Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 117 Filed 08/22/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 2160
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION OF PARTIAL JUDGMENT OF
`NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
`
`Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) and Defendant Google LLC
`
`(“Google”), by and through their respective counsel, and in response to the Court’s Order entered
`
`August 15, 2023 (Dkt. No. 113), hereby stipulate to entry of judgment of noninfringement of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,320,264 (the “’264 Patent”) and of invalidity of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784
`
`(the “’784 Patent”) and claim 52 of U.S. Patent No. 8,400,358 (the “’358 Patent”), based on the
`
`Court’s claim construction rulings in Dkt. No. 105.
`
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties,
`
`subject to approval of the Court, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On November 22, 2022, Geoscope filed its Complaint against Google for
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,561,104; 8,400,358; 8,786,494; 8,406,753; 9,097,784; and
`
`8,320,264 (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Dkt. No. 1.
`
`2.
`
`On March 1, 2023, Google answered Geoscope’s Complaint, denying the material
`
`allegations and asserting, among other things, affirmative defenses of noninfringement and
`
`invalidity of the Asserted Patents. Dkt. No. 48.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 117 Filed 08/22/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 2161
`
`3.
`
`On June 12, 2023, pursuant to the Joint Discovery Plan, Geoscope narrowed the
`
`asserted claims of the ’264 Patent, ’784 Patent, and ’358 Patent to the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Claims 13, 15, and 20 of the ’264 Patent;
`
`Claim 11 of the ’784 Patent; and
`
`Claims 15, 18, and 52 of the ’358 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`On July 19, 2023, following briefing and a hearing, the Court issued a Claim
`
`Construction Order construing disputed terms of the Asserted Patents. Dkt. No. 105.
`
`5.
`
`With respect to the ’264 Patent, ’784 Patent, and ’358 Patent, the Court’s Claim
`
`Construction Order provided, among other things, the following constructions and rulings:
`
`a.
`
`“wireless device” (’264 Patent): a mobile device configured
`
`to
`
`communicate while unattached to any physical wires.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“in proximity” (’784 Patent): Indefinite.
`
`“determining said most likely street as a first one of said plural geographic
`
`locations” (’784 Patent): Indefinite.
`
`d.
`
`“positioning determining equipment” (’358 Patent): Subject to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`112 ¶ 6. Function: “comparing said modified network measurement data with said
`
`database of calibration data.” Structure: Indefinite.
`
`6.
`
`In light of the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 105), the parties jointly
`
`stipulate that the Court may enter judgment of noninfringement of claims 13, 15, and 20 of the
`
`’264 Patent against Geoscope. Google provides a location service for Android devices called
`
`Google Location Services. Mobile devices with Google Location Services can use information
`
`from nearby Wi-Fi access points and cellular towers to determine a device’s location. Geoscope
`
`alleged that the Wi-Fi geolocation functionality and cellular geolocation functionality of Google
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 117 Filed 08/22/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 2162
`
`Location Services on Android mobile devices infringe claims 13, 15, and 20 of the ’264 Patent.
`
`Under Geoscope’s proposed construction of “wireless device” as a “device capable of
`
`communicating using a wireless network,” Geoscope contended that a Wi-Fi access point or cell
`
`tower satisfied the “wireless device” limitation of the claims, because such transmitters
`
`communicate using a wireless communication network. However, in view of the Court’s
`
`construction of the term “wireless device,” and the statement in the Court’s Order that the intrinsic
`
`evidence does not support “that a base station may be a wireless device,” Dkt. No. 105 at 32, the
`
`parties agree that Geoscope cannot establish that Google infringes claims 13, 15, and 20 of the
`
`’264 Patent, because Wi-Fi access points and cell towers are not configured to communicate while
`
`unattached to any physical wires. Geoscope expressly reserves the right to challenge on appeal
`
`the Court’s claim construction of the term “wireless device” upon entry of final judgment.
`
`7.
`
`Based on the Court’s rulings described in paragraph 5 above involving the ’784 and
`
`’358 Patents, the parties jointly stipulate that the Court may enter judgment of invalidity of asserted
`
`claim 11 of the ’784 Patent and asserted claim 52 of the ’358 Patent. Geoscope expressly reserves
`
`the right to challenge on appeal the Court’s rulings described in paragraph 5 above involving the
`
`’784 and ’358 Patents upon entry of final judgment.
`
`8.
`
`The present action presents more than one claim for relief. To conserve judicial
`
`and party resources, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in favor of
`
`Google and against Geoscope as to Counts Five and Six of Geoscope’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1)
`
`asserting infringement of the ’784 Patent and ’264 Patent, respectively, and partial judgment in
`
`favor of Google and against Geoscope as to Count Two of Geoscope’s Complaint for claim 52 of
`
`the ’358 Patent.1 The judgment as to these Counts will become final upon entry of judgment as to
`
`
`1 Claims 15 and 18 of the ’358 Patent do not recite the term “positioning determining equipment.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 117 Filed 08/22/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 2163
`
`all remaining claims in this action. The parties reserve all appellate rights, including but not limited
`
`to the right to challenge the Court’s Claim Construction Order on appeal to the United States Court
`
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`9.
`
`The parties agree that this stipulation is without prejudice to any claim construction,
`
`infringement, noninfringement, validity, or invalidity positions with respect to any other
`
`limitations of any other asserted claims in this action.
`
`10.
`
`The parties further request, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), that the time for
`
`filing a bill of costs or a motion for attorney’s fees under any basis, including 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), be extended until thirty days after the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit’s issuance of the mandate regarding any appeal of this Court’s final judgment or
`
`thirty days after the time to file an appeal has expired.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01331-MSN-JFA Document 117 Filed 08/22/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 2164
`
`
`Dated: August 22, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John M. Erbach
`John M. Erbach (VSB No. 76695)
`Chris Bascom (VSB No. 87302)
`SPOTTS FAIN, P.C.
`Renaissance Centre
`411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
`Richmond, Virginia 23219
`Tel: (804) 697-2044
`Fax: (804) 697-2144
`jerbach@spottsfain.com
`cbascom@spottsfain.com
`
`
`
`Timothy K. Gilman (pro hac vice)
`Christopher M. Gerson (pro hac vice)
`Saunak K. Desai (pro hac vice)
`Natalie D. Lieber (pro hac vice)
`Gregory R. Springsted (pro hac vice)
`Ryan J. Singer (pro hac vice)
`Alexandra J. Cho (pro hac vice)
`SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP
`919 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (212) 756-2000
`Fax: (212) 593-5955
`tim.gilman@srz.com
`chris.gerson@srz.com
`saunak.desai@srz.com
`natalie.lieber@srz.com
`gregory.springsted@srz.com
`ryan.singer@srz.com
`alexandra.cho@srz.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies
`Pte. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen E. Noona
`
` Stephen E. Noona (VSB No. 25367)
`Clark J. Belote (VSB No. 87310)
`KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
`150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
`Norfolk, VA 23510-1665
`Telephone: (757) 624-3000
`Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
`senoona@kaufcan.com
`cjbelote@kaufcan.com
`
`Edward J. Bennett (VSB No. 40118)
`Adam D. Harber (pro hac vice)
`Andrew Trask (pro hac vice)
`Benjamin N. Hazelwood (VSB No. 96058)
`Michael Xun Liu (pro hac vice)
`Adam Pan (pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
`680 Maine Avenue SW
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 434-5000
`ebennett@wc.com
`aharber@wc.com
`atrask@wc.com
`bhazelwood@wc.com
`mliu@wc.com
`apan@wc.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`