Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`HP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00873-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00874-ADA
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 18
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00903-ADA
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF ON
`THE DISPUTED TERMS OF THE TOUCH PROCESSING PATENTS
`
`(U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,102,286 and 10,365,747)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 18
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`The Disputed Term Of U.S. Patent No. 8,102,286 ..............................................................1
`A.
`“sensor value” (’286 patent, claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20-21, 24) ..................1
`The Disputed Term Of U.S. Patent No. 10,365,747 ............................................................5
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode” (’747 patent,
`A.
`claims 10, 16) ...........................................................................................................5
`Conclusion .........................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 5 of 18
`
`Defendants respectfully submit their responsive claim construction brief for the disputed
`
`terms of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,102,286 and 10,365,747 (collectively the “touch processing
`
`patents”).1 The agreed constructions for these patents are set out in the Joint Claim Construction
`
`Statement.
`
`I.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERM OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,102,286
`A.
`
` “sensor value” (’286 patent, claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-17, 20-21, 24)
`
`Claim Term(s)
`“sensor value”
`(claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 13, 15-
`17, 20-21, 24)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “value
`indicating the strength of the sensor
`signal”
`
`Neodron’s
`Construction
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning, which is
`“sensor signal value”
`
`Neodron agrees the only dispute regarding this term is whether the sensor value indicates
`
`the strength of the sensor signal, as Defendants assert. Dkt. 63 at 5. While Defendants’
`
`construction finds ample support in the claims and specification of the ’286 Patent (see Dkt. 62
`
`at 4-8), Neodron cites no intrinsic evidence whatsoever in support of its construction. Dkt. 63 at
`
`5-7. Neodron instead relies exclusively on extrinsic evidence, quoting attorney arguments at a
`
`claim construction hearing in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) discussing a different
`
`claim of a different patent, albeit one that is related to the ’286 Patent. Dkt. 63 at 6-7. But even
`
`that extrinsic evidence is not inconsistent with Defendants’ construction, does not support
`
`Neodron’s proposed construction, and does not resolve the parties’ dispute regarding this term.
`
`Defendants’ construction should be adopted.
`
`As established in Defendants’ opening brief, the intrinsic record confirms that a “sensor
`
`value” indicates the strength of a sensor signal. Dkt. No. 62 at 4-7. Neodron does not—and
`
`
`1 The “touch processing patents” also include U.S. Patent No. 8,451,237, for which there are no
`disputed terms. Defendants are filing a separate responsive claim construction brief to cover the
`disputed terms of the touch sensor patents, which include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,946,574; 9,086,770;
`9,823,784; 10,088,960; and 7,821,502.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 6 of 18
`
`cannot—point to a single embodiment in the specification in which the sensor value does not
`
`indicate a signal strength. Indeed, the alleged invention as a whole is described in terms of
`
`comparing signal strengths:
`
`One aspect of the invention is that it may provide an iterative method of removing
`keying ambiguity by measuring a signal strength associated with each key in an
`array, comparing the measured signal strengths to find a maximum, determining
`that the key having the maximum signal strength is the unique user-selected first
`key, and maintaining that selection until either the first key’s signal strength drops
`below some threshold level or a second key’s signal strength exceeds the first key’s
`signal strength.
`
`’286 Patent at 2:8-16 (emphasis added). This description of the alleged invention is reflected in
`
`the claims, which essentially just swap in the phrase “sensor value” for “signal strength,”
`
`highlighting that a sensor value must indicate signal strength. Claim 1, for example, recites
`
`“detect a sensor value of an inactive key surpassing a sensor value of an active key,” and claim
`
`5 recites “designate an active key as inactive when its corresponding sensor value falls below a
`
`hysteresis value.” As established in Defendants’ opening brief, these consistent characterizations
`
`of the claimed invention and exclusive reliance on comparisons of signal strength limit the scope
`
`of the invention. GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Dkt. No.
`
`62 at 4-7. In fact, the concept of signal strength is so central to the ’286 Patent that even
`
`Neodron’s summary of the patent in its opening brief focuses exclusively on the comparison of
`
`signal strengths. See, e.g., Dkt. 63 at 2 (emphasis added):
`
`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 [’286 Patent] at 5:1-40. The ’286 recognizes the problem of chatter and
`prevents it by “biasing” to an already selected key.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 7 of 18
`
`Thus, even Neodron’s own characterization of the patent reflects Defendants’ view of what a
`
`sensor value is. This is unsurprising because Neodron cannot explain how sensor values could
`
`be used to perform the claimed biasing except by comparing their signal strengths.
`
`Neodron’s argument that a sensor value cannot be required to indicate a signal strength
`
`because the sensor value might be too weak and require amplification (Dkt. 63 at 7) only proves
`
`Defendants’ point. An amplifier operates on the strength of a signal; it would be meaningless to
`
`amplify a sensor value that did not indicate a signal strength. And the ’286 Patent teaches
`
`amplification as one of the ways the key selection process can be biased. In fact, the allegedly
`
`novel aspect of the ’286 Patent—biasing key selection in favor of a currently active key—is
`
`premised entirely on manipulating the strengths of sensor values, whether by amplification,
`
`attenuation, addition, or subtraction.
`
`The bias may be provided in many ways in subsequent decisions. These ways may
`be equivalent to adding an incremental value to the signal associated with the
`selected key; multiplying the signal strength of the selected key by a value greater
`than one in subsequent selections; subtracting a respective incremental value from
`the signal strengths associated with each of the non-selected keys; or multiplying
`the signal strength of each of the non-selected keys by a respective value less than
`one.
`
`’286 Patent at 5:49-57 (emphasis added). Every one of these operations described in the
`
`specification alters the strength of the sensor value. Far from excluding Defendants’
`
`construction, this description confirms that Defendants’ construction must be correct—a sensor
`
`value must indicate the signal’s strength.
`
`
`
`Neodron’s opening brief ignores both the claims and the specification, and instead
`
`focuses exclusively on the ITC claim construction proceedings, asserting that the Administrative
`
`Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) construction of “sensor values” and “signal values” recited in the related
`
`’790 Patent is sufficient to resolve the claim construction dispute here. Id. at 6. But that premise
`
`is fundamentally flawed for several reasons.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 8 of 18
`
`First, an ITC claim construction order2 is not binding on this Court. Tex. Instruments,
`
`Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Second, the dispute at the ITC centered on a different issue than the issue before the
`
`Court here. Specifically, as the ALJ explained, “the remaining issue is whether the term ‘values’
`
`should be replaced with the term ‘outputs,’” as Defendants proposed in that Investigation. Dkt.
`
`64-21 (ITC claim construction order) at 27 (emphasis added). The ALJ agreed that, while the
`
`claimed “value” could be the output of the sensor, the claim could encompass additional,
`
`unclaimed processing steps, such as “amplification, thresholding, smoothing, [or] noise
`
`reduction,” and found there was no “disavowal or clear lexicography to limit the term ‘value’ to
`
`‘output.’” Id. at 28. Here, Defendants do not propose limiting “sensor value” to the output of
`
`the sensor. Rather, their construction contemplates that the sensor output indicating a sensor’s
`
`strength may be filtered, smoothed, amplified, or otherwise conditioned and still be a “sensor
`
`value.” What Defendants assert is that even after any such processing, the sensor value of each
`
`key must still represent a relative strength of the corresponding key’s signal by which the keys
`
`can be compared. The claims require detecting a sensor value surpassing another by a select
`
`amount, which can only be accomplished if the sensor values represent signal strength. The ITC
`
`claim construction order did not consider, much less resolve, that issue. Thus, even if this Court
`
`finds it informative, the ALJ’s construction does not resolve the parties’ dispute here, i.e.
`
`whether a “sensor value” indicates the strength of the sensor signal.
`
`
`
`Third, Defendants’ proposed construction here is entirely consistent with the ALJ’s claim
`
`construction order. Defendants’ proposal expressly contemplates the processing referenced by
`
`
`2 Furthermore, no final determination has issued in the 1162 ITC Investigation, and the ALJ’s
`claim construction decision has not been reviewed by the Commission.
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 9 of 18
`
`the ALJ. As Defendants explained in their opening brief, the claims require comparing the
`
`signal values of the active and inactive keys and biasing in favor of the active key, either by
`
`increasing the signal value of the active key or decreasing the signal value of the inactive key.
`
`Dkt. 62 at 6-8. To do so, a “sensor value” must be a value indicating the strength of the sensor
`
`signal, which is the construction Defendants propose here and only way that concept is described
`
`in the specification. ’286 Patent at Abstract, 2:8-20; 2:25-28; 2:39-46; 2:47-59; 2:62-3:4; 3:9-26;
`
`5:31-40; 5:41-57; 5:60-66; 6:5-12; 7:17-22. Otherwise, there would be no way to compare the
`
`signals of the keys and bias in favor of one over another.
`
`Neodron’s proposed construction finds no support in the specification or claims (and
`
`Neodron cites none). Instead, it is premised entirely on a non-binding ITC decision regarding a
`
`different patent, and would not resolve the parties’ dispute. Defendants’ construction, on the
`
`other hand, is fully supported by the specification, claims, and extrinsic evidence and should be
`
`adopted by the Court.
`
`II.
`
`THE DISPUTED TERM OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,365,747
`A.
`
`“to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode”
`(’747 patent, claims 10, 16)
`
`Samsung’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “to measure a
`value determined by the resistance of the
`first variable resistance electrode”
`
`Neodron agrees the only dispute is the meaning of “parameter” within the larger claim
`
`Neodron’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning; no construction
`necessary: “to measure a parameter of the first
`variable resistance electrode”
`
`term “to measure a parameter of the first variable resistance electrode.” Dkt. 63 at 8-9. As
`
`Samsung’s opening brief explained, the claim language, specification, and Neodron’s statements
`
`in the parallel inter partes review proceeding support, and in fact demand, Samsung’s
`
`construction. Dkt. 62 at 11-16. By contrast, Neodron fails to explain its understanding of the
`
`disputed term. Neodron’s “plain and ordinary meaning” proposal simply restates the claim
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 10 of 18
`
`language and must be rejected because it does not resolve the parties’ dispute. See O2 Micro
`
`Int’l, Ltd v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Neodron misses the point in arguing that Samsung’s construction of “parameter” should
`
`be rejected because it is not based on any “disclaimer or lexicography” in the ’747 Patent. Dkt.
`
`63 at 8. No such showing is required because Samsung’s construction is the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “parameter” in the context of the claims. In the claims, the “parameter” is
`
`“measure[d]” from the “first variable resistance electrode,” which the parties agreed to construe
`
`as a “first electrode in which the resistance of the material varies in relation to applied force.”
`
`See ’747 Patent at 10:16-18, 10:63-64; Joint Claim Construction Statement, Agreed
`
`Constructions. Therefore, the claims do not contemplate measuring anything other than a value
`
`determined by the resistance of the first variable resistance electrode. The specification also
`
`exclusively discloses measuring such a value. See Dkt. 62 at 13-15. Any interpretation that goes
`
`beyond this meaning, which Neodron apparently seeks but will not articulate, is unsupported.
`
`Neodron argues Samsung’s construction is not the plain and ordinary meaning of
`
`“parameter,” but it does not explain how any broader interpretation could be consistent with the
`
`claim language. Dkt. 63 at 8-9. Nor does Neodron cite any portion of the specification, file
`
`history, or any other evidence to dispute Samsung’s construction. Id. Neodron’s assertion that
`
`Samsung’s construction imposes additional requirements on the meaning of “parameter” such as
`
`by including the words “value,” “determined” and “resistance,” is also incorrect. Id. The claims,
`
`specification and other intrinsic evidence confirm that Samsung’s construction is the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the disputed term.
`
`First, Neodron argues Samsung’s construction incorrectly changes the word “parameter”
`
`to “value determined by the resistance.” Id. at 8. But the surrounding claim language supports
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 11 of 18
`
`Samsung’s construction. In the claims, the “parameter” is “measured” from the “first variable
`
`resistance electrode,” which the parties agreed to construe as a “first electrode in which the
`
`resistance of the material varies in relation to applied force.” See ’747 Patent at 10:16-18,
`
`10:63-64; Joint Claim Construction Statement, Agreed Constructions. Because the only function
`
`of the “first variable resistance electrode” is that its resistance varies in relation to applied force,
`
`the “parameter” can only be a value determined by the electrode’s resistance. In addition, any
`
`broader interpretation would be inconsistent with the later claim limitation requiring “one or
`
`more processors configured to determine, based on the measured parameter, an amount of force
`
`applied….” ’747 Patent at 10:22-23, 11:4-5 (emphasis added). Unless the “parameter” is a
`
`value determined by the resistance of the first variable resistance electrode, it would not be
`
`possible to determine the amount of force applied to the electrode.
`
`The specification also repeatedly and exclusively describes the alleged invention as
`
`determining the amount of force applied to a display by measuring a value determined by the
`
`resistance of the first variable resistance electrode. See Dkt. 62 at 13-15. Indeed, it is surprising
`
`that Neodron opposes Samsung’s construction because the background section of Neodron’s
`
`brief describes the ’747 Patent’s claims and alleged invention as measuring a value determined
`
`by the resistance of the variable resistance electrode:
`
`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.” .” [sic] 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 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.
`
`Dkt. 63 at 4-5 (first emphasis original; second emphasis added). Neodron also cannot reconcile
`
`its opposition to Samsung’s construction with its statements to the USPTO in the parallel inter
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 12 of 18
`
`partes review proceeding. Neodron explained that “[a] resistive force sensor uses a ‘variable
`
`resistor whose resistance decreases when the applied force increases,’” and that “[s]uch a force
`
`sensor is able to measure force because of [sic] the resistance of the force sensitive resisiter [sic]
`
`depends on the amount of force applied.” Whilt Decl. Ex. A (Dkt. 62-1), IPR2020-00308, Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response (April 16, 2020), Paper No. 7 at 2.
`
`Second, Neodron argues Samsung’s construction incorrectly interprets “parameter” in the
`
`disputed term as a “value.” Dkt. 63 at 9. But Neodron provides no alternative meaning and cites
`
`no evidence supporting its argument. The specification confirms Samsung’s construction is
`
`correct because it exclusively describes the alleged invention as measuring “values” determined
`
`by the resistance of the first variable resistance electrode. See, e.g., ’747 Patent at 4:60-61
`
`(“circuitry within the control unit 20, which measures the integrated current value”); 5:9-11
`
`(“This configuration can prevent the current from exceeding a maximum value that can be
`
`accepted and measured by the current integrator 22.”); 5:23-24 (“the value of the current flow In
`
`into the integrator input 21…”); 5:29-32 (“the resistance value RQ of the resistive force sensitive
`
`element can be determined from the value of the accumulated charge obtained by integration of
`
`In over a fixed time as measured at the current integrator input 22.”); 6:38-39 (“measure the
`
`integrated current value”); 6:52-54 (“current values measured by differential current
`
`measurement at the input 21 of the current integrator 20”); 7:32-36 (“The resistance value of
`
`each resistive force sensitive element 30a, 30b, 30c can be determined from the respective
`
`current values determined by differential current measurement”) (emphasis added).
`
`Third, Neodron argues Samsung’s construction is incorrect because, outside the context
`
`of the claims, “a parameter is not necessarily determined, much less determined by a resistance.”
`
`Dkt. 63 at 9. However, in the context of the claims, the claimed “parameter” must be a value
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 13 of 18
`
`determined by resistance. The disputed term states “to measure a parameter of the first variable
`
`resistance electrode,” and the parties have agreed that the only function of the first variable
`
`resistance electrode is that its resistance varies in relation to applied force. See ’747 Patent at
`
`10:16-18, 10:63-64; Joint Claim Construction Statement, Agreed Constructions. Therefore,
`
`according to the claim language, the “parameter” measured from this electrode must be a value
`
`determined by the electrode’s resistance.
`
`Moreover, according to the specification, the alleged invention can only calculate the
`
`force applied to a display by measuring a value determined by the resistance of the first variable
`
`resistance electrode. The specification identifies the value measured from the variable resistance
`
`electrode as “In” (see, e.g., ’747 Patent at 5:23-25), and the resistance of the variable resistance
`
`electrode as “RQ” (id. at 5:29-30). As required by Samsung’s construction, the patent states that
`
`“the current In is a function of change in the force sensitive resistance RQ.” Id. at 5:27:28
`
`(emphasis added). The alleged invention uses this measured value to determine the electrode’s
`
`resistance. Id. at 5:28-32 (“the resistance value RQ of the resistive force sensitive element can be
`
`determined from the value … measured at the current integrator input 22”) (emphasis added); id.
`
`at 6:51-56 (same), 7:32-39. The force applied to the screen is in turn determined from the
`
`electrode’s resistance. ’747 Patent at 5:33-34 (“applied force can in turn be determined from the
`
`resistance value RQ of the resistive force sensitive element.”) (emphasis added); id. at 6:54-56
`
`(same), 7:37-39. Therefore, the specification supports Samsung’s construction and does not
`
`contemplate any broader or different interpretation of the disputed term.
`
`The Court should adopt Samsung’s construction. Neodron should not be permitted to
`
`avoid this dispute and later argue a claim interpretation to the jury that is inconsistent with the
`
`claim language and other intrinsic evidence.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 14 of 18
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the above reasons, Defendants request that their proposed constructions be adopted.
`
`
`
`DATED: May 15, 2020
`
`/s/ Nicholas J. Whilt______________________
`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
`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 Defendants Samsung Electronics, Co.,
`Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Michael J. Newton
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Jeffrey T. Lindgren (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 16 of 18
`
`CA Bar No. 176400
`Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren LLP
`1550 Parkside Drive, Suite 130
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`925-627-4250
`Fax: 925-403-0900
`jlindgren@vbllaw.com
`
`Richard C. Vasquez (admitted pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 127228
`Vasquez Benisek & Lindgren LLP
`1550 Parkside Drive, Suite 130
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Phone: 925-627-4250
`Fax: 925-403-0900
`rvasquez@vbllaw.com
`
`M. Craig Tyler
`Perkins Coie LLP
`500 W. 2nd Street
`Suite 1900
`Austin, TX 78701
`Phone: 737.256.6100
`Fax: 737.256.6300
`CTyler@perkinscoie.com
`
`Chao (Wendy) Wang (admitted pro hac vice)
`CA Bar No. 289325
`NY Bar No. 5002704
`Perkins Coie LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`Phone: 650-838-4500
`Fax: 650-838-4350
`wwang@perkinscoie.com
`
`Tariq Javed (admitted pro hac vice)
`DC Bar No. 1618071
`Perkins Coie LLP
`700 Thirteenth Street N.W., Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: 202-654-6200
`Fax: 202-654-6211
`TJaved@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 17 of 18
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Dell Technologies Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John M. Guaragna
`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
`
`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)
`
`Counsel for Defendants Microsoft Corporation
`and HP Inc.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00819-ADA Document 67 Filed 05/15/20 Page 18 of 18
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system
`
`per Local Rule CV-5(b)(1) on May 15, 2020.
`
`/s/ Nichols J. Whilt
` Nicholas J. Whilt
`
`3
`
`