The proposed redactions pertain to testimony about his employer's methods and techniques in providing services to customers, including the company’s process for conducting due diligence when acquiring a patent portfolio.

First, SitNet proposes limited redactions to Mr. Eldering’s testimony regarding the specific financial terms of SitNet’s litigation funding agreement.

70, 78) directly fall within the purview of the confidentiality provision of the Asset Purchase Agreement— Eldering agrees to hold in strictest confidence and will not disclosure…any trade secrets of TPL and Maglia.

products, marketing and selling, business plans, budgets, licenses, price and costs See Exhibit P (TPL’s Asset Purchase Agreement), p. 84-85.

*** SitNet respectfully requests that the Court grant Meta’s motion to seal dated July 31, 2024 (Dkt. No. 100), as it contains individual’s sensitive information, proprietary and confidential 29504251.1

Per Your Honor’s Individual Rule 11.C, we write to respectfully request permissiontofile the following documents in redacted form and to file the unredacted versions of the same underseal: e Memorandum of Law in Support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Exhibit D to the Declaration of Kathryn Bi in Support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgement Exhibit E to the Declaration of Kathryn Bi in Support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgement Exhibit F to the Declaration of Kathryn Bi in Support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgement Exhibit G to the Declaration of Kathryn Bi in Support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgement Exhibit H to the Declaration of Kathryn Bi in Support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgement Exhibit | to the Declaration of Kathryn Bi in Support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgement Exhibit P to the Declaration of Kathryn Bi in Support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgement Meta understandsthat Plaintiff SitNet LLC contends that Exhibits D-I and P attached thereto contain confidential, proprietary, and/or trade-secret information.

Meta seeks to temporarily seal or redact Exhibits D-I| and P, and certain information related thereto in its Memorandum of Law to afford SitNet an opportunity to apply for permanent sealing should it wish to do so.

As required by Your Honor’s Individual Rule 11.C, Meta isfiling contemporaneously withthis letter a complete set of the aforementioned documents, with redactions, on the public docket and submitting to Chambers a second complete set of the same, with proposed redactions highlighted.

Respectfully submitted, Kathryn cc: All counsel (via ECF), Electronic Filing

Interrogatories must be served no later than 30 days prior to the date of the close of fact discovery as provided in item (f).

Unless counsel agree otherwise or the Court so orders, depositions shall not commence until all parties have completed the initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ.

Request to Admit, if any, must be served later than 30 days prior to the date of the close of fact discovery as provided in item (f).

The discovery completion date may be adjourned only upon a showing to the Court of extraordinary circumstances, and may not be extended on consent.

The timing and other requirements for the Joint Pretrial Order and/or other pre-trial submissions shall be governed by the Court’s Individual Practices.

The parties conducted multiple Lead Trial Counsel conferences on the issues raised in this letter and are at an impasse.

Meta suffers no prejudice2 from an extension; on the other hand, SitNet will be severely prejudiced by its reliance on Meta’s good faith in producing documents on a rolling basis.

Meta states its key business metrics as follows: “The size of our active user base and our users’ level of engagement across our products are critical to our success.

.”3 and “[a]ny number of factors can negatively affect user retention, growth, and engagement, including if [] we fail to introduce new features, products, or services.

Meta’s response does not comply with the requirements of Rule 33(d)(1) because the burden of attempting to derive or ascertain the answer are certainly more cumbersome, if not prohibitive, for SitNet as compared to Meta.

Arun Subramanian United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A New York, NY 10007 July 23, 2024 Re: SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Case No.: 1:23-cv-06389-AS Your Honor: We represent Plaintiff SitNet LLC (the “Plaintiff” or “SitNet”) in the above referenced matter.

Pursuant to the Court’s July 18, 2024 email Order, SitNet states that it redacted its discovery dispute letter (Dkt. No. 82) only because Defendant Meta designated the entre transcript as “Highly Confidential.” SitNet does not agree that the redacted testimony is Confidential or Highly Confidential.

The limited references to the deposition in SitNet's letter need not be redacted, so SitNet should file an unredacted version of the letter at Dkt. 82.

But Dkt. 82-4 shall remain under seal.

Sincerely,

ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge: As discussed during the July 22 conference: 23-cv-6389 (AS)

If the motion is filed but turns out to be plainly meritless in light of the constraints of Rule 56, pages will be deducted from Meta’s summary-judgment page-count budget.

o With respect to the financial information, the parties shall meet, confer, and raise any remaining disputes by July 29, 2024. o For interrogatories 9, 18, and 21, SitNet’s requests are denied.

• With respect to Meta’s motion for a protective order, the Court will move the trial date to March 10, 2025.

The parties shall submit a revised proposed scheduling order accounting for the extra six weeks by July 29, 2024.

Dealers, Inc., 2008 WL 199537, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) (“The interest in protecting business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing has, at a minimum, been recognized by the Supreme Court as potentially sufficient to defeat the common law presumption of access.” (citation and quotations omitted)), aff’d sub nom Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Fin.

Specifically, Meta seeks to seal Ex. 3 to Plaintiff SitNet’s Letter Motion (Dkt. No. 82-3), the deposition transcript of Meta’s financial analyst Peter Kariuki, and to redact discrete sections of its Opposition to SitNet’s Letter Motion, and Ex. C to its Opposition, that quote from or refer to information 1 SitNet filed Ex. 3 under seal and emailed a copy to Your Honor’s Chambers on the morning of July 18.

2 SitNet filed Ex. 4 on the public docket on July 18 right past midnight and without conferring with Meta as your Honor’s Individual Rule 11.C.i requires.

Meta notified Your Honor’s Chambers yesterday morning as soon as it learned of this unauthorized public filing, and Your Honor subsequently placed this document under temporary seal.

That information “may provide valuable insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit.” Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Sunny Merch.

As to the 2p EDT court conference scheduled for Monday, July 22, counsel for Meta respectfully requests that the conference occur on or after 4p EDT if possible.

Counsel for Meta will be traveling to a hearing in another matter at 2p EDT but will be on the ground and available on or after 4p EDT.

Should the Court wish to move the conference to another day, I could appear on Friday, July 26, and my colleague Kathryn Bi could appear on Wednesday, July 24 or Thursday, July 25.

We are both in court on another matter on Tuesday, July 23.

Respectfully yours, Ashok Ramani The hearing is rescheduled for July 22 at 5 p.m.

These issues, combined with Meta’s slow-playing of discovery, constitute the type of extraordinary circumstances that warrant an extension of the case schedule.

Meta suffers no prejudice2 from an extension; on the other hand, SitNet will be severely prejudiced by its reliance on Meta’s good faith in producing documents on a rolling basis.

Meta states its key business metrics as follows: “The size of our active user base and our users’ level of engagement across our products are critical to our success.

.”3 and “[a]ny number of factors can negatively affect user retention, growth, and engagement, including if [] we fail to introduce new features, products, or services ... .”4 Meta’s business strategy is to add new

Meta’s response does not comply with the requirements of Rule 33(d)(1) because the burden of attempting to derive or ascertain the answer are certainly more cumbersome, if not prohibitive, for SitNet as compared to Meta.

But “[w]hen the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

The Court also considers “the intrinsic evidence, which includes the claims, written description [(specification)], and prosecution history.” Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

In fact, the claims clarify that “the event node correspond[s] to a sit- uation,” id., so both constructions would introduce the same kind of awkward redundancy as dis- cussed above.

And “the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would fail to be reasonably certain … as to the scope of the claims.” Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., 64 F.4th 1274, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (describing a dishwasher, autopilot, and auto-populating forms as automatic “because a machine still performs the claimed functions without manual operation, even though a human may initiate or interrupt the process”).

Per paragraph 5 of the Case Management Addendum (Patent) (Dkt. No. 36 (“Patent Addendum’)), the parties write jointly to request leave to amend their respective contentions on or before July 17, 2024, in the mannerset forth below.

SitNet’s amendment would add source-code citationsto its Infringement Contentions, based onits review of source code Meta producedin discovery.

SitNet states that good cause exists to amend because the source code wasidentified by Meta in discovery and was notavailable at the time SitNet’s Infringement Contentions were served.

Meta submits that good cause exists to amend because it was unable to confirm the functionality of the system until it received third-party discovery in May 2024 and deposed the inventor in June.

Meta then promptly informed SitNetofits intent to seek leave to amendits contentions after the Markman hearing (to avoid serial motions).

The Motion of Tremayne Norris for Admission to Practice pro hac vice in the above captioned matter is GRANTED.

All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including Rules governing discipline of attorneys.

Dated: June 27, 2024

The motion of Xueyao Chen (“Applicant”), for admission to practice pro hac vice in the above-captioned action is granted.

in the above-entitled action; IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in the above-caption case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

All attorneys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.

The motion of Andrei Gribakov Jaffe (“Applicant’’), for admission to practice pro hac vice in the above-captionedaction is granted.

in the above-entitled action; IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat Applicant is admitted to practice pro hac vice in the above-caption case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

All attomeys appearing before this Court are subject to the Local Rules of this Court, including the Rules governing discipline of attorneys.

The parties have conferred and respectfully submit that their preferred hearing date is July 1, 2024.

The parties are also available on July 9, 2024.

Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rule 7.A, Meta requests oral argument on all disputed terms, so that three less-experienced attorneys may participate.

Respectfully yours, Ashok Ramani cc: All counsel (via ECF) Electronic Filing

The Court will hold the Markman hearing on July 1, 2024, at 3 p.m. Arun Subramanian, U.S.D.J.