The conference will be held in Courtroom 15A, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.

Additionally, in accordance with Paragraph 4.D of the Court’s Individual Practices, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file on ECF a joint letter, described below, as well as a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order attached as an exhibit to the joint letter, no later than Thursday of the week prior to the conference date.

A brief statement of the nature of the action and the principal defenses, and the major legal and factual issues that are most important to resolving the case, whether by trial, settlement or dispositive motion;

A statement of all existing deadlines, due dates, and/or cut-off dates; A brief description of any outstanding motions; A brief description of any discovery that has already taken place and of any discovery that is necessary for the parties to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations; A brief description of the status of prior settlement discussions, without disclosing exact offers and demands; A statement confirming that the parties have discussed the use of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms and indicating whether the parties believe that (a) a settlement conference before a Magistrate Judge; (b) participation in the District’s Mediation Program; and/or (c) retention of a privately retained mediator would be appropriate and, if so, when in the case (e.g., within the next sixty days; after the deposition of plaintiff is completed; after the close of fact discovery; etc.) the use of such a mechanism would be appropriate; and

In accordance with the Court’s Individual Practices, requests for an extension or adjournment may be made only by letter-motion filed on ECF and must be received at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference.

The request must state (a) the reason for the proposed adjournment; (b) the original date of the conference; (c) the number of previous requests for adjournment; (d) whether the other party or parties consent(s) and, if not, the reason given for refusing consent; and (e) proposed alternative dates.

Requests for adjournment of the IPTC will not necessarily be granted on the ground that one or more defendants have not been served or answered prior to the scheduled

The parties are directed to submit a joint letter (the “Joint Letter”) of no more than five pages by September 14, 2023 addressing each of the following in separate paragraphs: a) a brief description of the case, including the factual and legal bases for the claim(s) and defense(s); b) any contemplated motions; c) the basis for subject matter jurisdiction; d) the prospect for settlement; and e) whether the parties believe a Rule 16 conference would be helpful or whether they believe it is unnecessary and that their proposed Case Management Plan be so ordered.

If this case involves claims that arise under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the joint letter must indicate whether the plaintiff(s) intend to move for certification of a collective and whether the defendant(s) intend to object to such certification.

The deadline to complete fact discovery is a firm date and will not be extended absent extraordinarily good cause.

For more information, please consult the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012), which is available on the Board Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/PTAB.

Patent Owner is advised of the requirement to submit mandatory notice information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) within 21 days of service of the petition.

The parties are advised that under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c), recognition of counsel pro hac vice requires a showing of good cause.

Many non-profit organizations, both inside and outside the intellectual property field, offer alternative dispute resolution services.

If the parties actually engage in alternative dispute resolution, the PTAB would be interested to learn what mechanism (e.g., arbitration, Case IPR2024-00530 Patent No. 9,877,345 B2 mediation, etc.) was used and the general result.

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.

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 davispolk.com July 18, 2024 Re: SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-6389-AS (S.D.N.Y.) The Honorable Arun Subramanian United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A New York, NY 10007 Your Honor: We represent Meta Platforms in the above-referenced matter.

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.

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 davispolk.com July 17, 2024 Re: SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-6389-AS (S.D.N.Y.) The Honorable Arun Subramanian United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A New York, NY 10007 Your Honor: We represent Defendant Meta Platforms in the above-referenced action.

Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Your Honor’s Individual Rules, we request leave to file an early summary-judgment motion because Plaintiff SitNet LLC lacks exclusive ownership in the patents-in-suit and thus, under 35 U.S.C. § 281 and § 262, does not meet the statutory requirements to sue Meta.

SitNet’s failure to join the co-owner(s) to the patents-in-suit impacts its “ability to satisfy the statutory prerequisites for bringing an infringement suit.” AntennaSys, Inc. v. AQYR Techs., Inc., 976 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Unless and until SitNet satisfies the statutory requirements for bringing a patent- infringement suit under the Patent Act, its case against Meta cannot proceed.

Because the resolution of this motion is case-dispositive and should be resolved before the case proceeds any further, Meta requests leave to file a summary-judgment motion no longer than 15 pages to marshal the undisputed material facts and explain why the Court should dismiss this case.

Background The Court unambiguously warns parties what will happen should they sit on their discovery rights: Counsel should seek relief in accordance with these procedures in a timely fashion.

Meta would suffer undue prejudice if forced to offer a 30(b)(6) witness on additional topics at this late hour, with fact discovery having closed.

Forcing Meta to produce witnesses whose testimony would bind the company, without sufficient preparation, is the type of clearly defined, specific, and serious injury that justifies a protective order.

3206 RJH HBP, 2011 WL 4375365, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2011) (finding “discovery about discovery” not appropriate where plaintiff only had “speculation” that “more documents exist” but “ha[d] not identified any specific reasons for believing that defendant’s production is deficient” (citing Hubbard v. Potter, 247 F.R.D.

Respectfully yours, Ashok Ramani cc: All counsel (via ECF) Electronic Filing See, e.g., Ex. A at 4-5, 11 (Topics 2 and 63, seeking information about the design, and architecture of all Meta advertising, as well as “all facts and circumstances” relating to the development, testing, evaluation, verification, validation, structure, function, and/or operation of” Meta’s Ad Platform, including “software, hardware, firmware, and source code”).

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 manner set forth below.

SitNet’s amendment would add source-code citations to its Infringement Contentions, based on its review of source code Meta produced in discovery.

SitNet states that good cause exists to amend because the source code was identified by Meta in discovery and was not available 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 SitNet of its intent to seek leave to amend its contentions after the Markman hearing (to avoid serial motions).

Pursuant to Rule 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, I, Tremayne Norris, hereby move this Court for an Order for admission to practice pro hac vice to appear as counsel for Plaintiff SitNet LLC in the above-captioned action.

I am a member of the Bar of the State of Maryland, and there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court.

I have never been convicted of a felony.

I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred, or denied admission or readmission by any court.

I have attached an affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3.

Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Andrei Gribakov Jaffe, hereby moves this Court for an Orderfor admission to practice pro hac vice as counsel for defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. in the above- captioned action.

J amin good standinginthe barof the state of California and there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against mein any state or federal court.

I have never been convicted of a felony.

I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admission or readmission by any court.

I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3.

Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Xueyao Chen, hereby moves this Court for an Order for admission to practice pro hac vice as counsel for defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. in the above- captioned action.

I am in good standing inthe barofthe state of California and there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against mein any state or federal court.

I have never been censured, suspended, disbarred or denied admissionor readmission by any court.

I have attached the affidavit pursuant to Local Rule 1.3.

Dated: June 5, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

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.

Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Meta”), by its undersigned counsel, responds to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff SitNet LLC (“Plaintiff” or “SitNet”) on July 24, 2023, as follows.1

1 To avoid doubt, Meta denies liability for all allegations of patent infringement included or implied in any headings of the Complaint.

To the extent any response is required, Meta admits that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York for the purposes of this action.

Meta lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 20, and therefore denies them.

To the extent a response is required, Meta denies the information contained in the website links or articles as inaccurate and/or incomplete.

Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 davispolk.com March 27, 2024 Re: SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-06389-AS Motion for Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer Complaint

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.

Pursuant to the Case Management Addendum (Patent) (D.I.

36), Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. requests that the Court adopt the claim construction positions of Meta set forth in the Joint Claim Construction Chart (D.I.

Dated: New York, New York February 21, 2024