, Dkt. 1. ¶¶ 13-15. Accordingly, NorthStar has no intention to sincerely pursue a case,
`
`but rather seeks to extract a payday from BMW by pursuing vague, undefined claims. This case
`
`undoubtedly should be dismissed. See Dkt. 26; Dkt. 66. But, if not, then this case should be stayed
`
`due to BMW’s diligence and NorthStar’s refusal to amend its complaint.
`
`NorthStar’s opposition arguments for the stay factors also fail. First, NorthStar erroneously
`
`argues the IPRs will not simplify this case because, NorthStar postulates, that all IPRs must be
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/01/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 845
`
`instituted in order to simplify a case. NorthStar is facially incorrect as patent owner statements in
`
`IPRs remain a part of the prosecution history and regularly affect litigation. Second, NorthStar
`
`also incorrectly argues that the state of the present case is advanced. However, as addressed above
`
`and due to BMW’s quick IPR filings, even NorthStar cannot deny that discovery and claim
`
`construction are incomplete here—and will not be complete by the time of any of the IPR
`
`institution decisions. The parties are at the initial contention and pleading stage, and the most
`
`efficient path to avoiding significant costs borne by the parties and this Court, is to stay this case.
`
`Finally, NorthStar argues that it will somehow be prejudiced by a stay. None of the cases NorthStar
`
`relies on address the facts here, where a non-practicing entity, like NorthStar, accused nearly every
`
`product of an actual, productive company, without properly pleading a claim upon which relief
`
`can be granted. Here, NorthStar attempts to weigh down parties and the Court alike with its
`
`meritless claims. Rather than allow discovery to proceed based on NorthStar’s insufficient
`
`pleadings, the obvious path forward is to minimize the waste of resources.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT – BMW CONTINUES TO SHOW DILIGENCE AND ALL
`FACTORS WARRANT GRANTING THE STAY
`
`NorthStar does not find fault with the e-Watch precedent, but rather, erroneously claims
`
`BMW’s position here is not aligned with the e-Watch facts. NorthStar’s argument does not stand
`
`up to any level of scrutiny. The Court afforded weight to the e-Watch defendant filing an early
`
`motion to stay pending IPRs before institution. e-Watch, 2015 WL 12915668 at *3.1 Similar to the
`
`e-Watch defendant, BMW promptly filed this motion to stay, showing diligence. Id.
`
`NorthStar also alleges that this Court implements a “universal practice” of denying stays
`
`before IPR institutions, but courts in this District have stayed cases pending an institution decision
`
`
`1 As noted in BMW’s Motion to Stay, the Court commending diligence in filing an initial motion
`to stay does not stand in isolation but has been noted in other cases. Solas Oled Ltd. v. Samsung
`Display Co., No. 2:19-cv-00152-JRG, 2020 WL 4040716 at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 17, 2020).
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/01/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 846
`
`before. See e.g., Landmark Technology, LLC v. iRobot Corporation, No. 6:13-cv-00411, 2014 WL
`
`486836 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2014). Further, a later court in this District credited the Landmark
`
`analysis. Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13-cv-01047, 2015 WL 1069179, at
`
`*6-7 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015). Finally, each stay decision “must rest on the facts of each
`
`particular case.” Landmark, 2014 WL 486836 at *1 (emphasis added).
`
`BMW posits that NorthStar’s broad and unsubstantiated claims against nearly every BMW
`
`vehicle, Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 13-15, should further factor in favor of a stay. Dkt. 26. The Court already
`
`granted a motion to dismiss in this case for Defendant Volkswagen AG. Dkt. 66. But, despite
`
`BMW’s motion to dismiss briefing detail NorthStar’s deficient pleadings, Dkt. 49 at 6-7, NorthStar
`
`continues to refuse to amend (and accordingly, the Complaint should be dismissed without an
`
`opportunity to amend). Nevertheless, this case should be stayed because NorthStar’s broad,
`
`software-based patent claims do not justify discovery into nearly every BMW vehicle. Dkt. 26.
`
`And, BMW was diligent in filing the IPRs and the present motion. Thus, a stay is appropriate here.
`
`A.
`
`A Stay Would Greatly Simplify and Resolve the Issues in this Case
`
`NorthStar argues no simplification will occur due to the IPRs. This is incorrect for two
`
`reasons. First, post-grant reviews simplify the district court issues, and courts recognize that a stay
`
`pending USPTO review remains “the ultimate simplification of issues.” VirtualAgility Inc. v.
`
`Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Broad. Innovation, L.L.C. v.
`
`Charter Commc'ns Inc., 2006 WL 1897165, at *8 (D. Colo. July 11, 2006) (noting that “a stay
`
`would further the interests of judicial economy and the conservation of the parties' resources, as
`
`well as that of the court” if a stay would “dispose of ... litigation entirely”)). Here, BMW’s IPRs
`
`will likely lead to the ultimate simplification of issues.
`
`Second, NorthStar’s statements in its patent owner’s preliminary response of one of the
`
`IPRs has already simplified issues in this case, and NorthStar’s participation in the remaining IPRs
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/01/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 847
`
`will continue to lead to simplification. Indeed, the Federal Circuit recognized that “the patent
`
`owner can define claim terms and otherwise make representations about claim scope to avoid prior
`
`art . . . .” Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, for the
`
`’297 Patent, NorthStar already simplified issues for claim construction by attempting to distinguish
`
`its claims from prior art. Notably, NorthStar argued a specific “calculating of a placement position
`
`of an OVI on the display” is not rendered obvious by a prior art reference where an icon is
`
`displayed at a particular position, but instead NorthStar argued a specific “level of detail provided
`
`by the ’297 specification.” Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. NorthStar Sys. LLC, IPR2023-00890,
`
`Paper No. 6, 10-11 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2023). Thus, NorthStar attempted to define the claim scope
`
`of the ’297 Patent to avoid prior art by, rather than relying on the claim language, citing
`
`computation methods in the ’297 specification (further simplifying the claim construction briefing
`
`here). Because BMW’s IPRs already simplified the issues, and will continue to, a stay is proper.
`
`B.
`
`This Case Is at an Early Stage and Is Extraordinarily Well-Suited for a Stay
`
`NorthStar also erred in its analysis of the stage of this case. Op., 7. Discovery has still not
`
`begun, and the costs of discovery borne by the Court and the parties will be avoided if a stay is
`
`granted here. NorthStar served its initial infringement contentions and BMW will soon serve its
`
`contentions if this case is not stayed. Dkt. 57. In contrast, NorthStar provided no explanation for
`
`why it has yet to seek any discovery, illustrating NorthStar’s lack of diligence. Regardless, it is
`
`still true as of today’s date, that discovery has not been served in this case, and this case remains
`
`in infancy.2
`
`
`2 NorthStar appears to blame BMW for “a strategic move” to not serve discovery pending BMW’s
`motion to dismiss. Op., 7. BMW denies any delay. As NorthStar recognizes, BMW will soon serve
`its invalidity and subject matter eligibility contentions—those contentions, spreading over five
`different patents, and 91 patent claims. Thus, BMW continues to comply with its obligations and
`prepare the voluminous contentions NorthStar’s flawed allegations demand, despite NorthStar’s
`efforts to render them as burdensome as possible (further warranting this stay).
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/01/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 848
`
`NorthStar’s remaining argument is that “initial contentions” denote a late stage in the case,
`
`at least because of the associated cost. They do not. According to one study concerning patent
`
`litigation against non-practicing entities, the cost of initial case management is just 5-10% of the
`
`cost of discovery, motions, and claim construction.3 Thus, the remaining 90-95% of the costs could
`
`be avoided if a stay is granted while the IPRs proceed. Here, the great cost of discovery,
`
`particularly given the breadth and vagueness of NorthStar’s allegations, can and should be avoided
`
`in view of the pending IPRs and the diligence BMW has shown.
`
`C.
`
`A Stay Will Not Unduly Prejudice NorthStar
`
`A stay would cause no undue prejudice to NorthStar. Even if there were prejudice in
`
`granting a stay (which there is not), NorthStar fails to show that such prejudice would be undue,
`
`especially for a non-practicing entity like itself. Landmark, 2014 WL 486836 at *4. NorthStar will
`
`still have an adequate remedy after a stay as many cases have recognized. See SynQor, Inc. v. Vicor
`
`Corporation, 2015 WL 12916396, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 24, 2015). Further, NorthStar has yet to
`
`serve a single discovery request or identify any witness important to its contentions, and thus
`
`NorthStar cannot claim the importance of witness memory. Op. 8. Nor does NorthStar have any
`
`specific complaint about its inability to license the Asserted Patents, belying NorthStar’s protests.
`
`Op. 8. Thus, NorthStar’s allegation that some undefined witness may forget, especially when
`
`NorthStar’s patents are already fifteen to twenty-three years old, is not based on any factual basis
`
`and is further nonsensical. Thus, NorthStar will not be unduly prejudiced by a stay.
`
`III. CONCLUSION: A PRE-INSTITUTION STAY IS JUSTIFIED HERE
`
`For the reasons set forth above, this case should be stayed.
`
`
`
`
`3 AIPLA, 2019 Report of the Economic Survey, available at https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-
`content/uploads/2021/08/AIPLA-Report-of-the-Economic-Survey-Relevant-Excerpts.pdf.
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/01/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 849
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dated: September 1, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/Lionel M. Lavenue
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Virginia Bar No. 49,005
`lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190
`Phone: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00486-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/01/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 850
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on September 1, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing BMW
`
`Reply in Support of its Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Inter Partes Review of the
`
`Challenged Patents with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a
`
`notification of electronic filing (“NEF”) to counsel of record who have appeared in this case on
`
`behalf of the identified parties.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Lionel M. Lavenue
`
`
`
`
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190-6023
`Phone: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG
`
`
`7
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket