Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 95 Filed 02/24/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 6509
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document95_
`Filed 02/24/25
`Page1of7 PagelD #: 6509
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF R2 SOLUTIONS LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document95_
`Filed 02/24/25
`Page1of7 PagelD #: 6509
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF R2 SOLUTIONS LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`
`MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 95 Filed 02/24/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 6510
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document95_
`Filed 02/24/25
`Page 2 of 7 PagelD #: 6510
`
`Sifting through the chaff of Databricks’ Opposition, an important point materializes:
`
`Databricks does not refute that it made the misrepresentations outlined in R2’s Motion. More
`
`specifically, Databricks does not deny that it produced open-source Apache Spark source code as
`
`its own. Databricks does not deny it represented that Apache Spark told the whole story while fully
`
`aware that Databricks implementsee
`ae. Databricks does not deny that it recognized its obligation to produce code in
`
`its platform “similar to the accused Spark functionalities,” but deliberately chose not to identify or
`
`produceee. See Mot. at 4. Databricks does not deny that
`it represented to R2 that Photon was irrelevant becauseee.
`Databricks does not deny that it never disclosed a. in any way, to R2 prior to Mr. Xin’s
`testimony. Databricks does not deny that R2 had no way of knowing aboutf without the
`benefit of Mr. Xin’s deposition. Databricks does not deny that Mr. Xin testified that P| was
`
`Po ECF 82-2 at 276:19-21. And Databricks does not deny the facts set out
`
`in the Brooks Declaration. See ECF 82-1. It follows, then, that Databricks does not deny the very
`
`misconduct that led R2 to bring this Motion. Indeed, rather than contest these facts, Databricks
`
`attempts to justify its misconduct with two unavailing arguments: (1)P were not
`
`identified by namein R2’s infringement contentions and are thus not “accused instrumentalities;”
`
`and (2)a is not relevant. Both arguments fail.
`
`I.
`
`R2 ACCUSED THE DATABRICKS PLATFORM OF INFRINGING, AND
`ARE PART OF THIS PLATFORM.
`
`Databricks’ argumentthat it was excused from producinii code because
`
`neither was specifically discussed in R2’s infringementcontentions is wrong for three reasons.
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 95 Filed 02/24/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 6511
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document95_
`Filed 02/24/25
`Page 3of 7 PagelD #: 6511
`
`First, R2 identified “the “Databricks Data Intelligence Platform/Databricks Lakehouse
`
`Platform”?as the accused instrumentalities from thestart.Po arepart ofthis
`
`platform. See, e.g., ECF 85-11 at 3 (Photon “integrates directly in and with Databricks Runtime
`
`and Spark”); ECF 82-2 at 167:4-13; 271:10-16 (Mr. Xin explaining
`LG
`Po have always been accused, and Databricks has always been obligated to
`
`produce the code. See Edward D.Ioli Tr. v. Avigilon Corp., No. 2:10-cv-605-JRG, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 164425, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2012). In fact, R2 once demanded that Databricks
`
`produceits Photon code. See Mot. at 5-6. The only reason R2 dropped the demand is because
`
`Databricks expressly represented to R2 that Photoni. nothing more, and such
`
`appeared consistent with Databricks’ documents and witness testimony. See id. In making its
`
`representations, however, Databricks obfuscatedPe
`P= <2 biden from R2 watt Me Xin’
`
`deposition. Moreover, Databricks does not dispute that
`
`it committed to produce code for
`
`functionalities similar to Spark. So Databricks knew well that R2’s infringement allegations were
`
`not limited to Spark, and there can be no doubt that Ps constitutes relevant
`
`functionality. See Mot. at 6-7.
`
`Second, there was no reason for R2 to specifically call out Photon by name in its
`
`infringement contentions. As set forth in R2’s Motion, Photon alone does not appear to infringe.
`
`tis only vieET to: Datbscks axives 5TT 22
`had no way of knowing ofa existence before Mr. Xin’s deposition on January 24, 2025.
`
`1 R2’s full definition of “Accused Instrumentalities” has always been “[{(1)] Databricks Data
`Intelligence Platform/Databricks Lakehouse Platform, and [(2)] any other platform(s) offered or
`provided by Databricks that utilize Apache Spark or any other similar functionality.” Mot.at 2.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 95 Filed 02/24/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 6512
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document95_
`Filed 02/24/25
`Page 4of7 PagelD#: 6512
`
`The materials Databricks cites in the Opposition confirm that R2 could not have independently
`
`identified Photon as infringingat the outset. The patent-in-suit is directed to enhanced MapReduce
`
`functionality, and independent claim 1 requires “mapping and reducing operations” to be
`
`“performedby a distributed system.” Per Databricks, PhotonisPo
`| (Opp.at 3), but Photon is described as leveraging Spark for distributed processing. See,
`
`e.g., ECF 85-11 at 3 (“When a client submits a given query or command to the Spark driver...
`
`the Catalysis optimizer does the analysis, planning and optimization just as it would if there was
`
`no Photon involved.”); see also ECF 85-11 at Image 2. Databricks’ documentation also explains
`
`that Photon runs on top of Spark and/or is simply Spark written in a different language. See id.;
`
`see also ECF 1, § 40 (describing Photon as “an optimized version of Apache Spark rewritten in
`
`C++.”). In other words, no Databricks materials suggested to R2 that Photon was implicated as a
`
`stand-alone enhanced MapReduce methodology, that Photon was relevant above and beyond
`
`Spark, or that Photon could possibly infringe absent Spark, because Photon apparently relied on
`
`Spark to accomplish distributed processing or was otherwise nothing more than Spark in a
`
`different language. This is precisely why R2 did not identify Photonin its contentions.
`
`Third, whether or not R2 should have identified Photon, independently, in its original
`
`infringement contentions has no bearing on the present issue—whether Databricks should be
`
`compelled to produce materials related toP| in view of Databricks hidinga.
`Not once in its Opposition does Databricks demonstrate how R2 could have known ofa
`
`existence (muchless relevance) prior to Mr. Xin’s deposition,” and Photon’s importance to R2’s
`
`? Although Databricks faults R2 for not identifying by namein its contentions. See Opp.at
`
`9.
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 95 Filed 02/24/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 6513
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document95_
`Filed 02/24/25
`Page 5of 7 PagelD #: 6513
`
`coe is ted direct(oEIcs, Datbricks
`obfuscation ofii alonejustifies granting R2’s Motion.
`u.
`[RR ts UNQUESTIONABLY RELEVANT.
`Databricks’ argument that is not relevant is belied by the evidence. As Databricks’
`co-founderstated
`
`ae. a fact that R2 could not have known priorto him explainingit. See Mot. at 6-7. The
`
`five-paragraph declaration offered with the Opposition does nothing to contradict Mr. Xin’s
`
`testimony. See ECF 85-9. The relevance of a. and more preciselya. is
`
`obvious.
`
`Il.
`
`R2HAS SHOWN GOOD CAUSE TO AMEND THE SCHEDULING ORDER.
`
`Databricks’ argument that R2 has not shown good cause to amend the scheduling order is
`
`incorrect for several reasons. First, Databricks hidee. so any
`
`delay in R2 updating its infringement theories can be laid squarely at Databricks feet.? Second,
`
`R2’s inquiry intoPF is not a “fishing expedition” or a “shifting sands” issue. See
`Opp.at 14.It is proper discovery pertaining to Mr. Xin’s own explanationiii
`ee. Databricks hid thisii in a dubiouseffort to limit R2’s
`
`case to open-source Spark code becauseit intends to present an open-source license defense. But
`
`for R2 uncovering the misconductat the close of discovery, Databricks would have gotten away
`
`with it. Third, Databricks’ assertion of prejudice because of “additional costs” associated with
`
`3 Databricks’ emphasis that R2 “s¢i// has not sought leave to amendits infringement contentions
`to accuse
`” (see Opp. at 14) falls flat. What would R2 amendwith? It still does
`
`
`not hav
`code. And R2’s Motion clearly asks for additional time for R2 to obtain
`evidence and subsequently update its theories.
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 95 Filed 02/24/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6514
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document95_
`Filed 02/24/25
`Page 6of7 PagelD #: 6514
`
`providing discovery rings hollow. It should have already incurred the costs as part of required
`
`discovery disclosures. It should not be permitted to use cost-related prejudice as a shield. See, e.g.,
`
`Sustainable Modular Mgmt. v. Travelers Lloyds Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-1883-D, 2021
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198854, at *29-30 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2021). Finally, Databricks fails to
`
`considerthat no trial date has beenset; so there is no trial to continue. Amending the schedule as
`
`R2 requests cures any possible prejudice to Databricks because it will be given ample time to
`
`respond to any allegations stemming from its ordered production ofPo code. See
`
`Mot. at 11; see also Polaris PowerLED Techs., LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:22-CV-
`
`00469-JRG, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212600, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2024).
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Forthe reasons set forth above and in its Motion, R2’s asks that the Court grant its motion
`
`in all respects.
`
`Dated: February 17, 2025
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By:_/s/ Carder W_ Brooks
`EDWARD R.NELSONIII
`
`STATE BAR No. 00797142
`
`CHRISTOPHER G. GRANAGHAN
`
`STATE BAR No. 24078585
`JOHN P. MURPHY
`
`STATE BAR No. 24056024
`CARDER W. BROOKS
`
`STATE BAR No. 24105536
`
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`817.377.9111
`ed@nelbum.com
`chris@nelbum.com
`murphy@nelbum.com
`carder@nelbum.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR
`
`PLAINTIFF R2 SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 95 Filed 02/24/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 6515
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 17, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing instrument
`
`
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing
`
`to all counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Carder W. Brooks
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION
`
`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/ Carder W. Brooks
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
