Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 1 of 6
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Case No.: 1:22-cv-22706-SCOLA/GOODMAN
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HMD AMERICA, INC., HMD GLOBAL
`OY, SHENZHEN CHINO-E
`COMMUNICATION CO. LTD., TINNO
`MOBILE TECHNOLOGY CORP.,
`SHENZHEN TINNO MOBILE CO., LTD.,
`TINNO USA, INC., UNISOC
`TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.,
`WINGTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`BEST BUY CO., INC., BEST BUY
`STORES L.P., TARGET CORP.,
`WALMART INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________/
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY CERTAIN
`PATENT CONTENTION AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DEADLINES,
`AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
`
`Plaintiff Bell Northern Research LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) opposition to Defendants’ Stay
`
`Motion (ECF No. 140) does little more than attempt to argue the merits of the parties’ discovery
`
`dispute pending before Judge Goodman (i.e., the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Infringement
`
`Contentions under P.R. 3-1). Opp. at 2, ECF No. 143. Indeed, Plaintiff faults Defendants for not
`
`fully briefing that discovery dispute in the opening Stay Motion, even though doing so is in direct
`
`contravention of the no-motion rule for discovery disputes. See Magistrate Judge Goodman’s
`
`Discovery Procedures Order (“Discovery Order”) at 2-3; ECF No. 9. The discovery dispute was
`
`properly brought under Judge Goodman’s procedures and Defendants will address the merits of
`
`the insufficiencies of the Infringement Contentions at the March 15 hearing before Judge Goodman.
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 2 of 6
`
`Next, Plaintiff posits in a footnote that it “is available to amend [Plaintiff’s Infringement
`
`Contentions] and that could be done in parallel with Defendants’ compliance with their obligations
`
`for making Invalidity Contentions.” Opp. at 2 n.1. However, this presupposes (wrongly) that
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to such amendment as a matter of right. Not so. Patent Rule (“P.R.”) 3-6
`
`provides, in part: “Amendment of the Infringement Contentions or the Invalidity Contentions may
`
`be made only with leave of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause.” ECF No. 125 at 14.
`
`That is, absent good cause, a party is not entitled to amend its contentions and even upon a showing
`
`of good cause, leave of the Court is required.
`
`Plaintiff acknowledges but dismisses the fact that the parties do actually dispute the
`
`sufficiency of the Infringement Contentions, a dispute that was aired out in the parties’ meet-and-
`
`confer for that issue. Opp. at 2. Then, Plaintiff suggests that Defendants can undertake responsive
`
`contentions even though, Defendants submit, Plaintiff’s infringement contentions are incomplete
`
`at best. Id. However, in the Stay Motion, Defendants stated that they are unable to respond to
`
`Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions and further that a resolution of the sufficiency dispute in
`
`Defendants’ favor may impact (i.e., narrow) the entire scope of this litigation. Mot. at 4; ECF
`
`No.140. Moreover, Defendants’ notice of hearing before Judge Goodman asks the Court to
`
`consider the very question of whether – in view of the deficiencies Defendants intend to argue at
`
`the hearing – “Plaintiff’s February 7, 2023 Infringement Contentions should be (a) stricken entirely
`
`or (b) deemed limited to cover only the devices charted and only the acts of direct and literal
`
`infringement of system claims identified therein.” Notice of Hearing; ECF No. 142.
`
`It would be wasteful for Defendants to proceed with responsive contentions concerning
`
`patent claims and/or accused devices prior to addressing the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s Infringement
`
`Contentions in the first instance. Plaintiff alleges infringement of the thirteen asserted patents by
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 3 of 6
`
`over 70 products. Yet, for example, for multiple asserted patents, Plaintiff provided only one claim
`
`chart for one allegedly infringing product. These and more deficiencies permeate the Infringement
`
`Contentions, leaving Defendants and the Court to guess exactly what Plaintiff’s infringement
`
`allegations are and the scope and meaning Plaintiff applies to its patent claims.
`
`Finally, Plaintiff argues that “a stay would be prejudicial to Plaintiff as it would halt the
`
`initial, critical disclosure phase of this patent litigation.” Opp. at 3. But Plaintiff offers merely a
`
`conclusory statement about the supposed prejudice to Plaintiff if the contention and claim
`
`construction deadlines are briefly stayed. In fact, Plaintiff’s infringement claims have been
`
`pending since at least April 2022 with the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint in the predecessor action
`
`that Plaintiff itself voluntarily dismissed.1 A brief stay will delay the case no more than Plaintiff
`
`itself already has. Moreover, on January 23, 2023, Plaintiff joined in submitting a discovery plan
`
`that allowed for thirteen weeks between service of Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ contentions. ECF
`
`No. 120. Plaintiff’s newfound cry of prejudice from a far shorter delay rings hollow.
`
`A stay of the patent contention and claim construction deadlines are within the powers of
`
`the Court. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,
`
`254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
`
`control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
`
`counsel, and for litigants.”); Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234, 1269
`
`(11th Cir. 2001). For the reasons set forth in the Stay Motion, the stay should be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 See 22-cv- 21035-SCOLA, ECF No. 55 (Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without
`Prejudice).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Moffa
`MATTHEW J. MOFFA, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
`Email: MMoffa@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 262-6900
`
`KEVIN PATARIU, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
`Email: kpatariu@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real
`Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92013
`Telephone: (858) 720-5700
`
`MICHAEL A. CHAJON, ESQ. (pro hac vice)
`Email: MChajon@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`700 13th Street, NW
`Suite 800
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
`Telephone: (202) 654-6200
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`HMD AMERICA, INC., HMD GLOBAL
`OY, BEST BUY, BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,
`and TARGET CORP.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jodi-Ann Tillman
`JOSEPH W. BAIN, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 860360
`Email: jbain@shutts.com
`SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
`1100 City Place Tower
`525 Okeechobee Boulevard
`West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
`Telephone: (561) 835-8500
`Facsimile: (561) 650-8530
`
`JODI-ANN TILLMAN, ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 1022214
`Email: jtillman@shutts.com
`SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
`200 East Broward Blvd.
`Suite 2100
`Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
`Telephone: (561) 671-5822
`Facsimile: (561) 650-8530
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR
`DEFENDANTS HMD AMERICA,
`INC., HMD GLOBAL OY, BEST
`BUY, BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,
`TARGET CORP. and WALMART INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 5 of 6
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2nd day of March, 2023, I electronically filed the
`
`foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which served a copy to counsel
`
`of record.
`
`/s/ Jodi-Ann Tillman
`
`
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`
`
`Alexander Frederick Rojas, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 124232
`Jose Ignacio Rojas, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 331546
`ROJASLAW
`201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste 28th Floor
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: (305) 446-4000
`Facsimile: (305) 985-4146
`Email: arojas@rojaslawfirm.com
`jrojas@rojaslawfirm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC
`
`
`Andrew J. Fuller, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 1021164
`NELSON MULLINS
`2 South Biscayne Blvd.
`Suite 21st Street
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Tel: 305-373-9487
`Email: Andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`TINNO MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
`CORP.,
`SHENZHEN TINNO MOBILE CO., LTD
`& TINNO USA, INC.
`
`Christopher Clayton, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`Paul Richter, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`Adam Woodward (Florida Bar No. 1029147)
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251
`Email: cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com
`prichter@devlinlawfirm.com
`awoodward@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC
`
`
`Jason Xu, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`RAMON LAW
`1990 K. Street
`Suite 420
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: 202-470-2141
`Email: Jason.Xu@ramonlaw.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`TINNO MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
`CORP.,
`SHENZHEN TINNO MOBILE CO., LTD
`& TINNO USA, INC.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 145 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2023 Page 6 of 6
`
`Terri Ellen Tuchman Meyers, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 881279
`Marissa Reichel, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 1016190
`KLUGER, KAPLAN, SILVERMAN,
`KATZEN & LEVINE, P.L.
`201 S. Biscayne Blvd.
`Twenty Seventh Floor
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Tel: 305-379-9000
`Email: tmeyers@klugerkaplan.com
`mreichel@klugerkaplan.com
`
`Yi Yu, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`1875 Explorer Street
`Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190
`Tel: 571-203-2700
`Email: yi.yu@finnegan.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`UNISOC TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`
`
`Andrew J. Fuller, Esq.
`Florida Bar No. 1021164
`NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
`SCARBOROUGH LLP
`2 South Biscayne Blvd.
`Suite 21st Street
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Tel: 305-373-9487
`Email: Andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com
`Vicki.mattison@nelsonmullins.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
`WINGTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`
`
`Qingyu Yin, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202-408-4000
`Email: qingyu.yin@finnegan.com
`
`Benjamin R. Schlesinger, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`271 7th Street, NW
`Suite 1400
`Atlanta, GA 30363
`Tel: 404-653-6416
`Email: Benjamin.schlesinger@finnegan.com
`
`Jacob A. Schroeder, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Tel: 650-849-6600
`Email: Jacob.schroeder@finnegan.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`UNISOC TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`
`David M. Airan, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`Christopher Gass, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`Nicole E. Kopinski Esq. (pro hac vice)
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MEYER, LTD.
`Two Prudential Plaza
`Sui8te 4900
`180 North Stetson Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Tel: 312-616-5600
`Email: dairan@leydig.com
`cgass@leydig.com; nkopinski@leydig.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
`WINGTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`