`
` 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`CASE NO. 14-CV-80299/SEITZ
`
`
`
`RETYP, LLC,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff, Tuesday, August 12, 2014
` vs. 10:01 a.m.
` Miami, Florida
`BOUNCE EXCHANGE, INC.,
`
` Defendant. Pages 1 through 45
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE and MOTION HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICIA A. SEITZ
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff: Kenneth R. Noble, Esq.
` Noble Law Firm P.A.
` 800 Fairway Drive, Suite 340
` Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
`
`
`
`For the Defendant: Charles S. Marion, Esq.
` Pepper Hamilton LLP
` 3000 Two Logan Square
` Eighteenth and Arch Streets
` Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`
`
`Reported By: Judith M. Wolff, CRR
` Official United States Court Reporter
` 400 N. Miami Avenue, Room 8N09
` Miami, FL 33128
` (305)523-5294
` judy_wolff@flsd.uscourts.gov
`
`STENOGRAPHICALLY REPORTED, COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPT
`
` 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
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 2 of 45
`
` 2
`
` 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
`
`(Court was called to order.)
`
`COURTROOM DEPUTY: Calling Case No. 14-80299-CIV,
`
`RETYP, LLC, versus Bounce Exchange, Inc.
`
`Counsel, please state your appearance for the record.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Kenneth Noble on behalf of the plaintiff,
`
`RETYP, LLC.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Noble.
`
`MR. MARION: Morning, Your Honor. I'm Charles
`
`Marion, from Pepper Hamilton, on behalf of defendant, Bounce
`
`Exchange.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Marion, are you from out-of-town?
`
`MR. MARION: I am. I am admitted to the Florida Bar,
`
`Your Honor, and to this court. I used to practice in South
`
`Florida, but I now live in Philadelphia, where I'm from,
`
`originally.
`
`THE COURT: Sorry that you had to come down but,
`
`please have a seat.
`
`I've read the parties' -- the defendant's motion to
`
`dismiss, and the plaintiff's response, and the alternative
`
`motion to -- the plaintiff's alternative motion to transfer
`
`venue to the Northern District of New York.
`
`Let me cut to the chase. It sounds to me like the
`
`plaintiff is moving to transfer venue, then the bottom line is
`
`the plaintiff is tacitly acquiescing to go to New York.
`
`MR. NOBLE: No, Your Honor. We responded to their
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 3 of 45
`
` 3
`
` 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
`
`motion to dismiss because their motion to dismiss wanted to
`
`have the case dismissed, and not brought up to New York.
`
`In their motion to dismiss, they pled in the
`
`alternative that they would agree to go to New York.
`
`We believe that venue is proper down here based on
`
`both specific and general jurisdiction. And we believe that
`
`it should be tried down here.
`
`However, instead of dismissing the case in its
`
`entirety, if this Court believes that jurisdiction and venue
`
`is not proper down here, we are willing to move up to New
`
`York. But that is in the alternative.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. As I see it, and I looked at the
`
`complaint, the complaint is very threadbare on the allegations
`
`of jurisdiction. The plaintiff has the responsibility to
`
`plead a prima facie case of jurisdiction.
`
`The defendant has conceded that the facts that you --
`
`for the purposes of the motion, the facts that you have set
`
`out in your response to the motion to dismiss, that those
`
`constitute its, quote, "activities in the state of Florida."
`
`And basically its position is, in reading the cases,
`
`particularly Red Wing Shoe Company, Breckenridge
`
`Pharmaceutical, and Avocent Huntsville Corp., that it would
`
`appear that just -- taking all of those facts, and accepting
`
`them as true for the purposes of this proceeding, and
`
`considering everything in the light most favorable to the
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 4 of 45
`
` 4
`
` 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
`
`plaintiff, I just don't have enough for either specific or
`
`general jurisdiction here.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, Your Honor, we also had a -- have a
`
`pending motion to have a limited discovery, because we are
`
`very limited in the knowledge that we have of what activities
`
`that the defendant has down here.
`
`We basically relied on their websites. We relied on
`
`my client's knowledge of the business. And we relied on what
`
`the defendant stated in their affidavit.
`
`So, you know, we had very limited knowledge. But
`
`based on that knowledge, I think we presented a prima facie
`
`case. But even if we did not, I think case law gives us the
`
`opportunity to at least do -- perform limited discovery to see
`
`what type of business contacts they have down here.
`
`Their company was just formed in July, 2013. They do
`
`have a lot of business down here that we're aware of, but
`
`we're not aware of all of their activities.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I -- I'm checking my -- trying to
`
`get onto my computer.
`
`Did you file a reply to Bounce's Docket Entry 23?
`
`MR. NOBLE: What was their 23rd entry?
`
`THE COURT: It is Bounce's reply in further support
`
`of its motion to dismiss.
`
`MR. NOBLE: No, we did not.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. So...
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 5 of 45
`
` 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
`
`MR. NOBLE: We filed an affidavit on behalf of the
`
`president of RETYP that states the facts that he is aware of
`
`that would provide jurisdiction. Then, we've also filed the
`
`motion for discovery, limited discovery.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. But as you see, when the motion
`
`for the limited discovery, what Bounce did, on page 4 of
`
`Docket Entry 23, Footnote 3, is that it assumes for the
`
`purposes of the motion to dismiss that all of the facts
`
`presented in your response are true.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Right. But that still -- we are still
`
`limited to only the knowledge that we could glean from their
`
`website.
`
`There are certain -- certainly information that we
`
`would not know of, therefore we could not have put into either
`
`our response motion or, more importantly, our affidavit. So
`
`--
`
`THE COURT: Well, what type of information would you
`
`seek during jurisdiction? Usually when you have a plan -- "I
`
`need to take jurisdictional discovery, here is my
`
`jurisdictional plan and here's what I think that I can elicit
`
`to establish jurisdiction, and I need this amount of time."
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, for example --
`
`THE COURT: No. That's usually what I need for the
`
`plaintiff to do, and all judges do, so you keep the case
`
`moving.
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 6 of 45
`
` 6
`
` 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
`
`MR. NOBLE: Okay. Well, in the actual motion that we
`
`filed, we do present what we were looking for specifically
`
`that would help us determine if there is discovery down here.
`
`And then also the case was stayed based on this
`
`Court's order, after the motion to dismiss was filed.
`
`THE COURT: This is true.
`
`And tell me, again, point to me in your motion where
`
`you have the outline?
`
`MR. NOBLE: Certainly. If you look on page 2 --
`
`THE COURT: Of?
`
`Docket entry?
`
`MR. NOBLE: Of the alternative motion to conduct
`
`jurisdictional venue.
`
`THE COURT: Docket Entry 21.
`
`MR. NOBLE: It says, starting at the bottom
`
`paragraph, on page 2.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And what's the defendant's
`
`response that?
`
`MR. MARION: Well, Your Honor, as the Court is well
`
`aware, the law is that there is a qualified right to
`
`jurisdictional discovery, but not an unconditional right that
`
`permits a plaintiff to seek facts that ultimately would not
`
`show a support of jurisdictional --
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Marion, you can have a seat. The
`
`sound system was provided by the lowest bidder; we got what we
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 7 of 45
`
` 7
`
` 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
`
`paid for. So if you are close to the microphone, it helps my
`
`court reporter.
`
`And, by the way, let me introduce my law clerk. This
`
`is Aatif Iqbal who joins me from New York, where he was, for
`
`18 months, with Cleary Gottlieb; and before that he was at
`
`Harvard; and before that he was in Egypt, for three years; and
`
`then an undergraduate degree at Yale.
`
`MR. MARION: Thank you.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. MARION: So, Your Honor, on the jurisdictional
`
`discovery, as you know, there is a qualified right, but not an
`
`unconditional one. The contradictions in the parties'
`
`pleadings and affidavits have to be sufficient to justify such
`
`discovery.
`
`And here, this relatively brief listing by the
`
`plaintiff of the facts they seek really will not affect the
`
`jurisdictional analysis. We have, as you pointed out,
`
`acknowledged and conceded that we have a handful of customers
`
`in the state of Florida.
`
`They are really asking for much of the same
`
`information we've already set forth. That we have about six
`
`or seven customers with Florida addresses. But all put
`
`together, that amounts to less than 3 percent of our client's
`
`revenues, total revenues.
`
`THE COURT: What are your client's total revenues?
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 8 of 45
`
` 8
`
` 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
`
`MR. MARION: I was afraid you were going to ask that.
`
`I don't have it offhand, Your Honor. I apologize.
`
`THE COURT: What's the general number?
`
`MR. MARION: I don't want to misstate anything for
`
`the Court.
`
`THE COURT: You had to do something to come up with
`
`the percentages.
`
`MR. MARION: We did.
`
`THE COURT: So what -- what were you using to get to
`
`the percentages?
`
`MR. MARION: Yeah. We had -- our client's chief
`
`business officer submitted an affidavit, Cole Sharp, and I
`
`know that he went through the affidavits and put in a --
`
`THE COURT: But surely, Mr. Marion, you sat down with
`
`him and played the devil's advocate to test the facts that he
`
`put in the affidavit.
`
`MR. MARION: I certainly did, Your Honor. I just
`
`don't want to misstate a figure for the Court's -- you know.
`
`THE COURT: Is it more than a million? Under a
`
`million?
`
`MR. MARION: I think it's in the million dollar
`
`range, Your Honor. Yes, I think it's in that range; in a
`
`million dollar range.
`
`A relatively new company, relatively new patent. I
`
`think it's in that range.
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 9 of 45
`
` 9
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: It appears to me the primary issue here
`
`is going to be the validity of the patent.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Yes, Your Honor. And we think that --
`
`THE COURT: And for that purpose, then, the primary
`
`focus will be on the prior art. And if the defendant
`
`counterclaims for infringement, which they usually do, then
`
`that will entail examining your books and records down here,
`
`correct?
`
`MR. NOBLE: Yes, Your Honor. And we are a fairly
`
`small company. My client has two or three employees.
`
`THE COURT: The problem I have is that, if looking at
`
`the cases, I -- on the face of it, I don't see that they -- I
`
`have personal jurisdiction.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, the three points that we raised in
`
`our reply, response to their motion to dismiss, I believe that
`
`that would give jurisdiction -- have -- they would have
`
`personal jurisdiction based on those, and --
`
`THE COURT: How are you going to get around the
`
`Federal Circuit's decisions in Breckenridge, Avocent, and Red
`
`Wing Shoe?
`
`MR. NOBLE: Okay. Well, those only dealt with
`
`collecting royalties. This company does extensively more than
`
`collect royalties.
`
`Their packages that they sell to their clients cost
`
`between $4,000, and above $6,000. They basically control the
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 10 of 45
`
` 10
`
` 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
`
`marketing. We believe that they have portions of the contract
`
`which requires the licensee to defend and indemnify the use of
`
`a patent --
`
`THE COURT: But there are no actions down here.
`
`No -- I mean, is the requirement that they defend,
`
`bring the patent holder into that jurisdiction?
`
`I don't know that the Federal Circuit has said that,
`
`have they?
`
`MR. MARION: They have not.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, I believe that case law shows --
`
`THE COURT: I think the patent holder is the one that
`
`has to go into the jurisdiction and assert an infringement
`
`claim, rather than just having that its assignee.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, if that -- if there was a lawsuit
`
`not by the actual patent holder, but another company like us,
`
`claiming that there was -- that the patent was invalid, and
`
`then they basically wanted to sue the licensee based on that
`
`patent, that's how the --
`
`THE COURT: Who is "they?"
`
`MR. NOBLE: For example, if one of the licensees of
`
`Bounce Exchange was down in Florida, and they were using the
`
`patent, and another company believed that the use of the
`
`patent that --
`
`THE COURT: And who is the other company?
`
`MR. NOBLE: One of the companies that -- if Bounce
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 11 of 45
`
` 11
`
` 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
`
`Exchange had a disagreement -- excuse me, if one of Bounce
`
`Exchange's licensees, so, Company A was -- there was a dispute
`
`between Company A and Company B, and Company B was alleging
`
`that the patent was -- was invalid --
`
`THE COURT: What's the relationship between A and B?
`
`MR. NOBLE: Company A and -- there's no relationship
`
`between Company A and Company B.
`
`Company B, if there is an allegation that Company A
`
`is -- A's patent is invalid -- I mean, it depends on what the
`
`language of the actual contracts are, and we haven't seen
`
`those contracts.
`
`THE COURT: Can I see a copy of the contract?
`
`MR. NOBLE: They did not produce those contracts in
`
`any of their affidavits.
`
`MR. MARION: Your Honor, we have not produced those
`
`contracts.
`
`The only contract that has been submitted to the
`
`Court is a proposal our client made to resolve this dispute
`
`with RETYP. And that was attached to their opposition.
`
`That was never executed by the parties, obviously, or
`
`we wouldn't be here.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Right. We're assuming that that license
`
`agreement that they gave us was similar to the other ones.
`
`But that's another reason we need discovery to determine --
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a look at the agreement
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 12 of 45
`
` 12
`
` 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
`
`that they sent you. What does that look like? It's been
`
`filed?
`
`MR. NOBLE: Yes, it has.
`
`MR. MARION: Your Honor, could I make a point about
`
`that agreement, though?
`
`THE COURT: I would like to find it. Which docket
`
`entry, Mr. Noble?
`
`MR. NOBLE: Let me review.
`
`THE COURT: It will show at the top.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, it's one of the exhibits to --
`
`MR. MARION: I believe it's Docket Entry 20, Your
`
`Honor. I believe it was attached to Docket Entry 20.
`
`THE COURT: Which page?
`
`MR. MARION: Says 20-1, I think it's listed at the
`
`top -- I'm sorry. That's the declaration of his client's
`
`principle. But I think it was attached to that declaration.
`
`So it would be 20-1, starts at page 9 or 10,
`
`Attachment A.
`
`THE COURT: And this is also, it's my recollection,
`
`it's a nonexclusive agreement. And again, the Federal Circuit
`
`has, to move it from the controlling -- one of the indicia is
`
`whether or not the license agreement is exclusive or
`
`nonexclusive.
`
`MR. NOBLE: That's true, Your Honor. However if you
`
`look at -- this is clearly more than just a cease and desist
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 13 of 45
`
` 13
`
` 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
`
`letter that the plaintiff sent down here.
`
`If you look at the letter, combined with the fact
`
`that they have seven licensees down here, combined with the
`
`fact that they are controlling the marketing of these
`
`individuals, combined with the fact that this company was only
`
`founded in July, 2013, and we put in our affidavit that they
`
`have close to $480,000 in revenue in Florida, already. And
`
`the defendant did nothing to state that that was not true.
`
`I think if you look at all of the factors that either
`
`leads to we need to do more discovery to determine what
`
`businesses they have down here or, that all the factors show
`
`that they are --
`
`THE COURT: Let me ask you this. What would you have
`
`to show to satisfy the Breckenridge, Red Wing, and Avocent
`
`cases?
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, I believe --
`
`THE COURT: You would have to show many more
`
`customers; a larger amount of its revenue; and much more
`
`control than what is exhibited in this nonexclusive agreement.
`
`I mean, it doesn't -- it ...
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, I think that those specific points
`
`deal with -- especially with the percentage of clients down
`
`here and the overall revenue deal more with the general
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`However, if you look at the specific jurisdiction,
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 14 of 45
`
` 14
`
` 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
`
`with the controlling of the marketing, with the indemnity
`
`clause, and with what they are doing for the $6,000 a month,
`
`this is not just a one-and-done.
`
`This is a $6,000 per month for these seven clients
`
`that are down here in Florida. And we need to know what
`
`extent that goes for.
`
`My client has the same type --
`
`THE COURT: But the issue is if it is such a small
`
`percentage of its overall revenue --
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well that deals with the general
`
`jurisdiction. But with the specific jurisdiction, even if it
`
`is very small, even if the percentage is very small, but what
`
`they are doing with those customers is that they are
`
`controlling the marketing; is that they are having a very
`
`broad --
`
`THE COURT: Controlling the marketing of --
`
`MR. NOBLE: Of those specific licensees.
`
`I mean, we put in our affidavit that they are
`
`manipulating the marketing, and controlling the marketing, and
`
`that's what that $6,000 goes toward. And there was nothing on
`
`the -- filed by the defendant saying that that's not what they
`
`are doing.
`
`So I agree with you, Your Honor, that if it was just
`
`2.9 percent, and a relatively small percent of their overall
`
`revenue, that most likely we would not have a case under the
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 15 of 45
`
` 15
`
` 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
`
`general jurisdiction.
`
`But we believe that we have a case under the specific
`
`jurisdiction because, as you know, Your Honor, they can be
`
`less of a percentage, but if you're doing more for those
`
`clients and it involves the actual enforcement of the patent
`
`that's at issue in this lawsuit, I think that's what would
`
`bring --
`
`THE COURT: I'm hearing two things. If they are
`
`doing more and that involves the enforcement of the patent,
`
`that's two different things that you're talking about.
`
`One, you're talking about controlling the marketing;
`
`and then you're sliding over into controlling the patent?
`
`Wait a minute.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well -- excuse me.
`
`They would -- part of what they're doing is, you
`
`know, we don't know what they are doing for them for between
`
`$4,000 and $6,000 a month, but we believe that it has
`
`something to do with indemnifying and defending them for a
`
`possible use of the patent claim and --
`
`THE COURT: So for $4,000 that the customer is
`
`paying, that is part of an indemnification agreement?
`
`MR. NOBLE: We don't know what -- we don't know --
`
`THE COURT: I mean, does it make sense? Would you,
`
`as a customer, want to buy -- and that's what you --
`
`MR. NOBLE: People sign indemnity claims all the time
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 16 of 45
`
` 16
`
` 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
`
`that are very broad and, as you know, attorneys make them very
`
`broad because if there is an issue, the other company could be
`
`liable.
`
`So I don't know if these nonattorneys that sign these
`
`agreements would know the extent of the indemnity clause.
`
`But I'm saying that if you look at the indemnity
`
`clause, combined with the control of the marketing that we
`
`believe and we have put in the affidavit that's occurring, you
`
`know, with these licensees, that it would bring the specific
`
`jurisdiction to the state of Florida.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. This is what I would like to do,
`
`if I can, Mr. Marion.
`
`Can we -- can you provide a witness that can answer
`
`these questions very expeditiously, under oath? I'll be happy
`
`to either have an evidentiary hearing or, if it's more
`
`convenient, by taking a deposition.
`
`Just so that we can have, on the record, what are the
`
`facts that either dispute or reinforce the control issue.
`
`I'm doing this simply in an abundance of caution,
`
`with the understanding, Mr. Noble, I don't think I have
`
`jurisdiction. But since I do need to give the plaintiff an
`
`opportunity to shore up his jurisdictional allegations, I
`
`believe that this kind of very limited discovery, simply on
`
`the jurisdictional issues -- and the question is, how fast can
`
`we put this together so that -- because I'm concerned, I
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 17 of 45
`
` 17
`
` 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
`
`probably should have not stayed.
`
`I should have allowed the jurisdictional discovery so
`
`that we can move the case. I'm just concerned that the case
`
`has been doing nothing since February.
`
`And if I do transfer it to New York, the concern that
`
`I have there is I haven't really seen anything in the record
`
`that would -- ordinarily that would justify the transfer to
`
`New York for the convenience of the witnesses and the
`
`documents. Nobody gave me any specifics. Usually you have to
`
`do that.
`
`But in this case we have somewhat of an unusual
`
`situation in that the plaintiff is the one that is moving to
`
`transfer it to New York.
`
`But what I would like to do -- can we do this in the
`
`next two weeks?
`
`MR. MARION: Your Honor, it may be difficult only
`
`because I know I have a vacation coming up next week. And
`
`then Cole Sharp, who is the chief business officer for our
`
`client -- I anticipated this might happen, I did check with
`
`him and his availability.
`
`And he's out of the country from August 28 through
`
`September 6. So if we could do it right after he gets back,
`
`that would be ideal.
`
`I just don't think I'm going to be available before
`
`he leaves, to facilitate that.
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 18 of 45
`
` 18
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: Why don't we do this. Why don't we look
`
`to sometime after -- my desire is to keep everybody's costs
`
`down and to keep the case moving, and to get this case to the
`
`merits. Because I think for both sides' best interests, you
`
`need to quickly resolve the invalidity question, and the
`
`countervailing question, that I'm sure that the defendants
`
`will assert, of infringement.
`
`MR. MARION: Mr. Sharp is also in New York, Your
`
`Honor. Speaking about venues and everything. He's located in
`
`New York.
`
`THE COURT: But the plaintiff does allege that they
`
`have, how many -- you're under ten, under five, under six
`
`employees? I can't remember the exact number.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Yeah, we only have a handful of
`
`employees. But you're right, Your Honor. We did file the
`
`alternative motion, and after talking with my client, he has
`
`business up in New York.
`
`So if this case needs to be -- venue needs to be
`
`changed, we do not disagree with New York.
`
`MR. MARION: And I told his cocounsel, when he called
`
`me to see if I would consent to the alternative motions, I
`
`told him yes, we would consent to a transfer of the venue
`
`because that's where our clients are located; that's where our
`
`sources of proof are on the patent, and so forth.
`
`THE COURT: Well, then, if can -- if both sides have
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 19 of 45
`
` 19
`
` 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
`
`a joint agreement to transfer the case, then I can save you
`
`all the discovery costs.
`
`MR. MARION: Honestly, I think that would be more
`
`efficient.
`
`MR. NOBLE: But my client is a small company. He
`
`wants the case down here. We would at least want to have the
`
`discovery to categorically prove that they do not have enough
`
`contacts down here.
`
`THE COURT: Let's do this. And I would like to --
`
`I've pulled the New York patent rules to see what their
`
`timeline is. And what I would like to do is -- what do we
`
`look like the week of the 22nd of September?
`
`That way it gives everybody sort of five weeks to ...
`
`MR. MARION: Is Your Honor -- are you contemplating
`
`an evidentiary hearing that week?
`
`THE COURT: What I'm trying to do is figure out how
`
`to do this in the most cost efficient manner.
`
`Do I need to have an evidentiary hearing? Or can we
`
`handle it on the papers?
`
`Let us try this. If you take the deposition in the
`
`first -- the week of September 8th, or the 15th.
`
`MR. NOBLE: It's going to be a duces tecum, Your
`
`Honor?
`
`THE COURT: A reasonable one, focused on the
`
`jurisdictional issues.
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 20 of 45
`
` 20
`
` 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
`
`MR. NOBLE: Okay. Right.
`
`THE COURT: And Mr. Noble, let me ask you this. If,
`
`after you take that deposition, you find that the facts are
`
`such that this case comes right within the Breckenridge, Red
`
`Wing, and Avocent cases, then I need you, as an officer of the
`
`court, in light of Rule 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as
`
`to how do we most cost-efficiently resolve disputes between
`
`the parties, and focus on the jugular issues, to simply say
`
`we've found this, we will accept the part -- the plaintiff's
`
`agreement to transfer the case to New York, and file that.
`
`And I will proceed to transfer the case to New York based upon
`
`the parties' joint consent.
`
`If it is a really disputed issue, and that it looks
`
`like those three cases -- and I think that there are a couple
`
`of others as well. I'm thinking of iSocial Media and Nuance
`
`Communications versus -- if those -- if the facts are such
`
`that it's a much closer question, then we will set it down for
`
`an evidentiary hearing, that we will try and have sometime the
`
`week of the 22nd.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Okay. That's fine, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And then if you could clear your
`
`-- find out what dates are available to you, and Aatif, can
`
`you pull up the calendar?
`
`LAW CLERK: The 23rd is available.
`
`THE COURT: Let me just look.
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 21 of 45
`
` 21
`
` 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
`
`Okay. The 23rd will do it. And what works best,
`
`timewise? Does this time work best for you all? 10:00?
`
`MR. MARION: That's fine, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Does that work for you, Mr. Noble? I
`
`think Mr. Noble comes from...
`
`MR. NOBLE: Yes, that's fine.
`
`THE COURT: You may have the tougher trip down here,
`
`having to travel on I-95.
`
`MR. MARION: Can I ask, just for clarification. So,
`
`if we're going to have the deposition, and then a possible
`
`evidentiary hearing, would you want our witness present for
`
`the evidentiary?
`
`THE COURT: I'm wondering how we can do that in the
`
`most cost-efficient manner.
`
`I am happy to do it by a videoconference so that the
`
`witness doesn't have to come down here. And if your
`
`witness -- if you have a witness as well -- but I can't
`
`imagine you would have a witness that would be relevant from
`
`the state of Florida.
`
`MR. NOBLE: At this point, I don't believe so.
`
`MR. MARION: It may not be an issue, Your Honor. I
`
`was just asking, to be sure, if the client asks.
`
`THE COURT: I prefer to look at all of the
`
`contingencies.
`
`MR. MARION: Thank you.
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 22 of 45
`
` 22
`
` 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
`
`THE COURT: Is there any objection if we -- the only
`
`reason why you usually need to have somebody in person for one
`
`of these cases, if there is a credibility issue. And you will
`
`be able to tell when you take his deposition.
`
`MR. NOBLE: We don't object to having him appear by
`
`videoconference, if there is a hearing on the 23rd.
`
`THE COURT: God bless you, and the horse you rode in
`
`on.
`
`What I would also like the parties to do, in the
`
`meantime, is let's start getting this case on track. Whether
`
`it stays here or it goes to New York, it needs to get on
`
`track.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Well, we actually objected to that motion
`
`to stay. So, I mean, we -- if you want to lift the stay, and
`
`we can proceed with getting some deadlines in place, whether
`
`it be here or in New York, we don't --
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to lift the stay motion.
`
`And I would like the parties to confer and come up with a case
`
`management plan that under the New York rules, it's 45 days
`
`for exchange of contentions, invalidity contentions. The
`
`plaintiff goes first since it's a dec action.
`
`And since the case was filed in February, if we were
`
`under the New York rules, you would have already filed your
`
`contentions.
`
`I would like for you to, if you can, within the next
`
`TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2014
`
`
`
`Case 9:14-cv-80299-PAS Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/20/2014 Page 23 of 45
`
` 23
`
` 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
`
`two weeks, presumably you --
`
`MR. NOBLE: I think that is possible, yes.
`
`THE COURT: -- presumably you can, at this point in
`
`time, be able to outline what of the prior art is. You've
`
`sort of indicated it.
`
`MR. NOBLE: Yes. That's fine, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And then what I would like from
`
`you, although the New York rules have a 45-day response for
`
`the invalidity -- I mean, for the infringement contentions,
`
`since I presume that's what you are going to assert. Am I
`
`right in my presumption?
`
`MR. MARION: You are right, Your Honor. However, we
`
`might need some discovery because we did send a cease and
`
`desist order. That's why we're in this court.
`
`The plaintiff wrote back with some prior art to
`
`identify. However -- I think we've said this to the
`
`plaintiff -- if that's all their software did, we may just go
`
`away from our infringement cont