Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 1 of 9
`
`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’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE
`OVER INADEQUACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PATENT INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 2 of 9
`
`On March 9, 2023, the Court granted leave to address if BNR’s Disclosure of Asserted
`
`Claims and Infringement Contentions (“ICs”) comply with P.R. 3-1. (ECF No. 152.) BNR’s IC’s
`
`purport to accuse over 70 products of multiple forms of patent infringement, but come nowhere
`
`close to complying with this Court’s Patent Rules. Defendants must defend each allegation and
`
`prepare responsive contentions and document productions; given the deficiencies below,
`
`Defendants cannot. Taken together, these deficiencies represent such disregard for the Patent Rules
`
`that BNR’s contentions should be stricken in their entirety, or if not, limited as described below.
`
`BNR violated P.R. 3-1(c). This provision requires a “chart identifying specifically where
`
`each claim limitation is found “within each Accused Instrumentality.” ECF No. 125 at 11
`
`(emphasis added). BNR asserts thirteen patents against over “at least” seventy named Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. See, Ex. 4 at 1; Ex. 5 at 1.1 Yet BNR charted far fewer products than named.2
`
`Defendants know of no rulings from this Court that permit exemplary claim charts under
`
`P.R. 3.1(c). This rule is based on the rule from the Northern District of California (“N.D. Cal.”),
`
`ECF No. 125 at 9 n.1, where representative charts are allowed “only” when “supported by adequate
`
`analysis showing that the accused products share the same critical characteristics.” Geovector
`
`Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 16-CV-02463, 2017 WL 76950, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2017)
`
`(citations omitted). Each accused product must “allegedly infringe[] in the same way.” Finjan, Inc.
`
`v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808, 2015 WL 1517920, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015). The
`
`needed “analysis cannot just be based on the patentee’s say-so.” Cap Co. v. McAfee, Inc., No. 14-
`
`cv-05068, 2015 WL 4734951, at 2* (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015). A patentee must “look to the
`
`
`1 The source materials emailed to the Court on March 1 are attached as Exs. 1-6 for convenience.
`2 BNR named “at least” 71 instrumentalities for Patent Nos. RE 48,629, 8,396,072, and 8,792,432,
`but charted only 1; it named “at least” 50 for Patent Nos. 8,204,554 and 7,319,889 but charted only
`11; it named “at least” 43 for Patent Nos. 8,416,862, 7,564,914, and 7,957,450 but charted only 9;
`and it named “at least” 11 for Patent No. 6,941,156 but charted only 8; 58 have no chart. See Ex.6.
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 3 of 9
`
`information available to it to explain how the non-charted products work in the same material
`
`fashion as those charted.” Silicon Lab’ys Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., No. 14-CV-03227, 2015 WL
`
`846679, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015); see also Cap Co., 2015 WL 4734951, at *2.
`
`N.D. Cal. judges have rejected attempts “to use a single chart for each patent to chart claims
`
`against hundreds of products,” including “various kinds of cell phones, tablets, and phablets,” with
`
`no “analysis why these products, many of which are not even the same general type of product,
`
`can be charted representatively….” Geovector, 2017 WL 76950, at *5. Nor have they allowed such
`
`charts with no assertion “that the [products] all contain a common infringing solution (or solutions)
`
`and thus infringe each patent in the exact same way.” Finjan, 2015 WL 1517920, at *4. Such
`
`“combined . . . claim charts do not provide the level of specificity required” by the rules. Id.
`
`BNR has known of HMD’s products since at least October 2021 and knows that they are
`
`manufactured to different specifications by others, including many defendants BNR targets here.3
`
`Yet BNR did not chart “each Accused Instrumentality” as required. P.R. 3-1(c) is silent about
`
`representative charts, but even if allowed, BNR’s only justification was bald, conclusory assertions
`
`“that each element of each infringed claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality as shown
`
`in infringement claim charts” attached to the ICs. Ex. 1 at 9-10; Ex. 2 at 9-10; Ex. 3 at 9-10. BNR’s
`
`Contentions for uncharted products should be stricken; the ICs should be limited to the specific
`
`Accused Instrumentalities listed per patent; and “at least” should be stricken from the definition of
`
`“Accused Instrumentalities” to enforce the limit. See Finjan, 2015 WL 1517920, at *6.
`
`BNR violated P.R. 3-1(d). To establish so-called “indirect” infringement (namely,
`
`“contributory infringement” or “inducement”), a patentee must show direct infringement by
`
`
`3 BNR’s also improperly served generic, identical contentions against these codefendants (HMD
`manufacturers and customers) that identify no specific, separate alleged infringing acts by them.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 4 of 9
`
`someone other than the indirect infringer. Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 774 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993). For “inducement” a patentee must also show “that the accused inducer took an affirmative
`
`act to encourage infringement ….” Info–Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC, 783 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015) (emphasis added). P.R. 3-1(c) thus requires, 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.” ECF
`
`No. 125 at 11. But BNR provided only boilerplate and conclusory allegations in its ICs and claim
`
`charts stating that Defendants “induce[] others to make, use, sell, import, or offer for sale in the
`
`United States, or ha[ve] induced others to make, use, sell, import, or offer for sale in the past,
`
`without authority, products, equipment, or services that infringe the Asserted Claims….” Ex. 1 at
`
`10; see also Ex. 4 at 1. Such “generic allegations” fail to put a defendant “on notice of what,
`
`exactly, it does to induce infringement.” Cap Co., 2015 WL 4734951, at *3; see also Bender v.
`
`Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., No. C 09-01152, 2010 WL 1135762, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22,
`
`2010). BNR’s allegations of indirect infringement should be stricken.
`
`BNR violated P.R. 3-1(e). When a claim limitation in an accused product is not “literally”
`
`present, a patentee may assert the “doctrine of equivalents” (“DOE”) to show an “‘equivalence’
`
`between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented
`
`invention.’” Intendis GMBH v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA, 822 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(citation omitted). The accused element cannot be “‘substantially different’ from any claim
`
`element that is literally lacking;” it must “perform substantially the same function in substantially
`
`the same way to achieve substantially the same result.” Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co., 203
`
`F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). P.R. 3-1(e) thus requires “an explanation of
`
`each function, way, and result that is equivalent an[d] why any differences are not substantial” for
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 5 of 9
`
`any DOE claim. ECF No. 125 at 12. This rule is based on the rule in the Northern District of
`
`Illinois, id. at 9 n.1, where courts strike “impermissibly vague” contentions that “do not sufficiently
`
`address why the purported aspects of the Accused Products are equivalent and why any differences
`
`are insubstantial.” Oil-Dri Corp. of Am. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., No. 15 C 1067, 2018 WL
`
`1071443, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2018); see also Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Prods.,
`
`Inc., No. 09 C 4348, 2010 WL 3781254, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2010). Similarly, in N.D. Cal, a
`
`“generic reservation of [the] right to argue” DOE, “completely unrelated to specific claim elements
`
`or the allegedly infringing technology,” does not suffice. Finjan, 2015 WL 1517920, at *10.
`
` BNR included the same boilerplate, conclusory contention at the start of each claim chart:
`
`… BNR believes and contends that such elements are met under the doctrine of
`equivalents. More specifically, in its investigation and analysis of the Accused
`Instrumentalities, BNR did not identify any substantial differences between the
`elements of the patent claims and the corresponding features of the Accused
`Instrumentalities, as set forth herein. In each instance, the identified feature of the
`Accused Instrumentalities performs at least substantially the same function in
`substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the
`corresponding claim element.
`
`Ex. 4 at 2. It included an even more generic contention in the ICs. See Ex. 1 at 11; Ex. 2 at 11; Ex.
`
`3 at 11. This boilerplate fails to explain “each” function, way, and result, and fails to show that all
`
`differences between the claimed and accused elements are insubstantial, thus violating P.R. 3-1(e).
`
`BNR’s allegations under the doctrine of equivalents should be stricken.
`
`BNR violated P.R. 3-1(b). Twenty-nine of BNR’s asserted claims cover methods, not
`
`devices.4 For such claims, P.R. 3-1(b) requires a patentee to identify “each accused … process,
`
`method, [or] act.” Devices, standing alone, cannot infringe method claims; only the use of devices
`
`in infringing ways can infringe. See, e.g., Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 952, 954
`
`
`4 They are Patent No. 8,204,554 claims 8-9, 11-14; Patent No. 7,319,889 claims 8-9, 11-12, Patent
`No. 8,416,862 claims 1-4; Patent No. 7,564,914 claims 13, 17, 21; Patent No. 7,957,450 claims 1-
`3, 21; Patent No. 6,696,941 claims 1, 3, 6; and Patent No. 8,792,432 claim 12.
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 6 of 9
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2015) (“A patented method cannot be directly infringed merely by the sale of a
`
`product.”). Curiously, BNR contends that the Accused Instrumentalities “include” the claimed
`
`method steps, without pointing to any infringing use of any Accused Instrumentality. For example,
`
`for claim 1 of Patent No. 6,696,941, BNR nonsensically alleges that “the Nokia 8.3 5G is a mobile
`
`wireless device and includes a method of remotely triggering an alarm” and “include[s] receiving
`
`an alarm trigger signal….” Ex. 5 at 3, 5. BNR’s assertions of method claims should be stricken.
`
`BNR violated P.R. 3-1(c). So-called “means-plus-function” (or “MPF”) claim limitations
`
`allow a patentee to express a claimed element by its function, but are restricted to “the
`
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification” for performing that
`
`function “and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Infringement “requires that the relevant
`
`structure in the accused device perform the identical function recited in the claim and be identical
`
`or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification.” MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple
`
`Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2015). P-R 3-1(c) thus requires charts for MPF limitations
`
`identifying “the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that performs the
`
`claimed function.” ECF No. 125 at 13. Defendants are entitled to know what structure in each
`
`Accused Instrumentality allegedly performs the claimed function. Yet for limitations of claims 10,
`
`12, and 15 of Patent No. 6,696,941 (which recite “means”), BNR failed to identify the requisite
`
`structure, acts, or materials. BNR alleged only that an Accused Instrumentality “includes” the
`
`claimed means with no explanation, and included images of device screens, interiors, or websites.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 5 at 14-17 (“[T]he Nokia 8.3 5G includes a means for receiving an alarm trigger
`
`signal ….”). At most, these contentions allege that a device performs a claimed function, but no
`
`corresponding structure is identified. They should be stricken. See Perfect Surgical Techniques,
`
`Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., No. C 12-5967, 2013 WL 11319414, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013).
`
` 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`
`/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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 8 of 9
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th 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
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
` 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 154 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/14/2023 Page 9 of 9
`
`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.
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`WPBDOCS 11584834 3
`
`
`
`
`