Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 153 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`Case No. 1:22-cv-22706-RNS
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`_______________________________________/
`
`
`PLAINTIFF BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH LLC’S
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 153 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 2 of 6
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR” or “Plaintiff”) submits this Memorandum
`
`of Law pursuant to this Court’s Order of March 9, 2023. (Dkt. 152.) BNR’s Disclosure of
`
`Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-1 (the “initial infringement
`
`contentions”) that was served on Defendants complies with the Patent Rules governing this case.
`
`Certain Defendants’ arguments to the contrary should be rejected for the foregoing reasons.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The Patent Rules that govern this case were entered by the Court on January 25, 2023.
`
`(Dkt. 125 at 9–18 (Patent Rules 1–4.8).) P.R. 3-1 provides for the Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`
`and Infringement Contentions and contains subsections (a) through (h), as shown below:
`
`(a) Identification of each claim of each patent in suit that is allegedly
`infringed by each opposing party, including for each claim the
`applicable statutory subsections of 37 U.S.C. § 271 asserted;
`
`(b) Separately, for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus,
`product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality
`(“Accused Instrumentality”) of each opposing party of which the
`party is aware. This identification must be as specific as possible.
`Each product, device, and apparatus must be identified by name, if
`known, or by any product, device, or apparatus which, when used,
`allegedly results in the practice of the claimed method or process;
`
`(c) A chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each
`asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality,
`including for each element that such party contends is governed by
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or
`material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed
`function;
`
`(d) For each claim that is alleged to have been indirectly infringed,
`an identification of any direct infringement and a description of the
`acts of the alleged indirect infringer that contribute to or are inducing
`that direct infringement. If alleged direct infringement is based on
`joint acts of multiple parties, the role of each such party in the direct
`infringement must be described.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 153 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 3 of 6
`
`(e) Whether each limitation of each asserted claim is alleged to be
`literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the
`Accused Instrumentality. For any claim under the doctrine of
`equivalents, the Initial Infringement Contentions must include an
`explanation of each function, way, and result that is equivalent [and]
`why any differences are not substantial;
`
`(f) For any patent that claims priority to an earlier application, the
`priority date to which each asserted claim allegedly is entitled;
`
`(g) If a party claiming patent infringement wishes to preserve the
`right to rely, or any purpose, on the assertion that its own apparatus,
`product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality
`practices the claimed invention, the party must identify, separately
`for each asserted claim, each such apparatus, product, device,
`process, method, act, or other instrumentality that incorporates or
`reflects that particular claim; and
`
`(h) If a party claiming infringement alleges willful infringement, the
`basis for such allegation.
`
`
`(P.R. 3-1(a)–(h).) “These Patent Rules are taken largely from the Local Patent Rules in the
`
`Northern District of California and the Northern District of Illinois.” (P.R. n.1.)
`
`
`
`“The purpose of infringement contentions is to provide notice of the plaintiff’s theories of
`
`infringement early in the case.” Lecat’s Ventriloscope v. MT Tool & Mfg., No. 16-C-5298, 2017
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16477, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2017) (quotation omitted) (finding plaintiff’s
`
`infringement contentions were generally sufficient with one exception relating to indirect
`
`infringement). Initial infringement contentions “must meet a notice pleading standard which is
`
`meant to prevent ‘shifting sands’ gamesmanship in claim construction.” Stored Energy Sys.,
`
`LLC v. Brunswick Corp., No. 20-cv-06389, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209722, at *4 (N.D. Ill Aug.
`
`19, 2021) (quotation omitted) (denying defendant’s motion to strike infringement contentions).
`
`The notice pleading bar is low. Stored Energy Sys., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209722, at *4.
`
`Initial infringement contentions are sufficient if they provide defendants with “notice of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 153 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 4 of 6
`
`infringement” beyond “the mere language of the patents themselves.” Lecat’s, 2017 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 16477, at *4 (quotation omitted).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiff’s initial infringement contentions meet the requirements of P.R. 3-1, providing
`
`12 pages of contentions and 71 claim charts for 71 accused products. Specifically, these
`
`contentions:
`
`• provide the identification of the claims of each patent in suit that is infringed (see
`
`P.R. 3-1(a));
`
`• provide the identification of the products (the “Accused Instrumentalities”)
`
`expressly by name for each claim that is infringed (see P.R. 3-1(b));
`
`• provide detailed claim charts evidencing infringement by the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities for each limitation of each claim that is infringed (see P.R. 3-
`
`1(c));
`
`• provide the identification of indirect infringement (see P.R. 3-1(d)); and
`
`• provide BNR’s contention that each limitation of each claim is literally present
`
`(see P.R. 3-1(e)).
`
`BNR’s initial infringement contentions, that include the express identification of products
`
`and detailed claim charts for each claim limitation of each patent in suit, provide Defendants
`
`with more than sufficient “notice” of BNR’s infringement theories. See Lecat’s, 2017 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 16477, at *4. BNR’s contentions easily satisfy the low bar required by P.R. 3-1, and are
`
`not transformed into insufficient contentions simply because Defendants disagree with them.
`
`See Lecat’s, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16477, at *13–14 (“While Defendant’s motion professes to
`
`argue that the [initial infringement contentions] insufficiently disclose Plaintiff’s infringement
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 153 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 5 of 6
`
`theory, in reality the motion simply reflects disagreement with the infringement theory Plaintiff
`
`has disclosed.”)
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should deny Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s initial infringement
`
`contentions and should deny Defendants’ request to deem the initial infringement contentions as
`
`limited to cover only the devices charted and only the acts of direct and literal infringement of
`
`system claims identified by Plaintiff.
`
`Dated: March 14, 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
`
`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
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 153 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 6 of 6
`
`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 14, 2023.
`
`/s/ Jose I. Rojas
`Jose I. Rojas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`