Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`PLAINTIFF AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.’S MOTION TO
`AMEND PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Aire Was Not Diligent In Seeking Leave To Amend ............................................. 4
`
`Aire’s Proposed Amendment Is Not Important ...................................................... 7
`
`Aire’s Proposed Amendment Raises New Claim Construction Issues And
`Will Otherwise Prejudice Apple, Which Would Not Be Cured By A
`Continuance ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Barry v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-104, 2016 WL 7665768 (E.D. Tex. May 9, 2016) ...................................................4
`
`Charles E. Hill & Assocs., Inc. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.,
`No. 07-cv-234, 2009 WL 10677610 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2009)................................................6
`
`Epistar Corp. v. Lowe’s Co. Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-420, slip. op. (W.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2021) (Albright, J.) ......................................3, 4
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 19-cv-311, 2020 WL 7698831 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020) .................................................4
`
`Icon-IP PTY Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-03677, 2013 WL 10448869 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) ........................................8, 9
`
`Levine v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC,
`No. 09-cv-372, 2012 WL 13009216 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2012) ............................................4, 6
`
`Nidec Corp. v. LG Innotek Co.,
`No. 07-cv-108, 2009 WL 3673253 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2009) ...................................................4
`
`Orion IP, LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
`No. 05-cv-306, 2005 WL 8161153 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2005) ................................................7, 8
`
`TiVo, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`No. 09-cv-257, 2012 WL 2036313 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2012) ...............................................4, 6
`
`Xiaohua Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`787 F. App’x 723 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) .........................................................................................................................10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1 (2011), 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67 .........................................................10
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Eight months after defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) announced its new Tap to Pay feature,
`
`plaintiff Aire Technology (“Aire”) seeks to amend its preliminary infringement contentions to add
`
`independent claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249 (“’249 patent”), which Aire contends reads on
`
`that feature. During that eight-month period, the parties have been preparing their respective cases
`
`and engaging in multiple case-related activities, including Markman briefing and fact discovery,
`
`and not once did Aire inform Apple that Aire was investigating or considering asserting claim 13.
`
`Aire has failed to meet its burden of showing good cause for its amendment.
`
`First, Aire does not even purport to show diligence since Apple announced its Tap to Pay
`
`feature eight months ago. Yet, all the functionality cited in Aire’s proposed amended contentions
`
`was publicly announced in February 2022. Aire instead argues that it could not accuse Tap to Pay
`
`earlier because it was unavailable for “real-world use” until this summer—but does not explain
`
`how this later alleged “use” substantiates its claim of diligence. In fact, Aire asserted privilege
`
`over any such investigation, and the law prohibits it from using that assertion both as a sword to
`
`establish diligence and a shield to prevent Apple from investigating that allegation of diligence.
`
`Second, this amendment is not important. Aire already asserts all twelve other claims from
`
`the ’249 patent against the same products (iPhones) accused of infringing claim 13. Aire does not
`
`contend that claim 13 has any purported strategic importance in this case—nor could it, since most
`
`of its infringement theory relies on the same technical features from Apple Pay already accused.
`
`Instead, Aire’s only argument for importance is premised on avoiding a follow-on lawsuit asserting
`
`claim 13—but the doctrine of claim splitting would prohibit such suit, sinking Aire’s argument
`
`about the efficiency to be gained by allowing the amendment. Moreover, that Aire failed to act
`
`with diligence confirms that the amendment cannot be that important to Aire.
`
`Third, this amendment would prejudice Apple and waste Court and party resources. Aire
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`seeks leave to amend within weeks of the one-year statutory deadline to file an IPR petition. And,
`
`if granted, Aire’s amendment would raise new claim construction issues in this case, even though
`
`the parties have already completed claim construction discovery and briefing. The parties have
`
`also engaged in fact discovery in reliance on the scope set forth in Aire’s preliminary contentions.
`
`No continuance could address the fast-approaching IPR deadline, and only a significant
`
`continuance of case deadlines would provide Apple the same amount of time to prepare its
`
`invalidity contentions against claim 13 that Apple would have had if Aire acted diligently. Further,
`
`the parties should be working at this stage to narrow, not expand the suit, as the Court-ordered
`
`deadlines for narrowing the number of asserted claims is approaching.
`
`The Court should deny Aire’s motion. However, if the Court is inclined to grant it, Apple
`
`respectfully requests the Court at least extend the deadline for Apple’s final invalidity contentions
`
`until January 31, 2023, to allow Apple additional time to investigate and develop its invalidity
`
`theories for this new claim. Aire has indicated it would not oppose a reasonable extension, and
`
`although this extension would not cure or reverse the prejudice to Apple, it would give additional
`
`time needed to address this additional asserted claim while having no impact on subsequent case
`
`deadlines.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Aire filed this lawsuit on October 22, 2021, asserting three patents, including the ’249
`
`patent. On January 20, 2022, Aire served its preliminary infringement contentions, asserting
`
`claims 1-12, but not claim 13, of the ’249 patent against the Apple iPhone. See D.I. 63-3 (original
`
`’249 patent PIC chart). Claims 1-12 are directed to a “portable data carrier” arranged in a certain
`
`manner, that communicates with a “terminal” device. See D.I. 1-2 (Complaint, Ex. 2 (’249
`
`patent)). In contrast, claims 13 is directed to the “terminal” that communicates with the “portable
`
`data carrier” that is arranged in a particular manner. Id.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`Just over two weeks later, Apple announced a new feature, called Tap to Pay, that would
`
`be available for third party developers to implement in apps that iPhones users could download,
`
`allowing the iPhone to act as a reader in a contactless payment transaction. See Radsch Decl. ¶ 5,
`
`Ex. 1 (2/8/2022 Apple Tap to Pay Press Release). Apple’s public announcements provided
`
`substantial detail about the operation of Tap to Pay. See id.
`
`For the next eight months, Apple filed IPR petitions on the asserted claims (Radsch Decl.,
`
`¶ 7); the parties engaged in claim construction briefing and discovery (including expert
`
`depositions) (see D.I. 31, 33, 42, 49; Radsch Decl., ¶ 8); served and responded to discovery
`
`requests (Radsch Decl., ¶¶ 9-10); met and conferred about the scope of discovery (id., ¶ 13);
`
`collected and produced documents and source code (id., ¶ 12); and otherwise conducted their
`
`investigations into this suit, all of which was guided by the claims that Aire was asserting. During
`
`that eight-month period, Aire never informed Apple that Aire was investigating Tap to Pay, or that
`
`it was considering adding claim 13 of the ’249 patent. Id. ¶ 14.
`
`Without any prior notice, on September 8, Aire informed Apple that it intended to move to
`
`amend to add claim 13. Apple asked Aire to explain how Aire was diligent. D.I. 63-4 (emails
`
`between D. Hollander and A. Radsch) at 3-4, 8-9. When Aire generically responded that Tap to
`
`Pay was not available for public use until summer 2022, Apple asked Aire to explain how that fact
`
`related to Aire’s diligence. Id. Aire was unable to explain. Aire also contended that its
`
`investigation into purported infringement of claim 13 was privileged and so refused to provide any
`
`details about that investigation to substantiate its claim of diligence. See id.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`A party seeking leave to amend its infringement contentions bears the burden of showing
`
`good cause for the amendment. Epistar Corp. v. Lowe’s Co. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-420, slip. op. at 3
`
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2021) (Albright, J.).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`
`Courts evaluate four factors to determine whether there is good cause to modify the
`scheduling order: (1) the reason for the delay and whether the party has been
`diligent; (2) the importance of the amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing
`the amendment; and (4) the availability of a continuance to cure any prejudice.
`
`Id. (citation omitted).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`Each factor weighs firmly against permitting Aire leave to add an additional patent claim
`
`to this case. Aire has not, and cannot, meet its burden or showing good cause.
`
`Aire Was Not Diligent In Seeking Leave To Amend
`
`
`As reflected in Aire’s own arguments, Aire had the information it needed to assert ’249
`
`claim 13 since at least February 2022. Aire acknowledges Tap to Pay was announced in
`
`February—roughly eight months before Aire first sought to amend its contentions—and tellingly
`
`does not attempt to show that it was diligent since Apple’s announcement. See Mot. 2-3. Courts
`
`have consistently held that shorter delays demonstrate a lack of diligence and warrant denial of
`
`leave to amend contentions. E.g., Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 14-cv-104, 2016 WL 7665768, at
`
`*3 (E.D. Tex. May 9, 2016) (3 months); Levine v. Samsung Telecomms. Am., LLC, No. 09-cv-372,
`
`2012 WL 13009216, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2012) (6 months).1
`
`Aire attempts to excuse its lack of diligence by asserting that it was “unable to investigate
`
`the real-world use” until Apple “rolled out” the feature in Summer 2022, and that Aire purportedly
`
`investigated such use in “late Summer 2022” (Mot. 3; see also D.I. 63-1 (Hollander Decl.) ¶¶ 2-
`
`3)—but that argument is unavailing for several reasons.
`
`First, Aire fails to explain why any purported investigation of “real-world use” was
`
`
`1 Aire’s cited cases involve far shorter delays. See Nidec Corp. v. LG Innotek Co., No. 07-cv-108,
`2009 WL 3673253, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2009) (“within weeks”); GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 19-cv-311, 2020 WL 7698831, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2020) (1 month); TiVo, Inc. v. Verizon
`Commc’ns, Inc., No. 09-cv-257, 2012 WL 2036313, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2012) (4 months).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`necessary to add claim 13. Aire contends that an iPhone implementing Tap to Pay is the “terminal”
`
`recited in claim 13. Mot. 1; D.I. 63-2 (’249 Patent claim 13 claim chart). But claim 13 is not
`
`directed to the details of that terminal—rather, it refers to the terminal only in the preamble and
`
`the first half of the first limitation (13[a]), and is otherwise directed to the arrangement and
`
`operation of a “portable data carrier,” which is the subject matter of already-asserted claims 1-12.
`
`In other words, the operation of the “terminal,” and hence of Tap to Pay, has little to do with claim
`
`13. And, tellingly, Aire refers to Tap to Pay only for the preamble and first half of element 13[a]
`
`of claim 13. D.I. 63-2 (’249 Patent claim 13 claim chart) at 1-7. For the remaining limitations of
`
`claim 13, Aire does not refer to Tap to Pay and instead recites the same evidence and contentions
`
`that it does for previously-asserted claims 1-12. Given that the majority of Aire’s contentions for
`
`claim 13 recites the same evidence that Aire cites for claims 1-12, and that Aire cites Tap to Pay
`
`only for its most basic, and publicly announced, functionality, Aire’s failure to explain why “real-
`
`world use” was necessary should be deemed as a concession that it was not.
`
`Second, and relatedly, Aire’s amendment does not rely on any purported investigation of
`
`“real-world use.” The only evidence relating to Tap to Pay cited in Aire’s proposed amendment
`
`are articles stating that an iPhone can use Tap to Pay to “accept contactless payments” using an
`
`iPhone, and showing an image of two iPhones stating that a customer “taps to pay with iPhone.”
`
`See D.I. 63-2 at 1-6. Similar disclosures appear in Apple’s February 8, 2022 press release
`
`announcing the Tap to Pay feature. See Ex.1 (2/8/2022 Apple Tap to Pay Press Release). For
`
`example, the release states that, using Tap to Pay, “US merchants will be able to accept Apple Pay
`
`and other contactless payments simply by using iPhone and a partner-enabled iOS app,” and
`
`includes a similar photo of two iPhones using Tap to Pay. Id. Based on at least this press release,
`
`Aire therefore “should have known about” the technical features of Tap to Pay cited in its proposed
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`amended contentions. See Levine, 2012 WL 13009216, at *3 (“[D]isclosure and publicity at CES
`
`and in press releases is further reason for expecting that Plaintiff should have known about the new
`
`phones and diligently pursued them, regardless of when sales of the new phones finally began.”).2
`
`The remainder of Aire’s chart points to only the same documentation of Apple Pay presented in
`
`Aire’s prior infringement contentions. See generally D.I. 63-2.
`
`Third, Aire has claimed that its investigation was privileged and, on that basis, refused to
`
`provide any information about the purported investigation of “real-world use” that it may have
`
`conducted. Specifically, during the meet and confer on this Motion, Apple requested Aire provide
`
`details of its supposed “real-world” investigation of Tap to Pay that went beyond the public
`
`information available since February. D.I. 63-4 (emails between D. Hollander and A. Radsch) at
`
`3. Aire refused to provide those details based on privilege, and does not provide any such details
`
`in its Motion. See id. Aire cannot “use [its] analysis . . . to show diligence in pursuing this theory
`
`of infringement” and simultaneously “claim work-product covers the analysis.” Charles E. Hill
`
`& Assocs., Inc. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., No. 07-cv-234, 2009 WL 10677610, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Apr. 17, 2009) (denying motion for leave to amend infringement contentions, explaining that the
`
`plaintiff cannot “use the work-product doctrine as a shield to protect itself from disclosing its
`
`previous analysis while, at the same time, using it as a sword to justify diligence”). Having
`
`contended that its investigation is protected by privilege, Aire cannot now use that same supposed
`
`
`2 Aire’s reliance on TiVo (see Mot. at 3) is misplaced. First, that case involved leave to amend to
`add a new product, not a new claim. See TiVo, 2012 WL 2036313, at *1. Second, the plaintiff,
`TiVo, had made clear to the defendant long before TiVo sought leave to amend, that TiVo intended
`to add that new product once a statutory act occurred (e.g., making, using, selling, etc.) that would
`give rise to an infringement claim. Id. Aire provided no such notice here, while nothing prevented
`it from doing so. Third, Aire has not contended, either in its Motion or during the parties’ meet
`and confers, that it could not have brought its motion sooner due to lack of a statutory basis to
`accuse an iPhone implementing Tap to Pay. Accordingly, TiVo is inapposite.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 10 of 15
`
`investigation to establish diligence.
`
`
`
`Aire has failed to show the diligence required to establish good cause.
`
`Aire’s Proposed Amendment Is Not Important
`
`
`Aire also has failed to demonstrate why its amendment is important. Aire is already
`
`asserting all twelve other claims from the ’249 patent, and its infringement theory for independent
`
`claim 13 is largely cumulative of Aire’s infringement theories for those claims. Further, Aire
`
`asserts claim 13 against a subset of the same accused products already accused; no new products
`
`are added by claim 13’s assertion. Compare D.I. 63-2 (’249 Patent claim 13 claim chart) at 1 with
`
`D.I. 63-3 (original ’249 patent PIC chart). Aire’s theory in its proposed contentions for claim 13
`
`also relies on the same evidence of alleged infringement that it relies upon for claims 1-12. As
`
`Aire previously represented to the Court, Aire’s infringement theory for claims 1-12 of the ’249
`
`patent alleges that “the Accused iPhones perform a security-establishing operation as part of Apple
`
`Pay transactions.” Radsch Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 2 (S. Ravel 3/3/2022 email to Court). Aire confirmed
`
`that its infringement theory for claim 13 relies on this same “security-establishing operation” that
`
`it alleges occurs during an Apple Pay transaction. See D.I. 63-3 (emails between D. Hollander and
`
`A. Radsch) at 3; compare, e.g., Dkt. 63-2 at 8-18 with 63-3 at 3-18 (citing to the same Apple Pay
`
`disclosures).
`
`Instead, Aire’s sole basis for asserting that its amendment is important is that a denial of
`
`leave to amend would necessitate a second lawsuit by Aire asserting claim 13 (see Mot. 4)—but
`
`the doctrine of claim splitting prohibits litigants from “splitting their claims into multiple actions
`
`when the litigant should have brought the claims in a single action.” Orion IP, LLC v. Home Depot
`
`USA, Inc., No. 05-cv-306, 2005 WL 8161153, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2005); see also Xiaohua
`
`Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co., 787 F. App’x 723, 726 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Subject matter is the same
`
`for claim preclusion purposes if the earlier accused devices and the devices accused in the current
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`action are ‘essentially the same.’”) (citation omitted). But for Aire’s lack of diligence, it could
`
`have asserted claim 13 here. Any such follow-on lawsuit would be asserting the same patent
`
`against the same accused products, and would constitute an “impermissible collateral attack” on
`
`this Court’s denial of an amendment. Orion IP, LLC, 2005 WL 8161153, at *2; see also Icon-IP
`
`PTY Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle Components, Inc., No. 13-cv-03677, 2013 WL 10448869, at *2
`
`(N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) (“If [a second suit] were allowed to proceed, the Court would have to
`
`consolidate that action with [the first suit] in the interest of judicial economy,” meaning “the
`
`Court’s order . . . would be negated, and essentially reversed.”). The mere fact that Aire wants to
`
`assert one more claim against the same products is not a valid basis for bringing a follow-on
`
`lawsuit. Aire’s proposed amendment is not important to this case.
`
`
`
`Aire’s Proposed Amendment Raises New Claim Construction Issues And
`Will Otherwise Prejudice Apple, Which Would Not Be Cured By A
`Continuance
`
`Permitting Aire to amend its preliminary infringement contentions by adding a new claim
`
`will unduly prejudice Apple in a manner that cannot be adequately cured by an extension. When
`
`Apple issued its press release on February 8, 2022, less than four months had passed since Aire
`
`filed suit, Apple had not yet filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”), no scheduling order
`
`had been entered, fact discovery had not yet open, Apple had not served its preliminary invalidity
`
`contentions, and claim construction proceedings had not yet begun. In the nearly eight months
`
`that have passed since then, significant progress has occurred in the case, and permitting Aire to
`
`amend now would causes substantial prejudice.
`
`First, the addition of claim 13 would require reopening claim construction discovery and
`
`briefing because, as the parties’ meet and confer correspondence confirms, it would raise new
`
`claim construction issues. D.I. 63-4 (emails between D. Hollander and A. Radsch) at 3. Even at
`
`this preliminary juncture, the parties have identified points of disagreement on claim scope and
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`interpretation. For example, the parties dispute the scope and meaning of the claim element
`
`reciting a device “arranged to cause a user to select one of at least two possible different quality
`
`authentication methods.” Id. Accordingly, claim 13 serves to inject new claim construction issues
`
`into the lawsuit, which, but for Aire’s lack of diligence, could have and should have been addressed
`
`during the claim construction discovery and briefing period that already passed.
`
`Second, the addition of claim 13 would require Apple to investigate, prepare, and serve
`
`additional invalidity contentions. Apple now has only a limited amount of time to investigate prior
`
`art—including in connection with prior art focused subpoenas Apple already served —and update
`
`its contentions to address this new claim. If Aire had been diligent, Apple would have had at least
`
`five months before final invalidity contentions were due to conduct needed discovery relating to
`
`the invalidity of claim 13. See D.I. 61 (Amended Scheduling Order).
`
`Third, Aire’s proposed amendment will waste the parties’ and Court’s resources by
`
`expanding—rather than focusing—the case. Aire asserts 28 claims in this lawsuit, including 12
`
`claims of the ’249 patent. As explained supra, claim 13 requires establishing the same
`
`infringement proof that Aire would need to show for claim 1, but also injects additional issues into
`
`the case. The Court’s scheduling order requires the parties to meet and confer in four months to
`
`narrow the number of claims asserted to narrow the issues that the parties must litigate. Aire’s
`
`proposed amendment is antithetical to that goal and instead forces Apple to litigate more claims
`
`and more issues—wasting resources over an unnecessary additional claim.
`
`Fourth, if Aire is allowed to amend, Apple will have to engage in new rounds of document
`
`collection to produce relevant and responsive documents in a shortened timeframe.
`
`Finally, Aire filed its Motion just 24 days before Apple’s one-year statutory deadline to
`
`file an IPR petition, which is October 24, 2022. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Briefing on the present
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`motion will not be completed until a mere 10 days before the deadline. Apple already filed its IPR
`
`petition challenging all then-asserted claims of the patent—claims 1-12—on June 15, 2022. Apple
`
`Inc. v. Aire Technology, Ltd., IPR2022-01135, Pap. 1 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2022). If Aire is allowed
`
`to add a new claim at this late juncture, Apple will now have less than three weeks to file a follow-
`
`on petition, hindering Apple’s ability to avail itself of this congressionally-authorized pathway to
`
`resolving the parties’ dispute. A continuance here could not address that prejudice, and would
`
`incentivize other litigants to similarly wait until the 11th hour to seek leave to amend, frustrating
`
`congressional purpose in authorizing IPRs. H.R. Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011), 2011
`
`U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 78 (explaining that the America Invents Act established new post-issuance
`
`patent review systems, including IPRs, for the purpose of “providing quick and cost-effective
`
`alternatives to litigation”).
`
`Accordingly, Apple will suffer several forms of undue prejudice that cannot be adequately
`
`cured with an extension; Aire has once again failed to meet its burden.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Aire was not diligent in seeking its requested amendment, and while this amendment is
`
`unimportant to this case, it would subject Apple to incurable prejudice. Accordingly, Apple
`
`respectfully requests that the Court deny Aire’s Motion.
`
`However, if the Court does grant Aire’s Motion, Apple respectfully requests the Court
`
`extend the Final Invalidity Contentions deadline to January 31, 2023, and permit additional claim
`
`construction briefing—both of which Aire has agreed to accommodate. See Mot. 5; Hollander
`
`Decl. ¶ 6. While this extension would not cure the prejudice to Apple, it would reduce it, and this
`
`extension is reasonable because it could be accommodated without modifying any of the Court’s
`
`other deadlines.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 14 of 15
`
`Dated: October 7, 2022
`
`
`
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
`Andrew N. Thomases (admitted in W.D. Tex.)
`Andrew T. Radsch (pro hac vice)
`Daniel W. Richards (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`Email: James.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`Email: Andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`Email: Andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`Email: Daniel.richards@ropesgray.com
`
`Cassandra B. Roth (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`Tel: (212) 596-9000
`Fax: (212) 596-9090
`Email: Cassandra.roth@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Texas State Bar No. 16584975
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
`303 Colorado, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 495-6429
`Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 66 Filed 10/07/22 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing
`
`document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on October 7, 2022.
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`