Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 132 Filed 07/17/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 5423
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-1595-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1596-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1597-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1599-LPS
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED and
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT MOBILE, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 132 Filed 07/17/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 5424
`
`C.A. No. 12-1601-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 12-1602-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`C.A. No. 13-920-LPS
`
`)))))))))))
`
`))))))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`))))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`f/k/a MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA)
`INC., f/k/a SONY ERICSSON MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`SONY CORPORATION and
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OATH HOLDINGS INC. and
`OATH INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 132 Filed 07/17/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 5425
`
`DEFENDANTS’ COMMENTS REGARDING
`PLAINTIFF’S TECHNOLOGY TUTORIAL
`
`Defendants provide the following two comments regarding the technology tutorial
`
`submitted by Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Arendi”) on June 19, 2019.
`
`First, Defendants submit that the initial portion of Arendi’s video (from 0:24 to 1:45) is
`
`irrelevant. Rather than provide the Court with context for understanding the technology disclosed
`
`in the patents, this portion of Arendi’s video instead describes the supposed history of Arendi’s
`
`business, the named inventor Atle Hedloy, and Arendi’s supposed licensing revenues. Because
`
`these descriptions are irrelevant to the technology disclosed in the patents, Defendants respectfully
`
`request that the Court disregard the initial portion of Arendi’s video from 0:24 to 1:45.1
`
`Second, Defendants submit that the final portion of Arendi’s video (from 7:04 to 9:24) is
`
`both inappropriate and argumentative. This portion of Arendi’s video presents Arendi’s disputed
`
`infringement allegations as supposed descriptions of the patents-in-suit. In fact, the alleged
`
`“Real World Example” presented in Arendi’s video – which purports to show automated analysis
`
`and identification (on a smartphone) of text in a mobile text message relating to flight information
`
`– has no basis in the patents-in-suit whatsoever. The patent specifications do not describe, or even
`
`hint at, embodiments involving the (a) the identification of flight number information, (b) the
`
`analysis of information in mobile text messages, or (c) the use of a smartphone. Moreover, there
`
`are numerous, significant, and material differences between Arendi’s suggested “Real World
`
`Example” and what is claimed by the patents.
`
`1 Defendants have no comments regarding the portion of Arendi’s technology tutorial video from
`1:46 to 7:03, which describes the patents-in-suit with direct quotations from the patent
`specifications and references to the patent figures. This portion of Arendi’s technology tutorial
`largely tracks the description of the patents-in-suit in Defendants’ technology tutorial.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 132 Filed 07/17/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 5426
`
`The purpose of the technology tutorial is to provide the Court with context for
`
`understanding the technology disclosed in the patent. The suggested “Real World Example” in
`
`Arendi’s tutorial violates this purpose by previewing and advancing Arendi’s infringement
`
`arguments rather than discussing technology actually disclosed in Arendi’s patents. Because
`
`Arendi’s technology tutorial, starting at 7:04, gives examples that have no basis in the patents
`
`themselves and constitute inappropriate argument, Defendants respectfully request that the Court
`
`disregard this portion of Arendi’s technology tutorial.
`
`Dated: July 17, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`David E. Moore (No. 3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (No. 5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (No. 4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Motorola Mobility
`LLC, f/k/a Motorola Mobility, Inc., and
`Defendant Google LLC
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (No. 1014)
`Anthony David Raucci (No. 5948)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`araucci@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Oath Holdings Inc.
`and Oath Inc.
`
`2
`
`DLA PIPER LLP
`
`
`/s/ Denise S. Kraft
`Denise S. Kraft (No. 2778)
`Brian A. Biggs (No. 5591)
`Erin E. Larson (No. 6616)
`1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3046
`Denise.kraft@dlapaper.com
`Brian.biggs@dlapiper.com
`erin.larson@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00920-LPS Document 132 Filed 07/17/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5427
`
`MORRIS JAMES LLP
`
`/s/ Kenneth L. Dorsney
`Richard K. Herrmann (No. 4872)
`Mary B. Matterer (No. 2696)
`Kenneth L. Dorsney (No. 3726)
`500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`rherrmann@morrisjames.com
`mmatterer@morrisjames.com
`kdorsney@morrisjames.com
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
`LLP
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (No. 1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (No. 5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`jtigan@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants BlackBerry Limited
`and BlackBerry Corporation
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Mobile
`Inc.
`
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`
`/s/ Jeremy D. Anderson
`Jeremy D. Anderson (No. 4515)
`FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C.
`222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
`P.O. Box 1114
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1114
`janderson@fr.com
`
`MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT &
`TUNNELL, LLP
`
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith, II
`Rodger D. Smith, II (No. 3778)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`rsmith@mnat.com
`
`Attorney for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc.,
`LG Electronics USA, Inc. and LG Electronics
`Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`6312781
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sony Mobile
`Communications (USA) Inc., Sony
`Corporation and Sony Corporation of
`America
`
`3
`
`