Pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the Case Management Addendum (Patent) (D.I.

36), Plaintiff SitNet LLC (“SitNet”) requests that the Court adopt the claim construction positions of SitNet set forth in the Joint Claim Construction Chart (D.I.

Statistics for Southern District of New York Judges Expert Report of Dr. Aviel D. Rubin Markman Hearing Transcript in SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:23- cv- 06389-AS (July 1, 2024).

Further, the motion shows the changes that are sought and the support in the original disclosure of the patent and a priority application for each substitute claim.

To satisfy the requirement of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a), Patent Owner emailed the Board on November 15, 2024, to state that it intended to file a motion to amend.

If a patent owner has met these statutory requirements, then the Board considers whether the substitute claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.

The District Court determined the term “event node” needed no construction, but noted the “the claim clarify that ‘the event node corresponds to a situation.” Ex. 2007, at 6.

Pursuant to Rule 1.3 of the Local Rules of the United States Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Jessica M. Kaempf, 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.

There are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court.

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.

Respectfully submitted, FENWICK & WEST LLP By:

I am an attorney admitted to practice before this Court and counsel at the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, counsel for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. in the above- captioned action.

I submit this declaration in support of Meta’s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment that SitNet has not satisfied the statutory prerequisites for bringing a patent-infringement action and cannot maintain its case under 35 U.S.C. § 281.

Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct excerpt of Plaintiff SitNet’s Objections and Responses to Defendant Meta’s Request for Production (Nos. 1-63), served in this case on December 15, 2023.

Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between counsel of record dated April 24, 2024.

Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between counsel of record dated May 15, 2024.

Media, L.P., 517 F.3d 1284, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted) (cleaned up); accord Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., 959 F.3d 1065, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming district court’s nunc pro tunc reformation of patent assignment to conform with parties intent, which made plaintiff a patentee under Section 281).

U.S.A., Inc., 19 F.4th 1315,1319 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We have more recently clarified that § 281 is simply a statutory requirement; it does not ‘implicate standing or subject- matter jurisdiction.’”) (emphasis added) (quoting Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 925 F.3d 1225, 1235-36 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); Abbott Labs.

On September 12, 2008, about a year after Meta contends the automatic assignments of the Asserted Patents occurred, LCI entered into a Conveyancing and Assumption Instrument (“2008 Agreement”) with Landmark Media Enterprises, LLC (“LME”).

In those cases, the Federal Circuit determined that a nunc pro tunc assignment would not remedy an alleged defect under Section 281 where the plaintiff was not a “patentee” or virtual assignee such that joinder of the patentee was the only available cure.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, (2014), the Federal Circuit has since held that statutory standing under Section 281 is not a jurisdictional question.

I submit this declaration in support of Meta’s Motion for Summary Judgment that SitNet has not satisfied the statutory prerequisites for bringing a patent-infringement action and cannot maintain its case under 35 U.S.C. § 281.

Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct excerpt of Plaintiff SitNet’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, served in this case and dated December 17, 2023.

Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of an agreement by and among Technology, Patents & Licensing, Inc., and Maglia Holdings, LLC, dated December 18, 2013, produced in this case as Bates-numbers CASE_0000309 through CASE_0000400.

Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the Bill of Sale and Assignment Between Technology, Patents and Licensing Inc., and Maglia Holdings, LLC, dated December 18, 2013, produced in this case as Bates-numbers CASE_0000157 through

Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct excerpt of Plaintiff SitNet’s Objections and Responses to Defendant Meta’s Request for Production (Nos. 1-63), served in this case and dated December 15, 2023.

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.

To the contrary, in the prosecution history attached to the Complaint, the patentee admits that the prior art disclosed the use of projections in an NDSN.

v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (asserted patent described inefficiencies in existing computer interfaces, and the asserted claims described a new way of gathering and presenting data to reduce them); TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1295-96 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“claim language and specification establish[ed]” that the claims improved the efficiency of sending data files securely by adding a novel secure label to existing encryption techniques); Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (linking patented improvements to reduced resource usage relative to the prior art).

The intrinsic record also undercuts SitNet’s description of the asserted claims as directed to “different ways of forming and utilizing a situational network using event nodes and links” to create a projection.

¶¶ 40-52 (misstating the patent examiner’s conclusions and conflating novelty determinations regarding the claims as a whole with findings that individual elements are not routine and conventional); id. ¶¶ 53-55 (implying Meta admits to using SitNet’s purported inventions).)

SitNet instead offers only confused explanations of its claims that gesture to dozens of paragraphs of patent-eligibility pleadings and hundreds of pages of incorporated exhibits.

From Davis Polk, on behalf of Meta Platforms, Ashok Ramani, joined by my colleagues Katherine Bi, Andrei Gribakov Jaffe, Alec Fisher, and Yao Chen.

MR. KANNAN: So, your Honor, I think that that language is that you could have users that are members of Facebook that don't know each other or on any other social media platform that have no interaction with each other prior to the formation of the situational network.

I understand the additional limitations that you believe are required, but if we were not to accept those, are you comfortable with Meta's construction or would something simpler make sense, such as a network formed in response to an event or situation?

All we have is the amendment itself that brought this term into the independent claims with this lone statement that both Shamp and Hollenberg, the prior art references, are completely silent with respect to automatic redirection of a web browser application.

I think counsel appropriately focused on the language from the reply brief that indicates at least as a threshold matter there has to be a redirection first before there are advertisements shown which would seem to fit with the grammar of the claim.

 7/1/2024     Redaction responsibilities apply to the attorneys of record orpro se parties, even if the person requesting the transcript is a judge or a memberofthe public or media.

   $   Notice is hereby given that an official transcript ofa HEARING has beenfiled by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter.

 " $    The parties have seven (7) calendar days from the date offiling of this NOTICEto file with the court any NOTICE OF INTENT TO REQUEST REDACTIONofthis transcript.

If no such NOTICEisfiled, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after ninety (90) calendar days.

I (we) certify that the foregoingis a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above- entitled matter.

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”).

A previous extension of these deadlines was granted by the Court.

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.

AO 458 (Rev.

06/09) Appearance of Counsel

for the Southern District of New York __________ District of __________ Case No. )))))

Defendant To: The clerk of court and all parties of record I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for: Date: .

Attorney’s signature Printed name and bar number Address E-mail address Telephone number FAX number

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

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

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

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law and exhibits attached thereto, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. will move this Court, before the Honorable Arun Subramanian, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15A, New York, New York, 10007, for an order dismissing the above-captioned action with prejudice under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Dated: New York, New York September 29, 2023

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 in the bar of the state of California and there are no pending disciplinary proceedings against me in any state or federal court.

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.

Dated: June 4, 2023