Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 1 of 7
`
`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., WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.,
`WINGTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., BEST BUY
`CO., INC., BEST BUY STORES L.P., TARGET
`CORP., WALMART INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________/
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Post-Discovery Hearing Administrative Order (ECF No. 158) and
`
`further to the Parties’ Joint Status Report filed March 31, 2023 (ECF No. 161), the Parties hereby
`
`file this Supplemental Joint Status Report memorializing the agreement of the Parties and notifying
`
`the Court that the dispute is resolved.
`
`The Parties agree to the following terms to resolve this dispute:
`
`1.
`
`Representative Charts: Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s original Infringement
`
`Contentions and Supplemental Infringement Contentions under P.R. 3-1(c) of the Court’s Patent
`
`Rules (ECF No. 125 at 11) because Plaintiff did not serve a chart for each of the 73 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, and Defendants contended that Plaintiff did not provide any explanation or
`
`evidence showing that the charted Accused Instrumentalities were representative of uncharted ones.
`
`Plaintiff has now served additional charts and has confirmed that it raises no claim against
`
`any uncharted Accused Instrumentality.
`
`
`
`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., WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.,
`WINGTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC., BEST BUY
`CO., INC., BEST BUY STORES L.P., TARGET
`CORP., WALMART INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________/
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Post-Discovery Hearing Administrative Order (ECF No. 158) and
`
`further to the Parties’ Joint Status Report filed March 31, 2023 (ECF No. 161), the Parties hereby
`
`file this Supplemental Joint Status Report memorializing the agreement of the Parties and notifying
`
`the Court that the dispute is resolved.
`
`The Parties agree to the following terms to resolve this dispute:
`
`1.
`
`Representative Charts: Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s original Infringement
`
`Contentions and Supplemental Infringement Contentions under P.R. 3-1(c) of the Court’s Patent
`
`Rules (ECF No. 125 at 11) because Plaintiff did not serve a chart for each of the 73 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, and Defendants contended that Plaintiff did not provide any explanation or
`
`evidence showing that the charted Accused Instrumentalities were representative of uncharted ones.
`
`Plaintiff has now served additional charts and has confirmed that it raises no claim against
`
`any uncharted Accused Instrumentality.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 2 of 7
`
`Accordingly, the Parties agree that the Plaintiff raises no claim against the following
`
`devices: the Nokia 1.4, Nokia 2V Tella, Nokia 3.4, Nokia 5.4, Nokia 8V 5G UW, Nokia 225 4G,
`
`Nokia 2660 Flip, Nokia 2720 V Flip, Nokia 2760 Flip, Nokia 2780 Flip, Nokia 6300 4G, or Nokia
`
`C5.
`
`The Parties also agree that Plaintiff (1) does not assert U.S. Patent No. RE 48,629 against
`
`the Nokia 2660 Flip or Nokia C5; (2) does not assert U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862 against the Nokia
`
`5, Nokia 5.1, or Nokia 6; (3) does not assert U.S. Patent No. 7,564,914 against the Nokia 5.1,
`
`Nokia 6, or Nokia 6.1 Plus; (4) does not assert U.S. Patent No. 7,957,450 against the Nokia 5.1 or
`
`Nokia 6; (5) does not assert U.S. Patent No. 8,396,072 against the Nokia C200, Nokia 2V, Nokia
`
`6.1 Plus, Nokia 800 Tough, Nokia 2660 Flip, Nokia C1 Plus, or Nokia C5; and (6) does not assert
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,792,432 against the Nokia 6.1 Plus, Nokia 800 Tough, Nokia 2660 Flip, Nokia
`
`C1 Plus, or Nokia C5.
`
`The Parties are working to further reduce the number of Accused Instrumentalities in the
`
`case.
`
`Accordingly, the Parties have resolved this dispute.
`
`2.
`
`Allegations of Indirect Infringement: Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s original
`
`Infringement Contentions and Supplemental Infringement Contentions under P.R. 3-1(d) because
`
`Defendants contended that Plaintiff failed to make the disclosures required under that rule for
`
`allegations of indirect infringement.
`
`Plaintiff has now revised its indirect infringement allegations and limited them to
`
`accusations that Defendants HMD America, Inc. and HMD Global Oy (collectively, “HMD”)
`
`induced infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,204,554 and 7,319,889 based on use of the Nokia 8.3
`
`5G. Plaintiff has provided additional contentions and claim charts in its Supplemental Infringement
`
`Contentions related to these indirect infringement allegations, to which Defendants will respond.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 3 of 7
`
`Accordingly, the Parties have resolved this dispute.
`
`3.
`
`Allegations Under the Doctrine of Equivalents: Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s
`
`original Infringement Contentions under P.R. 3-1(e) because Defendants contended that Plaintiff
`
`failed to make the disclosures required under that rule for allegations under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`Plaintiff has confirmed it is no longer pursuing any allegations of infringement by
`
`Defendants under the doctrine of equivalents, as reflected in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Infringement
`
`Contentions.
`
`Accordingly, the Parties have resolved this dispute.
`
`4.
`
`Allegations Related to Method Claims: Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s original
`
`Infringement Contentions and Supplemental Infringement Contentions under P.R. 3-1(b) because
`
`Defendants contended that Plaintiff failed to make the disclosures required under that rule for
`
`allegations of infringement of method claims.
`
`Plaintiff has now provided additional contentions in its Supplemental Infringement
`
`Contentions related to its allegation of infringement by HMD of the asserted method claims, to
`
`which HMD will respond.
`
`Plaintiff no longer pursues any allegation that Defendants Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy
`
`Stores L.P., Target Corp., or Walmart, Inc. (collectively, “Retailer Defendants”) use the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities to practice the claimed methods, nor any allegation that the Retailer Defendants
`
`indirectly infringe the asserted method claims by providing Accused Instrumentalities that practice
`
`the claimed methods, which does not preclude discovery on the matter.
`
`Accordingly, the Parties have resolved this dispute.
`
`5.
`
`Allegations Related to Mean-Plus-Function Claim Limitations: Defendants
`
`objected to Plaintiff’s original Infringement Contentions and Supplemental Infringement
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 4 of 7
`
`Contentions under P.R. 3-1(c) because Defendants contended that Plaintiff failed to make the
`
`disclosures required under that rule for allegations of infringement of claims with limitations in
`
`“means-plus-function” format.
`
`Plaintiff has agreed to supplement its claim charts with respect to claims 10, 12, and 15 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,696,941, to which Defendants will respond.
`
`Accordingly, the Parties have resolved this dispute.
`
`6.
`
`Other:
`
`In an effort to streamline the issues, the Parties have also reached an agreement whereby
`
`Plaintiff no longer pursues any allegation that the Retailer Defendants make or import the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, cause the Accused Instrumentalities to be used in infringing manners, or
`
`indirectly infringe any asserted patent, but that agreement does not preclude discovery on the
`
`matter.
`
`7.
`
`Case schedule: The Parties have cooperated in good faith to resolve the Motion,
`
`primarily through Plaintiff’s service of additional charts and supplemental allegations. Plaintiff
`
`served its original Infringement Contentions on February 7, 2023, and its Supplemental
`
`Infringement Contentions on April 14, 2023, nine weeks later. The Parties have agreed on a
`
`schedule that allows Defendants a corresponding amount of time to prepare their responsive
`
`contentions, and Defendants agree that the Parties’ proposed schedule would address its concerns.
`
`Accordingly, the Parties intend to submit a jointly proposed schedule for the Court’s
`
`consideration, the entry of which will fully resolve this dispute.
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Parties respectfully request that the Court cancel the April 26
`
`Discovery Hearing in this matter (ECF No. 162).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/Christopher Clayton
`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
`
`Christopher Clayton, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`Paul Richter, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`Adam Woodward (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
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`DEFENDANTS
`FOR
`ATTORNEYS
`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 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 171 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2023 Page 7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of April, 2023, I electronically filed the
`foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which served a copy on the
`following Service List:
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/Jodi-Ann Tillman
` Jodi-Ann Tillman
`
`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 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.
`
`SERVICE LIST
`
`Christopher Clayton, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`Paul Richter, Esq. (pro hac vice)
`Adam Woodward (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
`
`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 - Suite 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.
`
`
`WPBDOCS 11642000 2
`
`7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
