Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 2937
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`The Honorable Rodney Gilstrap
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00070-JRG
` 2:19-cv-00071-JRG
` 2:19-cv-00161-JRG
` 2:19-cv-00172-JRG
` 2:19-cv-00200-JRG
` 2:19-cv-00237-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPERCELL OY’S MOTION FOR RELIEF IN VIEW OF GOVERNMENTAL/PUBLIC
`HEALTH RESTRICTIONS IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 VIRUS IMPACT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2938
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Background on the Related Cases ........................................................................... 2 
`
`Governmental/Public Health Restrictions Prevent Necessary
`Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions of GREE and 30(b)(1)
`Depositions of GREE’s Witnesses.......................................................................... 3 
`
`Governmental/Public Health Restrictions Prevent Necessary
`Review of GREE’s Source Code and Third-Party Source Code ............................ 8 
`
`II. 
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF ..................................................................................................... 10 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 2939
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Elan Microelectronics Corp. v. Pixcir Microelectronics Co. Ltd.,
`No. 2:10-cv-00014-GMN-PAL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114164
`(D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2013) ..............................................................................................................7
`
`EVS Codec Tech., LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00057 (Order dated April 13, 2020) .....................................................10, 11
`
`Kentucky v. Stincer,
`482 U.S. 730, 107 S. Ct. 2658 (1987) ........................................................................................7
`
`Kress v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP,
`No. 2:08-cv-0965 LKK AC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77897
`(E.D. Cal. June 3, 2013) .............................................................................................................8
`
`Nat’l Life. Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,
`615 F.2d 595 (3d Cir. 1980).......................................................................................................8
`STATUTES AND RULES
`
`Local Rule 3.1(f) ..............................................................................................................................8
`
`Rule 30(b)(1) ....................................................................................................................................5
`
`Rule 30(b)(6) .......................................................................................................................... passim
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan,
`https://www.mofa.go.jp/ca/fna/page4e_001053.html ............................................................5, 7
`
`Standing Order During the Present COVID-19 ...............................................................................1
`
`ii
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 2940
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Pretrial Procedures in Civil Cases
`
`Assigned to Chief District Judge Rodney Gilstrap During the Present COVID-19 Pandemic
`
`(“Standing Order During the Present COVID-19 Pandemic”), Defendant Supercell Oy
`
`(“Supercell”) respectfully moves for a continuance of the case deadlines in view of the
`
`extraordinary impact caused by the COVID-19 virus on the Parties.1
`
`The parties have continued to move the cases forward as much as possible during the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, since travel restrictions and shelter-in-place orders have
`
`been put in place, Supercell has already made five of its witnesses, all of whom are based in
`
`Finland, available to be deposed by video. Supercell is also making two additional witnesses
`
`available to be deposed between April 22 and April 24, 2020.
`
`However, while Supercell has continued to make its witnesses available, it has been
`
`unable to obtain reciprocal discovery from GREE, due in large part to governmental and public
`
`health restrictions imposed throughout the United States and in Japan in response to the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, those restrictions have prevented Supercell from conducting
`
`depositions of GREE’s witnesses in Japan, and the parties have been unable to find an alternative
`
`solution for Supercell to obtain the needed deposition testimony. Moreover, the governmental
`
`and public health restrictions have prevented Supercell from reviewing critical source code,
`
`including both third party source code for prior art products, and GREE’s source code that
`
`pertains to products that GREE only recently (after the COVID-19 related restrictions were put
`
`in place) informed Supercell allegedly practice the patents-in-suit and may constitute
`
`invalidating prior art.
`
`
`1 Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order, Supercell requested that GREE agree to a joint motion
`for extension. However, GREE rejected Supercell’s request.
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 2941
`
`
`Supercell thus respectfully moves for a 45- to 60-day continuance of the remaining case
`
`deadlines, including the pretrial and trial dates, in order to conduct depositions and review GREE
`
`and third-party source code, then incorporate information into its expert reports. The requested
`
`extension would extend discovery through the end of June 2020, allowing time for the
`
`governmental restrictions, particularly those in Japan that are preventing Supercell’s depositions
`
`of GREE’s witnesses in Japan from going forward, to be lifted. During this time, Supercell will
`
`also continue to make its witnesses available for deposition by video, and will review GREE’s
`
`source code once GREE makes it available for remote access.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`Background on the Related Cases
`
`The present motion concerns six related cases currently pending before this Court. Two
`
`of the cases, the 2:19-cv-00070 and -071 cases (hereinafter, the “first set” of cases), are governed
`
`under the same schedule, and four of the cases, the 2:19-cv-00161, -172, -200 and -237 cases
`
`(hereinafter, the “second set” of cases) are governed under a separate schedule. The deadlines
`
`for fact and expert discovery and the deadline to file dispositive motions between the first and
`
`second sets of cases are about 3 weeks apart, and the deadlines for the pretrial conference and
`
`trial between the first and second sets of cases are about 6 weeks apart, as shown below:
`
`First Set of Cases
`(070, 071)
`
`Second Set of Cases
`(161, 172, 200, 237)
`
`Event
`
`April 24, 2020
`
`May 18, 2020
`
`Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery
`
`May 1, 2020
`
`May 18, 2020
`
`June 5, 2020
`
`June 22, 2020
`
`Deadline to Serve Opening Expert
`Reports
`
`Deadline to Complete Expert
`Discovery
`
`June 8, 2020
`
`June 29, 2020
`
`Deadline to File Dispositive Motions
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 2942
`
`
`First Set of Cases
`(070, 071)
`
`Second Set of Cases
`(161, 172, 200, 237)
`
`Event
`
`July 20, 2020
`
`August 31, 2020
`
`*Pretrial Conference
`
`August 17, 2020
`
`October 5, 2020
`
`*Jury Selection
`
`
`
`Various patents asserted in the two sets of cases are related. In particular, the single
`
`patent in 2:19-cv-00071-JRG-RSP (in the first set of cases, with trial scheduled on August 17,
`
`2020) is the parent patent of the nine continuation patents in 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP (in the
`
`second set of cases, with trial scheduled on October 5, 2020). Similarly, one of the patents in
`
`2:19-cv-00070-JRG-RSP (in the first set of cases) is the parent patent of the single patent
`
`asserted in 2:19-cv-00172-JRG-RSP (in the second set of cases).
`
`B.
`
`Governmental/Public Health Restrictions Prevent Necessary Rule 30(b)(6)
`Corporate Depositions of GREE and 30(b)(1) Depositions of GREE’s
`Witnesses
`
`Supercell has been seeking to take depositions of GREE employees residing in Japan, but
`
`due to the travel restrictions and Japanese laws concerning depositions, the depositions have not
`
`taken place. GREE does not oppose conducting the depositions when the travel restrictions are
`
`lifted, and thus it has not moved for protective orders to preclude any of the depositions.
`
`Declaration of Michael J. Sacksteder In Support of Supercell’s Motion for Relief (“Sacksteder
`
`Decl.”), ¶ 2; id. at Ex. H. But these depositions are necessary to Supercell’s case, and thus
`
`Supercell cannot reasonably be expected to proceed into expert discovery before completing
`
`them.
`
`Supercell has not taken any depositions in the 2:19-cv-00161, -172, -200 and -237 cases
`
`(second set of cases), including any Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Id., ¶ 3. With respect to the first
`
`set of cases, Supercell took two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of two of GREE’s corporate witnesses
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 2943
`
`
`in February of 2020. Id., ¶ 4. However, GREE’s corporate witnesses lacked personal knowledge
`
`regarding relevant matters and were not adequately prepared to testify about several of
`
`Supercell’s 30(b)(6) topics. Id. Those witnesses, however, identified numerous GREE
`
`employees with personal knowledge of the subject areas, including numerous employees not
`
`previously identified in GREE’s initial disclosures. Id., ¶ 5; id., Exs. T, U. Accordingly,
`
`following the Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, Supercell noticed 30(b)(1) depositions of the individuals
`
`identified during the 30(b)(6) depositions who—according to one of GREE’s Rule 30(b)(6)
`
`witnesses—have greater knowledge regarding those topics.2 Id., ¶¶ 4-5, 7; id. at Ex. A, 21:1-22,
`
`22:22-24, 23:3-10, 45:14-17, 48:5-8, 54:4-6, 55:16-56:3, 74:25-76:12, 76:13-77:7; id. at Ex. B,
`
`95:22-96:1, 99:14-100:12, 102:14-20, 115:8-116:11, 142:14-19, 146:9-147:5, 149:18-152:19,
`
`152:22-156:11, 159:2-160:1; id. at Ex. E. These 30(b)(1) depositions are particularly relevant
`
`now that GREE has belatedly disclosed that certain of the products practiced the patents-in-suit,
`
`and that these products are, as explained in further detail below, potential prior art. Id., ¶ 6; id. at
`
`Exs. C, D.
`
`Further, since the depositions in February, a number of additional issues have arisen due
`
`to GREE’s untimely disclosures, including issues regarding products that allegedly practice the
`
`patents-in-suit and a recently-disclosed theory that GREE has been competitively harmed in
`
`
`2 Supercell noticed these depositions on February 11, 2020, less than a week after the 30(b)(6)
`depositions took place, for March and April 2020. Id., ¶ 7; id. at Ex. E. GREE’s counsel
`informed Supercell’s counsel that based on the coronavirus situation in Japan, its witnesses could
`not be made available at the noticed location (U.S. Consulate in Osaka), but would be made
`available as soon as the coronavirus situation improved. Id., ¶ 8; id. at Ex. F. At the time,
`Supercell was amenable to the proposal provided that the depositions could occur at a reasonable
`time within the case schedule. Id., ¶ 9. Based on the current COVID-19 situation and case
`schedules, however, GREE’s proposal is not workable as the depositions would likely not occur
`until at least June, and possibly after, after the deadlines for filing dispositive motions and
`pretrial disclosures. Id., ¶ 10.
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 2944
`
`
`general terms in the United States, without any allegation of competitive harm to any specific
`
`GREE games. Id.; see also id., ¶ 11; id. at Ex. G. Supercell thus seeks Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
`
`testimony from GREE, for information regarding such practicing products and its alleged
`
`competitive harm.
`
`Supercell has met and conferred about these depositions with GREE, and understands
`
`that while GREE does not intend to withhold the noticed depositions (see id., ¶ 2; id. at Ex. H),3
`
`based on the governmental and public health restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19
`
`pandemic, the depositions cannot reasonably be taken at this time. GREE is based in Tokyo,
`
`Japan, and Supercell understands from GREE’s counsel that GREE’s corporate witnesses and the
`
`GREE employees noticed for 30(b)(1) depositions are based in Japan. Id., ¶ 12. The attorneys
`
`who would take and defend the depositions of GREE’s witnesses are based in the United States,
`
`including in San Francisco, Seattle, and New York. Id., ¶ 13. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
`
`Japan has banned entry of foreign nationals coming from, among various other countries, the
`
`United States.4 Id., ¶ 14. Additionally, each of San Francisco, Seattle, and New York are
`
`covered by “Shelter-in-Place” or “Stay-at-Home” orders, which are currently scheduled to
`
`remain in effect until at least May 3, 2020.5 Id., ¶ 16. Accordingly, these governmental orders
`
`
`3 Specifically, Supercell has served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice in the -161, -172, -200 and
`-237 cases, and a Supplemental Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice in the -070 and -071 cases.
`Supercell has also served various Rule 30(b)(1) deposition notices on GREE employees.
`Sacksteder Decl., ¶ 2; id. at Ex. H.
`4 See https://www.mofa.go.jp/ca/fna/page4e_001053.html (describing “denial of permission to
`entry” to “[f]oreigners who have stayed in any of the following countries/cities/provinces/regions
`within 14 days prior to the application for landing,” including the United States of America.).
`5 San Francisco is covered by a Shelter in Place order in San Francisco County through at least
`May 3, 2020, and is also covered by a statewide Stay at Home that will remain in effect until
`further notice. See Sacksteder Decl., ¶ 16__. Seattle is covered by a statewide Stay-at-Home
`order through at least May 4. Id. New York is covered by a Stay-at-Home order through at least
`May 15, 2020. Id.
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 2945
`
`
`prevent Supercell’s and GREE’s attorneys (who are based in the U.S.) from traveling to Japan in
`
`order to conduct the necessary depositions of GREE’s witnesses in Japan.
`
`Counsel for the parties have also explored the possibility of conducting video
`
`depositions. Indeed, Supercell has already made five of its witnesses, who are based in Finland,
`
`available to GREE for video depositions.6 Id., ¶ 17. Two other Supercell witnesses—based in
`
`California—are being deposed by videoconference on April 22 and 23, 2020,7 and April 24,
`
`2020, respectively. Id. However, with respect to Supercell’s depositions of GREE’s witnesses,
`
`all of whom are based in Japan, this alternative is not available. Under Japanese law, all
`
`depositions in Japan must be held at either the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo or the U.S. Consulate in
`
`Osaka. Id., ¶ 18. The U.S. Embassy has informed counsel for Supercell that it does not currently
`
`have the resources or equipment for videoconferencing depositions within the Embassy or
`
`Consulate, and does not have the required level of staffing to support depositions at a location
`
`outside of the Embassy or Consulate. Id. Further, counsel for GREE has represented to
`
`Supercell that it spoke with its counsel based in Japan and with the Japanese Ministry of Foreign
`
`Affairs to determine whether videoconference depositions of witnesses in Japan would be
`
`possible in light of the current pandemic, and GREE’s counsel understands that such video
`
`depositions would be contrary to Japanese law and therefore impossible. Id., ¶ 20; id., Ex. H.
`
`
`6 While Supercell acknowledges that the current COVID-19 pandemic prevents in-person
`depositions and thus may, as the Court has ordered, require extraordinary, temporary
`modifications to standard practice, Supercell does not believe that preparing for and defending
`depositions by video, as well as taking depositions by video, are adequate substitutes for in-
`person preparation and depositions. Supercell thus maintains its objection to video depositions
`and maintains that the parties should resume with conducting in-person depositions as soon as
`practicable.
`7 One of Supercell’s witnesses lives in a 1-bedroom apartment in San Francisco with his wife
`and newborn child, and thus, to minimize burden on him and his family, he will be deposed over
`the course of two days.
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 2946
`
`
`Supercell has also proposed other solutions to complete depositions. In particular,
`
`Supercell proposed that GREE’s witnesses travel to another country in Asia that permits video
`
`depositions or travel to the U.S. to be deposed. Id., ¶ 20; id., Exs. H, I. Counsel for GREE has
`
`represented that this proposal is untenable and believes it would violate the Court’s recent
`
`Orders. Id. Supercell recognizes under the current restrictions from the Ministry of Foreign
`
`Affairs of Japan, traveling to most countries in Asia and/or to the U.S. would subject GREE’s
`
`witnesses to a 14-day quarantine upon return to Japan, and thus agrees such a solution would not
`
`be reasonably possible for GREE’s witnesses.8 Id., ¶ 15. But such a burden is certainly less
`
`significant than the prejudice to Supercell by having to conduct expert discovery and trial
`
`preparation without the outstanding depositions. Supercell has also proposed that GREE
`
`designate an individual who is based in the U.S. as its corporate witness. Id., ¶ 21; id., Ex. I.
`
`GREE’s counsel has indicated on the parties’ meet and confer that this proposal would similarly
`
`not be tenable, on the basis that none of GREE’s employees are based in the U.S. Id.
`
`To date, GREE’s only proposal has been for Supercell to completely forego the
`
`depositions, and to opt instead for discovery through written discovery, such as written Q&A.
`
`Id., ¶ 22. However, written discovery is not an acceptable replacement for Supercell’s requested
`
`depositions. See, e.g., Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 736, 107 S. Ct. 2658, 2662 (1987)
`
`(“Indeed, the Court has recognized that cross-examination is the ‘greatest legal engine ever
`
`invented for the discovery of truth.’” (citations omitted)); Elan Microelectronics Corp. v. Pixcir
`
`Microelectronics Co. Ltd., No. 2:10-cv-00014-GMN-PAL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114164
`
`(D. Nev. Aug. 7, 2013) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit a party served with
`
`
`8 See https://www.mofa.go.jp/ca/fna/page4e_001053.html (“All nationals arriving from all
`regions are called upon to wait 14 days at a location designated by the quarantine station chief
`and to refrain from using public transportation.”).
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 2947
`
`
`a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice or subpoena request ‘to elect to supply the answers in a written
`
`response to an interrogatory’ in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice or subpoena
`
`request. ‘Because of its nature, the deposition process provides a means to obtain more complete
`
`information and is, therefore, favored.’” (citations omitted); Kress v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers,
`
`LLP, No. 2:08-cv-0965 LKK AC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77897 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2013)
`
`(“[T]here are strong reasons why a party strategically selects to proceed by oral deposition rather
`
`than alternate means, including the spontaneity of witness responses.”) (citing Nat’l Life. Ins. Co.
`
`v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 615 F.2d 595, 600 n.6 (3d Cir. 1980)).
`
`In sum, the requested extension is necessary to allow time for the COVID-19 related
`
`restrictions to be lifted, and for Supercell to conduct the depositions of GREE’s employees.
`
`C.
`
`Governmental/Public Health Restrictions Prevent Necessary Review of
`GREE’s Source Code and Third-Party Source Code
`
`The COVID-19 related governmental and public health restrictions have also prevented
`
`Supercell from reviewing highly relevant source code. In particular, Supercell has not been able
`
`to review GREE’s source code relating to products that GREE recently identified as allegedly
`
`practicing the claimed inventions of the asserted patents. Sacksteder Decl., ¶ 32. GREE did not
`
`identify these practicing products in September of 2019, as it was required to pursuant to Patent
`
`Local Rule 3.1(f), nor did GREE identify any products as practicing the claimed inventions in
`
`response to Supercell’s discovery requests served in November of 2019. Id., ¶¶ 26-28; id., Ex. R.
`
`On multiple occasions before the depositions of GREE’s witnesses in January and February,
`
`Supercell requested that GREE identify any products that GREE contends practice the patents-in-
`
`suit, and GREE did not identify them. Id. Rather, it was only after the Shelter-in-Place order was
`
`imposed in San Francisco—and as late as last week, on April 16, 2020—that GREE identified
`
`certain products as allegedly practicing the claimed inventions. Id., ¶ 29; id., Exs. C and D.
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 2948
`
`
`Supercell thus needs time to review GREE’s source code. Such review is necessary,
`
`particularly given that certain games that GREE has identified appear to be potential prior art.
`
`For example, GREE recently identified a game called Clinoppe as allegedly practicing the ‘655
`
`patent. GREE admits that Clinoppe was available in the United States as early as June 2012. Id.,
`
`¶ 30; id., Ex, C. June 2012 is prior to the pre-AIA § 102(b) critical date for the ’655 patent of
`
`September 2012, and thus if the practicing features were available in Clinoppe any time prior to
`
`September 2012, then Clinoppe is prior art to the asserted patent. Supercell thus needs to review
`
`the code, in order to determine the full scope of features that have practiced (and potentially
`
`invalidate) the ’655 patent.
`
`As another example, GREE identified a game called Animal Days. GREE alleges that
`
`this product has features “relevant” to the asserted ’262 and ’318 patents; however, from
`
`GREE’s description of exemplary relevant features, Supercell believes that the product in fact
`
`practices the claimed invention of at least one of the patents-in-suit. Id., ¶ 31; id., Ex. R.
`
`GREE’s response also makes clear that its description of relevant features is not comprehensive.
`
`Id. (describing GREE’s explanation of “relevant features [that] include, inter alia, features…”
`
`(emphasis added). GREE further recently informed Supercell that the game was available in the
`
`US, again prior to the pre-AIA § 102(b) critical date for those patents. Id. Given the Shelter-in-
`
`Place orders, Supercell has been unable to review the code to determine whether the game was in
`
`fact practicing and constitutes prior art.
`
`In sum, Supercell’s review of GREE’s code is necessary to determine whether various
`
`features in GREE’s products invalidate the asserted patents. To date, Supercell has not had
`
`access to GREE’s source code, as the source code computer was located in GREE’s counsel’s
`
`office in San Francisco, California, which is covered by the California and San Francisco County
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 2949
`
`
`Shelter-in-Place Orders, and GREE required that the amended protective order be finalized prior
`
`to providing Supercell with remote access. Id., ¶ 32. However, the parties have now agreed, as
`
`of April 22, 2020, on terms for an amended protective order to be filed with the Court that will
`
`permit Supercell to remotely access GREE’s code. Id., ¶ 33
`
`In addition to reviewing GREE’s source code, Supercell also needs time to review source
`
`code that will be made available by a third party, Zynga, pursuant to a subpoena. Id., ¶ 34. The
`
`source code relates to prior art games in both the first set and second set of cases. Id. Zynga is
`
`based in San Francisco, and thus is covered by the Shelter-in-Place Order that will remain in effect
`
`until at least May 3, 2020. Id. Zynga’s counsel has informed Supercell’s counsel that the source
`
`code will be made available for inspection once the Shelter in Place Order has been lifted. Id.
`
`II.
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Supercell respectfully submits that based on the foregoing circumstances, good cause
`
`exists for a 45- to 60-day continuance of the case deadlines. Supercell’s request is consistent
`
`with this Court’s Standing Order During the Present COVID-19 Pandemic, which contemplates
`
`extensions that are reasonable in length and justified by specific facts preventing the cases from
`
`moving forward. It is also consistent with this Court’s recent Order granting an extension to
`
`allow the parties to complete their noticed Rule 30(b)(6) corporate depositions in a foreign
`
`country (specifically, where the country is affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and is covered
`
`by a foreign law that restricts availability of depositions), as well as to allow experts to review
`
`source code. See EVS Codec Tech., LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00057 (Order
`
`dated April 13, 2020).
`
`The facts in these cases are materially similar to those in EVS. Here, Supercell’s
`
`requested extension is needed so that (i) Supercell can complete the noticed 30(b)(6) and
`
`30(b)(1) depositions of GREE’s witnesses based in Japan, which like China in EVS has currently
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 2950
`
`
`banned travel of U.S. nationals and which does not allow for video depositions, and
`
`(ii) Supercell, and its experts, can complete the review of the GREE’s source code and
`
`third-party Zynga’s source code with sufficient time to prepare the opening expert reports.
`
`Completion of such depositions and review of the source code are necessary prior to the close of
`
`fact discovery and commencement of expert discovery. Further, given that Japan is currently
`
`under a state of emergency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan has not indicated when
`
`the travel restrictions denying entry to foreign nationals from the U.S. will be lifted, Supercell
`
`expects that the discovery period for both cases will need to extend at least through the end of
`
`June 2020 in order to provide sufficient time to conduct the necessary depositions and
`
`incorporate the testimony into expert reports.
`
`Further, Supercell proposes that in modifying the case schedules, the Court also align the
`
`schedules in the two sets of cases. Doing so would serve interests of judicial economy. Indeed,
`
`this Court consolidated claim construction in the first and second sets of cases, and Supercell
`
`believes that doing so increased efficiency, particularly with respect to the cases involving
`
`related patents. Supercell thus requests that the Court extend the deadlines in the second set of
`
`cases, up to and including the October 5 trial date, by 45 days, and further, align the schedule in
`
`the first set of cases to match those in the second set.
`
`To the extent the Court is not amenable to aligning the two case schedules, Supercell
`
`respectfully proposes that the Court continue the deadlines, up to and including the respective
`
`trials, in the first set of cases by at least 60 days, and in the second set of cases by at least
`
`45 days.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00200-JRG-RSP Document 100 Filed 04/23/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 2951
`
`
`Dated: April 22, 2020
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Michael J. Sacksteder
`Michael J. Sacksteder (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Bryan A. Kohm (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Christopher L. Larson (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Shannon E. Turner (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 415.281.1350
`Email: msacksteder@fenwick.com
`
`
`bkohm@fenwick.com
`
`
`clarson@fenwick.com
`
`
`sturner@fenwick.com
`
`Geoffrey R. Miller
`(Texas State Bar No. 24094847)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`902 Broadway, Suite 14
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: 212.430.2600
`Email: gmiller@fenwick.com
`
`Jessica M. Kaempf (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`Jeffrey A. Ware (Admitted E.D. Texas)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`1191 Second Ave., 10th Floor
`Seattle, Washington 98101
`Telephone: 206.389.4510
`Facsimile: 206.389.4511
`Email: jkaempf@fenwick.com
`
`jware@fenwick.com
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`State Bar No. 00790553
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Telephone: (903) 705-1117
`Facsimile: (903) 581-2543
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Supercell Oy
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Gree, Inc.
`Exhibit 2002 - Page 15 of 15
`
`