Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 18
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00903-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEODRON LTD.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`FOR GROUP 3 – TOUCH PROCESSING PATENTS
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 18
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. BACKGROUND OF TOUCH PROCESSING PATENTS __________________________________________ 1
`A. The ’286 Patent _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1
`B. The ’747 Patent _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3
`II. DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’286 PATENT _____________________________________________________ 5
`A.
`“sensor value(s)” (’286 Patent, claims 1, 3–5, 8–10, 12–13, 15–17, 20–21, 23–24) __________ 5
`III.
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’747 PATENT __________________________________________________ 8
`A.
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode” (’747 Patent, claims 10,
`16) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 18
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Ex 1 Document Description
`1 Declaration of Richard A. Flasck in support of Neodron Ltd’s opening
`claim construction briefs.
`2 Curriculum Vitae of Richard A. Flasck
`8 U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286
`9 U.S. Patent No. 10,365,747
`21 Order from the United States International Trade Commission
`construing relevant terms dated November 25, 2019
`22 Transcript from a Markman hearing before the United States
`International Trade Commission pertaining to relevant terms dated
`October 22, 2019
`31 U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790 Philipp
`
`Abbreviation
`Flasck. Decl.
`
`
`’286 Patent
`’747 Patent
`ITC Markman
`Order
`ITC Markman
`Hearing Tr.
`
`’790 Patent
`
`
`1 A complete set of exhibits are attached to the declaration of Reza Mirzaie filed with Neodron’s
`opening claim construction brief for Group 1 – Touch Sensor Patents. Only the exhibits
`referenced in this brief are listed in this table.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 18
`
`This is Neodron’s opening claim construction brief for Group 3 – Touch Processing
`
`Patents. It addresses the disputed terms for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,286 (“’286 patent”) and
`
`10,365,747 (“’747 patent”). Neodron incorporates the introduction and claim construction
`
`standards from its opening brief for Group 1 – Touch Sensor Patents.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND OF TOUCH PROCESSING PATENTS2
`
`A.
`
`The ’286 Patent
`
`The ’286 Patent is entitled “capacitive keyboard with non-locking reduced keying
`
`ambiguity.” It describes techniques for processing information from touch-sensitive keyboards to
`
`identify which key a user intended to select. ’286 patent at Abstract.
`
`Physical keyboards use mechanical switches that a user depresses to select a key. A
`
`proficient typist using such a keyboard will naturally depress only one key at a time, which causes
`
`the switch associated with that key to close—unambiguously signaling the selected key. But with
`
`the advent of touch-sensitive keyboards, and especially touchscreen keyboards, problems of
`
`ambiguous key detection emerged. For example, touch sensing technology allowed product
`
`designers to create on-screen keyboard with small keys that can be difficult to select accurately.
`
`But with those keyboards, a user’s finger may touch multiple keys at once, making it unclear which
`
`key(s) were intended. See ’286 patent at 1:37-41 (“In a small keyboard, for example, a user’s finger
`
`is likely to overlap from a desired key to onto adjacent ones. This is especially problematic if the
`
`user has large fingers or if he or she presses on the keyboard surface hard enough to deform his or
`
`her finger.”). Further, moisture or liquid on the touch screen may create further ambiguity for the
`
`The ’286 patent gives an example of keying ambiguity resulting from inaccurate or
`
`overlapping touches.
`
`
`2 For further technology background see Flasck Decl.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 18
`
`In Figures 1B and 1C, the ’286 patent shows two example scenarios where a user’s touch
`
`overlaps multiple keys and creates ambiguity:
`
`
`
`In Figure 1B, the user’s touch is at position A, which is close to key 1. In Figure 1C, the
`
`user’s touch is at position B, which is still near key 1 but is closer to key 2. The patent teaches that
`
`each of these situations may be interpreted as a certain pattern of signal strength for the various
`
`keys, depicted at the bottom of the figures. In Figure 1B, the signal strength for key 1 is much
`
`higher than key 2; in Figure 1C, the signal strength for key 2 is higher than key 1, but to a much
`
`smaller degree. See id. at 5:1-40. The ’286 recognizes the problem of chatter and prevents it by
`
`“biasing” to an already selected key. “If the key selection method operates solely by picking a
`
`maximum signal strength, the keyboard may be subject to an undesirable rapid switching back and
`
`forth between two keys having nearly identical signal strengths (e.g., fingerprint areas). This sort
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 18
`
`of ‘chatter’ is preferably prevented by biasing or skewing the key selection method to favor an
`
`already selected key.” Id. at 5:41-47.
`
`As applied to Figures 1B and 1C, the simple “maximum signal strength” method would
`
`select key 1 for the Figure 1B situation and select key 2 for the Figure 1C situation. But these
`
`selections would be incorrect if the user intended to select key 1 in both cases but moved or missed,
`
`causing the Figure 1C signal pattern. An embodiment of the “biasing” method taught by the patent
`
`might determine that key 1 is the selected key, and subsequently bias the selection method in favor
`
`of key 1. This would select key 1 in both cases and match what the user intended.
`
`B.
`
` The ’747 Patent
`
`The ’747 patent is titled “Touch-sensing panel and force detection.” It describes a touch
`
`position sensor with force detection circuitry for determining the amount of force applied to the
`
`touch panel. ’747 patent at Abstract. In one embodiment, the touch sensor uses a “mutual
`
`capacitance” configuration that consists of two layers of horizontal and vertical conductors that
`
`intersect at nodes. Id. at 1:39–43. When an object (such as a finger) touches the surface of the
`
`panel, a change in capacitance occurs at one or more of the nodes. Id. at 1:50–55. This allows the
`
`touch sensor to determine (a) that touch has occurred and (b) the location of the touch. Id.
`
`These concepts are illustrated in annotated Figure 2 below. In the figure, the horizontal
`
`layer “drive electrodes 4X” and vertical “sense electrodes 5Y” crossover at “intersections 11” Id.
`
`at 3:38–43. The drive electrodes and sense electrodes are connected via “connecting lines” to
`
`“control unit 20.” Id. at 3:44–50. Using those lines, the control unit senses the changes in
`
`capacitance at each intersection to detect the presence and location of touches. Id. at 3:51–62.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`
`The ’747 patent touch sensor includes an associated “force sensor” that measures the
`amount of force applied to the panel. Id. at 4:6–13. The force sensor distinguishes between
`different touch events, such as a soft touch or firm press. Id. at 4:13–14. The force sensor can
`compare amount of force detected against a threshold and execute different functions depending
`on whether it exceeds the threshold. Id. at 4:15–19.
`The ’747 patent is directed to a resistive force sensor by describing “a resistive force
`sensitive element” that “can be used to measure the amount of force applied to the panel.” .” Id. at
`4:20–22. This corresponds to the “variable resistance electrode” recited in the claims. A resistive
`force sensor measures force by measuring changes in resistance of material. This works because
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 18
`
`the resistance of the material depends on the amount of force applied. If enough force is applied,
`the resistance decreases; if little or no force is applied, the resistance remains the same.
`The ’747 patent claims a mobile electronic device with a novel combination of elements,
`including a display and related components, capacitive touch sensor, resistive force sensor, and
`force sensor circuitry with an integrator circuit and voltage driver. Id. at cls. 10, 16. Figure 1 shows
`the touch panel and display in an exemplary embodiment:
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’286 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“sensor value(s)” (’286 Patent, claims 1, 3–5, 8–10, 12–13, 15–17, 20–21, 23–24)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which is “sensor
`signal value(s).”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning, i.e. “value
`indicating the strength of the sensor signal.”
`
`As reflected in the table, the parties agree that “sensor value(s)” at least means “value of a
`
`sensor signal”—i.e., sensor signal value. That is the plain meaning of the term. The sole dispute
`
`here is whether the Court should rewrite the plain meaning by inserting additional language
`
`“indicating the strength of.” The Court should not.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`This dispute largely mirrors a dispute that was already resolved in ITC Investigation No.
`
`337-TA-1162 involving the same parties (Neodron vs. Amazon, Dell, HP, Lenovo, Microsoft,
`
`Motorola, and Samsung) and a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,024,790). The ’790 patent is a
`
`continuation of the ’286 patent, and shares the same specification and much of the same claim
`
`language—including the term “sensor values.” In the ITC case, Defendants argued that “sensor
`
`values” in the related ’790 patent should be construed as “sensor outputs.” And Neodron proposed
`
`that it should be construed as “sensor signal values”—i.e., the same as Neodron’s proposal here.
`
`ITC Markman Order at 27. ALJ Elliott rejected Defendants’ arguments and adopted Neodron’s
`
`proposal of “sensor signal values. " Id. at 28.
`
`
`
`Defendants—perhaps knowing that they cannot reasonably propose what was expressly
`
`rejected at the ITC—now propose a slightly different construction. But Defendants’ two
`
`proposals—“value indicating the strength of the sensor signal” here, and “sensor output” in the
`
`ITC—implicate the same issue: whether the plain term “sensor value” embodies more than just
`
`the output of a sensor (i.e., the strength of the sensor signal). Indeed, Defendants’ counsel at the
`
`ITC Markman hearing largely equated the “strength” with “output”:
`
`“[Defendants’ Counsel:] So you can see if you look at the signal strength
`comparison at the bottom, that’s what’s being done in the compare logic that we
`just saw in that hardware diagram, we’re comparing a really large signal strength
`output from key 1.”
`
`Markman Hearing Tr. at 89 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`But ALJ Elliott squarely held that Defendants’ proposal was too limiting because “the term
`
`‘values’ [in ‘sensor values’] embodies more than just the output of the sensor.” ITC Markman
`
`Order at 28. In so holding, ALJ Elliot agreed with Neodron that “the claim could encompass
`
`additional, unclaimed processing steps, and components to perform them, including ‘any
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 18
`
`processing, amplification, thresholding, smoothing, noise reduction, whether it is that’s done in
`
`the process of comparing’ the values to determine which key is pressed.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`ALJ Elliott’s reasoning about “amplification” in the ITC Markman Order is instructive and
`
`directly contradicts Defendants’ “strength of the sensor signal” language here. This is because
`
`“amplification” directly increases the strength of a sensor signal. Thus, the plain meaning of
`
`“sensor values” cannot be limited to the “strength of the sensor signal” because “sensor values”
`
`encompasses values that may later be amplified (or reduced, for that matter). This is exactly what
`
`ALJ Elliott recognized in his order and in the following discussion at the Markman hearing:
`
`[Neodron’s Counsel:] But more broadly, the claim shouldn't be limited to exclude
`outputs -- to exclude any processing, amplification, thresholding, smoothing, noise
`reduction, whatever it is that's done in the process of comparing those values or
`analyzing those values to determine a winner, because there has been no clear and
`unmistakable disclaimer of such processing.
`
`JUDGE ELLIOT: Okay. I understand your point, yes. So you're saying that just
`looking at that figure 4, there could be other components in there, like ample -- I
`think amplifiers is a good example.
`
`[Neodron’s Counsel:] Exactly.
`
`JUDGE ELLIOT: Because the signal may not be strong enough.
`
`[Neodron’s Counsel:] Exactly.
`
`Markman Hearing Tr. at 100-101 (emphasis added). As this discussion shows, “strength” is not
`
`the key metric in a “sensor value.” Indeed, a signal that is not “strong enough” can still be a “sensor
`
`value.” Defendants’ here proposal should be rejected, just as the ALJ has rejected Defendants’
`
`arguments in the ITC case involving the same term in a related patent. Neodron’s construction is
`
`the plain meaning and should be adopted.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 18
`
`III. DISPUTED TERM FOR THE ’747 PATENT
`
`A.
`
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode” (’747 Patent,
`claims 10, 16)
`
`Neodron’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary: “to measure a parameter of the
`first variable resistance electrode.”
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “to measure a
`value determined by the resistance of the
`first variable resistance electrode.”
`
`Independent claims 10 and 16 of the ’747 patent recite the following longer claim phrase
`
`encompassing the disputed term (in italics):
`
`a first variable resistance electrode coupled to an output of the voltage driver and
`an input of the integrator circuit, wherein the integrator circuit is configured to
`measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode
`
`Thus, the claims recite that the integrator circuit is configured to “to measure a parameter of the
`
`first variable resistance electrode.” Notably, the parties agree on the construction of the term “first
`
`variable resistance electrode”: it means “first electrode in which the resistance of the material
`
`varies in relation to applied force.” Email Agreement. Thus, the dispute is limited to the first
`
`portion of the term: “to measure a parameter of.”
`
`But this simple phrase has a plain meaning, is readily understandable to a POSITA, and
`
`does not require further construction. The Court should not re-characterize it using different words.
`
`See Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device All., Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the court
`
`properly instructed the jury that these terms should receive their ordinary meanings”); O2 Micro
`
`Int’l v. Beyond Innovation Tech. 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“district courts are not
`
`(and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims” ).
`
`Indeed, Defendants construction amounts to changing the word “parameter” to the five-
`
`word phrase “value determined by the resistance.” But that is not the plain meaning of “parameter,”
`
`and Defendants cannot point to any disclaimer or lexicography. The specification and prosecution
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 18
`
`history do not attach any special definition to “parameter,” and the claims use it in its ordinary
`
`sense. A POSITA and even the jury would easily understand what it means.
`
`Defendants’ construction is also incorrect and improperly limiting. It imposes requirements
`
`for (1) the parameter to be “value”; (2) that value to be “determined”; and (3) that that value to be
`
`determined based on “a resistance.” None of these are required by the plain meaning of
`
`“parameter.” For example, a parameter is not necessarily determined, much less determined by a
`
`resistance. Defendants’ proposal is also inappropriate because the term already recites that the
`
`parameter is “measured” (not determined). And any concept of resistance is already reflected in
`
`the term “first variable resistance electrode.” There is no need to redefine “parameter” to include
`
`those concepts, particularly in the incorrect way Defendants propose.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 17, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)
`Email: bledahl@raklaw.com
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`Email: pkroeger@raklaw.com
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`pwang@raklaw.com
`Neil A. Rubin (CA SBN 250761)
`Email: nrubin@raklaw.com
`Amy E. Hayden (CA SBN 287026)
`Email: ahayden@raklaw.com
`Shani Williams (SBN 274509)
`Email: swilliams@raklaw.com
`Kristopher R. Davis (IL SBN 6296190)
`Email: kdavis@raklaw.com
`Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)
`Email: cconkle@raklaw.com
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 18
`
`Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189)
`Email: kshum@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`
`Matthew D. Aichele (VA SBN 77821)
`Email: maichele@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`800 Maine Avenue, SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Neodron Ltd.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 18
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on April 17, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed to
`
`have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic
`
`mail to the following:
`
`Michael J. Newton (TX Bar No. 24003844)
`Brady Cox (TX Bar No. 24074084)
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Phone: (214) 922-3400
`Fax: (214) 922-3899
`mike.newton@alston.com
`brady.cox@alston.com
`
`Charles A. Naggar (admitted pro hac vice)
`NY Bar No. 5356449
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
`New York, NY 11230
`Phone: (212) 210-9400
`Fax: (212) 210-9444
`charles.naggar@alston.com
`
`Dell-Neodron-ITC@alston.com
`
`John M. Guaragna (TX Bar No. 24043308)
`Brian K. Erickson (TX Bar No. 24012594)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`Phone: 512.457.7000
`Fax: 512.457.7001
`john.guaragna@dlapiper.com
`brian.erickson@dlapiper.com
`
`Sean C. Cunningham (admitted pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 98895
`Erin Gibson (admitted pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 229305
`Robert Williams (admitted pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 246990
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101-4297
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 18
`
`Phone: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
`erin.gibson@dlapiper.com
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`
`dla1162@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Dell Technologies,
`Inc.
`
`John M. Guaragna (TX Bar No. 24043308)
`Brian K. Erickson (TX Bar No. 24012594)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`Phone: 512.457.7000
`Fax: 512.457.7001
`john.guaragna@dlapiper.com
`brian.erickson@dlapiper.com
`
`Sean C. Cunningham (admitted pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 98895
`Erin Gibson (admitted pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 229305
`Robert Williams (admitted pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 246990
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101-4297
`Phone: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com
`erin.gibson@dlapiper.com
`robert.williams@dlapiper.com
`
`dla1162@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant HP, Inc.
`
`Barry K. Shelton
`Texas State Bar No. 24055029
`SHELTON COBURN LLP
`311 RR 620, Suite 205
`Austin, TX 78734-4775
`bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com
`(512) 263-2165 (Telephone)
`(512) 263-2166 (Facsimile)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 17 of 18
`
`
`John M. Guaragna
`Brian Erickson
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`Telephone: (512) 457-7000
`Facsimile: (512) 457-7001
`Sean C. Cunningham (pro hac vice)
`Erin P. Gibson (pro hac vice) Robert Williams (pro hac vice)
`
`David R. Knudson (pro hac vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101-4297
`Telephone: (619) 699-2700
`Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
`
`Erik Fuehrer (pro hac vice)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214
`Telephone: (650) 833-2000
`Facsimile: (650) 833-2001
`
`dla1162@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation
`
`Stefani E. Shanberg (Texas Bar No. 24009955)
`sshanberg@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: (415) 268-7000
`
`AmazonNeodronITC@mofo.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`Ryan K. Yagura (Tex. Bar No. 24075933)
`ryagura@omm.com
`Nicholas J. Whilt (Cal. Bar No. 247738)
`nwhilt@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 63 Filed 04/17/20 Page 18 of 18
`
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`Marc J. Pensabene (N.Y. Bar No. 2656361)
`mpensabene@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-326-2000
`Facsimile: 212-326-2061
`
`John C. Kappos
`jkappos@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
`Newport Beach, California 92660
`Telephone: 949-823-6900
`Facsimile: 949-823-6994
`
`Darin Snyder
`dsnyder@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Samsung
`Electronics, Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie_______
`Reza Mirzaie
`
`