Case 7:24-cv-00279-ADA Document 28 Filed 01/17/25 Page 1 of 8
`
`CardWare Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`CASE READINESS STATUS REPORT
`Plaintiff CardWare Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Defendant”)
`
`v.
`Apple Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:24-cv-00279-ADA
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`(collectively, “the Parties”) hereby provide the following status report pursuant to the Court’s
`
`Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.4—Patent Cases (“OGP”).
`
`I.
`
`SCHEDULE
`
`A scheduling order has not yet been filed. Markman hearing and trial dates have not yet
`
`been proposed.
`
`On January 16, 2025, the Parties sent a joint email to the Law Clerks for Judge Albright
`
`and Magistrate Judge Gilliland seeking clarification as to the status of this case as a CRSR Related
`
`Case as it relates to the CardWare Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00278-DC-DTG litigation
`
`(the “Google case”) pending before Judge Counts and Mag. Judge Gilliland. Both cases were filed
`
`on the same day and involve overlapping asserted patents, but are before different courts. See infra
`
`Section V. It is unclear from the language of the OGP if the Court considers these related cases
`
`such that they would be coordinated through Markman and for a single Markman
`
`hearing. CardWare and Apple do not object to a single Markman hearing, but because the cases
`
`are assigned to different judges it is unclear if the Court considers the cases coordinated for
`
`purposes of the OGP.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 7:24-cv-00279-ADA Document 28 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 8
`
`If the cases are not considered coordinated and CRSR related cases, then the Parties’
`
`present CRSR would be due today as Apple filed its Answer (Dkt. No. 16) on January 10, 2025. If
`
`the cases are considered CRSR related cases, Google LLC’s (“Google”) response to the Complaint
`
`is not due until January 27, 2025, such that the CRSR in the present case would be due on February
`
`3, 2025. As of today, the Parties have not received a response from their January 16, 2025 email
`
`inquiry to the Court and, out of an abundance of caution, have filed the CRSR today. However,
`
`for purposes of calculating the remaining dates set forth in the Court’s OGP that are keyed off of
`
`the filing of the CRSR, the Parties agree to use the February 3, 2025 date that this CRSR would
`
`have been filed if classified as a CRSR Related Case.
`
`Therefore, per Section II of the Court’s OGP, the Parties will file a joint motion for entry
`
`of a Scheduling Order by March 3, 2025, two weeks after the Case Management Conference
`
`(“CMC”), which is deemed to occur 14 days after filing of the CRSR on February 3, 2025.
`
`II.
`
`FILING AND EXTENSIONS
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) was filed on November 4, 2024. There has been one
`
`extension for a total of 45 days. See Dkt. No. 15.
`
`III. RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant responded to the Complaint with an Answer on January 10, 2025. No
`
`counterclaims were filed. See Dkt. No. 16.
`
`IV.
`
`PENDING MOTIONS
`
`There are no pending motions.
`
`V.
`
`RELATED CASES IN THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`Plaintiff identified the following case as a related case at the time of filing: CardWare Inc.
`
`v. Google LLC, Civil Action No. 7:24-cv-00278-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex. filed Nov. 4, 2024). In this
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 7:24-cv-00279-ADA Document 28 Filed 01/17/25 Page 3 of 8
`
`related case, Plaintiff has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 10,339,520; 10,810,579; 11,176,538; and
`
`11,620,634. Plaintiff has asserted each of these patents against Defendant in the present
`
`proceeding. See infra Section VII.
`
`Plaintiff believes that the present proceeding and the Google case would be considered
`
`CRSR Related Cases pursuant to Section I of the OGP if they were before the same Article III
`
`District Judge. Accordingly, if it pleases the Court, and in the interest of judicial efficiency,
`
`Plaintiff believes that the present proceeding and the Google case should be consolidated for
`
`pretrial proceedings, or their case schedules coordinated for claim construction purposes through
`
`the Markman hearing.
`
`Defendant is not opposed to coordinating the present proceeding through the Markman
`
`hearing following the same schedule as the schedule set in the Google case. However, Defendant
`
`does not believe that pretrial consolidation with the Google case is appropriate, including at least
`
`because the cases are assigned to different district court judges.
`
`VI.
`
`IPR, CBM, AND OTHER PGR FILINGS
`
`There are no known pending IPR, CBM, or other PGR filings.
`
`The following IPR, CBM, or other PGR proceedings were terminated before filing of the
`
`present proceeding:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. PGR2023-00012, against U.S. Patent No. 11,328,286, was filed on
`January 20, 2023 and docketed on February 14, 2023, instituted on August 11, 2023,
`and terminated by agreement of the parties on November 21, 2023.
`Case No. PGR2023-00013, against U.S. Patent No. 11,328,286, was filed January
`20, 2023 and docketed on February 14, 2023, instituted on August 11, 2023, and
`terminated by agreement of the parties on November 21, 2023.
`Case No. IPR2023-00314, against U.S. Patent No. 10,628,820, was filed December
`23, 2022 and docketed on January 20, 2023, instituted on July 18, 2023, and
`terminated by agreement of the parties on November 21, 2023.
`Case No. IPR2023-00219, against U.S. Patent No. 11,176,538, was filed November
`28, 2022 and docketed on December 15, 2022. Institution was denied on June 13,
`2023.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 7:24-cv-00279-ADA Document 28 Filed 01/17/25 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2023-00196, against U.S. Patent No. 10,810,579, was filed November
`21, 2022 and docketed on December 15, 2022, instituted on June 13, 2023, and
`terminated by agreement of the parties on November 21, 2023.
`Case No. IPR2023-00210, against U.S. Patent No. 10,339,520, was filed on
`November 15, 2022 and docketed on December 15, 2022. Institution was denied
`on June 13, 2023.
`Case No. IPR2023-00211, against U.S. Patent No. 10,339,520, was filed on
`November 15, 2022 and docketed on December 15, 2022, instituted on June 13,
`2023, and terminated by agreement of the parties on November 21, 2023.
`
`VII. NUMBER OF ASSERTED PATENTS AND CLAIMS
`
`Plaintiff has asserted six patents including a total of 196 claims. The asserted patents are
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,339,520; 10,628,820; 10,810,579; 11,176,538; 11,328,286; and 11,620,634.
`
`Per Section II of the Court’s OGP and based on a February 3, 2025 CRSR filing date,
`
`Plaintiff will serve Preliminary Infringement Contentions by February 10, 2025, seven days before
`
`the CMC, which is deemed to occur 14 days after filing of the February 3, 2025 CRSR filing date.
`
`VIII. APPOINTMENT OF TECHNICAL ADVISOR
`
`Plaintiff defers to the Court on whether to appoint a technical advisor to the case to assist
`
`the Court with claim construction or other technical issues.
`
`Defendant does not request the appointment of a technical advisor and defers to the
`
`Court.
`
`IX. MEET AND CONFER STATUS
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant met and conferred. Plaintiff believes that the present proceeding
`
`and the Google case should be consolidated for pretrial proceedings, or their case schedules
`
`coordinated for claim construction purposes through the Markman hearing and Defendant is not
`
`opposed to coordinating the present proceeding through the Markman hearing following the same
`
`schedule as the schedule set in the Google case. However, Defendant does not believe that pretrial
`
`consolidation with the Google case is appropriate, including at least because the cases are assigned
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 7:24-cv-00279-ADA Document 28 Filed 01/17/25 Page 5 of 8
`
`to different district court judges. See supra Section V. The Parties have no other pre-Markman
`
`issues to raise at the CMC.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 7:24-cv-00279-ADA Document 28 Filed 01/17/25 Page 6 of 8
`
`Dated: January 17, 2025 
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Eric H. Findlay____
`Matthew G. Berkowitz
`Yue (Joy) Wang
`Navid C. Bayar
`Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Tel: (650) 623-1401
`mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com
`ywang@reichmanjorgensen.com
`nbayar@reichmanjorgensen.com
`
`Caroline Walters
`Khue Hoang
`Patrick Colsher
`Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
`400 Madison Avenue, Suite 14D
`New York, NY 10017
`Tel: (212) 381-1965
`cwalters@reichmanjorgensen.com
`khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com
`pcolsher@reichmanjorgensen.com
`
`Eric H. Findlay
`State Bar No. 00789668
`Brian Craft
`State Bar No. 04972020
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`7270 Crosswater Avenue, Suite B
`Tyler, Texas 75703
`Tel: (903)534-1100
`Fax: (903)534-1137
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`/s/ John M. Guaragna
`John M. Guaragna
`Texas Bar No 24043308
`Zachary Loney
`Texas Bar No. 24092714
`Nandan R. Padmanabhan
`Texas Bar No 24145172
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 7:24-cv-00279-ADA Document 28 Filed 01/17/25 Page 7 of 8
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`303 Colorado, Suite 3000
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 457-7125
`Fax: (512) 457-7001
`john.guaragna@us.dlapiper.com
`zachary.loney@us.dlapiper.com
`nandan.padmanabhan@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Sean Cunningham
`Erin Gibson
`Robert Williams
`Peter Maggiore
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Tel: (858) 677-1400
`Fax: (858) 677-1401
`sean.cunningham@us.dlapiper.com
`erin.gibson@us.dlapiper.com
`robert.williams@us.dlapiper.com
`peter.maggiore@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Benjamin Yaghoubian
`Martin Ellison (pro hac vice pending)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars
`Suite 400, North Tower
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 595-3000
`Fax: (310) 595-3300
`benjamin.yaghoubian@us.dlapiper.com
`martin.ellison@us.dlapiper.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 7:24-cv-00279-ADA Document 28 Filed 01/17/25 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 through the Court’s CM/ECF on this 17th day of January, 2025.
`
`
` /s/ Eric H. Findlay__
`
`Eric H. Findlay
`
`8
`
`