Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 11
`
`THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`AT SEATTLE
`
`CYWEE GROUP LTD.,
`
`CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-00932-JLR
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`HTC CORPORATION, and HTC AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
`PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION OF
`BELATED CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION
`POSITIONS
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`MAY 4, 2018
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`HTC CORPORATION, and HTC AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Third-Party Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.,
`STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., and CYWEE
`MOTION GROUP LTD.,
`
`Third-Party Defendants.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`Despite Plaintiff CyWee Group Ltd.’s (“CyWee”) assertions to the contrary, Defendants
`
`HTC Corporation (“HTC Corp.”) and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC America”) (collectively,
`
`“HTC”) served preliminary invalidity contentions and identified claim terms for construction in
`
`accordance with this Court’s Standing Order for Patent Cases (“Standing Order”). Further, the
`
`Court’s recent Amendment to Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 73) and subsequent Order Affirming
`
`Amendment to Scheduling Order (Dkt. # 78) (collectively, “Amended Scheduling Order”)
`
`rendered moot CyWee’s claims of prejudice upon which the instant Motion to Preclude
`
`Consideration of Belated Claims Construction Positions (Dkt. # 76, “Motion”) is based.
`
`Accordingly, CyWee’s motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`CyWee acknowledges that HTC served CyWee with its Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions on January 19, 2018. (See Motion at 2.) In those contentions, HTC expressly
`
`“incorporate[d] by reference any additional invalidity contentions . . . previously disclosed by
`
`any party to any other pending or prior litigation . . . involving the Asserted Patents . . . including
`
`any invalidity contentions yet to be produced by Plaintiff from prior litigations and proceedings.”
`(Ex. A1 at 3.) HTC then specifically referenced the “invalidity contentions from . . . Samsung
`Electronics Co. Ltd. et al (Case No. 2-17-cv-00140).” (Id.) CyWee subsequently produced the
`
`invalidity contentions of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`defendants in Case No. 2:17-CV-00140-RWS-RSP in the Eastern District of Texas, on March 2,
`
`2018. An excerpted copy of those contentions (“the Samsung Invalidity Contentions”) is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`The Samsung Invalidity Contentions identified the following terms or phrases as
`
`indefinite: (1) “utilizing a comparison,” from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,441,438 (“the ’438
`
`Patent”); (2) “comparing the second quaternion in relation to the measured angular velocities ωx,
`
`1 All exhibits referenced herein are attached to the declaration of Albert Shih (“Shih Decl.”),
`filed concurrently herewith.
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`1
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 11
`
`ωy, ωz of the current state at current time T with the measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az
`
`and the predicted axial accelerations Ax', Ay', Az' also at current time T,” from claims 14 and 19
`
`of the ’438 Patent; and (3) “generating the orientation output,” from claim 10 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,522,978 (“the ’978 Patent”). (See Ex. B at 72-74.) These three terms (“the Samsung Terms”)
`are the same as, or are components of, the terms at issue in this Motion.2 (See Motion at 3.) In
`other words, as further discussed below, when HTC proposed that the Disputed Terms be
`
`construed as indefinite, (see Ex. D at 4), those terms had previously been identified as indefinite
`
`in HTC’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Following the service of these contentions, HTC served CyWee with its Initial Proposed
`
`Claim Terms and Elements for Construction on February 20, 2018. (See Ex. C.) Therein, HTC
`
`specifically identified each of the three claim terms that CyWee seeks to exclude from claim
`
`construction. (See id. at 1-2.) On March 30, 2018, as a part of its Disclosure of Preliminary
`
`Claim Constructions and Evidence, HTC proposed that these three terms be construed as
`
`indefinite. (See Ex. D at 4.) CyWee objected to four of HTC’s preliminary constructions—those
`
`for the Disputed Terms and one other. (See Shih Decl. at ¶ 4.) On April 4, 2018, HTC agreed to
`
`drop the added term, but maintained the inclusion of the Disputed Terms. (See id.) The parties
`
`met and conferred the following day, at which point CyWee stated that it had been unable to
`
`submit an expert report addressing the Disputed Terms. (See id. at ¶ 5.) In response, HTC
`
`suggested that CyWee could serve a supplemental expert report. (See id.) CyWee refused the
`
`suggestion, and indicated that it would file this Motion. (See id.)
`
`•
`
`2 The claim terms at issue (collectively, “the Disputed Terms”) are the following:
`“utilizing a comparison to compare the first signal set with the second signal set” (the
`•
`’438 Patent at claim 1, “the First Disputed Term”);
`“comparing the second quaternion in relation to the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy,
`ωz of the current state at current time T with the measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az
`and the predicted axial accelerations Ax', Ay', Az' also at current time T” (the ’438 Patent
`at claims 14 and 19, “the Second Disputed Term”); and
`“generating the orientation output based on the first signal set, the second signal set and
`the rotation output or based on the first signal set and the second signal set” (the ’978
`Patent at claim 10, “the Third Disputed Term”).
`
`•
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`2
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`The remaining claim construction deadlines were subsequently postponed by the Court’s
`
`Amended Scheduling Order. As such, the deadlines for the Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement and Opening Claim Construction Briefs have been extended from April 25,
`
`2018 to July 27, 2018 and May 18, 2018 to August 2, 2018, respectively. (See Dkt. # 42 at 1;
`
`Dkt. # 73 at 1.) And the Markman Hearing initially scheduled for July 13, 2018 is now
`
`scheduled for September 21, 2018. (See Dkt. # 42 at 2; Dkt. # 73 at 1.)
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`“When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is
`
`the court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d
`
`1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit has also made clear that “[i]ndefiniteness is a
`
`matter of claim construction.” Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Accordingly, CyWee does not object to the Court determining indefiniteness at this stage per se,
`
`but only to the allegedly unfair and untimely manner in which the Disputed Terms were
`
`identified as indefinite. However, CyWee’s claim of prejudice is vastly overstated, especially in
`
`light of the recent amendment to the case schedule. Furthermore, HTC in fact disclosed its
`
`indefiniteness position in its preliminary contentions and, in any event, has proceeded in
`
`accordance with the Court’s Standing Order.
`1.
`CyWee’s Claim of Prejudice Was Overstated Initially and Is Now Moot
`
`CyWee’s Motion is built upon its claim of prejudice. Indeed, to conclude its Motion
`
`CyWee points to the “substantial prejudice to CyWee [in] (1) preventing CyWee from presenting
`
`expert opinions on [HTC’s indefiniteness] assertions; and/or (2) unnecessarily delaying the
`
`claims construction proceeding,” and on this basis requests that the Court exclude the Disputed
`
`Terms from claim construction. (Motion at 6.)
`
`At the time of the Motion, however, the harm alleged by Cywee was overstated. When
`
`CyWee raised the expert testimony concern at the parties’ meet and confer on April 5, 2018,
`
`HTC suggested that CyWee could serve a supplemental expert report that addressed the Disputed
`
`Terms. (See Shih Decl. at ¶ 5.) CyWee discarded the suggestion. (See id.) CyWee justifies its
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`3
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 11
`
`refusal to work with HTC to develop a reasonable solution to the present dispute—instead,
`
`choosing to file the present Motion—by implying that any amicable resolution would have
`
`required “delaying claim construction to allow CyWee to supplement its expert report.” (Motion
`
`at 4.) In all likelihood, however, there would have been no reason to delay claim construction
`
`proceedings. When HTC raised the option of a supplemental report on April 5, 2018, CyWee
`
`still had nearly three weeks—until April 25, 2018—before the Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement was due. (See Dkt. # 42 at 1.) And, CyWee had already filed an expert
`
`declaration, see Decl. of Joseph J. LaViola, Jr., Ph.D., CyWee Group Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-00140-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2018), ECF No. 66-6 (attached hereto
`as Exhibit E), addressing the indefiniteness of the Disputed Terms in its case against Samsung.3
`
`•
`
`3 In relevant part, Dr. LaViola opined as follows:
`“CyWee proposes that [the First Disputed Term] be construed as ‘determining or
`•
`assessing differences based on a previous state associated with the first signal set and a
`measured state associated with the second signal set while calculating deviation angles.’
`Samsung alleges that this term is indefinite. In my opinion this term is not indefinite
`because it informs, with reasonable certainty, a person of ordinary skill in the art, of the
`scope of the invention. Further, it is my opinion that this term has the meaning proposed
`by CyWee when read by a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the intrinsic
`evidence.”
`“CyWee proposes that [the Second Disputed Term] need not be construed. In the
`alternative, CyWee proposes that this term be construed as ‘utilizing the second
`quaternion obtained from the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz of the current state
`at current time T, the measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az, and the predicted axial
`accelerations Ax', Ay', Az' also at current time T to obtain an updated state or updated
`quaternion.’ Samsung alleges that this term is indefinite. In my opinion this term is not
`indefinite because it informs, with reasonable certainty, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, of the scope of the invention. Further, it is my opinion that, while this term need not
`be construed, it has the meaning proposed by CyWee.”
`“CyWee proposes that [the Third Disputed Term] need not be construed. In the
`alternative, CyWee proposes
`that
`this
`term be construed as ‘generating
`the
`orientation/deviation angle output based on (1)
`the first signal set (from an
`accelerometer), the second signal set (from a magnetometer) and the rotation output
`(from a rotation sensor or gyroscope) or (2) the first signal set (from an accelerometer)
`and the second signal set (from a magnetometer).’ Samsung alleges that this term is
`indefinite. In my opinion this term is not indefinite because it informs, with reasonable
`certainty, a person of ordinary skill in the art, of the scope of the invention. Further, it is
`my opinion that, while this term need not be construed, it has the meaning proposed by
`CyWee.”
`
`•
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`4
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`In any event, the Court’s Amended Scheduling Order has mooted any claims of prejudice
`
`that CyWee may have rightfully made at the time of its Motion. Under the amended schedule,
`
`CyWee has until July 27, 2018—nearly three months—before the Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement is due. (See Dkt. # 73 at 1.) Accordingly, HTC once again proposes that
`
`CyWee may file a supplemental expert report to address the Disputed Terms. The amended
`
`schedule entirely obviates CyWee’s concern about delaying claim construction.
`
`In short, the prospect of prejudice arising from the two issues raised by CyWee, while
`
`dubious at the outset, is non-existent under the current schedule. As such, CyWee’s allegations
`
`of prejudice should be disregarded.
`
`2.
`
`HTC Disclosed Its Indefiniteness Position Vis-à-Vis the Disputed Terms in Its
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`
`CyWee claims that HTC’s indefiniteness position with respect to the Disputed Terms was
`
`not disclosed in HTC’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions and thus, relying on Karl Storz
`
`Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Stryker Corp, No. 14-CV-00876-RS(JSC), 2017 WL 5257001 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Nov. 13, 2017), HTC’s proposed claim constructions should be barred. (Motion at 4-5.)
`
`Not so. HTC’s contentions first expressly “incorporate[d] by reference any additional invalidity
`
`contentions . . . previously disclosed by any party to any other pending or prior litigation . . .
`
`involving the Asserted Patents . . . including any invalidity contentions yet to be produced by
`
`Plaintiff from prior litigations and proceedings,” then specifically referenced the “invalidity
`
`contentions from . . . Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al (Case No. 2-17-cv-00140).” (Ex. A at
`
`3.) As it pertains to this Motion, the Samsung Invalidity Contentions identified the following
`
`terms or phrases as indefinite: (1) “utilizing a comparison,” from claim 1 of the ’438 Patent;
`
`(2) “comparing the second quaternion in relation to the measured angular velocities ωx, ωy, ωz
`
`of the current state at current time T with the measured axial accelerations Ax, Ay, Az and the
`
`predicted axial accelerations Ax', Ay', Az' also at current time T,” from claims 14 and 19 of the
`
`(Ex. E at ¶¶ 17, 46, 86 (emphasis added); see also id. at ¶¶ 18-45, 47-66, 87-101 (further
`testimony addressing the Disputed Terms).)
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`5
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`’438 Patent; and (3) “generating the orientation output,” from claim 10 of the ’978 Patent. (See
`
`Ex. B at 72-74.) The Samsung Terms are the same as, or are components of, the Disputed
`
`Terms. (See Ex. C at 1-2.) In other words, when HTC proposed that the Disputed Terms be
`
`construed as indefinite, (see Ex. D at 4), those terms had previously been identified as indefinite
`
`in HTC’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions insofar as HTC’s contentions incorporated by
`
`reference the Samsung Terms from the Samsung Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Courts in this Circuit have approved of incorporation by reference in analogous
`
`situations. See PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 16-cv-01266-EJD
`
`(NC), slip op. (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017) (granting defendant’s motion to amend its invalidity
`
`contentions where “in its invalidity disclosures, [defendant] incorporated by reference several
`
`prior art references used in other litigation and proceedings . . . [and later] moved to amend its
`
`contentions to ‘clarify’ the full set of prior art references”) (attached hereto as Exhibit G); Signal
`
`IP, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. LA CV14-03111 JAK (JEMx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`191077, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016) (granting defendant’s motion to amend its invalidity
`
`contentions and finding no unfair prejudice because “more than a year before seeking to amend
`
`its invalidity contentions, [defendant] put [plaintiff] on notice that it might rely on [certain prior
`
`art references] . . . [by] serv[ing] its Initial Invalidity Contentions . . . [which] expressly
`
`incorporated the prior art references disclosed by another party in this case”); Adaptix, Inc. v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG, slip op. at 4-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2014) (“[Plaintiff’s
`
`expert] also incorporates by reference the entirety of [plaintiff’s] infringement contentions as
`
`follows: ‘my opinions (and this report) incorporate by reference all Infringement Contentions
`
`previously served.’ . . . [T]he court finds nothing inherently wrong with this approach.”)
`
`(attached hereto as Exhibit H). Moreover, CyWee itself made use of incorporation by reference
`
`in its own contentions. (See Ex. F at 4 (“End users of the patents-in-suit directly infringe through
`
`normal and ordinary use of the Accused Devices as described in CyWee’s Opposition to HTC’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 39) and the Declaration of Dr. Nicholas Gans (Dkt. No. 20-3), both
`
`of which are incorporated by reference herein.”) (emphasis added).) In other words, both the
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`6
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`case law and the practice of the parties in this case dictate that HTC, by incorporating the
`
`Samsung Invalidity Contentions by reference, disclosed its indefiniteness position vis-à-vis the
`
`Disputed Terms in its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. CyWee’s Motion should be denied on
`
`this basis alone.
`3.
`HTC Acted in Accordance with the Court’s Standing Order, Even If It Did
`Not Disclose Its Indefiniteness Position Vis-à-Vis the Disputed Terms in Its
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`Even if the Court were to find that HTC may not incorporate by reference the Samsung
`
`Invalidity Contentions, and thus that HTC’s indefiniteness position with respect to the Disputed
`
`Terms was not disclosed in its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, HTC has acted according to
`
`the Court’s Standing Order. Proposing that claim terms be construed as indefinite, even if those
`
`terms were not identified as indefinite in preliminary invalidity contentions, does not necessarily
`
`violate the Standing Order.
`
`HTC does not dispute that the Standing Order requires “[a] party opposing a claim of
`
`infringement on the basis of invalidity [to] serve on all parties a statement of its Preliminary
`
`Invalidity Contentions including . . . any grounds for invalidity bases on indefiniteness . . . .”
`
`Standing Order at 2-3. However, this instruction must be read in the context of the entire
`
`Standing Order. Specifically, the Standing Order also provides that “[a]ll allegations of
`
`infringement and invalidity will be filed with the court in the form of a Prehearing Statement,”
`
`and that “[a]fter that time, the court will not consider new allegations of infringement or
`
`invalidity without the asserting party showing good cause.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). In other
`
`words, although the parties are obligated to provide preliminary contentions, those contentions
`
`are just that—preliminary. The parties have until the filing of the Prehearing Statement to
`
`crystallize their theories of infringement and invalidity, and only after that time does the addition
`
`of a new theory require a showing of good cause. As such, even if HTC did not disclose its
`
`indefiniteness position with respect to the Disputed Terms in its Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions—and HTC maintains that it did—at the very least HTC disclosed its theory of
`
`indefiniteness when it served CyWee with its Disclosure of Preliminary Claim Constructions and
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`7
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 11
`
`Evidence on March 30, 2018. (See Ex. D at 4.) This occurred well before the Prehearing
`
`Statement due date, which at the time was April 25, 2018, (see Dkt. # 42 at 1), and is now July
`
`27, 2018, (see Dkt. # 73 at 1). Accordingly, insofar as HTC’s indefiniteness position vis-à-vis
`
`the Disputed Terms is a new allegation of invalidity, its addition via claim construction is not
`
`one which requires a showing of good cause. See Standing Order at 3. As long as HTC
`
`ultimately includes this invalidity theory in its Prehearing Statement, it will have performed
`
`consistently with the procedures prescribed in the Standing Order. See id.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, HTC respectfully requests that the Court deny CyWee’s
`
`Motion and refuse to exclude the Disputed Terms from claim construction.
`
`DATED: April 30, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Gregory L. Watts
`Gregory L. Watts, WSBA #43995
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Telephone: (206) 883-2500
`Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
`Email: gwatts@wsgr.com
`
`James C. Yoon, CA Bar #177155 (pro hac vice)
`Ryan R. Smith, CA Bar #229323(pro hac vice)
`Albert Shih, CA Bar #251726 (pro hac vice)
`Jamie Y. Otto, CA Bar #295099 (pro hac vice)
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
`Email: jyoon@wsgr.com
`
`
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`
`
`ashih@wsgr.com
`
`
`jotto@wsgr.com
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`8
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 11
`
`Ty W. Callahan, CA Bar #312548 (pro hac vice)
`Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2027
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`Email: tcallahan@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`9
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00932-JLR Document 80 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 11
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 30, 2018, I filed the foregoing entitled as follows:
`1. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`CONSIDERATION OF BELATED CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION POSITIONS;
`and,
`
`2. DECLARATION OF ALBERT SHIH IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
`RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE CONSIDERATION
`OF BELATED CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION POSITIONS (EXHIBITS A
`THROUGH H)
`
`with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and served all parties via ECF.
`
`Dated: April 30, 2018
`
` s/ Gregory L. Watts
`Gregory L. Watts, WSBA #43995
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Telephone: (206) 883-2500
`Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
`Email: gwatts@wsgr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs
`HTC CORPORATION, and HTC AMERICA, INC.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
`MOTION TO PRECLUDE
`2:17-CV-00932-JLR
`
`1
`
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5100
`SEATTLE, WA 98104-7036
`TEL: (206) 883-2500
`FAX: (206) 883-2699
`
`