Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-22706-RNS
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.; BEST BUY CO., INC.; BEST BUY
`STORES L.P.; TARGET CORP.; WALMART
`INC.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`_______________________________________/
`
`PLAINTIFF BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY CERTAIN DEADLINES
`
`Pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Order (see Dkt. 141) Plaintiff Bell Northern Research,
`
`
`
`LLC (“BNR” or “Plaintiff”) submits this response in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Stay
`
`Certain Patent Contention and Claim Construction Deadlines (Dkt. 140). Defendants’ motion
`
`should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`In the first instance, there is absolutely nothing inadequate, insufficient or incomplete about
`
`Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, served on Defendants on February 7, 2023 as mandated by
`
`the Court’s Scheduling Order of January 25, 2023 (see ECF No. 125 at 1). Rather, Plaintiff set
`
`forth detailed infringement contentions and elaborate charts for about 80 claims in 13 asserted
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 2 of 4
`
`patents in that paper, as against numerous accused instrumentalities (around 70) of the Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff stands by the sufficiency and full compliance of those contentions today, just as it did
`
`when meeting and conferring with Defendants prior to the filing of the instant motion to stay.
`
`Tellingly, Defendants’ motion to stay is devoid of any specific allegation of insufficiency
`
`or non-compliance in any aspect of Plaintiff’s detailed Infringement Contentions. (See ECF No.
`
`140.) Defendants instead rest their motion on an unsupported conclusion that those contentions
`
`are broadly insufficient from their perspective. (See id. at 2.) That mere conclusion by Defendants,
`
`without anything more, simply does not warrant the stay they seek.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ motion to stay wrongly ties the dates for it to prepare and serve its
`
`Invalidity Contentions (due March 10, 2023) and exchange claim terms for construction (due April
`
`14, 2023) to its misplaced attack on the supposed insufficiency of Plaintiff’s Infringement
`
`Contentions. In other words, even if Plaintiff’s contentions were lacking (which is not the case),
`
`that would not be a basis for the stay sought by Defendants.1 As set forth in the Scheduling Order,
`
`and Local Patent Rule 3-3 particularly (see ECF No. 140 at 13-14), Defendants are required by
`
`March 10 in their Invalidity Contentions to identify prior art alleged to invalidate the asserted
`
`claims, match it up with the elements of those asserted claims, identify any defenses under 35
`
`U.S.C. §101 and §112, identify any claim language falling under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, and fully
`
`explain the bases for any unenforceability allegations. Local Patent Rule 3-4 further requires an
`
`accompanying document production on that same date (March 10) that comprises production of
`
`
`1 Further, even if there were later found to be any such deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Infringement
`Contentions, Plaintiff is available to amend them and that could be done in parallel with
`Defendants’ compliance with their obligations for making Invalidity Contentions. Defendants
`simply have not demonstrated any need to halt these initial, critical aspects of the case while all
`parties await resolution of Defendants’ dispute with Plaintiff’s contentions. This is particularly
`true because Defendants have not shown any support for their attack and those infringement
`contentions and Plaintiff vigorously contests any such alleged insufficiency in the contentions.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 3 of 4
`
`source code and/or other documentation describing the operation of the accused instrumentalities
`
`from Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, as well as copies of the prior art Defendants are
`
`asserting in their contentions. (See ECF No. 140 at 14.) There is no reason Defendants cannot
`
`proceed with the foregoing tasks called for by Local Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4 by March 10,
`
`regardless of any issues they may have with Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions. The same
`
`indisputably is true for the April 14 due date for exchange of proposed claim terms for
`
`construction.
`
`For all of the above reasons, there is no basis for the stay sought by Defendants. Granting
`
`such a stay would be prejudicial to Plaintiff as it would halt the initial, critical disclosure phase of
`
`this patent litigation. Plaintiff should not have to wait to see Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions
`
`and its proposed terms for claim construction based solely on a conclusory allegation by
`
`Defendants that Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions are somehow insufficient. Defendants’
`
`motion to stay should be denied and these aspects of discovery should proceed as set forth in the
`
`Scheduling Order (ECF No. 140).
`
`
`
`Dated: March 1, 2023
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul Richter
`Paul Richter (admitted pro hac vice)
`prichter@devlinlawfirm.com
`Christopher Clayton (admitted pro hac vice)
`cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com
`Adam Woodward
`awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com
`Florida Bar No. 1029147
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 143 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 4 of 4
`
`Jose I. Rojas
`Florida Bar No. 331546
`jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com
`Alexander F. Rojas
`Florida Bar No. 124232
`arojas@rojaslawfirm.com
`ROJASLAW
`201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: (305) 446-4000
`Facsimile: (305) 985-4146
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Bell Northern
`Research, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are
`
`being served with a copy of this document on March 1, 2023.
`
`/s/ Jose I. Rojas
`Jose I. Rojas
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`