Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 5
`
`JENKS IP LAW PLLC
`William Jenks (SBN 212,609)
`1629 K St NW, Suite 300
`Washington DC 20016
`Telephone: (202) 412-7964
`
`
`Attorney for Amici Curiae
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`INTEL CORPORATION and APPLE INC.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC,
`FORTRESS CREDIT CO. LLC,
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`UNILOC USA, INC.,
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L.,
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`INVT SPE LLC,
`INVENTERGY GLOBAL, INC.,
`DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT,
`INC., IXI IP, LLC, and
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:19-cv-07651-EMC
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`OF UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC,
`CABLELABS
`PATREON, AND
`BITMOVIN, INC.
`TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN
`SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`Hon. Edward M. Chen
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion of Unified Patents, LLC, CableLabs, Patreon, and Bitmovin, Inc.
`for Leave to File Amicus Brief (3:19-cv-07651-EMC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`Please take notice that amici move for leave to file the accompanying amicus brief in the
`captioned case in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Amici do
`not seek oral argument on this motion.
`
`I. In the Northern District Leave To File Amicus Briefs Is Freely Given
`There is no rule addressing amicus briefs in the Northern District. Whether to grant leave
`to file is within the court’s discretion. See Sonoma Falls Developers, LLC v. Nevada Gold &
`Casinos, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 919, 925 (N.D. Cal. 2003). But district courts, including this court,
`“‘frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that have potential
`ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique information or
`perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to
`provide.’” California v. Azar, No. 19-cv-01184-EMC, 2019 WL 2029066, *1 (N.D. Cal.) (quoting
`Sonoma, 272 F. Supp. 2d at 925).
`Here, the court should grant leave. Amici can satisfy both prongs of the guidance provided
`by Sonoma. First, the issues here have ramifications beyond the parties involved. The court is
`tasked with deciding whether a mass aggregation of patents can be an antitrust violation. The
`scope of antitrust laws in the context of patent aggregation is of importance beyond the parties. It
`will determine whether operating companies have an antitrust defense when threatened with
`multiple litigations by an entity that has accumulated perhaps thousands of patents. It may also
`shape the continued growth of patent assertion entities (“PAEs”).
`Second, amici collectively have a broad perspective on these issues and unique information
`that can assist the court.
`Unified Patents LLC is a membership organization dedicated to deterring patent assertion
`entities from extracting nuisance settlements from operating companies based on patents that are
`likely invalid before the district courts and unpatentable before the Patent and Trademark Office
`(“PTO”). Unified’s more than 250 members are Fortune 500 companies, start-ups, automakers,
`1
` Motion of Unified Patents CableLabs, Patreon, and Bitmovin, Inc.
`for Leave to File Amicus Brief (3:19-cv-07651-EMC)
`
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`industry groups, cable companies, banks, manufacturers, and others dedicated to reducing the
`drain on the U.S. economy of now-routine baseless litigations asserting infringement of patents of
`dubious validity.
`Unified studies the ever-evolving business models, financial backings, and practices of
`PAEs. See, e.g., Jonathan Stroud, Pulling Back the Curtain on Complex Funding of Patent
`Assertion Entities, 12.2 Landslide 20 (Nov./Dec. 2019). Unified monitors ownership data,
`secondary-market patent sales, demand letters, post-grant procedures, and patent litigation to track
`PAE activity. See, e.g., Unified Patents, 2019 Litigation Annual Report available at
`https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/annual-report.
`Unified also files post-grant petitions challenging PAE patents it believes are unpatentable
`or invalid. In 2019, Unified was the fifth most frequent petitioner before the PTO’s Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), and it was by far the leading third-party filer.
`CableLabs is a non-profit non-stock company qualified under the National Cooperative
`Research and Production Act. CableLabs has over 60 member companies worldwide, including
`members who represent approximately 85% of U.S. cable subscribers. The cable industry supports
`over 2.9 million jobs and contributes $421 billion to the U.S. economy.
`CableLabs’ members have faced numerous PAE suits. They understand the scope of PAE
`litigation, the evolving PAE business model, and the uncertainty caused by the opaque use of
`third-party funds to establish and invigorate PAE shell companies.
`Patreon is a membership platform that helps artists and creators get paid by their fans.
`Since being founded in 2013, Patreon has sent over $1 billion in payments to over 150,000
`creators. During that time, Patreon has been sued, or threatened with suit, by PAEs.
`Bitmovin, Inc. is a private, venture-backed company, which develops best in class video
`solutions that enable its customers to create memorable digital experiences. Over the past two
`years, Bitmovin has faced numerous low-quality PAE claims. In response, the company has
`adopted an aggressive strategy to defend against such meritless suits.
`Amici are concerned with the role mass patent aggregators like Fortress have taken in
`2
`Motion of Unified Patents CableLabs, Patreon, and Bitmovin, Inc.
`for Leave to File Amicus Brief (3:19-cv-07651-EMC)
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`bolstering the PAE model and in driving the widespread assertion of low-quality patents under
`dubious infringement theories. Amici will detail the evolving business models, capitalization
`sources, and strategies of PAEs like Defendants and place those practices in the antitrust context.
`
`II. The Proposed Amicus Brief Complies with General Court Standards
`While the Northern District does not have specific guidelines for amicus briefs. Amici
`have prepared their brief in compliance with amici rules in other venues. See, e.g., Fed. R. App.
`Proc. 29(a); Rules of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Local Civil Rule 7(o)
`(July 2019) available at https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/LocalRulesJuly_2019.pdf
`(“D.C. Local R. 31(o)”).
`This protects the parties by ensuring the brief is timely and of an appropriate length.
`Compliance further ensures that the court has sufficient time to review all briefing should it grant
`leave to file.
`1. Consent has been sought, by email, from counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for each
`Defendant. Plaintiffs have consented to the filing of this brief. Defendants have
`not consented.
`2. Amicus counsel authored the brief. No party or party counsel authored the brief in
`whole or in part. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 29(a)(4).
`3. No party or party’s counsel has contributed to the cost of this brief. Id.
`4. No person other than amici contributed money to fund this brief. Id.
`5. The proposed amicus brief is timely. The FRAP rules allow amici seven days to
`file after the principal brief of the party they support. Id. The rules of the District
`of Columbia require that the motion be filed “such that it does not unduly delay the
`court’s ability to rule on any pending matter.” This motion is filed with brief on
`March 19, 2020. Plaintiffs’ Opposition was filed March 19, 2020. Defendants’
`Reply is due April 6, 2020. Dkt. No. 75 at 1-2. The hearing on Defendants’
`motion originally scheduled for Apr. 23, 2020, has been continued. Dkt. No. 135.
`That affords the Defendants time to respond and the court time to review before the
`3
`Motion of Unified Patents CableLabs, Patreon, and Bitmovin, Inc.
`for Leave to File Amicus Brief (3:19-cv-07651-EMC)
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-07651-EMC Document 145 Filed 03/19/20 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`Reply and hearing, respectively.
`6. The amicus brief has the appropriate length. At 16 pages, it does not exceed 25
`pages. See D.C. Local R. 31(o). The amicus brief is likewise less than half the
`length of the 50-page opening briefs the parties are allowed. See FRAP 29(a)(5);
`Dkt. No. 90 (Jan. 22, 2020).
`CONCLUSION
`Amici collectively bring unique perspectives and experience to the issues before the Court.
`
`No party will be prejudiced by the brief, and the Court will not be overburdened. The Court should
`grant leave to file.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ William Jenks
`William Jenks (SBN 212,609)
`JENKS IP LAW PLLC
`1629 K St NW, Suite 300
`Washington DC 20016
`Telephone: (202) 412-7964
`
`Attorney for Amici Curiae
`
`March 19, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`Motion of Unified Patents CableLabs, Patreon, and Bitmovin, Inc.
`for Leave to File Amicus Brief (3:19-cv-07651-EMC)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`