Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 103 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1907
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION OF PARTIAL JUDGMENT OF
`NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
`
`Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”) and Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”), by and through their respective counsel, and in response to the Court’s Order entered
`
`August 15, 2023 (Dkt. No. 102), 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. 92.
`
`
`
`In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties,
`
`subject to approval of the Court, as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On December 1, 2022, Geoscope filed its Complaint against Apple 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 January 10, 2023, Apple 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. 29.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 103 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 1908
`
`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, 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. 92.
`
`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.
`
`Based on the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92), the parties jointly
`
`stipulate that the Court may enter judgment of noninfringement of claims 13, 15 and 20 of the ’264
`
`Patent against Geoscope in light of the Court’s constructions. Specifically, under Geoscope’s
`
`proposed construction of “wireless device” as a “device capable of communicating using a wireless
`
`network,” Geoscope contended that Apple infringed claims 13, 15, and 20 of the ’264 Patent and
`
`that a fixed access point in a wireless network satisfied the “wireless device” limitation of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 103 Filed 08/15/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 1909
`
`claims. However, in view of the Court’s construction of the term “wireless device,” and its
`
`statement that the intrinsic evidence does not support “that a base station may be a wireless
`
`device,” Dkt. No. 92 at 32, the parties agree that Geoscope cannot establish that Apple infringes
`
`claims 13, 15, and 20 of the ’264 Patent. Geoscope expressly reserves the right to appeal the
`
`Court’s claim construction of the term “wireless device” upon entry of final judgment.
`
`7.
`
`Based on the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 92), 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 on grounds that the Court has ruled that the following
`
`terms recited in the asserted claims (based on their dependency from an independent claim) are
`
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112: “in proximity,” “determining said most likely street as a first one
`
`of said plural geographic locations,” and “positioning determining equipment.” Geoscope
`
`expressly reserves the right to appeal the Court’s claim construction of these terms in the ’784
`
`Patent and ’358 Patent 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 Apple
`
`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
`
`Apple and against Geoscope as to Count Two of Geoscope’s Complaint for claim 52 the ’358
`
`Patent.1 The judgment as to these Counts will become final upon entry of judgment as to all
`
`remaining claims in this action. The parties reserve all appellate rights, including but not limited
`
`
`1 Asserted claims 15 and 18 of the ’358 Patent do not recite the term “positioning determining
`equipment.”
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 103 Filed 08/15/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 1910
`
`to, the right to appeal the Court’s Claim Construction Order to the United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Federal Circuit.
`
`9.
`
`The parties agree that, in the event that the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit modifies or reverses any portion of this Court’s Claim Construction Order, or
`
`remands to this Court for further proceedings, nothing in this stipulation shall be considered as an
`
`admission that Apple is entitled to judgment of noninfringement or invalidity, or to waive or
`
`foreclose entry of judgment of infringement of the Accused Instrumentality under any of the
`
`Asserted Patents. The parties further agree that in the event that the United States Court of Appeals
`
`for the Federal Circuit modifies or reverses any portion of this Court’s Claim Construction Order,
`
`or remands to this Court for further proceedings, this Stipulation shall not be offered or admitted
`
`into evidence in such further proceedings.
`
`10.
`
`The parties agree that this stipulation is without prejudice to any claim construction,
`
`infringement, or noninfringement positions with respect to any other limitations of any other
`
`asserted claims in this action.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 103 Filed 08/15/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 1911
`
`Dated: August 15, 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/ Craig C. Reilly
`
`
` Craig C. Reilly (VSB No. 20942)
`craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com
`THE LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG C. REILLY
`209 Madison Street, Suite 501
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Tel: (703) 549-5354
`Fax: (703) 549-5355
`
`Brian M. Buroker (VSB No. 39581)
`bburoker@gibsondunn.com
`Wendy W. Cai (pro hac vice)
`wcai@gibsondunn.com
`David Brzozowski (pro hac vice)
`dbrzozowski@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Tel: (202) 955-8295
`Fax: (202) 831-6106
`
`Brian A. Rosenthal (pro hac vice)
`brosenthal@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Tel: (212) 351-4000
`Fax: (212) 716-0839
`
`Jaysen S. Chung (pro hac vice)
`jschung@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`Tel: (650) 849-5300
`Fax: (650) 849-5067
`
`Nathaniel R. Scharn (pro hac vice)
`nscharn@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612-4412
`Tel: (949) 451-3800
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-01373-MSN-JFA Document 103 Filed 08/15/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 1912
`
`
`
`Fax: (949) 451-4220
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`