Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 1 of 8
`
`IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HMD AMERICA, INC., HMD GLOBAL OY,
`SHENZHEN CHINO-E COMMUNICATION
`CO. LTD., HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY
`CO., LTD, TINNO MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
`CORP., SHENZHEN TINNO MOBILE CO.,
`LTD., TINNO USA, INC., UNISOC
`TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., SPREADTRUM
`COMMUNICATIONS USA, INC., WINGTECH
`TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., WINGTECH
`INTERNATIONAL, INC., HUAQIN CO. LTD.,
`BEST BUY CO., INC., BEST BUY STORES
`L.P., TARGET CORP., WALMART INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-22706-RNS
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`DEFENDANTS UNISOC TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.’S, SPREADTRUM
`COMMUNICATIONS USA, INC.’S, AND HON HAI PRECISION
`INDUSTRY CO., LTD.’S MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AND OTHER
`DEADLINES AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`Defendants, Unisoc (Shanghai) Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Unisoc”), Spreadtrum
`
`Communications USA Inc. (“Spreadtrum”), and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (“Hon
`
`Hai”) (collectively “Defendants”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this Motion to
`
`Stay Discovery and Other Deadlines, and incorporated memorandum of law, and state as
`
`follows:
`
`1.
`
`Given the procedural posture of this case, Defendants request a stay of discovery
`
`and all other deadlines as to Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai, until this Court has ruled upon
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 2 of 8
`
`Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 78, 91), which are currently pending and case-
`
`dispositive as to Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai.
`
`2.
`
`On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Complaint (ECF No. 1) in this action,
`
`alleging thirteen counts of patent infringement by the “Accused Instrumentalities,” defined as
`
`Nokia mobile phones and tablets. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 113-388.
`
`3.
`
`On December 19, 2022, Unisoc and Spreadtrum filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF
`
`No. 91) on the ground that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Unisoc and Spreadtrum,
`
`and Hon Hai filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (ECF No. 78).1 On
`
`December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time to respond to Defendants’
`
`motions until January 24, 2023 (ECF No. 104), and the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion (ECF
`
`No. 105).
`
`4.
`
`Because Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 78, 91) are meritorious and
`
`case dispositive as to Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai, Defendants respectfully request a stay
`
`of all discovery and pending deadlines in this case as to Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai (other
`
`than matters dealing directly with Defendants’ motions to dismiss themselves) until after this
`
`Court has ruled on Defendants’ motions to dismiss.
`
`5.
`
`A stay would preserve judicial and party resources that would be expended
`
`unnecessarily in prematurely litigating thirteen patents.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`Binding precedent and the applicable rules of civil procedure authorize abating all or part
`
`of proceedings pending adjudication of case dispositive motions. A district court has “broad
`
`
`1 Unisoc and Spreadtrum’s Motion to Dismiss also seeks to dismiss the complaint under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6).
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 3 of 8
`
`discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v.
`
`Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). This discretion includes the power to stay discovery pending
`
`resolution of a case dispositive motion. See, e.g., Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d
`
`1353, 1368 (11th Cir. 1997) (“If the district court dismisses a nonmeritorious claim before
`
`discovery has begun, unnecessary costs to the litigants and to the court system can be avoided.”).
`
`Indeed, “any legally unsupported claim that would unduly enlarge the scope of discovery should
`
`be eliminated before the discovery stage, if possible.” Id. Plaintiff’s allegations against
`
`Defendants are such claims.
`
`In addition, Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon good
`
`cause shown, the Court may “issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
`
`embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . forbidding the disclosure
`
`or discovery . . . [or] specifying terms, including time and place or the allocation of expenses, for
`
`the disclosure or discovery.” “To stay discovery under Rule 26(c) due to a pending dispositive
`
`motion, ‘good cause and reasonableness’ must exist.” United States v. Med-Care Diabetic &
`
`Med. Supplies, Inc., No. 9:10-cv-81634, 2014 WL 12284078, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 17, 2014)
`
`(citing McCabe v. Foley, 233 F.R.D. 683, 685 (M.D. Fla. 2006)). This determination requires
`
`“the Court to take a ‘preliminary peek’ at the merits of the motion to dismiss to see if it appears
`
`to be clearly meritorious and truly case dispositive.” Id. In situations where a motion to dismiss
`
`will likely dispose of the case, district courts grant motions to stay discovery. Id. (granting
`
`motion to stay discovery pending ruling on motion to dismiss); Tradex Glob. Master Fund SPC
`
`Ltd. v. Palm Beach Capital Mgmt., LLC, No. 1:09-cv-21622, 2009 WL 10664410, at *1 (S.D.
`
`Fla. Nov. 24, 2009) (stay of discovery was appropriate pending ruling on motion to dismiss);
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 4 of 8
`
`Allmond v. City of Jacksonville, No. 3:07-cv-01139, 2008 WL 2704426, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 8,
`
`2008) (granting motion to stay discovery pending resolution of motions to dismiss).
`
`Due to the procedural posture of this case, and because the motions to dismiss (ECF Nos.
`
`78, 91) are meritorious and case dispositive as to Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai, this Court
`
`should exercise its discretion and grant a stay of all discovery and other deadlines as to Unisoc,
`
`Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai (except as they relate or pertain directly to the motions to dismiss)
`
`until after the Court has ruled upon the motions to dismiss currently pending before the Court.
`
`Med-Care Diabetic & Med. Supplies, 2014 WL 12284078 at *1; Tradex Glob. Master Fund,
`
`2009 WL 10664410 at *1; Allmond, 2008 WL 2704426 at *3. Defendants’ motions to dismiss
`
`(ECF Nos. 78, 91) demonstrate that jurisdiction over Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai is not
`
`proper before this Court, and thus, they should not be subject to the significant discovery
`
`required to litigate the thirteen patents at issue here.
`
`“[W]hen faced with legitimate jurisdictional challenges like those present in Defendants’
`
`Motion to Dismiss, discovery should not commence until such challenges are resolved.” Lewis v.
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 9:19-cv-81220, 2020 WL 4923640, at *3-4 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 25,
`
`2020) (granting stay because defendants “should not be forced to expend substantial resources
`
`answering discovery given the jurisdictional and facial challenges pending before the Court”);
`
`see also Gillier v. Servicios Agecom, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-23155, 2017 WL 6994217, at *1 (S.D.
`
`Fla. Nov. 27, 2017) (“[W]ithout the benefit of Gillier’s response to the motions to dismiss, the
`
`Court’s ‘preliminary peek’ nonetheless reveals a strong likelihood of the motions’ being
`
`granted.”). Staying discovery will not prejudice Plaintiff and prevents the unnecessary
`
`expenditure of the parties’ and the Court’s resources. Complex cases, such as this one, are
`
`particularly apt to be stayed because discovery “has the potential to consume vast resources.” In
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 5 of 8
`
`re Managed Care Litig., No. 1:00-md-01334, 2001 WL 664391, at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 12, 2001);
`
`see also Gibson v. Lynn Univ., Inc., No. 9:20-cv-81173, 2020 WL 6700448, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct.
`
`29, 2020) (granting stay after “having balanced the minimal harm produced by a brief delay in
`
`discovery in this case against the possibility that the Motion to Dismiss will be granted and
`
`eliminate the need for discovery”).
`
`Plaintiff asserts Defendants infringe thirteen patents, directly and indirectly. The burden
`
`of responding to discovery on each of these allegations disproportionately falls on Defendants,
`
`and will require a significant expenditure by Defendants to search for, collect, review, and
`
`produce information responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. In addition, because Unisoc and Hon Hai
`
`are entities in China Mainland and Taiwan, the nature and scope of discovery in this action
`
`necessitates information located in China Mainland and Taiwan, which imposes additional
`
`burden and cost of compliance with foreign rules and regulations. If the Court does not have
`
`jurisdiction over Defendants, the costs Defendants will incur propounding this discovery would
`
`be meaningless.
`
`Notably, the Court would also be substantially burdened if discovery is not stayed, as it
`
`would be required to devote its judicial resources to addressing discovery issues relating to
`
`parties over which the Court may ultimately find it lacks jurisdiction. A wide range of discovery
`
`disputes are common in, and unique to, patent litigation. Suncast Techs., L.L.C. v. Patrician
`
`Prod., Inc., No. 9:07-cv-80414, 2008 WL 179648, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2008). Such patent
`
`discovery disputes increase with the number of patents directed to different technological
`
`features. Plaintiff has asserted a total of thirteen patents here, and the Court would likely need to
`
`employ phased discovery to manage this case regardless. Indeed, Judge Albright in the Western
`
`District of Texas, who has overseen one of the busiest patent dockets in the country, stays most
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 6 of 8
`
`discovery until after the Markman hearing. See Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP)
`
`4.2 - Patent Cases, at 3, available at https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-
`
`content/uploads/2023/01/Standing-Order-Governing-Proceedings-Patent-Cases-091622.pdf.
`
`Finally, Plaintiff will suffer no harm if discovery is stayed because, even if the case
`
`proceeds after the motions to dismiss, “Plaintiff will have ample opportunity to conduct
`
`discovery.” See Goldstein v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 9:21-cv-80601, 2021 WL 2827757, at
`
`*2 (S.D. Fla. July 8, 2021). If Defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted, Plaintiff will also
`
`benefit from a stay by avoiding discovery from parties that will ultimately be dismissed from the
`
`case.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai respectfully request that
`
`this Court enter an Order staying discovery and all other pending deadlines in this case as to
`
`Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai, other than those relating directly to the motions to dismiss
`
`(ECF Nos. 78, 91) until this Court has ruled upon the case-dispositive motions to dismiss as to
`
`Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai, and enter such other and further relief as this Court deems
`
`just and proper.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH S.D. FLA. L. R. 7.1(a)(3)(A)
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)(A), we hereby certify that undersigned counsel for
`
`Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel on January 6, 2023, in a
`
`good faith effort to resolve the issues raised herein, but the parties were unable to resolve the
`
`issues. Plaintiff opposes the relief requested herein.
`
`We hereby certify that undersigned counsel for Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai
`
`conferred with counsel for defendants HMD America, Inc., HMD Global Oy, Tinno Mobile
`
`Technology Corp., Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Co., Ltd., Tinno USA, Inc., Wingtech Technology
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 7 of 8
`
`Co. Ltd., Wingtech International, Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Stores L.P., and Target
`
`Corp. on January 17, 2023, who advised that they do not oppose the relief requested herein.
`
`Counsel for Unisoc, Spreadtrum, and Hon Hai communicated issues raised in this Motion with
`
`counsel for Walmart Inc. via email on January 17, 2023, but did not receive a response prior to
`
`Defendants’ filing of this Motion.
`
`Dated: January 18, 2023
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`__/s/ Terri Ellen Tuchman Meyers
`Terri Ellen Tuchman Meyers
`Fla. Bar No. 881279
`tmeyers@klugerkaplan.com
`Marissa Reichel
`Fla. Bar No. 1016190
`mreichel@klugerkaplan.com
`KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN,
`KATZEN & LEVINE, P.L.
`201 S. Biscayne Boulevard
`Twenty Seventh Floor
`Miami, FL 33131
`Tel: (305) 379-9000
`
`Qingyu Yin (admitted pro hac vice)
`qingyu.yin@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: (202) 408-4000
`
`Benjamin R. Schlesinger (admitted pro hac
`vice)
`Benjamin.schlesinger@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`271 17th Street, NW, Suite 1400
`Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
`Tel: (404) 653-6416
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`_/s/ Lisa K. Nguyen
`Lisa K. Nguyen
`Jeremy T. Elman (Florida Bar. No. 37448)
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`550 High Street, 2nd Floor
`Palo Alto. CA 94301
`Telephone: 650-388-1705
`jeremy.elman@allenovery.com
`lisa.nguyen@allenovery.com
`
`Eric E. Lancaster
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`595 Market Street Suite 950
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone: 650-388-1724
`eric.lancaster@allenovery.com
`
`Noah A. Brumfield
`Colby A. Davis
`ALLEN & OVERY LLP
`1101 New York Avenue NW
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone: 202-683-3847
`noah.brumfield@allenovery.com
`colby.davis@allenovery.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Hon Hai Precision
`Industry Co., Ltd
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 115 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/18/2023 Page 8 of 8
`
`Jacob A. Schroeder (admitted pro hac vice)
`jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: (650) 849-6600
`
`Yi Yu (admitted pro hac vice)
`yi.yu@finnegan.com
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`1875 Explorer St., Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190
`Tel: (571) 203-2700
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Unisoc (Shanghai)
`Technologies Co., Ltd. and Spreadtrum
`Communications USA Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`