Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 1 of 9
`
`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.; HUAQIN CO., LTD; BEST BUY CO.,
`INC.; BEST BUY STORES L.P.; TARGET
`CORP.; WALMART INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`_______________________________________/
`
`
`
`MOTION TO SET COMMON RESPONSE DEADLINE
`
`Defendants HMD America, Inc., HMD Global Oy (“HMD”), Tinno Mobile Technology
`
`Corp.; Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Co., Ltd.; Tinno USA, Inc.; Wingtech Technology Co., Ltd.;
`
`Wingtech International, Inc.; and Walmart Inc. (collectively the “Moving Defendants”) hereby
`
`move the Court to set Monday, January 16, 2023 as a common response deadline for all
`
`Defendants who have either been served or have waived service, and in support of said motion
`
`state as follows:
`
`
`
`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.; HUAQIN CO., LTD; BEST BUY CO.,
`INC.; BEST BUY STORES L.P.; TARGET
`CORP.; WALMART INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`_______________________________________/
`
`
`
`MOTION TO SET COMMON RESPONSE DEADLINE
`
`Defendants HMD America, Inc., HMD Global Oy (“HMD”), Tinno Mobile Technology
`
`Corp.; Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Co., Ltd.; Tinno USA, Inc.; Wingtech Technology Co., Ltd.;
`
`Wingtech International, Inc.; and Walmart Inc. (collectively the “Moving Defendants”) hereby
`
`move the Court to set Monday, January 16, 2023 as a common response deadline for all
`
`Defendants who have either been served or have waived service, and in support of said motion
`
`state as follows:
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 2 of 9
`
`Background
`
`On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint
`
`for patent infringement against HMD, its US-based affiliate HMD America, Inc., and parties
`
`alleged to be device manufacturers, component suppliers, and retailers to HMD. ECF No. 1. The
`
`accused products in the Complaint are all HMD mobile devices. Id.
`
`This is the second filing of this patent infringement action, which was previously docketed
`
`as Case No. 1:22-cv-21035-RNS (the “Prior Action”). Upon the filing of the Prior Action, HMD
`
`conferred with Plaintiff and questioned Plaintiff’s assertion of subject-matter jurisdiction, based
`
`on the existence of a prior licensing arrangement between Plaintiff and a third party which was
`
`publicly filed (with redactions) in another litigation. At that time, HMD indicated its intention to
`
`move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Following those
`
`conferences, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Prior Action. 1:22-cv-21035-RNS, ECF No. 55.
`
`Plaintiff then filed the present action against some of the original Defendants in the Prior Action
`
`and some newly identified Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff has yet to serve all of the captioned Defendants with the Complaint in the present
`
`action. Certain Defendants domiciled in the United States, including HMD America, Inc. and
`
`Tinno USA, Inc., presently have response deadlines in October of 2022, some as early as October
`
`24, 2022. See ECF Nos. 36, 38, 48. Other Defendants, including Defendants domiciled outside of
`
`the United States like HMD, Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Co., Ltd., and Wingtech Technology Co.,
`
`Ltd., have waived service and received response deadlines in November and December, 2022. See
`
`ECF Nos. 28–33, 50–51. Still other Defendants, including Defendants domiciled outside of the
`
`United States like Huaqin Co. Ltd., have yet to be served with the Complaint. See ECF No. 58.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 3 of 9
`
`Should those Defendants waive service of the Complaint, their responses will be due in January
`
`of 2023 or later. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3), 6(a)(1)(B).
`
`Argument
`
`The Moving Defendants respectfully ask the Court to set a common response deadline for
`
`all Defendants who have been served or who have waived service. The Moving Defendants submit
`
`that there is good cause for the request for three reasons.
`
`First, setting a common response deadline is consistent with the Court’s Order Requiring
`
`Discovery and Scheduling Conference, which instructs that where, as here, there are multiple
`
`defendants, “the parties must file joint motions and consolidated responses and replies unless
`
`there are clear conflicts of position,” including as appropriate any “joint motion to dismiss the
`
`complaint.” ECF No. 8. The Court’s Order further instructs that, to file a joint motion to dismiss
`
`the complaint,
`
`one or more Defendants may need an extension of time to respond to the complaint.
`To that end, those Defendants must confer with opposing counsel, as required by
`the Local Rules, and then seek relief from the Court regarding an appropriate
`extension. So long as the disparate service dates do not result in extensions that will
`unduly delay the proceedings, the Court will accommodate any request that
`facilitates the joint filing.
`
`
`Id.
`
`Second, a common response deadline would also allow the parties to resolve outstanding
`
`evidentiary issues relating to the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. In pre-suit conferences after
`
`the dismissal of the Prior Action and prior to the commencement of the present action, HMD has
`
`again questioned Plaintiff’s assertion of subject-matter jurisdiction, based on the above-noted prior
`
`licensing arrangement between Plaintiff and a third party. Plaintiff has represented to HMD that,
`
`notwithstanding that prior arrangement, it now has standing to bring this suit.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 4 of 9
`
`HMD has asked to review the documents supporting Plaintiff’s assertions, to determine
`
`whether a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) as to the accused HMD products is necessary or
`
`appropriate. Plaintiff and the third party have since consented to such review, but state that they
`
`cannot provide the documents to parties other than HMD and HMD America, Inc. until entry of a
`
`protective order by the Court, despite having been aware of HMD’s request since before the present
`
`action was filed.
`
`An extended, common response deadline will allow an orderly start to this case, whereby:
`
`
`
`the parties can confer and present a proposed protective order to the Court,
`
` Plaintiff can thereafter produce the documents that allegedly establish the Court’s
`
`jurisdiction,
`
`
`
`the Defendants can thereafter confer and assess whether a joint motion to dismiss
`
`under Rule 12(b)(1) (or any other consolidated response) is appropriate, with any
`
`Defendant having a conflict of position able to identify it.
`
`Finally, a common response deadline will also avoid the need to file further piecemeal
`
`motions for extensions of time.
`
`A January 16, 2023 common response deadline will not unduly delay the proceedings in
`
`this matter. It would provide Plaintiff time to effect full service of the Complaint. In addition, any
`
`Defendant outside the United States who has yet to waive service upon Plaintiff’s requests would
`
`have until approximately that date to respond under Rules 4(d)(3) and 6(a)(1)(B).
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order Requiring Discovery and Scheduling Conference, counsel
`
`for the Moving Defendants conferred with counsel for Plaintiff by email, provided a draft of this
`
`motion, and offered to further confer telephonically. In response, Plaintiff, stated that they
`
`“disagree with the stated basis for [the] motion and oppose it,” and declined to further confer.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 5 of 9
`
`WHEREFORE, the Moving Defendants respectfully move the Court to set a deadline of
`
`Monday, January 16, 2023, for all Defendants who have been served or who have waived service
`
`to jointly move to dismiss the Complaint or otherwise respond thereto, each identifying any
`
`conflict of position.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF PRE-FILING CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), the undersigned counsel for HMD certifies that he met
`
`and conferred with counsel for Plaintiff regarding the issues raised in this motion via email on
`
`October 19, 2022, and Plaintiff has indicated that it opposes the motion.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Joseph W. Bain
`
`JOSEPH W. BAIN
`Florida Bar No. 860360
`Email Address: jbain@shutts.com
`SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
`1100 CityPlace Tower
`525 Okeechobee Boulevard
`West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
`Telephone: (561) 835-8500
`Facsimile: (561) 650-8530
`
`and
`
`JODI-ANN TILLMAN
`Florida Bar No. 1022214
`Email Address: jtillman@shutts.com
`SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
`200 East Broward Boulevard
`Suite 2100
`Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
`Telephone: (561) 835-8500
`Facsimile: (561) 650-8530
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`HMD AMERICA, INC.,
`HMD GLOBAL OY, and
`WALMART INC.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Moffa
`MATTHEW J. MOFFA
`Pro hac vice forthcoming
`mmoffa@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 262-6900
`Facsimile: (212) 977-1649
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`HMD AMERICA, INC. and
`HMD GLOBAL OY
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher J. Gass
`ROBERT ALFERT, JR., P.A.
`Florida Bar No. 0959324
`robert.alfert@nelsonmullins.com
`NELSON MULLINS
`390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
`Orlando, Florida 32801
`Telephone No. 407.839.4200
`Facsimile No. 407.425.8377
`
`ANDREW J. FULLER, ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 1021164
`andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com
`NELSON MULLINS
`390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
`Orlando, Florida 32801
`Telephone No. 407.839.4200
`Facsimile No. 407.425.8377
`vicki.mattison@nelsonmullins.com
`katie.bartoo@nelsonmullins.com
`
`and
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`DAVID M. AIRAN, ESQ.
`IL Bar No. 6215687 (pro hac vice application
`forthcoming)
`dairan@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`180 North Stetson Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60601-6731
`Telephone No. 312-616-5600
`Facsimile No. 312-616-5700
`
`NICOLE KOPINSKI, ESQ.
`IL Bar No. 6286626 (pro hac vice application
`forthcoming)
`nkopinski@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`180 North Stetson Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60601-6731
`Telephone No. 312-616-5600
`Facsimile No. 312-616-5700
`
`CHRISTOPHER J. GASS, ESQ.
`IL Bar No. 6303369 (pro hac vice application
`forthcoming)
`cgass@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`180 North Stetson Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60601-6731
`Telephone No. 312-616-5600
`Facsimile No. 312-616-5700
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR WINGTECH
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. AND WINGTECH
`INTERNATIONAL, INC.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John K. Winn
`ROBERT ALFERT, JR., P.A.
`Florida Bar No. 0959324
`robert.alfert@nelsonmullins.com
`NELSON MULLINS
`390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
`Orlando, Florida 32801
`Telephone No. 407.839.4200
`Facsimile No. 407.425.8377
`
`ANDREW J. FULLER, ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 1021164
`andrew.fuller@nelsonmullins.com
`NELSON MULLINS
`390 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
`Orlando, Florida 32801
`Telephone No. 407.839.4200
`Facsimile No. 407.425.8377
`vicki.mattison@nelsonmullins.com
`katie.bartoo@nelsonmullins.com
`
`and
`
`WESLEY O. MUELLER, ESQ.
`IL Bar No. 6199650 (pro hac vice)
`wmueller@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`180 North Stetson Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60601-6731
`Telephone No. 312-616-5600
`Facsimile No. 312-616-5700
`
`JOHN K. WINN, ESQ.
`IL Bar No. 6291073 (pro hac vice)
`jwinn@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`180 North Stetson Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60601-6731
`Telephone No. 312-616-5600
`Facsimile No. 312-616-5700
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/20/2022 Page 9 of 9
`
`LEONARD Z. HUA, ESQ.
`IL Bar No. 6303557 (pro hac vice)
`lhua@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`180 North Stetson Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60601-6731
`Telephone No. 312-616-5600
`Facsimile No. 312-616-5700
`
`JAMES W. SANNER, ESQ.
`IL Bar No. 6327546 (pro hac vice)
`jsanner@leydig.com
`LEYDIG, VOIT & MAYER, LTD
`Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
`180 North Stetson Avenue
`Chicago, IL 60601-6731
`Telephone No. 312-616-5600
`Facsimile No. 312-616-5700
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR TINNO MOBILE
`TECHNOLOGY CORP.; SHENZHEN TINNO
`MOBILE CO., LTD.; AND TINNO USA, INC.
`
`
`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 October 20, 2022.
`
`
`
`/s/ Joseph W. Bain
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
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
