American Patents LLC v. Mediatek, Inc. et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2018-cv-00339

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING SPECIALLY APPEARING LENOVO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, RECONSIDERATION, AND STAY (DKT. 125) AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS, LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, AND IMPROPER VENUE (DKT. 44) by Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co. Ltd., Lenovo Group Ltd.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION AMERICAN PATENTS LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-CV-339-ADA Plaintiff, v. MEDIATEK INC., MEDIATEK USA INC., BROADCOM PTE. LTD., BROADCOM CORPORATION, LENOVO (SHANGHAI) ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., LENOVO GROUP, LTD., NXP SEMICONDUCTORS N.V., NXP B.V., NXP USA, INC., QUALCOMM INCORPORATED and QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING SPECIALLY APPEARING LENOVO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, RECONSIDERATION, AND STAY (DKT. 125) AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS, LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, AND IMPROPER VENUE (DKT. 44) Specially Appearing Defendants Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. and Lenovo Group Ltd. (the "Lenovo Defendants") respectfully provide this notice of a recent decision issued by the District of Delaware that supports the Lenovo Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, Reconsideration, and Stay (Dkt. 125) and Motion to Dismiss for Improper Service of Process, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Improper Venue (Dkt. 44) (the "Motions"). Both Motions assert that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Lenovo Defendants. The District of Delaware addressed a similar issue in 3G Licensing, S.A., Koninklijke KPN N.V., et al. v. Lenovo Group, Ltd., et al., No. 17-cv-84-LPS-CJB, Dkt. 308 (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2019) ("3G Licensing") (attached hereto as Exhibit A). The plaintiffs in 3G Licensing asserted personal jurisdiction over Lenovo Group Ltd. ("LGL") based on stream of commerce and agency theories, relying significantly on the Annual Report. (Ex. A at 7.) As in this case, LGL, in support of its motion, submitted a declaration from Kurt Cranor. (Ex. A at 11.) Applying a prima facie burden on the plaintiffs, the Magistrate Judge recommended that LGL's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction be granted with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) The Magistrate Judge also denied the plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery. (Id. at 18.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), written objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation are due within 14 days of being served with a copy of the report and recommendation. In 3G Licensing, this deadline was September 5, 2019. To date, no objection has been filed by the 3G Licensing plaintiffs. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge's dismissal with prejudice of LGL for lack of personal jurisdiction is now a final decision of the District of Delaware. –1– Dated: September 16, 2019 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay Texas State Bar No. 00789886 FINDLAY CRAFT 102 North College Avenue, Suite 900 Tyler, TX 75702 (903) 534-1100 (903) 534-1137 (Fax) EFindlay@FindlayCraft.com Martin Bader (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Michael J. Hopkins (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 (858) 720-8900 (858) 509-3691 (Fax) mbader@sheppardmullin.com mhopkins@sheppardmullin.com Lai L. Yip (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 434-9100 (415) 434-3947 (Fax) lyip@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendants Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. and Lenovo Group Ltd. –2– CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 16, 2019, a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY REGARDING SPECIALLY APPEARING LENOVO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, RECONSIDERATION, AND STAY (DKT. 125) AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER SERVICE OF PROCESS, LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, AND IMPROPER VENUE (DKT. 44) was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access this filing through the Court's electronic filing system. /s/Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay –3–