ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, United States District Judge: The Court will hold the Markman hearing in this case during the week of June 24, July 1, or July 8, 2024.

The parties shall meet, confer, and submit their preferred dates and availability by May 24, 2024.

Dated: May 21, 2024 New York, New York

United States District Judge

Background SitNet filed its complaint on July 24, 2023, alleging that Meta infringes its patents related to “situational networks.” On November 15, 2023, Meta served its First Set of Requests for Production (“RFPs”) on SitNet, requesting, in pertinent part, “[d]ocuments and communications concerning [SitNet’s] third-party funders,” see Ex. A at 7 (Meta’s RFP No. 12), with “third-party funders” defined as “any person or entity that is paying or providing some or all of [SitNet’s] attorneys’ fees and/or expenses to litigate this action in exchange for a financial interest contingent upon the results of the litigation,” id. at 2 (Definitions to Meta’s RFPs).

Meta propounded a third-party subpoena to CAsE Analysis, which subsequently objected to production of those documents and agreed that any motion practice could proceed in this court.

Sep. 20, 2016) (granting motion to compel litigation-funding documents that would allow defendant to “learn about valuations placed on the [plaintiff’s] patents prior to the present litigation”); Impact Engine, Inc. v. Google LLC, 2020 U.S. Dist.

3d 1014, 1019 (D. Ariz. 2020) (finding litigation-funding agreements relevant because they “could be used to refute any David vs. Goliath narrative at trial,” and, “to the extent persons affiliated with Plaintiff may receive substantial compensation through the litigation, that fact bears on their credibility”); Fulton v. Foley, 2019 WL 6609298, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2019) (ordering production of non- privileged information provided to the third-party funder because it “would be relevant information that could expand on the allegations of the Complaint, identify witnesses, and potentially be used for impeachment”).

That division constituted core bias material, as the jury had a right to learn that the inventor held a direct financial interest to advocate for as high a verdict as possible.

Plaintiff SitNet, LLC (“SitNet” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta” or “Defendant”) (collectively, “parties”), hereby agree that the following procedures shall govern the discovery of electronically stored information and production of documents in this matter.

The parties agree to use reasonable, good faith, and proportional efforts to preserve, identify, and produce relevant and discoverable information consistent with Rule 26(b)(1).

The parties acknowledge that Meta Platforms, Inc. is subject to various privacy regulations and court orders that require the disposition of identifiable user data.

The producing party may challenge the amount of source code requested in hard copy form pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure set forth in Paragraph 15 of the Protective Order.

The party need not include a more detailed description of the document or the factual basis for the assertion of a privilege or protection unless the disclosure of that additional information is necessary to resolve a dispute.

Arun Subramanian United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A New York, NY 10007 Dear Judge Subramanian: We represent Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. in the above-referenced action.

Pursuant to Rule 3.E of the Court’s Individual Practices, we write on behalf of Defendant to request a two-week extension for Defendant to serve its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Defendant requests this extension so that it will have additional time to draft its Answer.

The parties’ next scheduled appearance before the Court is the final pre-trial conference set for January 13, 2025.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for Defendant to serve its Answer until April 16, 2024.

Rule 12(b)(6) and Twombly To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must include “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

But ineli- gibility may be grounds for dismissal on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when “the facts supporting the defense appear on the face of the complaint” and other materials a court may consider, like an attached patent.

“In cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies [as] an abstract idea for which comput- ers are invoked merely as a tool.” TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).

The Federal Circuit said this claim was “directed to the abstract idea of providing information … based on meeting a condition, e.g., matching a GPS location indication with a geographic loca- tion.” Id. at 703 (internal quotation marks omitted).

As noted above, the Federal Circuit has described this inquiry as focusing on whether “the claim limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367 (cleaned up).

any witness who counsel for a party in good faith believes may be called to testify at trial or deposition in this action, provided such person has first executed a Non- Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto;

hereto; court reporters and their staff; professional jury or trial consultants including mock jurors who have signed a confidentiality agreement; vendors that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors, provided the vendor has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto; and

Attorneys’ Eyes Only information to such person; court reporters and their staff; professional jury or trial consultants including mock jurors who have signed a confidentiality agreement; vendors that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors, provided the vendor has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto; and

A party receiving such material shall take measures necessary to ensure compliance with applicable export control laws, including confirming that no unauthorized foreign person has access to such technical data.

The restrictions contained within this paragraph may be amended through the express written consent of a producing party to the extent that the agreed-to procedures conform with applicable export control laws and regulations.

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

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

Dated: December 27, 2023

United States District Judge

Case 1:23-cv-06389-AS Document 37 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 2Case 1:23-cv-06389-AS Document 38 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 2 Douglas J. Nash Partner

Arun Subramanian United States District Judge U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A New York, New York 10007 Re: SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Case No. 1:23-cv-06389-AS Dear Judge Subramanian: October 25, 2023

As indicated in the table below, we write to respectfully request extensions to the upcoming deadlines concerning the motion to dismiss filed by defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”).

This extension request is due to a recent, unexpected medical issue experienced by the primary drafter of SitNet’s response to the motion.

The parties are next scheduled to appear before the Court for the Final Pretrial Conference on January 13, 2025 at 2:00 pm.

For example, reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred by any party may be levied on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of a witness.

To satisfy this requirement, Patent Owner should request a conference call with the Board no later than two weeks prior to DUE DATE 1.

The Board defines a LEAP practitioner as a patent agent or attorney having three (3) or fewer substantive oral arguments in any federal tribunal, including PTAB.

All practitioners are expected to have a command of the factual record, the applicable law, and Board procedures, as well as the authority to commit the party they represent.

Patent 9,877,345 B2 NOTE: If Patent Owner files neither of the above papers (a reply to the opposition or a revised motion to amend), and the Board has issued preliminary guidance, Petitioner may file a reply to the preliminary guidance, no later than three (3) weeks after DUE DATE 3.

Patent 9,877,345 B2 natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes), weather related activities (e.g., skiing), navigation or travel incidents (e.g., road closures or construction), and public health crises.

In its Preliminary Sur-reply, Patent Owner notes that a Markman hearing was conducted in the district court litigation and submits the transcript and Opinion and Order as exhibits in the current IPR proceeding.

Having reviewed all of Petitioner’s assertions regarding this limitation, as well as Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we determine on this record that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Gage teaches “forming a situational network related to the occurrence of the

Having reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and supporting evidence in the present record, we determine that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Gage teaches the remaining limitations recited in claims 1, 8, and 13. vii.

Patent 9,877,345 B2 Ex. 1007, code (54), ¶ 2 (emphasis and capitalization omitted).8 Sinha’s system and method provide a business continuity application to a portion of a displaced workforce of an organization when an event occurs.

Documents (e.g., contracts, purchase orders, invoices, advertisements, marketing materials, offer letters, beta site testing agreements, and third party or joint development agreements) sufficient to evidence each discussion with, disclosure to, or other manner of providing to a third party, or each sale of or offer to sell, or any public use of, the claimed invention prior to the date of application for the asserted patent(s);

For pre-AIA claims, prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) shall be identified by providing the identities of the person(s) or entity(ies) involved in and the circumstances surrounding the making of the invention before the patent applicant(s);

Documents sufficient to show the sales, revenue, cost, and profits for Accused Instrumentalities identified pursuant to paragraph 1(b) of this Order for any period of alleged infringement; and

Non-exhaustive examples of circumstances that may, absent undue prejudice to the non- moving party, support a finding of good cause include (a) recent discovery of material prior art despite earlier diligent search and (b) recent discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused Instrumentality that was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of the Infringement Contentions.

On or before May 1, 2024, Lead Trial Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer and thereafter file an Amended Joint Claim Construction Chart that sets forth the terms that remain in dispute.

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.

As discussed at the October 5, 2023, conference, trial in this case will begin on January 20, 2025, and the final pretrial conference will be held on January 13, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. By October 20, 2023, at noon, the parties shall submit a revised case-management plan, working backward from those dates.

Additionally, the parties are reminded to submit any proposed protective order promptly, and are encouraged to limit the use of “attorneys’ eyes only” provisions.

Dated: October 16, 2023 New York, New York

United States District Judge

Arun Subramanian United States District Judge U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A New York, New York 10007 Re: SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. Case No. 1:23-cv-06389-AS Dear Judge Subramanian: We, along with co-counsel DiCello Levitt LLC, represent plaintiff SitNet LLC (“SitNet”) in the above-referenced case.

As indicated in the table below, we write to respectfully request extensions to the upcoming deadlines concerning the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”).

Task SitNet’s Opposition Meta’s Reply Current Deadline October 13, 2023 October 20, 2023 Requested Deadline October 27, 2023 November 10, 2023 There have been no previous requests for extension of these deadlines and Meta consents to this request.

The parties are next scheduled to appear before the Court for an Initial Pretrial Conference on October 5, 2023 at 9:00 am.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close ECF 30.

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

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

Dated: September 29, 2023