Case 1:17-cv-00585-CFC-SRF Document 129 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 4571
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC., VISA INC., and VISA U.S.A., INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 17-585-CFC-SRF
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY
`
`Fredrick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jason J. Rawnsley (#5379)
`RICHARDS LAYTON, & FINGER, P.A.
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`rawnsley@rlf.com
`cottrell@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Liv L. Herriot
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
` (650) 858-6000
`
`Monica Grewal
`Kate Saxton
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
` (202) 663-6000
`
`Derek A. Gosma
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
` (213) 443-5300
`
`Dated: August 30, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-CFC-SRF Document 129 Filed 08/30/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4572
`
`
`
`Pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.2(b), Defendant Apple Inc. submits supplemental authority in
`
`support of its Motion to Stay (D.I. 90).
`
`First, in the recent decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 3:17-cv-2402-CAB-
`
`MDD, D.I. 172 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2018), attached as Ex. 1, Judge Bencivengo granted a motion
`
`to stay pending decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on whether to institute
`
`Apple’s petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the six patents at issue. Id. at 2. The court
`
`found that the simplification of the issues factor favors a stay because, as a result of SAS
`
`Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), “for any petition on which the PTAB institutes
`
`IPR, each of the challenged claims will either (1) be confirmed, estopping Apple from asserting
`
`invalidity challenges in this case that it raised or could reasonably have raised in the IPR, or (2)
`
`be invalidated, reducing the number of issues before the Court.” Id. at 3. The court further
`
`reasoned that “[i]n this case with six patents and numerous claims at issue, the PTAB’s decisions
`
`whether to institute will impact the contours of the case. If the PTAB institutes and cancels all
`
`the asserted claims of any patent, it will remove that patent from the case, thereby significantly
`
`reducing the scope of this litigation. Alternatively, if the PTAB declines to institute or institutes
`
`and confirms any patent, statutory estoppel may simplify the assertion of invalidity defenses.
`
`This factor favors a temporary stay.” Id. at 4.
`
`Second, in USR’s Patent Owner Preliminary Response to Apple’s CBM Petition for U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,856,539, CBM2018-0023, attached as Ex. 2, USR disclaimed claims 5–8, 17–20,
`
`and 26–30 of the ’539 patent. All these claims were asserted in USR’s infringement contentions
`
`in this litigation. This is relevant to Apple’s argument in its pending Motion to Stay because it
`
`demonstrates that the PTAB proceedings are already simplifying this case and will likely
`
`continue to do so.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-CFC-SRF Document 129 Filed 08/30/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 4573
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Liv L. Herriot
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 858-6000
`
`Monica Grewal
`Kate Saxton
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(202) 663-6000
`
`Derek A. Gosma
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
`HALE AND DORR LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 443-5300
`
`Dated: August 30, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jason J. Rawnsley
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jason J. Rawnsley (#5379)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`rawnsley@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`2
`
`