Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 150

Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc.

Doc. 150 Att. 3

EXHIBIT D

Dockets.Justia.com

LAW OFFICES

REKER & VAN NEST
LLP
710 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-1704

TELEPHONE (4IS) 391-5400 FAX [phone]
DAN JACKSON DJACKSONęKVN.COM

WWW.KVN.COM

Januar 19,2006

VIA ELECTRONIC MAlL
Alan P. Block, Esq. Henngan, Bennett & Dorman LLP

601 S. Figueroa Street Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re: In re Acacia Media Technologies Corp.,

Case No. C 05-1114 (MDL 1665)
Dear Alan:

The cable and satellite defendants, and the New Destiny group of defendants represented by Fish & Richardson, have reviewed your proposed stipulation, and have made some changes to it in the attached redline. First, we do not agree to a Rule 54(b) certification, and do not think that the Federal Circuit will agree to hear this case piecemeal in any event, so we have deleted the language related to the Rule 54(b) issue. Second, some of the language in your draft could be read to imply that defendants make, use or sell transmission systems (within the meanng of the patent) that are located at more than one location, which we do not concede, so we have removed that language. Third, we have left in your reservation of rights on appeal, but have removed the clause that follows it because it is either redundant or implies that you have rights other than those normally provided for by law. There are also a few minor corrections of a typographical or factual nature (e.g., more claims contain the term "sequence encoder" than you originally listed).
We have also reviewed your response to my letter of January 5, 2006 in which you state that you will not include claims 10-13 of the' 863 patent in your forthcoming infingement contentions. That is fine, but does not preclude you from attempting to reassert those claims--r the claims in the other patents at issue that contain the term "identification encoding means"-in your final infrngement contentions, or from asserting those claims against us in another jurisdiction. Accordingly, we ask that you covenant not to sue defendants on any of the following claims: 1-18 of the '992 patent, claims 1-2 and 10-13 of the '863 patent, claims 1,4,
and 7 of the '275 patent, and claims 1-3 of

the '720 patent.

365664.01

Alan P. Block, Esq.
January 19, 2006
Page 2

I look forward to your response.

DEJ
cc: All Counsel of

Record

365664.01

COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES
2
3

4
5

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

9

10
11
0. ee'"

) Case No. C 05-01114

In re:

) MDL No. 1665
)

12
13

c

ACACIA MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION PATENT LITIGATION

) (PROPOSED) STIPULATED SUMMARY

) JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT
) AND INVALIDITY FOR ) INDEFINITENESS OF US PATENT NO.
) 6,144,702 ) )

" 0 0
'"
'"
'"

E

14
15

Q' OJ

c c
c
'"

.'." .

16
17
18

c :'" i

c

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
Case No. 05-CV -0 I I 14 JW

MOL No. 1665

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity of the '702 Patent

On December 7,2005, the Honorable James Ware issued the "Further Claim Construction
2
3

Order; Order Finding Claims Terms Indefinite And Claims Invalid" ("Order"). In the Order, the
Court found, among other things, the following:
1. that the claim term "sequence encoder," which appears in independent claims 1 and
17 and in dependent claims 7,18,32, and 33 of

4
5

U.S. Patent No.6,144,702 ("the '702

6 7
8

patent"), is indefinite;
2. that the claim term "identification encoder," which appears in independent claims 1,
17, and 27 and in dependent claims 5, 6, 19, and 31 of

the '702 patent, is indefinite;

9

and
3. that the claim phrase "transmission system at a first location," which appears in
independent claims 1, 17, and 27 of

10
11
ee'"

the '702 patent, means "a transmission system at
the reception system."

0.

12
13

one particular location separate from the location of

c
E

"
Q
'" '"

The parties agree that the effect of

the Court's finding that the term "sequence encoder" in

0

14
15

claims 1, 7, 17, 18, 32, and 33 is indefinite and finding that the term "identification encoder" in
claims 1, 17, and 27 is indefinite, if upheld on appeal, would be to render all of the claims of the
'702 patent (claims 1-42) indefinite, and therefore invalid, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ir 2.
The parties also agree that the effect ofthe Court's construction of

'"

c
"' OJ

c

c
'" ...
'"

16 17
18

c c "' :i

the phrase "transmission

system at a first location" in claims 1, 17, and 27 of

the '702 patent as meaning "a transmission
the reception system," if

19

system at one particular location separate from the location of

upheld on

20
21

appeal, would be to render all of

the claims of

the '702 patent (claims 1-42) not infringed by

defendants.

22
23

Accordingly, the parties to the cases listed below agree and request entry of summary

judgment of: (1) invalidity for indefiniteness of claims 1-42 of the' 702 patent on the basis that the

24
25

Court has found that the terms "sequence encoder" and "identification encoder" of claims 1-42 of
the '702 patent are indefinite; and (2) non-infringement of claims 1-42 of

the '702 patent on the

26 27
28

basis that the Court has construed the phrase "transmission system at a first location" to mean "a
transmission system at one particular location separate from the location of the reception system."
This Summary Judgment is without prejudice as to all rights of Acacia on appeaL.

1 THEREFORE, IT IS ADJUDICATED, as a matter of

law, that Plaintiff Acacia shall take

2 nothing as to all defendants listed below on its claim for infringement of its '702 patent, and that, as
3 to all defendants listed below, the Court shall enter Summary Judgment of: (1) invalidity of claims

4 1-42 for indefiniteness on the basis that the Court has found that the terms "sequence encoder" and
5 "identification encoder" of claims 1-42 of the '702 patent are indefinite; and (2) non-infringement of

6 claims 1-42 on the basis that the Court has construed the phrase "transmission system at a first 7 location" to mean "a transmission system at one particular location separate from the location of the
8 reception system," which would thereby cause claims 1:-42 of

the '702 to not be infrnged by

9 defendants. The entry of

this Summary Judgment is without prejudice to Acacia's rights as outlined

10 above.
11

12
13

Separate N.D. CaL. Case

Defendant(s)

Number
14
15

05-CY-01561 JW 05-CY-01562 JW
05-CY-01563 JW

Game Link, Inc.
Club J enna, Inc. and CJ, Inc.
1. Cybernet Yentures, Inc.

16 17
18

2. ACMP, LLC

3. Global Media Resources SA

19

05-CY-01564 JW 05-CY-01565 JW
.

Global A YS, Inc., dba DrewNet

20
21

1. ICS, Inc.
2. AP Net Marketing, Inc.

22
23

05-CY-01566 JW 05-CY-01568 JW

National A-I Advertising, Inc.
New Destiny Internet Group
Audio Communications
YS Media, Inc.

24
25

05-CY-01569 JW 05-CY-01570 JW 05-CY-01571 JW

26 27
28

Ademia Multimedia, LLC
2

Case No. 05-CV -01114 JW MOL No. 1665

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of
Non-Intiingement and Invalidity of

the -702 Patent

Separate N.D. CaL. Case

Defendant( s)

Number
2
3

05-CY-01572 JW

1. International Web Innovations, Inc.

4
5

2. Offendale Commercial Ltd. BY
05-CY-01573 JW 05-CY-01574 JW 05-CY-01575 JW 05-CY-01576 JW

Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network
Cybertrend, Inc.

6
7
8

Lightspeedcash

1. Adult Revenue Service

9

2. Innovative Ideas International
3. Global Intermedia, Inc.
4. Askcs.com, Inc.

10
11

12
13

04-CY-02308 JW

1. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
2. Charter Communications, Inc.

14
15

3. The DIRECTY Group, Inc.
4. Echostar Technologies Corp.

16 17

5. Echostar Satellite LLC
6. Hospitality Network, Inc.
7. Coxcom, Inc.

18

19

04-CY-03789 JW 05-CY-01399 JW

Mediacom Communications Corporation

20
21

1. Mid-Continent Media, Inc.

2. US Cable Holdings LP
3. Savage Communications Inc.

22
23

4. Loretel Cablevision
5. Arvig Communication System
6. Cannon Yalley Communications, Inc.
7. Sjoberg's Cablevision, Inc.

24
25 26
27 28

05-CY-01543 JW

1. Armstrong Group

2. Block Communications, Inc, dba Buckeye
3

Case No. 05-CV-OI I 14 JW

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of
Non-Intė-ingement and Invalidity of

MOLNo.1665

the '702 Patent

1

Separate N.D. CaL. Case

Defendant(s)
Cable

Number
2
3

3. Wide Open West LLC
4. Massillon Cable TV, Inc.

4
5

05-CV-01598 JW

1. Cable America Corporation
2. Cable One, Inc.

6 7
8

3. NPG Cable, Inc.

05-CV-01703 JW

Cebridge Communications

9

10

SO ORDERED.
11

12
13

Date:

United States District Judge

14
15 16

Stipulated to and agreed upon:

17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26 27
28
4

Case No. 05-CV -0 I i 14 JW

MOL No. 1665

Non-Intė.ingement and Invalidity of

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of the -702 Patent

Dated: January _,2006
2
3

RODERICK G. DORMAN (CA SBN 96908) ALAN P. BLOCK (CA SBN 143783) KEYIN i. SHENKMAN (CA SBN 223315) HENNIGAN, BENNETT & DORMAN LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90017

4
5

BY:
6
7
8

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ACACIA MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

9

10
11

Dated: January _,2006

12
13

YICTOR G. SA YlKAS (CA SBN 145658) KEYIN G. McBRIDE (CA SBN 195866) MARSHA E. MULLIN (CA SBN 93709) MARIA K. NELSON (CA SBN 155608) JONES DAY 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4600 Los Angeles, California 90013-1025

14

By:
15

Victor G. Savikas

16
17 18

Attorneys for Defendant THE DIRECTY GROUP, INe.

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27 28
5

Case No. 05-CY-01114 JW MDL No. 1665

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of
Non-Inti.ingement and Invalidity of

the .702 Patent

Dated: January _,2006
2
3

4
5

HAROLD J. McELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) RACHEL KREYANS (CA SBN i 16421) PAUL A. FRIEDMAN. (CA SBN 208920) JASON A. CROTTY (CA SBN 196036) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482
DA YID C. DOYLE (CA SBN 70690) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 3811 Valley Centre Dr., Suite. 500 San Diego, California 92130

6
7
8

By:
9

Harold J. McElhinny
Attorneys for Defendants ECHOSTAR SATELLITE LLC and ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

10
11

12
13

Dated: January _,2006

14
15

DARALYN J. DURIE (CA SBN 169825) DA YID J. SILBERT (CA SBN 173128) KEKER & Y AN NEST LLP 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111-1704

16
17 18

By:

David Silbert

19

20
21

Attorneys for Defendant COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC

22
23

24
25

26
27 28
6

Case No. 05-CY -0 I I 14 JW

(Proposed) Stipulated Suiimary Judgment of
Non-Intiingeinent and Invalidity of

MOL No. 1665

the -702 Patent

Dated: January _, 2006
1

ANNAMARIE A. DALEY (pro hac vice)
STEPHEN P. SAFRANSKI (pro hac vice) ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI LLP
2800 LaSalle Plaza, 800 LaSalle Avenue

2
3

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
RICHARD R. PATCH (CA SBN 88049) ELL (CA SBN 184444) J. TIMOTHY NARD COBLENTZ, PATCH, DUFFY & BASS, LLP One Ferry Building, Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94111-4213

4
5

6 7
8

By:
9

Annamarie A. Daley
Attorneys for Defendants COXCOM, INC. and HOSPITALITY NETWORK,
INC.

10
11

12
13

14
15

16
17 18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27 28
7

Case No. 05-CY-OI I 14 JW MOL No. 1665

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of
Non-Intėingeiient and Invalidity of

the '702 Patent

Dated: January _,2006
2
3

4
5

BRADFORD LYERLA (pro hac vice app. pending) KEYIN HOGG (pro hac vice app. pending) JEFFREY DEAN (pro hac vice app. pending) MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 6300 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Ilinois 60606-6357
MORGAN W. TOYEY (CA SBN 136242) WILLIAM R. OYEREND (CA SBN 180209) REED SMITH LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

6
7
8

9

By:

10
11

Jeffrey Dean

12
13

14
15

Attorneys for Defendant CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., WIDE OPEN WEST, ARMSTRONG UTILITIES, MASSILON CABLE TY, INe., EAST CLEYELAND CABLE TY, MID-CONTINENT MEDIA, INe., CANNON Y ALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, US CABLE HOLDINGS, LP, ARYIG ENTERPRISES, SJOBERG CABLE, LORETEL SYSTEMS, INC., NPG CABLE, INe.
DATED: January _,2006

16 17 18 19

REBECCA ANNE BORTOLOTTI
JOHN CHRITOPHER REICH

ALBERT L. UNDERHILL MERCHANT & GOULD
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 3200

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

20
21

By

Rebecca Anne Bortolotti

22
23

24
25

Attorneys for Defendants MID-CONTINENT MEDIA, INC., SAY AGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CANNON VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, US CABLE HOLDINGS, LP, ARYIG ENTERPRISES, SJOBERG'S CABLE, LORETEL SYSTEMS, INC.,

26
27
28
8

Case No. 05-CV-Ol I 14 JW

MOL No. 1665

(Proposed) Stipulated Sumiiary Judgment of Non-Inti.ingement and Invalidity oftlie '702 Patent

DATED: January _,2006
1

2
3

JUANITA R. BROOKS TODD G. MILLER FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, California 92130-2081

4

By
5,

Todd R. Miller
Attorneys for Defendants NEW DESTINY INTERNET GROUP, L.L.e., AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VS MEDIA, INC., ADEMIA MULTIMEDIA, LLC, CYBERHEAT, INC., AEBN, INe., LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION, INNOVATIVE IDEAS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., GAME LINK, INC., AND CYBERTREND, INe.
DATED: January _,2006

6

7
8

9

10
11

12
13

JONATHAN E. SINGER WILLIAM R. WOODFORD FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3300 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

14
15

By
Jonathan E. Singer

16 17
18

19

20
21

Attorneys for Defendants NEW DESTINY INTERNET GROUP, L.L.C., AUDIO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VS MEDIA, INe., ADEMIA MULTIMEDIA, LLC, CYBERHEA T, INe., AEBN, INC., LIGHTSPEED MEDIA CORPORATION, INNOVATIVE IDEAS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., GAME LINK, INC., AND CYBERTREND, INe.
DATED: January _,2006

WILLIAM J. ROBINSON
VICTOR DE GY ARFAS

22
23

FOLEY & LARDNER
2029 Century Park East, 35th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067
By

24
25

Victor de Gyarfas

26 27
28

Attorneys for Defendants International Web Innovations, Inc. and ALE COMMERICAL LIMITED BV OFFEND

9

Case No. 05-CY-011 14 JW

MOLNo.1665

Non-Iiitė-ingement and Invalidity of

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of the '702 Patent

DATED: January _,2006
1

2
3

DOUGLAS W. SPRINKLE MARK D. SCHNEIDER GIFFORD, KRASS, GROH, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.c. 280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 Birmingham, Michigan 48009-5394
ALFREDO A. BISMONTE BOBBY T. SHIH MOUNT & STOELKER, P.C.
333 W. San Carlos St., 17th Floor

4
5

6 7
8

San Jose, California 95110-2740

9 10
11

Attorneys for Defendant ASKCS.COM, INC.
DATED: January _,2006

12
13

GARY A. HECKER JAMES M. SLOMINSKI THE HECKER LAW GROUP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300

Los Angeles, California 90067
By

14
15

James M. Slominski

16

Attorneys for Defendant OFFENDALE COMMERCIAL BV, LTD.
DATED: January _,2006

17
18

19

DA VID A. YORK LA THAM & W ATKINS 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025

20

By
21

David A. York

22
23

Attorneys for Defendants
ICS, Inc. and AP Net Marketing, Inc.

24
25

26
27 28
10

Case No. 05-CY-OI I 14 JW MOL No. 1665

Non-Infringement and Invalidity of

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of the '702 Patent

DATED: January_,2006
1

MITCHELL D. LUKIN BAKER BOTTS LLP One Shell Plaza
910 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77022

2
3

4
5

JEFFREY D. SULLIVAN MICHAEL J. MCNAMARA BAKER BOTTS LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112
STEPHEN E. TAYLOR T AYLOR & CO. LAW OFFICES, INe. One Ferry Building, Suite 355 San Francisco, California 94111
By

6
7 8

9

10
11

Mitchell D. Lukin

12
13

Attorneys for Defendant COM COMMUNICATIONS MEDIA CORPORATION, CABLE ONE INe., and CEQUEL III COMMUNICATIONS I, LLC (d/b/a CEBRIDGE CONNECTIONS).
DATED: January _,2006

14
15

16 17
18 19

SEAN DAVID GARRISON ROBERT FRANCIS COPPLE LEWIS & ROCA LLP 40 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4429

By L
Sean David Garrson
Attorneys for Defendant CABLE AMERICA CORP.

20
21

22
23

24
25

26 27
28
II

Case No. 05-CV-OI 1 14 JW MOL No. 1665

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of Non-Intė.ingement and Invalidity of the. 702 Patent

DATED: JanÜary_,2006
2
3

PATRICK J. WHALEN SPENCER FAN BRITT & BROWN LLP 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Kansas City, Missouri 64106

4
5

By

Patrick J. Whalen

6 7
8

Attorneys for Defendants NPG CABLE INC.
DATED: January _,2006

FRITZ BYERS
520 Madison Avenue

9

Toledo, Ohio 43604

10
11

By
12
13

Fritz Byers

14
15

Attorneys for Defendants BLOCK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

DATED: January_,2006

16
17
18

CHRISTOPHER B. FAGAN FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNICH & MCKEE 1100 Superior Avenue, Seventh Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2518

19

By

20
21

Christopher B. Fagan

22
23

Attorneys for Defendants ARMSTRONG GROUP; EAST CLEVELAND TV AND COMMUNICATIONS LLC; MASSILLON CABLE TV, INC.; WIDE OPEN WEST, LLC

24
25

26
27 28
~558~oi
12

ase o. 05-CY-OI 114 JW

MOL No. 1665

(Proposed) Stipulated Summary Judgment of Non-Infėingement and Invalidity of the '702 Patent