Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 21171
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SEVEN NETWORKS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-442-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-441-JRG
`CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEVEN’s Motion
` (a) to Strike Opinions of Samsung’s Expert, Dr.
`Michael Caloyannides, Regarding Alleged
`JuiceDefender-on-Android and GreenPower-on-
`Android Systems,
`and
`
`(b) for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Invalidity
`With Respect to Those Systems
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 21172
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`iii
`Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`iv
`List of Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
`Introduction and Summary of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`Statement of Undisputed Material Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`3
`Argument and Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
`3
`A. Legal Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
`3
`B. Dr. Caloyannides does not explain how or why a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`modify the alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android or
`GreenPower-on-Android systems to practice the claimed
`inventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 4
`C. No evidence supports Dr. Caloyannides’s contention that
`GreenPower is prior art. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6
`Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
`Certificate of Authority to File Under Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
`
`
`
`
`8
`10
`10
`
`
`
`– ii –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 21173
`
` TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` 4
`
` 1, 4
`
`Cases
`Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Bilotec, Inc.,
`774 F. Supp. 2d 375 (D. Mass. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
`B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp.,
`72 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`Eisai Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`No. 03 CIV 9223, 2006 WL 2872615 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 6
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 4
`In re Van Os,
`844 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs.,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 6
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
`Massey v. Del Labs., Inc.,
`118 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC,
`802 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`Tech Pharmacy Servs., LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC,
`No. 4:15-cv-766, 2017 WL 3283324 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
`
`
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
`5
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
`35 U.S.C. § 282 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2, 6
`3
`
`– iii –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 21174
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Opening Expert Report of Dr. Michael Caloyannides (provided on flash drive
`after close of briefing)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– iv –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 21175
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Dr. Caloyannides, one of Samsung’s invalidity experts, opines that SEVEN’s ’019, ’129,
`
`and ’816 Patents are obvious over alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android (’019, ’129, and ’816
`
`Patents) and GreenPower-on-Android (’129 Patent only) systems. But for these references, each
`
`standing alone, to render the patents invalid as obvious, “there must be a showing of a suggestion
`
`or motivation to modify the[ir] teachings” to embody the claimed inventions. See In re Kotzab,
`
`217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72
`
`F.3d 1577, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Dr. Caloyannides does not make that showing; his report is
`
`devoid of any suggestion of how or why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to
`
`modify the alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android or GreenPower-on-Android systems to achieve
`
`any of the claimed inventions. Further, Dr. Caloyannides offers no evidence to show that
`
`GreenPower is prior art to the ’129 Patent, which relates back to July 26, 2010. The earliest
`
`evidence Dr. Caloyannides cites regarding GreenPower is from October 25, 2012, and says
`
`nothing about a GreenPower-on-Android system in 2010.
`
`Dr. Caloyannides’s obviousness opinions regarding the JuiceDefender-on-Android and
`
`GreenPower-on-Android systems—and Samsung’s claims based on those opinions—therefore
`
`fail as a matter of law.
`
` STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`The following facts relevant to this motion are undisputed.
`
`1. SEVEN is asserting the following patents, among others, against Samsung in this suit:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,247,019; 9,516,129; and 9,553,816.1
`
`
`1 See Complaint for Patent Infringement (Complaint), SEVEN v. Samsung, No. 2:17-cv-
`441-JRG (E.D. Tex. May 17, 2017), ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 12, 16, 17. See also id. at Ex. B (’019 Patent);
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 21176
`
`2. Samsung contends that the alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android and GreenPower-on-
`
`Android systems are prior art to the ’019, ’129, and ’816 Patents under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(a).2
`
`3. Samsung contends that the ’019 Patent is obvious over the alleged JuiceDefender-on-
`
`Android system.3
`
`4. Samsung contends that the ’816 Patent is obvious over the alleged JuiceDefender-on-
`
`Android system.4
`
`5. Samsung contends that the ’129 Patent is obvious over the alleged JuiceDefender-on-
`
`Android system.5
`
`6. Samsung contends that the ’129 Patent is obvious over the alleged GreenPower-on-
`
`Android system.6
`
`7. The ’129 Patent was filed on August 25, 2014, as a division of Application No.
`
`13/188,553, which was filed on July 22, 2011, and claims priority to Provisional Application Nos.
`
`61/367,870 and 61/367,871, which were filed on July 26, 2010.7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. F (’129 Patent); Ex. G (’816 Patent).
`2 See Ex. A: Opening Expert Report of Dr. Michael Caloyannides (Caloyannides Rpt.)
`¶ 93. Consistent with the requirements in the Docket Control Order, the Opening Expert Report
`of Dr. Michael Caloyannides, and all accompanying exhibits, will be submitted on a flash drive as
`soon as briefing has completed. See ECF No. 337.
`3 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. ¶ 226 & Ex. 019-A.
`4 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. ¶ 164 & Ex. 816-C.
`5 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. ¶¶ 109–111 & Ex. 129-A.
`6 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. ¶ 112 & Ex. 129-B.
`7 See Complaint at Ex. F (’129 Patent).
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 21177
`
`
`
`ISSUES
`
`1. Are the ’019, ’816, and ’129 Patents non-obvious over the alleged JuiceDefender-on-
`
`Android system as a matter of law due to Dr. Caloyannides’s failure to explain how or why a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify that system to achieve any of the
`
`claimed inventions?
`
`2. Is the ’129 Patent non-obvious over the alleged GreenPower-on-Android system as a
`
`matter of law due to Dr. Caloyannides’s failure to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill
`
`would have been motivated to modify that system to achieve any of the claimed inventions?
`
`3. Does Samsung have clear-and-convincing evidence that the alleged GreenPower-on-
`
`Android system was known or used in the United States before the January 26, 2010 priority date
`
`of the ’129 Patent?
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
` ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
`
`“Summary judgment of validity is appropriate where the accuser fails to make a showing
`
`sufficient ultimately to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the challenged claim is
`
`obvious in light of the professed combination.” Eisai Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 03 CIV
`
`9223, 2006 WL 2872615, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2006), aff’d sub nom. Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr.
`
`Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Massey v. Del Labs., Inc., 118 F.3d
`
`1568, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he patent itself carries a presumption of validity, which requires
`
`proof of facts supporting invalidity to rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 282 (1994). Therefore, to prevail on her motion for summary judgment of validity, Massey [the
`
`patent owner] need not have presented any factual evidence.”).
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 21178
`
`B. Dr. Caloyannides does not explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to modify the alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android or
`GreenPower-on-Android systems to practice the claimed inventions.
`
`Generic expert testimony that is “conclusory and factually unsupported” is not evidence,
`
`much less clear and convincing evidence, that can support a determination of obviousness. Active
`
`Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “There
`
`must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness.” Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (internal quotations omitted) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`
`Specifically, “some kind of motivation must be shown . . . so that the jury can understand why a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have thought of either combining two or more references or
`
`modifying one to achieve the patented method.” Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 802 F.3d
`
`1301, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Innogenetics, 512 F.3d at 1374). It bears
`
`repeating: “Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of
`
`a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” Kotzab, 217 F.3d at 1370
`
`(emphasis added) (citing B.F. Goodrich Co., 72 F.3d at 1582).
`
`Nowhere does Dr. Caloyannides state how or why a person ordinarily skilled in the art
`
`would have been motivated to modify the alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android and GreenPower-
`
`on-Android systems to achieve any of the claimed inventions. For each patent, he states that its
`
`claims “are at least obvious over the [JuiceDefender/GreenPower] system.”8 He reiterates this
`
`opinion for the ’019 Patent, stating: “JuiceDefender alone . . . renders the asserted claims of the
`
`
`8 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. at Ex. 816-C at 1; Ex. 019-A at 1; Ex. 129-A at 1; Ex. 129-B
`at 1.
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 21179
`
`’019 Patent obvious.”9 And for the ’816 and ’129 Patents, he states:
`
`It would have been well within a POSITA’s grasp to implement any of the claim
`elements . . . in mobile device software because they amount to a finite quantity of
`design choices. Thus, to the extent any of the claim elements . . . are not . . .
`disclosed by [JuiceDefender/GreenPower], they would have been obvious and
`common sense to a POSITA.10
`
`With respect to the ’019 Patent, Dr. Caloyannides’s opinion is deficient on its face, as it
`
`lacks any support or explanation. An expert’s statement that claims are obvious, without more, is
`
`both unreliable and unhelpful. See Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Bilotec, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 2d 375, 384 (D.
`
`Mass. 2011) (granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on obviousness where
`
`“[d]efendants’ ipse dixit [in the form of a two-paragraph argument] provide[d] woefully
`
`insufficient evidence for the court to conclude that the ’699 Patent [wa]s obvious”).
`
`Dr. Caloyannides’s opinions regarding the ’816 and ’129 Patents fare no better. The issue is
`
`not whether a person of ordinary skill would have been able to implement the claim elements
`
`based on common sense. The issue is whether such a person would have been motivated to do so
`
`based on JuiceDefender or GreenPower. Dr. Caloyannides’s statement that the claim elements
`
`“would have been obvious and common sense to a POSITA” therefore misses the point. Absent
`
`some articulated rationale, a finding that claims are obvious based on “common sense” is no
`
`different than merely stating the claims would have been obvious. See In re Van Os, 844 F.3d
`
`1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “This type of finding, without more, tracks the ex post reasoning KSR
`
`warned of and fails to identify any actual reason why a skilled artisan would have [modified] the
`
`elements in the manner claimed.” Id. (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
`
`
`9 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. at Ex. 019-A at 1.
`10 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. at Ex. 816-C at 1; Ex. 129-A at 1; Ex. 129-B at 1.
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 21180
`
`Because Dr. Caloyannides does not opine on how or why a person ordinarily skilled in the
`
`art would have been motivated to modify the alleged JuiceDefender-on-Android or GreenPower-
`
`on-Android systems to achieve the claimed inventions, he fails to “articulate[] reasoning with
`
`some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” See Innogenetics, 512
`
`F.3d at 1373. His contentions that the ’019, ’129, and ’816 Patents are obvious over
`
`JuiceDefender-on-Android and that the ’129 Patent is obvious over GreenPower-on-Android
`
`therefore fail as a matter of law. And if Dr. Caloyannides offered these legally insufficient single-
`
`reference obviousness opinions at trial, “his testimony would not be ‘helpful to a lay jury in
`
`avoiding the pitfalls of hindsight that belie a determination of obviousness.’” Tech Pharmacy
`
`Servs., LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC, No. 4:15-cv-766, 2017 WL 3283324, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2017)
`
`(quoting Innogenetics, 512 F.3d at 1373 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966))).
`
`Accordingly, Dr. Caloyannides’s opinions regarding the JuiceDefender-on-Android and
`
`GreenPower-on-Android systems should be struck as unreliable. See id. Without that evidence,
`
`Samsung has no proof that the patents are obvious over either system, and SEVEN is entitled to
`
`summary judgment of non-invalidity.
`
`C. No evidence supports Dr. Caloyannides’s contention that GreenPower is prior art.
`
`To demonstrate that the GreenPower-on-Android system is prior art to the ’129 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), Dr. Caloyannides must show that it was known or used in the United
`
`States before the ’129 Patent’s July 26, 2010 priority date. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Dr.
`
`Caloyannides contends that he “understand[s] that GreenPower was available to download and
`
`use in the United States at least as early as January 2010,”11 and that the asserted claims of the
`
`
`11 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. ¶ 95.
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 21181
`
`’129 Patent would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in January 2010, based on the
`
`alleged GreenPower-on-Android system.12 But to support those contentions, he cites only
`
`evidence that post-dates the ’129 Patent’s priority date and does not describe a version of
`
`GreenPower that may have existed in 2010:13
`
`• “Welcome to GreenPower” (web page archived on May 27, 2013);
`• “GreenPower battery saver for Android” (YouTube video from April 2, 2013);
`• “How it works: GreenPower free battery saver” (YouTube video from August 15,
`2013);
`• “Green Power Android App Review,” (web page from October 25, 2012;
`archived November 2, 2012); and
`• “User Guide” (web page archived August 24, 2013).
`
`
`
`Dr. Caloyannides does not dispute that the ’129 Patent relates back at least to July 26, 2010,
`
`when Provisional Application Nos. 61/367,871 and 61/367,871 were filed. But the earliest
`
`evidence he cites to support his opinion that the patent would have been obvious on that date is a
`
`YouTube video from October 25, 2012—more than two years later. Dr. Caloyannides cites no
`
`evidence that confirms, or even suggests, that GreenPower “was available to download and use
`
`in the United States at least as early as January 2010.”14 And even assuming that some form of
`
`GreenPower had been available in 2010, there is no reason to further assume that such an older
`
`version of the software included any of the features and functionality reflected in the material
`
`from 2012 and 2013 that Dr. Caloyannides relies on.
`
`Simply put, there is no evidence that GreenPower was available on January 10, 2010, or that
`
`
`12 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. ¶ 112, Ex. 129-B.
`13 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. at Ex. 129-B (references at ¶ 97 n.10).
`14 See Ex. A: Caloyannides Rpt. ¶ 95.
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 21182
`
`this hypothetical 2010 product had the same elements as the GreenPower product described two
`
`and three years later in the material Dr. Caloyannides relies on. Dr. Caloyannides’s GreenPower
`
`opinion is therefore legally baseless, and should be struck. And without that evidence, Samsung
`
`has no proof that the ’129 Patent is obvious over GreenPower, and SEVEN is entitled to
`
`summary judgment of non-invalidity.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`Absent proof of motivation to modify or availability before the patent’s priority date, Dr.
`
`Caloyannides cannot demonstrate that the patents-at-issue were obvious over the alleged
`
`JuiceDefender-on-Android or GreenPower-on-Android systems. SEVEN therefore seeks partial
`
`summary judgment of non-invalidity of the ’019, ’129, and ’816 Patents based on the
`
`JuiceDefender-on-Android system, and partial summary judgment of non-invalidity of the ’129
`
`Patent based on the GreenPower-on-Android system. SEVEN further asks the Court to strike
`
`from Dr. Caloyannides’s report ¶¶ 92–97, 109–112, 159, 164, and 226; exhibits 816-C, 129-A, and
`
`129-B; and the opinions stated in exhibit 019-A that the ’019 Patent is obvious over the
`
`JuiceDefender-on-Android system alone.
`
`
`
`
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 21183
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
` Texas State Bar No. 01938000
` sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`Theodore Stevenson, III
` Texas State Bar No. 19196650
` tstevenson@mckoolsmith.com
`Eric S. Hansen
` Texas State Bar No. 24062763
` ehansen@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 978-4000
`Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 23, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Max Ciccarelli
`Bruce S. Sostek
` State Bar No. 18855700
` Bruce.Sostek@tklaw.com
`Max Ciccarelli
` State Bar No. 00787242
` Max.Ciccarelli@tklaw.com
`Herbert J. Hammond
` State Bar No. 08858500
` Herbert.Hammond@tklaw.com
`Richard L. Wynne Jr.
` State Bar No. 24003214
` Richard.Wynne@tklaw.com
`J. Michael Heinlen
` State Bar No. 24032287
` Michael.Heinlen@tklaw.com
`Adrienne E. Dominguez
` State Bar No. 00793630
` Adrienne.Dominguez@tklaw.com
`Vishal Patel
` State Bar No. 24065885
` Vishal.Patel@tklaw.com
`Nadia E. Haghighatian
` State Bar No. 24087652
` Nadia.Haghighatian@tklaw.com
`Austin Teng
` State Bar No. 24093247
` Austin.Teng@tklaw.com
`Natalie M. Cooley
` State Bar No. 24079912
` Natalie.Cooley@tklaw.com
`Matthew Cornelia
` State Bar No. 24097534
` Matt.Cornelia@tklaw.com
`THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
`One Arts Plaza
`1722 Routh St., Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`214.969.1700
`214.969.1751 (Fax)
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`SEVEN NETWORKS LLC
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00442-JRG Document 344 Filed 10/23/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 21184
`
`
`
` CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I certify that on October 22, 2018, I, Michael Heinlen, and Justin Cohen (SEVEN)
`
`conferred via telephone with at least Ralph Phillips, Michael McKeon, and April Park (Samsung)
`
`in compliance with L.R. CV-7(h), regarding SEVEN’s Motion to Strike. Unfortunately, the
`
`Parties still were unable to resolve those issues, and have reached an impasse regarding the relief
`
`sought. Court assistance is therefore necessary. Defendants oppose this Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Max Ciccarelli
`Max Ciccarelli
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`On October 23, 2018, the foregoing document and accompanying exhibits were
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which served them to all counsel
`
`of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Max Ciccarelli
` Max Ciccarelli
`
`
`
`– 10 –
`
`