Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 51 Filed 01/31/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 326
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S, STIPULATION REGARDING INVALIDITY
`CHALLENGES
`
`
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Samsung”) hereby stipulate as follows.
`
`WHEREAS, on October 9, 2023, Samsung filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,922
`
`(the “’922 Patent”), IPR2024-00002;
`
`WHEREAS, on October 16, 2023, Samsung filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) requesting IPR of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,033 (the “’033 Patent”),
`
`IPR2024-00006;
`
`WHEREAS, on November 2, 2023, Samsung filed a petition with the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) requesting IPR of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,804,678 (the “’678
`
`Patent”), IPR2024-00040;
`
`WHEREAS, on November 2, 2023, Samsung filed a petition with the Patent Trial and
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S, STIPULATION REGARDING INVALIDITY
`CHALLENGES
`
`
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Samsung”) hereby stipulate as follows.
`
`WHEREAS, on October 9, 2023, Samsung filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) requesting inter partes review (“IPR”) of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,651,922
`
`(the “’922 Patent”), IPR2024-00002;
`
`WHEREAS, on October 16, 2023, Samsung filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) requesting IPR of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,033 (the “’033 Patent”),
`
`IPR2024-00006;
`
`WHEREAS, on November 2, 2023, Samsung filed a petition with the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) requesting IPR of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,804,678 (the “’678
`
`Patent”), IPR2024-00040;
`
`WHEREAS, on November 2, 2023, Samsung filed a petition with the Patent Trial and
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 51 Filed 01/31/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 327
`
`
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) requesting IPR of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,198,085 (the “’085
`
`Patent”), IPR2024-00041;
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff Slyde Analytics, LLC (“Slyde”) has argued in Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Responses in at least the IPR2024-0002 and IPR2024-0006 proceedings that the PTAB
`
`should exercise its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to deny institution of the requested IPRs, see,
`
`e.g., IPR2024-0002, Paper 7 at 25-31.
`
`THEREFORE, Samsung hereby stipulates as follows:
`
`If the PTAB institutes the pending IPR in IPR2024-00002 challenging the patentability of all
`
`claims of the ’922 patent, then Samsung will not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground
`
`raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR in the above-captioned district court Case
`
`2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12
`
`at 16-19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020).
`
`If the PTAB institutes the pending IPR in IPR2024-00006 challenging the patentability of all
`
`claims of the ’033 patent, then Samsung will not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground
`
`raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR in the above-captioned district court Case
`
`2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12
`
`at 16-19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020).
`
`If the PTAB institutes the pending IPR in IPR2024-00040 challenging the patentability of all
`
`claims of the ’678 patent, then Samsung will not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground
`
`raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR in the above-captioned district court Case
`
`2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12
`
`at 16-19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020).
`
`If the PTAB institutes the pending IPR in IPR2024-00041 challenging the patentability of all
`
`claims of the ’085 patent, then Samsung will not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 51 Filed 01/31/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 328
`
`
`
`raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR in the above-captioned district court Case
`
`2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12
`
`at 16-19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020).
`
`This stipulation is not intended, and should not be construed, to limit Samsung’s ability to
`
`assert invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’922, ’033, ’678, or ’085 patents on any other ground
`
`(e.g., invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 not available in IPR and under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101
`
`and 112), regardless of whether IPRs are instituted. Further, Samsung reserves the right to pursue
`
`invalidity grounds encompassed by this stipulation in the district court litigation if the PTAB
`
`declines institution of the requested IPRs.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 51 Filed 01/31/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 329
`
`
`
`Dated: January 31, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Ryan Yagura
`Ryan Yagura (TX #24075933)
`ryagura@omm.com
`Nicholas Whilt (admitted pro hac vice)
`nwhilt@omm.com
`Grace McFee (admitted pro hac vice)
`gmcfee@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`
`Timothy Durst (TX #786924)
`tdurst@omm.com
`Jeffery Derek Baxter (TX #24006816)
`jbaxter@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (972) 360-1900
`Facsimile: (972) 360-1901
`jbaxter@omm.com
`
`Brad Berg (admitted pro hac vice)
`bmberg@omm.com
`610 Newport Center Drive, 17 Floor
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 823-6900
`Facsimile: (949) 823-66994
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX #24001351)
`melissa@gilliamsmithlaw.com
`303 South Washington Avenue
`GILLIAM & SMITH, LLP
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00083-RWS-RSP Document 51 Filed 01/31/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 330
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on January 31, 2024, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served
`
`with a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`/s/ Ryan K. Yagura
`Ryan K. Yagura
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 31, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
