`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`GOVISION, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SHENZHEN ABSEN OPTOELECTRONIC
`CO., LTD., ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cv-00112-JRG-RSP
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S
`MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 59(A)(1)(A) AND
`TO ALTER THE JUDGEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59(E)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 29833
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Erroneously Narrow Construction of “Waterproof” Was Prejudicial
`Error and Necessitates a New Trial .........................................................................5
`
`The Court’s Interpretation of Interchangeability in the Construction of
`“Modular Display Panel” Was Erroneous and Prejudicial Necessitating a
`New Trial .................................................................................................................9
`
`The Parties Previously Stipulated to Non-Infringement of the ADTI
`Patents ....................................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 29834
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`981 F.3d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................4, 8, 9, 10
`
`Philips v. AWC Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................6
`
`Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co.,
`773 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1985) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ...............................................................................................................................6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A) ....................................................................................................1, 4, 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) ..............................................................................................................1, 2, 15
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 29835
`
`Plaintiff Ultravision Technologies, LLC (“Ultravision” or “Plaintiff”) hereby moves for a
`
`new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A) and to alter the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`59(e). After a six-day trial against Defendants Shenzhen Absen Optoelectronic Co., Ltd. and
`
`Absen, Inc. (collectively “Absen” or “Defendants”), the jury found the three asserted claims not
`
`infringed and invalid. Dkt. 691.
`
`The jury’s verdict was based on an erroneous claim construction of the phrase “sealed to
`
`be waterproof,” which influenced the findings of non-infringement and invalidity. The jury’s
`
`verdict was also based on an erroneous construction of the claim term “modular display panel,”
`
`and, based upon that construction, Ultravision’s expert Mr. Credelle was erroneously excluded
`
`from presenting his opinions as set forth in his expert report regarding interchangeability of prior
`
`art display panels, which impacted the finding of invalidity.
`
`Ultravision also moves to modify the final judgment to include a final judgment of non-
`
`infringement of two patents to which the parties stipulated to non-infringement based upon claim
`
`constructions. Dkt. 637, Joint Stipulation of Non-Infringement.
`
`
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`The parties’ proposed constructions for the term “sealed to be waterproof” were similar.
`
`Ultravision proposed the construction, “enclosed so as to be waterproof (as construed above),”
`
`where “waterproof” was proposed to be construed as “preventing water from entering the interior
`
`of the panel when exposed to weather.” Dkt. 332-1 at 6. Absen proposed the construction,
`
`“sealed to prevent water from entering (the panel).” Id. As the Court noted in the Claim
`
`Construction Memorandum and Order (Dkt. 407), “The parties agree that ‘waterproof’ requires
`
`‘preventing water from entering [the interior of] the panel,’ but disagree on whether the language
`
`‘when exposed to weather’ should be included in the construction.” Id. at 19. Neither party
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 29836
`
`proposed a construction that included an Ingress Protection rating requirement. The Court
`
`construed the term “sealed to be waterproof” as “sealed to have an ingress protection (IP) rating
`
`of IP 65 or higher.” Id. at 23-24.
`
`Plaintiff filed objections to the Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, arguing that
`
`the Court’s construction for “sealed to be waterproof” was clearly erroneous as, inter alia,
`
`violating the doctrine of claim differentiation because dependent claims specifically recite
`
`Ingress Protection ratings, including an ingress protection rating of IP65. Dkt. 420. The Court
`
`overruled Plaintiff’s objections and adopted the Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 407). Dkt. 580.
`
`Both Ultravision and Absen agreed that the term “modular display panel” is an
`
`“interchangeable” display panel for a multi-panel display. Ultravision’s proposed construction
`
`was “interchangeable display panel for a multi-panel modular display.” Dkt. 332-1 at 6. Absen
`
`proposed the term be construed as “a singular interchangeable, self-contained display panel for
`
`multi-panel display system.” Id. The Court agreed “with the parties’ proposal that the Modular
`
`Display Panel terms should be construed to include ‘interchangeable.’” Dkt. 407 at 15. The
`
`Court did not provide an explanation of what “interchangeable” means in the context of the
`
`construction and provided only a single exemplary citation to the ’782 Patent specification where
`
`the term “interchanged” was used. Id. at 15-16.
`
`Neither party raised the question of the meaning of “interchangeable” as used in the
`
`Court’s construction until pretrial proceedings. Absen filed a Motion in Limine requesting that
`
`Ultravision not be allowed to present evidence or testimony inconsistent with the Court’s Claim
`
`Construction Order. Dkt. 605 at 1-2. Absen also filed a Daubert Motion related to Ultravision’s
`
`expert, Mr. Credelle, and his opinions on “interchangeable.” Dkt. 438. At the Pretrial
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 29837
`
`Conference, Absen argued that the primary and secondary panels1 of the prior art all-metal
`
`Ultrapanel were still interchangeable based on the patent specification language cited in the
`
`Court’s Claim Construction Order. Ex. 1, Pretrial Conf. Tr. 50:17-58:11, May 14, 2021. After
`
`hearing argument and evidence from Absen, the Court stated that “[t]here’s certainly nothing in
`
`what you’ve shown me that says that size is the only determinant of interchangeability.” Id. at
`
`57:15-17. The Court denied Absen’s Motion in Limine No. 1. Id. at 58:9-11.
`
`Following the Pretrial Conference, the Court issued its Order on Absen’s Daubert Motion
`
`to Exclude Infringement and Validity Opinions of Thomas Credelle (Dkt. 438). Dkt. 657. In its
`
`Order, the Court excluded Mr. Credelle from expressing opinions “regarding whether the
`
`Ultrapanel was ’modular’ under the Court’s construction.” Id. at 9. The Order prevented
`
`Mr. Credelle from opining on whether the prior art Ultrapanel with primary-secondary
`
`functionality was “interchangeable.” Id. at 9-10. The Court reasoned that Mr. Credelle’s
`
`interpretation of the claim construction was improper because he stated in his deposition that it
`
`would read out an embodiment of the patent specification that was cited in the Court’s Claim
`
`Construction Order. Id. at 9.
`
`The jury was instructed by the Court to follow the Court’s claim constructions, and the
`
`jury received a copy of the constructions for each construed term including “sealed to be
`
`waterproof” and “modular display panel.” Ex. 2, Day 5 Trial Tr. 21:16-18, June 11, 2021. The
`
`jury subsequently returned a verdict of no infringement and invalidity for each of the three
`
`asserted claims. The Jury did not reach the questions of damages or willful infringement.
`
`
`
`1 The phrases “primary-secondary” and “master-slave” are used interchangeably, and intended to
`describe the structure of the prior art all-metal Ultrapanel that contained several “primary” panels
`that contained video processing capabilities and several “secondary” panels with no such
`functionality in order to construct a functioning display.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 29838
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a new trial can be granted “for
`
`any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). The court can grant a new trial “based on its appraisal of the
`
`fairness of the trial and the reliability of the jury’s verdict.” Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co.,
`
`773 F.2d 610, 612–13 (5th Cir. 1985). “A new trial may be granted, for example, if the district
`
`court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the damages awarded are excessive,
`
`the trial was unfair, or prejudicial error was committed in its course.” Id.
`
`However, “[u]nless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding
`
`evidence—or any other error by the court or a party—is grounds for granting a new trial . . . At
`
`every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect
`
`any party’s substantial rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. An erroneous claim construction is grounds
`
`for granting a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). Network-1 Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co., 981 F.3d 1015, 1022–26 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
` ARGUMENT
`
`The erroneous construction of “waterproof” was a prejudicial error because it led to both
`
`erroneous factual findings on non-infringement and invalidity. Absen’s primary non-
`
`infringement position for all Accused Products was that the products in their entirety were not
`
`IP65, and therefore not “sealed to be waterproof” under the Court’s construction. Absen, at trial,
`
`even re-named the ’782 and ’294 Patents the “IP65 Patents”. Ex. 3, Day 3 Trial Tr. 672:5,
`
`685:17-18, 861:19-21, 868:8-9, 869:19-20, 877:6-7, 878:13-14, June 9, 2021; Ex. 4, Day 4 Trial
`
`Tr. 904:8-9, 905:23-25, June 10, 2021; Ex. 2, Day 5 Trial Tr. 84:4-5. Absen’s presentation to the
`
`jury was that the Absen products were not rated IP65 and, therefore, that Ultravision could not
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 29839
`
`prove infringement. Had “sealed to be waterproof” not been limited to a product with an ingress
`
`protection of IP65, the record evidence would clearly have supported Ultravision’s infringement
`
`case and the infringement finding may very likely have been different. Regarding validity, a
`
`proper construction should have resulted in the jury finding Ultravision’s patents valid because
`
`the panel would have to be waterproof in operation. Absen’s primary prior art product, the all-
`
`metal Ultrapanel (sometimes referred to at trial as the P18), was advertised as IP67, but record
`
`evidence shows that this product experienced high levels of water failure in the field. Therefore,
`
`a proper construction of “waterproof” may have also impacted the validity finding.
`
`The erroneous interpretation of “interchangeable” in the construction of “modular display
`
`panel,” as well as the exclusion of Ultravision’s expert opinion regarding the same, was also
`
`prejudicial because Ultravision’s expert was prevented from opining regarding fundamental
`
`structural differences between the all-metal Ultrapanel prior art and the claimed invention.
`
`Finally, because the parties previously stipulated to non-infringement of two asserted
`
`patents, known as the ADTI patents, based on an adverse claim construction, Ultravision
`
`requests that the Court modify the final judgment to include non-infringement regarding the
`
`ADTI patents to properly preserve the issue for appeal.
`
`A.
`
`The Erroneously Narrow Construction of “Waterproof” Was Prejudicial
`Error and Necessitates a New Trial
`
`It was erroneous to limit “waterproof” to display panels having an ingress protection (IP)
`
`rating of IP65 or higher because the dependent claims, which are presumed to have narrower
`
`scope than the independent claims from which they depend, see 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4, claim
`
`display panels with IP ratings of IP65 or higher. See, e.g., Ex. 5, ’782 Patent, claim 6. These
`
`dependent claims must be narrower than the independent claims because they require that the
`
`display panel have an IP rating in the first place, and that the IP rating ranges from IP65 to IP68.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 29840
`
`The incorporation of IP ratings in a dependent claim gives rise to a presumption that IP ratings
`
`are not present in the independent claims. See Philips v. AWC Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314-15
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). Nonetheless, the Court found that the limitation of the dependent claims
`
`supported its reading of this limitation into the “waterproof” terms of the independent claims.
`
`See Dkt. 407, at 22 (citing to claims 1 and 6 of the ’782 Patent). Respectfully, this finding was
`
`clearly erroneous.
`
`Based on the remainder of the intrinsic record, it was erroneous to limit the claims in a
`
`manner inconsistent with their plain and ordinary meaning. The portions of the specification
`
`cited in the Claim Construction Order do not equate “waterproof” with an IP rating, but describe
`
`how IP ratings can be used to evaluate the degree to which a display panel is protected from the
`
`elements. See Dkt. 407, at 21 (citing ’782 Patent specification). Moreover, the prosecution
`
`history cited in the Claim Construction Order refers to an argument distinguishing prior art
`
`where the claim limitation at issue was “the panel compris[es] an ingress protection (IP) rating of
`
`IP67 or IP68.” Dkt. 407 at 22; Dkt. 304-5 at 10. The claim limitation was amended in response
`
`to the Office Action to recite a rating of IP67 or IP68 “in order to improve clarity” because the
`
`original language, “when the panel is immersed in water,” was interpreted by the Office Action
`
`as an intended use. Id. at 9. The applicant did not argue that the term “waterproof” was
`
`understood to require a certain IP rating. Separate from this issue, the intrinsic record and
`
`Plaintiff’s unrebutted expert testimony at the claim construction stage makes clear that
`
`“waterproof” is not limited to a particular IP rating at all, but rather that the product can operate
`
`for its intended purpose when used outdoors and exposed to the weather. Dkt. 297, at 7-8.
`
`Further, the POSITA would understand that the term “waterproof” used in the asserted claims
`
`refers to preventing water from entering the panels in the conditions under which they were
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:
`29841
`
`designed to operate. See Dkt. 297-20 ¶ 51. The Claim Construction Order raises concerns that
`
`“a manufacturer would not know whether the device infringes until it is shipped and installed,”
`
`Dkt. 407, at 22, but this concern is not valid because Plaintiff’s proposed construction did not
`
`depend on the specific weather at the site of installation. Rather, the construction requires
`
`waterproof sufficient to protect against weather in general because display panels, when
`
`manufactured, contain a level of sealing that are either sufficient or insufficient to protect them
`
`from weather, a determination that a skilled expert can make without seeing the panel operate.
`
`See Dkt. 297-20, ¶ 52. The evidence on this issue presented by Plaintiff’s expert was unrebutted
`
`by Defendants’ expert but given no weight by the Court.
`
`The Court’s erroneous construction of “sealed to be waterproof” resulted in the jury
`
`finding the asserted claims not infringed by the accused outdoor Absen products. Absen argued
`
`that its outdoor products were not rated IP65 on the back of the panel and, therefore, the products
`
`do not infringe. Absen also argued that the products do not meet the IP65 rating required under
`
`the Court’s claim construction because its products use IP54 connectors. Ex. 2, Day 5 Trial Tr.
`
`74:6-16. However, Absen’s products are sold specifically for outdoor use and Absen does not
`
`recommend that any protective cover is installed on the rear side of the panels to protect the
`
`panels or connectors from water. Ex. 6, Day 1 Trial Tr. 221:12-25, June 7, 2021. Further, Absen
`
`noted that in the United States market the customers do not use weather protection on the back at
`
`all, stating “it’s very simple. Just put the screen outside, and they run it.” Id. at 222: 13-22.
`
`Absen relied on the Court’s erroneous construction of “sealed to be waterproof” for its argument
`
`that it does not infringe the asserted claims, which resulted in a jury finding of no infringement.
`
`Accordingly, Ultravision was prejudiced by the claim construction. Network-1 Techs., Inc., 981
`
`F.3d at 1025.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:
`29842
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:
`29843
`
`the erroneous construction, Ultravision was prejudiced by the claim construction. Network-1
`
`Techs., Inc., 981 F.3d at 1025.
`
`The evidence shows that the design of the prior art all-metal Ultrapanel did not prevent
`
`water from entering the interior of the panel and that it suffered from water intrusion when it was
`
`installed outdoors. Under the correct construction which requires no water to enter the panel, the
`
`jury likely would have found in Ultravision’s favor and reached a verdict of no invalidity.
`
`Regarding infringement, there was no evidence presented that the outdoor-rated connectors
`
`purchased by Absen for use with its products failed to prevent water from entering the interior of
`
`the Absen display panels, or that the Absen display panels had any issue preventing water from
`
`entering the panels when installed outdoors. The evidence presented at trial showed that the
`
`Absen products are installed outdoors without weather protection and with exposed cables, with
`
`no water leakage reported by Absen. Under the correct construction for “sealed to be
`
`waterproof,” the jury would likely have found in Ultravision’s favor and reached a verdict of
`
`infringement.
`
`The Court’s construction for “sealed to be waterproof” was prejudicial error which
`
`affected the jury’s verdict on both invalidity and infringement. Ultravision was prejudiced by
`
`the claim construction and is therefore entitled to a new trial on both invalidity and infringement.
`
`Network-1 Techs., Inc., 981 F.3d at 1025.
`
`B.
`
`The Court’s Interpretation of Interchangeability in the Construction of
`“Modular Display Panel” Was Erroneous and Prejudicial Necessitating a New
`Trial
`
`Both Ultravision and Absen agreed that “modular display panel” should be construed as
`
`an “interchangeable” display panel. Dkt. 407 at 14. “The Court agree[d] with the parties’
`
`proposal that the Modular Display Panel terms should be construed to include
`
`‘interchangeable.’” Id. at 15. In its Claim Construction Order, the Court gave a single example
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:
`29844
`
`from the specification where the term “interchanged” was used, but the Court failed to give any
`
`explanation of what the term “interchangeable” means in the context of its claim construction.
`
`Id. at 15-16. When hearing argument on Absen’s Motion in Limine No. 1 and Absen’s Daubert
`
`motion, each related to the interpretation of the “interchangeable” construction, the Court stated
`
`that it “would be a fact issue about interchangeability.” Ex. 1, Pretrial Conf. Tr. 56:13-14.
`
`Although the Court stated that there was a fact issue regarding the term
`
`“interchangeable,” and although the parties did not dispute that the prior-art all-metal Ultrapanel
`
`was a primary-secondary display wherein two different types of panels must be used for the
`
`modular display panel to operate, the Court ruled that Ultravision’s expert, Mr. Credelle, was
`
`excluded from providing his opinions on whether the prior art all-metal Ultrapanel was a
`
`“modular” display panel at all under the Court’s construction. Dkt. 657 at 9. Mr. Credelle was
`
`excluded from stating that he believed display panels that operate in a primary-secondary
`
`relationship are not “interchangeable.” Id. at 9-10. In excluding Mr. Credelle, the Court
`
`materially changed its construction of “interchangeable” to include panels of the same size, even
`
`if those panels cannot be interchanged so that the device can function. By doing so, the jury was
`
`told that the prior art Ultrapanel was “a modular display panel,” even though it was undisputed
`
`that the device had primary panels and secondary panels which cannot be interchanged with one
`
`another. Plaintiff was prejudiced by being prevented from presenting its evidence to the jury on
`
`this issue.
`
`The claim term at issue is “modular display panel,” and the intrinsic record is clear that in
`
`order to be “modular,” a panel must be fully interchangeable, e.g., operate in any position on the
`
`display. The asserted patents do not claim embodiments related to products with a “primary-
`
`secondary” configuration. The first discussion of a “modular” display panel in the specification
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:
`29845
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:
`29846
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:
`29847
`
`Patents.” The parties stipulated to non-infringement of the ADTI Patents on May 7, 2021. Dkt.
`
`637. In that Joint Stipulation, the parties noted that “the Court construed the term ‘display
`
`module’ in each of the Asserted Claims [of the ADTI Patents] to mean ‘module having a pair of
`
`LED display panels operatively coupled to a daughter board’ and ‘weatherized display module’
`
`to mean ‘sealed module having a pair of LED display panels operatively coupled to a daughter
`
`board.’” Dkt. 637, ¶ 5. Because “none of Ultravision’s infringement contentions identify a
`
`‘[sealed] module having a pair of LED display panels operatively coupled to a daughter board’
`
`as required by the Court’s construction” and that the Accused Products “have not infringed and
`
`currently do not infringe the Asserted Claims of the [ADTI Patents].” Id., ¶¶ 8, 9. In order to
`
`streamline the proceedings, the stipulation notes that the parties “shall submit a proposed final
`
`judgment that the Accused Products have not infringed and currently do not infringe the Asserted
`
`Claims of the [ADTI Patents] after the completion of the jury trial currently scheduled for June
`
`3, 2021.” Id. ⁋ 12. Ultravision proposes that the final judgment attached as Exhibit 10 be entered
`
`in this case.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, Ultravision respectfully requests that the Court grant Ultravision’s Motion
`
`for a New Trial Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(a) and to Alter the Judgement Pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 59(e).
`
`Dated: July 13, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:
`29848
`
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Joseph M. Mercadante
`NY Bar No. 4784930
`Email: jmercadante@fabricantllp.com
`Daniel J. Shea
`NY Bar No. 5430558
`Email: dshea@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:
`29849
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:
`29850
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 13, 2021, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served by email on all counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`