Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 8
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC,
`Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00324
`V.
`APPLE INC., JURY TRIAL
`Defendant.
`JOINT MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`Plaintiff Carbyne Biometrics, LLC (“Carbyne”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) have met
`and conferred and have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, on the two agreed Motions in Limine
`and to the Court’s standard /imine rulings. The Parties request that the following limine ruling restrict
`the Parties, their witnesses, and counsel from raising, discussing, or arguing the following before
`the venire panel or the jury without prior leave of the Court.
`
`I. Agreed Motions in Limine
`
`Pursuant to the Parties’ agreement, the Parties respectfully request that the Court impose
`the following agreed /imines to be applied mutually to both Parties:
`
`Agreed MIL! No. 1: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`argument directed to the standing issue that was the subject of the evidentiary
`hearing conducted on November 1, 2024 and November 5, 2024. The parties
`agree this /imine does not preclude evidence or testimony regarding facts
`relevant to other issues of fact or law, or general background issues, including
`
`that Dr. Jakobsson was employed at PayPal at the time of invention of the
`’105 and 138 patents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Apple will not assert
`
`! This limine is considered moot if the Court orders the Parties to present an ownership issue to the
`jury. In such circumstance, the Parties will promptly meet and confer to determine the appropriate
`logistics for the introduction of such evidence, testimony, and/or arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 8
`
`or insinuate in the presence of the jury that PayPal or any other entity should
`be the owner or assignee of the *105 or ‘138 patents.
`
`Agreed MIL No. 2: No party or witness shall make any inflammatory or misleading statements
`
`about the “clear and convincing” or “preponderance of the evidence” burdens
`of proof beyond how the court defines such for the jury.
`
`II. The Court’s Standard Limine Rulings
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings, Version 4.4 (Jan. 23, 2024), the
`
`Parties respectfully request that the Court impose the following set of standard /imine rulings to be
`
`applied mutually to both parties:
`
`Court MIL No. 1: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding pretrial proceedings or issues including but not limited to
`discovery disputes or dispositive motion practice.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument that raises religious or political beliefs, race, ethnicity, gender,
`national origin, sexual orientation, or health (including but not limited to
`vaccination status) of a party, witness, attorney, or law firm.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument concerning any party’s overall financial size, wealth, or executive
`compensation.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument regarding prior art that is not disclosed in a specific combination set
`forth in any party’s expert report or invalidity contentions.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument before the jury that relates only to equitable defenses or
`counterclaims (i.e., evidence that does not also serve another evidentiary
`purpose relevant to jury issues).
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, inter partes review,
`the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act, or any alternative structure that does
`not relate directly to an Article III trial in a district court.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument suggesting that there is anything legally improper in filing a patent
`application or writing patent claims to cover an adverse party’s product.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing any argument, evidence,
`
`testimony, insinuation, reference, or assertion regarding a witness’ choice to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 8
`
`testify in his or her native or chosen language (being any language other than
`English).
`
`Court MIL No. 9: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`29 ¢ 99 ¢¢
`
`argument referring to any other person or entity as “greedy,” “corrupt,” “evil,”
`or “dishonest,” or using any other pejorative term. The parties shall also be
`precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument that
`characterizes any other person or entity’s actions as “stealing,” “copying,”
`“misappropriating,” “pirating,” “trespassing,” or any similar terms.
`
`29 ¢6
`
`10: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument bolstering or disparaging the U.S. Patent Office, its examiners, or
`the process for prosecuting patent applications or granting patents in the
`United States. This does not preclude factual evidence as to the operations of
`the USPTO.
`
`11: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument referring to any other person or entity in disparaging ways, such as
`a “patent troll,” “pirate,” “bounty hunter,” “bandit,” “playing the lawsuit
`lottery,” “shell company,” “shakedown artist,” “patent assertion entity,” or
`any such similar terms. Use of the term “non-practicing entity” is permitted.
`
`9 ¢¢
`
`12: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding funding of the litigation or regarding any comment on
`attorney-fee compensation including amounts or structure.
`
`13: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding either party’s other litigations or arbitrations, including
`parallel proceedings in any other court, tribunal, or forum, including ADR
`proceedings.
`
`14: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding the size of the parties’ law firms or the number of
`attorneys representing the parties.
`
`15: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding the fact that testimony or opinions offered by any expert
`may have been criticized, excluded, or found to be unreliable in any other
`forum.
`
`16: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument referring to the role or presence in the courtroom of jury consultants
`or shadow jurors, or the use of focus groups or mock proceedings to assist
`with trial preparation, jury selection, or trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 8
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`17: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument relating to the Court’s Claim Construction Order other than the
`Court’s actual adopted constructions, including the Court’s reasoning or the
`parties’ agreements.
`
`18: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument for purposes of non-infringement comparing the accused product or
`method to the preferred embodiments, the specification, or any non-accused
`product or method.
`
`19: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument suggesting that a verdict in one party’s favor would impact the cost
`of goods or services or would have other commercial impacts.
`
`20: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument suggesting that the Western District of Texas is an improper or
`inconvenient venue in which to try this case.
`
`21: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument suggesting that the other party had an affirmative duty to seek
`opinion of counsel, and/or any inference that may be drawn as to what the
`contents of such an opinion would have been.
`
`Court MIL No. 22: Neither party will ask questions or make statements to invoke a privileged or
`
`protected answer, including any materials that are privileged, or that have
`been presented outside of the jury to establish/prevent a finding of privilege.
`
`Court MIL No. 23: No expert witness may testify to expert opinions outside the established
`
`parameters of her/his expert report, and counsel shall not raise such an
`objection for strategic or other non-meritorious purposes.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 5 of 8
`
`Dated: December 11, 2024
`
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`/s/ Joshua W. Budwin
`
`Joshua W. Budwin
`
`Lead Attorney
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24050347
`jbudwin@mckoolsmith.com
`George T. Fishback, Jr.
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24120823
`gfishback@McKoolSmith.com
`Caroline Burks
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24126000
`cburks@McKoolSmith.com
`McKooL SMITH, P.C.
`
`303 Colorado Street Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Telephone: (512) 692-8700
`Telecopier: (512) 692-8744
`
`Richard A. Kamprath
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24078767
`rkamprath@McKoolSmith.com
`Bradley Jarrett
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24128518
`bjarrett@mckoolsmith.com
`Daniel Iliasevitch
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24125631
`diliasevitch@McKoolSmith.com
`McKooL SMITH, P.C.
`
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Telephone: (214) 978-4210
`
`Kevin Burgess
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24006927
`kburgess@mckoolsmith.com
`McKooL SMITH, P.C.
`
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`
`Phone: (903) 923-9000
`
`Fax: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 6 of 8
`
`Brian C. Nash
`
`Regan J. Rundio
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`300 Colorado St., Suite 1800
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Tel: (512) 617-0650
`
`Fax: (737) 910-0730
`
`Email: BNash(@mofo.com
`
`Email: Rrundio@mofo.com
`
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
`Andrew Radsch
`
`James Mack
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`1900 University Avenue
`
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`
`Email: James.Batchelder@ropesgray.com
`Email: Andrew.Radsch@ropesgray.com
`Email: James.Mack(@ropesgay.com
`
`Cassandra Roth (pro hac vice)
`
`Rachael S. Bacha (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`
`Tel: (212) 596-9000
`
`Fax: (212) 596-9090
`
`Email: Cassandra.Roth@ropesgray.com
`Email: Rachael.Bacha@ropesgray.com
`
`Allen S. Cross (pro hac vice)
`
`Nicole Pobre (pro hac vice)
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Tel: (202) 508-4600
`
`Fax: (202) 508-4650
`
`Email: Allen.Cross@ropesgray.com
`Email: Nicole.Pobre@ropesgray.com
`
`S. Lara Ameri (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Prudential Tower
`
`800 Boylston Street
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 7 of 8
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`Tel: (617) 951-7000
`Fax: (617) 951-7050
`Email: Lara. Ameri@ropesgray.com
`
`Jeffrey T. Quilici
`
`TX State Bar No. 24083696
`Orrick, HERRINGTON &
`Sutcliffe LLP
`
`200 W. 6th Street, Suite 2250
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Tel: (512) 582-6950
`
`Fax: (512) 582-6949
`
`Email: jquilici@orrick.com
`
`Elizabeth R. Moulton (pro hac vice)
`Orrick, HERRINGTON &
`
`Sutcliffe LLP
`
`405 Howard Street
`
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Tel: (415) 773-5700
`
`Fax: (415) 773-5759
`
`Email: emoulton@orrick.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 8 of 8
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been
`served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on December 11, 2024.
`
`s/ Joshua W. Budwin
`Joshua W. Budwin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC,
`Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00324
`V.
`APPLE INC., JURY TRIAL
`Defendant.
`JOINT MOTIONS IN LIMINE
`
`Plaintiff Carbyne Biometrics, LLC (“Carbyne”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) have met
`and conferred and have agreed, subject to the Court’s approval, on the two agreed Motions in Limine
`and to the Court’s standard /imine rulings. The Parties request that the following limine ruling restrict
`the Parties, their witnesses, and counsel from raising, discussing, or arguing the following before
`the venire panel or the jury without prior leave of the Court.
`
`I. Agreed Motions in Limine
`
`Pursuant to the Parties’ agreement, the Parties respectfully request that the Court impose
`the following agreed /imines to be applied mutually to both Parties:
`
`Agreed MIL! No. 1: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`argument directed to the standing issue that was the subject of the evidentiary
`hearing conducted on November 1, 2024 and November 5, 2024. The parties
`agree this /imine does not preclude evidence or testimony regarding facts
`relevant to other issues of fact or law, or general background issues, including
`
`that Dr. Jakobsson was employed at PayPal at the time of invention of the
`’105 and 138 patents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Apple will not assert
`
`! This limine is considered moot if the Court orders the Parties to present an ownership issue to the
`jury. In such circumstance, the Parties will promptly meet and confer to determine the appropriate
`logistics for the introduction of such evidence, testimony, and/or arguments.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 8
`
`or insinuate in the presence of the jury that PayPal or any other entity should
`be the owner or assignee of the *105 or ‘138 patents.
`
`Agreed MIL No. 2: No party or witness shall make any inflammatory or misleading statements
`
`about the “clear and convincing” or “preponderance of the evidence” burdens
`of proof beyond how the court defines such for the jury.
`
`II. The Court’s Standard Limine Rulings
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings, Version 4.4 (Jan. 23, 2024), the
`
`Parties respectfully request that the Court impose the following set of standard /imine rulings to be
`
`applied mutually to both parties:
`
`Court MIL No. 1: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding pretrial proceedings or issues including but not limited to
`discovery disputes or dispositive motion practice.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument that raises religious or political beliefs, race, ethnicity, gender,
`national origin, sexual orientation, or health (including but not limited to
`vaccination status) of a party, witness, attorney, or law firm.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument concerning any party’s overall financial size, wealth, or executive
`compensation.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument regarding prior art that is not disclosed in a specific combination set
`forth in any party’s expert report or invalidity contentions.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument before the jury that relates only to equitable defenses or
`counterclaims (i.e., evidence that does not also serve another evidentiary
`purpose relevant to jury issues).
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, inter partes review,
`the Smith-Leahy America Invents Act, or any alternative structure that does
`not relate directly to an Article III trial in a district court.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument suggesting that there is anything legally improper in filing a patent
`application or writing patent claims to cover an adverse party’s product.
`
`: The parties shall be precluded from introducing any argument, evidence,
`
`testimony, insinuation, reference, or assertion regarding a witness’ choice to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 3 of 8
`
`testify in his or her native or chosen language (being any language other than
`English).
`
`Court MIL No. 9: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`29 ¢ 99 ¢¢
`
`argument referring to any other person or entity as “greedy,” “corrupt,” “evil,”
`or “dishonest,” or using any other pejorative term. The parties shall also be
`precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or argument that
`characterizes any other person or entity’s actions as “stealing,” “copying,”
`“misappropriating,” “pirating,” “trespassing,” or any similar terms.
`
`29 ¢6
`
`10: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument bolstering or disparaging the U.S. Patent Office, its examiners, or
`the process for prosecuting patent applications or granting patents in the
`United States. This does not preclude factual evidence as to the operations of
`the USPTO.
`
`11: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument referring to any other person or entity in disparaging ways, such as
`a “patent troll,” “pirate,” “bounty hunter,” “bandit,” “playing the lawsuit
`lottery,” “shell company,” “shakedown artist,” “patent assertion entity,” or
`any such similar terms. Use of the term “non-practicing entity” is permitted.
`
`9 ¢¢
`
`12: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding funding of the litigation or regarding any comment on
`attorney-fee compensation including amounts or structure.
`
`13: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding either party’s other litigations or arbitrations, including
`parallel proceedings in any other court, tribunal, or forum, including ADR
`proceedings.
`
`14: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding the size of the parties’ law firms or the number of
`attorneys representing the parties.
`
`15: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument regarding the fact that testimony or opinions offered by any expert
`may have been criticized, excluded, or found to be unreliable in any other
`forum.
`
`16: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument referring to the role or presence in the courtroom of jury consultants
`or shadow jurors, or the use of focus groups or mock proceedings to assist
`with trial preparation, jury selection, or trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 4 of 8
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`17: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument relating to the Court’s Claim Construction Order other than the
`Court’s actual adopted constructions, including the Court’s reasoning or the
`parties’ agreements.
`
`18: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument for purposes of non-infringement comparing the accused product or
`method to the preferred embodiments, the specification, or any non-accused
`product or method.
`
`19: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument suggesting that a verdict in one party’s favor would impact the cost
`of goods or services or would have other commercial impacts.
`
`20: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`Court MIL No.
`
`argument suggesting that the Western District of Texas is an improper or
`inconvenient venue in which to try this case.
`
`21: The parties shall be precluded from introducing evidence, testimony, or
`
`argument suggesting that the other party had an affirmative duty to seek
`opinion of counsel, and/or any inference that may be drawn as to what the
`contents of such an opinion would have been.
`
`Court MIL No. 22: Neither party will ask questions or make statements to invoke a privileged or
`
`protected answer, including any materials that are privileged, or that have
`been presented outside of the jury to establish/prevent a finding of privilege.
`
`Court MIL No. 23: No expert witness may testify to expert opinions outside the established
`
`parameters of her/his expert report, and counsel shall not raise such an
`objection for strategic or other non-meritorious purposes.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 5 of 8
`
`Dated: December 11, 2024
`
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`/s/ Joshua W. Budwin
`
`Joshua W. Budwin
`
`Lead Attorney
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24050347
`jbudwin@mckoolsmith.com
`George T. Fishback, Jr.
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24120823
`gfishback@McKoolSmith.com
`Caroline Burks
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24126000
`cburks@McKoolSmith.com
`McKooL SMITH, P.C.
`
`303 Colorado Street Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Telephone: (512) 692-8700
`Telecopier: (512) 692-8744
`
`Richard A. Kamprath
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24078767
`rkamprath@McKoolSmith.com
`Bradley Jarrett
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24128518
`bjarrett@mckoolsmith.com
`Daniel Iliasevitch
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24125631
`diliasevitch@McKoolSmith.com
`McKooL SMITH, P.C.
`
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`Telephone: (214) 978-4210
`
`Kevin Burgess
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24006927
`kburgess@mckoolsmith.com
`McKooL SMITH, P.C.
`
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`
`Phone: (903) 923-9000
`
`Fax: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`CARBYNE BIOMETRICS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 6 of 8
`
`Brian C. Nash
`
`Regan J. Rundio
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`300 Colorado St., Suite 1800
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Tel: (512) 617-0650
`
`Fax: (737) 910-0730
`
`Email: BNash(@mofo.com
`
`Email: Rrundio@mofo.com
`
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
`Andrew Radsch
`
`James Mack
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`1900 University Avenue
`
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`
`Email: James.Batchelder@ropesgray.com
`Email: Andrew.Radsch@ropesgray.com
`Email: James.Mack(@ropesgay.com
`
`Cassandra Roth (pro hac vice)
`
`Rachael S. Bacha (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`
`Tel: (212) 596-9000
`
`Fax: (212) 596-9090
`
`Email: Cassandra.Roth@ropesgray.com
`Email: Rachael.Bacha@ropesgray.com
`
`Allen S. Cross (pro hac vice)
`
`Nicole Pobre (pro hac vice)
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Tel: (202) 508-4600
`
`Fax: (202) 508-4650
`
`Email: Allen.Cross@ropesgray.com
`Email: Nicole.Pobre@ropesgray.com
`
`S. Lara Ameri (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Prudential Tower
`
`800 Boylston Street
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 7 of 8
`
`Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600
`Tel: (617) 951-7000
`Fax: (617) 951-7050
`Email: Lara. Ameri@ropesgray.com
`
`Jeffrey T. Quilici
`
`TX State Bar No. 24083696
`Orrick, HERRINGTON &
`Sutcliffe LLP
`
`200 W. 6th Street, Suite 2250
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Tel: (512) 582-6950
`
`Fax: (512) 582-6949
`
`Email: jquilici@orrick.com
`
`Elizabeth R. Moulton (pro hac vice)
`Orrick, HERRINGTON &
`
`Sutcliffe LLP
`
`405 Howard Street
`
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`
`Tel: (415) 773-5700
`
`Fax: (415) 773-5759
`
`Email: emoulton@orrick.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00324-ADA Document 338 Filed 12/11/24 Page 8 of 8
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been
`served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on December 11, 2024.
`
`s/ Joshua W. Budwin
`Joshua W. Budwin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
