throbber
Case 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP Document 715 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 29832
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket