Welcome To The Quarterhill Inc. HUB On AGORACOM

Intellectual Licenses for Electronics & Communications

Free
Message: WI-LAN’S MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR SUPP. DAMAGES, ONGOING ROYALTY AND PRE- AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

WI-LAN’S MEMO. ISO MOTION FOR  SUPP. DAMAGES, ONGOING ROYALTY AND PRE- AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

-16- Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-


WI-LAN document ...

Wi-LAN submits this memorandum in support of its motion seeking: (1) an award of supplemental damages sustained by Wi-LAN for Apple’s sales of infringingiPhones for the period of August 1, 2018 through the date the final judgment is entered; (2) an ongoing royalty at $0.85; (3) an award of prejudgment interest based on the California statutory rate of 7% per annum; and (4) an award of post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).


I. WI-LAN IS ENTITLED TO SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES

In this case, Wi-LAN sought compensatory damages from Apple for patent infringement. On August 1, 2018, the jury found that Apple had infringed Wi-LAN’s valid U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,457,145 and 8,537,757 (the “Asserted Patents”) with the following iPhone models with Qualcomm modems: 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus(collectively, the “Adjudicated Products”). The jury awarded $145,100,000 in damages to Wi-LAN to compensate for infringement with the Adjudicated Products through August 1, 2018. In this motion, Wi-LAN requests that the Court award supplemental damages based on post-verdict infringement by Apple up to the time of judgment.

Patent infringement is a continuing tort. The Patent Act provides that, “ponfinding for the claimant, the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for theuse made of the invention by the infringer.” 35 U.S.C. § 284. The methodologies ofassessing and computing damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 are within the discretion of the Court. TVM Mfg. Co. v. Dura Corp., 789 F.2d 895, 898 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Exercising that discretion, many courts have recognized that a patentee is entitled to anaward of damages to compensate for a defendant’s continued infringing sales during

thetime period between the date of the jury’s verdict and the date of judgment. Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1212-13 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“a patentee is ‘not fully compensated’ if ‘the damages award did not include future lost sales’”) (citation omitted); Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1303 (Fed Cir. 2009) (“A damages award for pre-verdict sales of the infringing product does not fully compensate the patentee because it fails to account for post-verdict sales of repairparts”); Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 723 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1329 (S.D. Cal. 2010), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012).The Patent Act also similarly provides that when “the damages are not found by a jury,the court shall assess them.” 35 U.S.C. § 284.

The jury’s $145,100,000 verdict extinguished Wi-LAN’s claim for infringementof the Asserted Patents with the Adjudicated Products through August 1, 2018. However, the jury verdict did not extinguish Wi-LAN’s claim for Apple’s continuingpost-verdict infringement, as that claim was not considered by the jury.1 Because the jury verdict did not adjudicate Wi-LAN’s claim for post-verdict damages, that claim remains for adjudication up to the time of final judgment. Wi-LAN requests an award of supplemental damages for the Adjudicated Products in the amount of   per day from August 1, 2018, through the date of final judgment. (See Declaration ofDavid Kennedy (“Kennedy Decl.”) at § 2, Exs. A-C.) The amount of daily post-verdict damages is calculated by applying the $0.85 royalty rate (necessarily found by the jury in its verdict of $145,100,000) to the extrapolated daily estimate of additional infringing units (necessarily found by the jury in its verdict of $145,100,000). (Id.)

II. WI-LAN IS ENTITLED TO AN ONGOING ROYALTY FOR APPLES CONTINUED SALE OF INFRINGING IPHONES

In the absence of an injunction, a patentee is entitled to receive ongoing royalties to compensate for the infringement. See, e.g., Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504
F.3d 1293, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 609 F. Supp. 2d 620, 630 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (awarding running royalties on remand). As with injunctive relief, ongoing royalties are equitable in nature and may be imposed by the district court without a trial by jury. Paice, 504 F.3d at 1315-16. Given that Wi-LAN has withdrawn its request for a permanent injunction, it is appropriate for the Court to assess ongoing royalties for future sales of infringing products after final judgment. See Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that an “award of an ongoing royalty is appropriate because the record supports the district court’s finding that Telcordia has not been compensated for Cisco’s continuing infringement”). Below, Wi-LAN addresses both the ongoing royalty rate and the royalty base of additional infringing products.

A. Ongoing Royalty Rate

The framework for determining the ongoing royalty is generally the same as for a reasonable royalty, with focus on the Georgia-Pacific factors. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 12-CV-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 6687122, at *13-14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2014) (“Generally, the jury’s damages award is a starting point for evaluatingongoing royalties”). But instead of looking to the original hypothetical negotiation taking place at the time of first infringement (in this case September 2014), courts look to a second hypothetical negotiation following the verdict to evaluate whether any changed circumstances warrant departing from the jury rate. Id. at *15.

The Federal Circuit has held that there “is a fundamental difference . . . between a reasonable royalty for pre-verdict infringement and damages for post-verdict infringement.” Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Paice, 504 F.3d at 1317 (“pre-suit and post-judgment acts of infringement aredistinct, and may warrant different royalty rates given the change in the parties’ legal relationship and other factors”). Given that “[p]rior to judgment, liability forinfringement, as well as the validity of the patent, is uncertain, and damages are determined in the context of that uncertainty,” Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362, courts routinely set the ongoing royalty rate above the jury verdict rate. See Creative Internet Adver. Corp. v. Yahoo! Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 847, 861 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (“The Federal Circuit has instructed that post-verdict infringement should typically entail a higher royalty rate than the reasonable royalty found at trial”); see also Telcordia Tech. Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 04-876-GMS, 2014 WL 1457797, at *5 (D. Del. Apr. 14, 2014) (setting ongoing royalty rates at 1% and 1.25%, above the jury rate of 0.64%); I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc., No. 11-512, 2014 WL 309245, at *2-4 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2014) (setting ongoing royalty rate at 6.5%, above the jury rate of 3.5%); Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 838 F. Supp. 2d 259, 276 (D. Del. 2012) (setting ongoing royalty rate at 32%, above the jury rate of 2.95%); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. BMW N. Am., LLC, 783 F. Supp. 2d 891, 901 (E.D. Tex. 2011) (noting that courts “have commonly awarded post-trial premiums in the range of 33% to 50% of the royalty rate for past damages found by the jury”); Paice, 609 F. Supp. 2d at 630 (setting ongoing royalty rate at $98 per unit, above the jury rate of $25 per unit).

Although it is well within the Court’s discretion to order a similar increase to the $0.85 jury rate, Wi-LAN conservatively requests only the same rate for the ongoing royalty as the $0.85 jury rate. Mr. Kennedy has reanalyzed the Georgia-Pacific factors to determine whether any change in circumstances between the original hypothetical negotiation at the time of first infringement and a second hypothetical negotiation at the time of verdict warrants a change in the reasonable royalty rate. He concludes that there is no material change for any of the fifteen factors. (See Kennedy Decl. at §§ 4.2, 4.3.) The Court should accordingly set the ongoing royalty rate at $0.85 per unit. (Id. at § 4.4.)

B. Additional Infringing Products

The jury found that Apple infringes the Asserted Patents with the Adjudicated Products. Apple will continue to sell Adjudicated Products, and Wi-LAN is entitled to an ongoing royalty of $0.85 per unit for those sales. For the convenience of the Court and the parties, in the absence of actual Apple sales data Mr. Kennedy has estimated the total number of Adjudicated Products that will be sold going forward from the jury’sverdict on August 1, 2018, through the likely phasing out of these products at the end of2019 per Apple’s usual product life cycle: (Kennedy Decl. Ex. B.) Given that Wi-LAN seeks the same royalty rate of $0.85 per unit for Adjudicated Products during the pre-judgment and post-judgment periods, the Court has the option of ordering a lump-sum royalty payment on all of these post-verdict Adjudicated Products, which is

This will simplify proceedings by eliminating the need for periodic accounting on these products going forward.

Additionally, subsequent to those Adjudicated Products, Apple has released other iPhone products, including the iPhone 8, 8 Plus, X, XS, XS Max, and XR (collectively,“Unadjudicated Products”). These products all support VoLTE and thus, with respectto infringement in this case, are not more than colorably different from the Adjudicated Products. (See Trial Tr. at 859:21-25.)

2 Where a court orders an ongoing monetary award in lieu of an injunction, the award of ongoing royalties extends not only to infringing products but also to products not more than colorably different from the infringing products. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13-CV-211, 2014 WL 12672822, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2014) (applying ongoing royalty to unadjudicated products

2 See also https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203078; https://www.apple.com/iphone/compare/; https://www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/

(showing that the 8, 8 Plus, X, XS, XS Max, and XR products all support VoLTE). There is no reason to believe that the Unadjudicated

Products are colorably different than the Adjudicated Products with respect to infringement because both the Unadjudicated and Adjudicated Products support VoLTE. Apple has previously considered its VoLTE products as a group with respect to infringement. (Trial Tr. 966:1-9; 1012:14-25) (Apple’s non-infringement experts considering all of the VoLTE adjudicated products as a group for infringement or non-infringement); that incorporate the infringing features FaceTime and VPN On Demand). The lastAsserted Patent to expire, the ’757 Patent, expires on December 21, 2021. (ECF 328-03 at 488 (Ex. 26, Gunderson Report).) Wi-LAN is thus entitled to an ongoing royalty on these Unadjudicated Products through December 21, 2021.

III. WI-LAN IS ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Upon a finding of patent infringement, “the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement . . . together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.” 35 U.S.C. § 284. The Supreme Court has instructed that “prejudgment interest should be awarded under § 284 absent some justification for withholding such an award.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 657 (1983). This is because “[a]n award of interest from the time that the royalty payments would have been received merely serves to make the patent owner whole, since his damages consist not only of the value of the royalty payments but also of the forgone use of the money between the time of infringement and the date of the judgment.” Id. at 655-56. Thus, “prejudgment interest is the rule, not the exception.” Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding abuse of discretion in denying prejudgment interest).

Apple has reaped the financial benefits of its infringement for over four years. Beginning with the release of its first infringing iPhone in September 2014, Apple released new infringing iPhones every year without compensating Wi-LAN for its unauthorized use of Wi-LAN’s patented inventions. Apple’s conduct reinforces the importance of awarding Wi-LAN prejudgment interest at a meaningful interest rate (and appropriately compounded) to address the delay in Wi-LAN’s duly owed royalty payment. To make Wi-LAN whole, the Court should award Wi-LAN prejudgment interest at the California statutory rate of seven percent interest per annum.


A. Wi-LAN Should Be Awarded Interest At The California Statutory Rate Of Seven Percent Per Annum

“Prejudgment interest runs from the earliest date of infringement for any patent issued at the time of the hypothetical negotiation.” Comcast IP Holdings I LLC v.Sprint Commc’ns Co., L.P., 850 F.3d 1302, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The rate at which prejudgment interest accrues is a matter left to the discretion of the court. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. v. Dart Indus., Inc., 862 F.2d 1564, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1988). To that end, courts “often use the statutory rate in the state in which they sit to calculate an award of prejudgment interest.” Brooktree Corp. v. Adv. Micro Devices, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 1101, 1103 (S.D. Cal. 1990).

The California statutory rate is seven percent per annum. See Cal. Const. Art. XC, § 1 (“The rate of interest upon the loan or forbearance of any money, goods, or things in action, or on accounts after demand, shall be 7 percent per annum”).

An award of prejudgment interest at seven percent per annum is warranted as courts routinely award the statutory rate. Further, Wi-LAN’s (and Apple’s) typical penalties for unpaid royalty payments are commiserate with, and often exceed, seven percent interest.

Wi-LAN’s lending practices and Wi-LAN’s weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”) during the period of infringement also justify the statutory rate. At a minimum, the Court should award Wi-LAN prejudgment interest at no lower than the applicable prime rates during the period of infringement. (See Kennedy Decl. Ex. H.)

This Court and other federal courts in California have routinely awarded prejudgment interest based upon the California statutory rate.

See, e.g., Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01781-HZ, 2018 WL 1805102, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2018); KFx Med. Corp. v. Arthrex Inc., No. 11CV1698 DMS (BLM), 2014 WL 11961953, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2014) (Sabraw, J.), aff’d, 589 F. App’x 538 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Carl Zeiss Vision Int’l GMBH v. Signet Armorlite, Inc., Case No. 07cv0894 DMS (DHB), ECF No. 1558 (S.D. Cal. Jul.27, 2012) (Sabraw, J.); Presidio, 723 F. Supp. 2d at 1330; Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Network Sols., Inc., No. 2:04CV01971MCEEFB, 2009 WL 981843, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009); Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05CV1958-B (BLM), 2007 WL 9677112, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2007), report and recommendation adopted, No. 05-CV-1958RMB (BLM), 2007 WL 4351017 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2007); In re Hayes Microcomputer Prod., Inc. Patent Litig., 766 F. Supp. 818 (N.D. Cal. 1991), aff’d, 982 F.2d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Brooktree, 757 F. Supp. at 1103. Consistent with this practice, Wi-LAN requests that the Court apply the California statutory rate of seven percent per annum for calculating its award of prejudgment interest.

1. The Parties’ license agreement penalties for overdue royalty payments are commiserate and/or exceed the statutory rate A review of the Parties’ key licensing agreements demonstrates that both Wi- LAN and Apple often negotiate for interest rates for past-due royalty payments at or above seven percent. Here, awarding Wi-LAN an interest rate similar to those found for late royalty payments in the Parties’ license agreements provides a good indication of the rate Apple should have to pay for its failure to pay Wi-LAN royalty payments over the period of infringement. See, e.g., Wordtech Sys., 2009 WL 981843, at *7(holding that “the California statutory rate for liquidated amounts, which is sevenpercent and falls in the mid-range of those rates charged for timely and past-due royalty payments, will adequately compensate Plaintiff for the instant infringement.”).


2. Wi-LAN’s lending practices justify an award at the California statutory rate

Wi-LAN’s lending practices also justify an award of the statutory interest rate. For example, on October 19, 2012, Wi-LAN advanced a loan of $1,000,000 toMontebello Technologies LLC (“Montebello”) with a maturity date of October 18, 2017. (Yim Decl. Ex. 8 (Wi-LAN 2015 Annual Report) at 46-47.) The loan was collateralized by a general security agreement and bore interest at 15% per annum, compounded annually. (Id.) In the present lawsuit, Wi-LAN effectively gave Apple an unsecured loan for the period of infringement (which largely overlaps with the Montebello loan). To that end, an award of the California statutory rate of seven percent—which is less than half of the interest rate Wi-LAN received on its collateralized loan to Montebello—is reasonable and well-supported.

3. Wi-LAN’s WACC justifies an award at the California statutory rate

Finally, Wi-LAN’s WACC further justifies an award of prejudgment interest at the California statutory rate. A company’s WACC represents the cost to that business for financing its operations. (Kennedy Decl. ¶ 9.) Wi-LAN’s WACC provides anappropriate benchmark for calculating the applicable prejudgment interest rate because it represents Wi-LAN’s cost of obtaining debt and equity financing in the absence of theroyalties it would have recovered from Apple. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11) Here, Wi-LAN’s average WACC over the period of infringement was approximately 11%—well above the California statutory rate. (Id. ¶ 12, Ex. G.) For this additional reason, the Court should award Wi-LAN prejudgment interest at seven percent.


B. Wi-LAN Is Entitled To Compounding Interest

Wi-LAN seeks an award of prejudgment interest at the California statutory rate of seven percent interest per annum.3 Wi-LAN’s request is conservative, as the decision to award compound or simple prejudgment interest is a matter left to the discretion of the district court and courts routinely award compounding prejudgment interest. See, e.g., Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co., 898 F.2d 787, 791 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (affirming award of compounded prejudgment interest). Courts “have recognized that compounding is necessary to fully compensate the patentee.” Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 67 F. Supp. 3d 1100, 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (citation omitted). This is “ecause a patentee’s damages include the foregone use of money, compounding is needed to account for the time value of money.” Id. (citation omitted);see also Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“It has been recognized that ‘an award of compound rather than simple interest assures that the patent owner is fully compensated.’”) (citation omitted); Stryker Corp. v. Intermedics Orthopedics, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 751, 833 (E.D.N.Y. 1995), aff’d, 96 F.3d 1409 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“The Court also believes that the prejudgment interest awarded to [patentee] should be compounded, because the incremental profits [patentee] would have earned on the lost sales over the infringement period would have been invested in a manner resulting in yearly accrued growth.”). Indeed, Apple itself has endorsed the use of compounding interest in seeking an award of prejudgment interest in Apple v. Samsung. See Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK, ECF No. 1897-3, at *31

3 It is common practice for courts to award seven percent simple interest per annum— which is consistent with the text of the statute—when awarding the California statutory rate. See, e.g., In re Hayes, 766 F. Supp. at 825 (holding “[t]he interest awarded shall be at seven (7) percent simple interest per annum”); see also In re Zenovic, 727 F. App’x 369, 370 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding no abuse of discretion in award of “prejudgment interest at the California rate of seven percent per annum.”); In re Wage, No. 1:07-CV-01314-SAB, 2016 WL 4087468, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2016) (holding "the Court shall award interest at a rate of 7 percent per annum.”). (requesting award of compounded prejudgment interest). Here, while Wi-LAN only seeks 7% interest per annum, should the Court decide to award Wi-LAN a lower rate (for example, the prime rate), then an award of compounding (not simple) prejudgment interest would fairly compensate Wi-LAN.

Compounding interest on a quarterly basis is appropriate to compensate Wi-LAN for “the forgone use of the money between the time of infringement and the date of thejudgment.” Gen. Motors Corp, 461 U.S. at 655. Courts regularly award prejudgment interest that is compounded quarterly. See, e.g., Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H., 862 F.2d at 1580 (affirming award of prejudgment interest compounded quarterly); Fujifilm Corp. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 182 F. Supp. 3d 1014,1043 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (same);Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. MOC Prod. Co., Inc., No. 09CV1887 JLS (MDD), 2013 WL 12064544, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2013) (same); Atmel Corp., 202 F. .4 Supp. 2d at 1101 (same).

4 Prejudgment interest could also be compounded annually, as courts have awarded prejudgment interest compounded annually using both the California statutory rate and While Wi-LAN is entitled to the higher WACC rate as shown by the evidence discussed above, as well as to quarterly or annual compounding, Wi-LAN seeks only the more conservative California statutory rate of seven percent interest per annum. Wi-LAN respectfully submits that this amount will fairly compensate it for the forgone use of the damages for the Adjudicated Products between the time of infringement and the date of the judgment per 35 U.S.C. § 284.


IV. WI-LAN IS ENTITLED TO POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST

Wi-LAN is also entitled to an award of post-judgment interest. “Postjudgment interest is awarded on monetary judgments recovered in all civil cases.” Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 180 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “[T]he purpose of postjudgment interest is to compensate the successful plaintiff for being deprived of compensation for the loss from the time between the ascertainment of the damage and the payment by the defendant.” Id. (citing Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 836 (1990)). The determination of post-judgment interest is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), which provides: Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court. . . . Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1- year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment.

Id. Accordingly, the Court should award Wi-LAN post-judgment interest at the statutory rate as of the date the Court enters the final judgment.the prime rate. See, e.g., Columbia Sportswear, 2018 WL 1805102, at *2 (awarding California statutory rate of seven percent, compounded annually); Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc., 198 F. Supp. 3d 1089, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (awarding prime rate,compounded annually).
 

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant this motion and order: (1) that Apple pay an additional amount of royalties for sales of Adjudicated Products occurring after August 1, 2018, which includes both supplemental damages and an ongoing royalty of $0.85 for Adjudicated Products through their projected discontinuation; (2) an ongoing royalty of $0.85 per Unadjudicated Product; (3) prejudgment interest based on the California statutory rate of 7% per annum; and (4) post-judgment interest per 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

Dated: October 26, 2018

Respectfully,

By: /s/Allison Goddard

Allison H. Goddard (211098) [email protected] PATTERSON LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101

(619) 398-4760
 (619) 756-6991 (facsimile)

Mike McKool [email protected] Ashley N. Moore [email protected] Warren Lipschitz [email protected] McKOOL SMITH,

P.C.
 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201
 (214) 978-4000
 (214) 978-4044 (facsimile)

Brett Cooper [email protected] Jonathan Yim

-14- Case No. 3:14-cv-01507-DMS-BLM


[email protected] Kevin Schubert [email protected] Drew B. Hollander [email protected] Christopher McNett

[email protected] McKOOL SMITH, P.C.

One Bryant Park, 47th Floor New York, NY 10036
 (212) 402-9400
 (212) 402-9444 (facsimile)

Steven J. Pollinger [email protected] Seth Hasenour [email protected] MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, TX 78701
 (512) 692-8700
 (512) 692-8744 (facsimile)

Attorneys for Wi-LAN Inc.

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 26, 2018, I caused a copy of this pleading to be delivered via CM/ECF on the counsel of record.

Dated: October 26, 2018

 

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply