Ixi Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03752

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related Per Civil L.R. 3-12 filed by Samsung Electronics America Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. Responses due by 10/28/2019.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 DESMARAIS LLP Gregory S. Arovas, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice) John M. Desmarais (CA SBN 320875) Todd M. Friedman, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice) 2 Emily H. Chen (CA SBN 302966) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 101 California Street, Suite 3070 601 Lexington Avenue 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 New York, New York 10022 Tel: (415) 573-1900 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 4 Fax: (415) 573-1901 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 greg.arovas@kirkland.com 5 Ameet A. Modi (admitted pro hac vice) todd.friedman@kirkland.com Cosmin Maier (admitted pro hac vice) 6 Brian D. Matty (admitted pro hac vice) [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] Francesco D. Silletta (admitted pro hac vice) 7 Joze Welsh (admitted pro hac vice) Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and DESMARAIS LLP Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 8 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 9 Tel: 212-351-3400 Fax: 212-351-3401 10 Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc. 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD., et al., Case No. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG 15 Plaintiffs, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES 16 v. SHOULD BE RELATED PER CIVIL L.R. 3-12 FILED BY SAMSUNG 17 SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. et al., ELECS. CO., LTD. ET AL. AND APPLE INC. 18 Defendants. 19 IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD., et al., Case No. 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 20 Plaintiffs, 21 v. 22 APPLE INC., 23 Defendant. 24 25 26 27 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER -1- Case Nos. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG, 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 28 CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PER CIVIL L.R. 3-12 FILED BY SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. ET AL. AND APPLE INC. 1 Defendants Apple Inc. ("Apple") and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics 2 America, Inc. ("Samsung") (collectively "Defendants") respectfully file this Administrative Motion 3 to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related pursuant to Civil L. R. 3-12. 4 I. TITLE AND CASE NUMBERS OF EACH POTENTIALLY RELATED CASE 5 • Apple Inc. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al., No. 4:19-cv-6769 ("Apple v. IXI DJ") (filed 6 October 18, 2019) 7 • Samsung Elecs. Co., et al. v. IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al., No. 4:19-cv-6773 ("Samsung v. IXI DJ") (filed October 18, 2019) 8 • IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd.., et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 9 ("IXI v. Apple Case") and IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., et al. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., et al., Case 10 No. 4:15-cv-03752-HSG (IXI v. Samsung Case) (currently related) 11 II. RELATIONSHIP OF THE ACTIONS PER CIVIL L.R. 3-12(a) Civ. L.R. 3-12(b) provides that if a party knows or learns that an action, filed or removed to 12 this district, is related or may be related to an action already pending, or previously pending, in this 13 district, the party must file an administrative motion for related case consideration. Cases are related 14 if: (1) they concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) it appears 15 likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results 16 if the cases are conducted before different judges. Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). 17 Both the IXI v. Apple Case and the Apple v. IXI DJ involve the same parties: IXI Mobile (R&D) 18 Ltd., IXI IP, LLC, and Apple Inc. Both the IXI v. Samsung and the Samsung v. IXI DJ involve the 19 same parties: IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd., IXI IP, LLC, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung 20 Electronics America, Inc. The only remaining patent asserted in IXI v. Apple and IXI v. Samsung is 21 U.S. Patent No. 7,295,532 (the "'532 Patent"). Both the Apple v. IXI DJ and Samsung v. IXI DJ involve 22 the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,039,033 (the "'033 Patent"), which IXI originally asserted in IXI v. 23 Apple and IXI v. Samsung, and may involve similar technology. Both the Apple v. IXI DJ and the 24 Samsung v. IXI DJ also involve the same parties on the opposite side, IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. and IXI 25 IP, LLC. 26 27 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER -1- Case Nos. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG, 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 28 CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PER CIVIL L.R. 3-12 FILED BY SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. ET AL. AND APPLE INC. 1 The procedural history of litigation between the parties is set forth in a previous Order of the 2 Court in the IXI v. Apple Case and IXI v. Samsung Case. See Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for 3 Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions and Asserted Claims, Dkt. 187 (Oct. 11, 2019); Joint Case 4 Management Statement, Dkt. 189 (Oct. 15, 2019). Several points are briefly reiterated here. 5 On December 21, 2016, in response to petitions for inter partes review filed by Apple and 6 Samsung, the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions invalidating all of the instituted claims of the 7 '033 Patent. See Letter to the Court Regarding Update on IPR, Dkt. 128 (Dec. 28, 2016). IXI appealed 8 and the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on September 10, 2018. 9 While IXI's appeal of the '033 Final Written Decision was pending, IXI requested an ex parte 10 reexamination of the '033 Patent. During the ex parte reexamination, IXI amended claim 56 and 11 added claims 57 through 124 to the '033 Patent. On February 1, 2018, the USPTO issued a 12 reexamination certificate that granted IXI these additional claims. 13 On November 8, 2018, Apple filed IPR petitions challenging the validity of the new claims 14 added to the '033 Patent during reexamination. The PTAB found that the IPRs were time-barred and 15 denied institution on June 3, 2019. On August 5, 2019, Apple noticed appeal of the PTAB's decision 16 to the Federal Circuit. That appeal is ongoing. 17 On June 28, 2019, Samsung requested an ex parte reexamination of the new claims of the '033 18 Patent. That reexamination request was granted and the reexamination is currently in progress. 19 IXI moved to amend its infringement contentions in the IXI v. Apple Case and IXI v. Samsung 20 Case in order to add an unspecified number of claims of the '033 Patent issued through reexamination. 21 Dkts. 157, 166. The Court denied IXI's motion, without reaching the question of whether IXI's proposed 22 assertion is barred by res judicata, and stating that if IXI "want[s] to enforce their newly-minted claims, 23 they can try to do so in a new case." Dkt. 187. As a result, and to obtain a resolution of Apple's and 24 Samsung's belief that IXI's threatened assertion is barred by res judicata, Apple and Samsung filed 25 their declaratory judgment complaints relating to IXI's '033 Patent claims and related issues. 26 27 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER -2- Case Nos. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG, 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 28 CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PER CIVIL L.R. 3-12 FILED BY SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. ET AL. AND APPLE INC. 1 The Defendants further note that IXI originally asserted the '532 Patent and the '033 Patent in 2 the IXI v. Apple Case and IXI v. Samsung Case. IXI has previously argued that it believes (in its 3 Motion to Amend, which was denied by the Court) that there is overlap between the subject matter of 4 the '532 Patent and '033 Patent. See, e.g., IXI's Motion for Leave to Amend Its Infringement 5 Contentions, Dkt. No. 157 at 7 (Mar. 7, 2019). The Defendants therefore submit for the Court's 6 consideration whether a basis may exist to relate the Apple v. IXI DJ and Samsung v. IXI DJ cases with 7 the previously-filed cases brought by IXI.1 A draft of this motion was provided to counsel for IXI on 8 October 21, 2019, and Defendants' counsel reached out to IXI on October 21, 2019 and October 23, 9 2019 to propose that the parties confer on the motion. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 On October 23, 2019, Judge Cousins issued a Sua Sponte Judicial Referral For Purposes Of 25 Determining Relationship Of Cases in the IXI v. Apple and Apple v. IXI DJ Cases. Separately, in view of the overlap in subject matter between the Apple v. IXI DJ and Samsung v. IXI DJ Cases, which were 26 both filed on the same date, the Defendants plan to separately file a motion proposing that those cases be related. 27 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER -3- Case Nos. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG, 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 28 CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PER CIVIL L.R. 3-12 FILED BY SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. ET AL. AND APPLE INC. Dated: October 24, 2019 /s/ Ameet A. Modi 1 DESMARAIS LLP John M. Desmarais (CA SBN 320875) 2 Emily H. Chen (CA SBN 302966) 101 California Street, Suite 3070 3 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 573-1900 4 Fax: (415) 573-1901 5 Ameet A. Modi (admitted pro hac vice) Cosmin Maier (admitted pro hac vice) 6 Brian D. Matty (admitted pro hac vice) Francesco D. Silletta (admitted pro hac vice) 7 Joze Welsh (admitted pro hac vice) DESMARAIS LLP 8 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 9 Tel: 212-351-3400 Fax: 212-351-3401 10 Counsel for Defendant Apple Inc. 11 12 /s/ Todd M. Friedman Gregory S. Arovas, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice) 13 Todd M. Friedman, P.C. (admitted pro hac vice) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 14 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 15 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 16 greg.arovas@kirkland.com todd.friedman@kirkland.com 17 David Rokach (admitted pro hac vice) 18 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 N. LaSalle 19 Chicago, Illinois 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 20 Facsimile: (212) 862-2200 david.rokach@kirkland.com 21 Brandon Brown 22 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street 23 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 24 Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 brandon.brown@kirkland.com 25 Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and 26 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 27 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER -4- Case Nos. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG, 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 28 CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PER CIVIL L.R. 3-12 FILED BY SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. ET AL. AND APPLE INC. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 On October 24, 2019, I caused the foregoing document, titled Defendants' Administrative 3 Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Per Civil L.R. 3-12, to be lodged with the 4 Court, and served on opposing counsel. 5 _/s/ Todd M. Friedman____________ 6 Todd M. Friedman 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER -5- Case Nos. 4:15-CV-03752-HSG, 4:15-CV-03755-HSG 28 CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PER CIVIL L.R. 3-12 FILED BY SAMSUNG ELECS. CO., LTD. ET AL. AND APPLE INC.