Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04203/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04203-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.

C 13-04203 MMC (LB)

ORDER

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOURSQUARE LABS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 13-04203 MMC (LB)

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES’

JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE

LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 20, 2014

[RE: ECF No. 105]

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC (“EI”) filed this patent lawsuit against Defendant

Foursquare Labs on the ground that the Foursquare mobile device application and merchant platform

infringed EI’s ‘536 and ‘682 patents, which describe and claim a computer-implemented method and

system for creating and manipulating information containers. See First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”), ECF No. 9 ¶¶ 8, 12; Joint Case Management Statement, ECF No. 88 at 1.1

 

The discovery dispute is about whether EI’s litigation counsel, Marie McCrary (one of several

lawyers at Gutride Safier on the case), may represent EI in pending inter partes review (“IPR”)

initiated by defendants in other cases. Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 105 at 1. Ms. McCrary had

access to Foursquare’s discovery designated “highly confidential,” which means that the protective

order arguably bars her participation in the IPR proceedings. See id. at 2. EI proposes barring her

Case 5:13-cv-04203-RMW Document 108 Filed 03/29/14 Page 1 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 13-04203 MMC (LB)

ORDER 2

from participating in any claim or amendment drafting, which is a limitation generally found

sufficient by courts in this district to allow participation subject to the limitation in an IPR initiated

by the accused infringer. See, e.g., Grobler v. Apple, Inc., No. C 12-01534 JST (PSG), 2013 WL

3359274, at *2 & n.8 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2013) (collecting cases). For the reasons set forth below,

including the fact that Ms. McCrary never substantively reviewed any of the documents and only

sorted them by category when she received them, the court allows her participation subject to the

limitation that she cannot participate in drafting or amending patent claims.

STATEMENT

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 17, 2012 in the Eastern District of Texas. See ECF No. 1. 

In October 2013, defendants in other cases (Apple, Facebook, Yelp, and Twitter) filed eight

petitions to initiate inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patents in this case. See Plaintiff’s Motion to

Amend or Clarify the Protective Order, ECF No. 101 at 9. Foursquare thereafter moved to stay the

case, and the district court stayed the case based on the case’s being in the early stage of discovery,

the likelihood that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board would institute IPR relatively expeditiously

with respect to at least one claim, and the resulting promotion of judicial economy and efficient use

of judicial resources, and Plaintiff’s not showing undue prejudice. See ECF Nos. 89, 99 at 2-3. 

Gutride Safier is EI’s lead litigation counsel. See Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 105. Three patent

lawyers there (Anthony Peck, Todd Kennedy, and Ms. McCrary) work on the case and have intimate

knowledge of the asserted patents’ subject matter. See id. at 2; Kennedy Decl., ECF No. 101-2, ¶ 4. 

Ms. McCrary is a “relatively experienced patent litigator” who “has spent many hours representing

EI in this litigation.” Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 105 at 3. Two other lawyers (Adam Gutride and

Seth Safier) are listed on the pleadings. Id. at 5. EI’s counsel explained at the hearing that the firm

has seven lawyers and focuses on class action and patent work, and Mr. Gutride and Mr. Safier are

the firm’s founders and experienced trial lawyers who generally focus on class actions. 

The documents at issue are approximately 14,000 documents produced in July 2013. Motion,

ECF No. 101 at 11. Some are marked “Highly Confidential.” Id. At the hearing, Foursquare

clarified that the documents included some highly technical and confidential documents including

design documents for various implementations, which are about designs at the heart of what

Case 5:13-cv-04203-RMW Document 108 Filed 03/29/14 Page 2 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 13-04203 MMC (LB)

ORDER 3

Foursquare is about and provide details about systems that will be implemented in the future. The

production also includes depositions of persons most knowledgeable who are technical witnesses.

Ms. McCrary spent 7.6 hours reviewing the 14,000 documents. See Joint Letter Brief, ECF No.

105 at 3. At the hearing, Foursquare pointed out that this description gives no insight into what Ms.

McCrary reviewed and how EI might use that review. It noted that her access to the documents was

undisputed and pointed out that it allowed Mr. Peck and Mr. Kennedy to participate because they

had not reviewed, and promised that they would not review, any documents. See id. at 2. Ms.

McCrary responded, as she previously responded in her declaration, that she merely sorted the

production by categories into folders based on broad categories such as “deposition transcripts,”

“emails,” and “technical documents.” See McCrary Decl., ECF No. 101-1 at 2. She gave the

documents only a cursory review and did not prepare any written notes or summaries of the

documents. Id. She clarified at the hearing that she did not review the contents of the documents

and characterized her work as sorting into broad categories. She explained that she verified this by

going back to her contemporaneous records and checking that she made no work product notes,

which she would have done for any content review. She has not looked at the documents since her

sorting of them. She basically said that she had no knowledge of the documents’ contents. 

EI says that Ms. McCrary’s role will be limited to defending the currently-existing patent claims

against the allegations raised by the Petitioners in the IPR petitions. See Motion, ECF No. 101 at 15. 

She will not participate in drafting or amending claims. Id. At the hearing, EI said that it would

exclude her from all decisions “in any way, shape, or form” regarding claim drafting and

amendment. See Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 105 at 3 (making similar point). She will not prosecute

the patents. Her tasks are nearly identical to the tasks that she will perform in this litigation,

“includ[ing], for example, participating in: (i) preparing declarations for the witnesses of the patent

owner; (ii) defending depositions of the patent owner’s witnesses; (iii) reviewing documents of the

inventor pertinent to issues in both the litigation and the IPR; (iv) reviewing the prior art raised in

the IPR petitions; (v) taking depositions of the Petitioner’s declarants; and (vi) discussing with EI’s

patent counsel responses to arguments advanced by Petitioners. See ECF No. 101 at 16. 

Case 5:13-cv-04203-RMW Document 108 Filed 03/29/14 Page 3 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 The parties do not really dispute that the prosecution bar applies in IPR proceedings. Some

courts have rejected the application of the prosecution bar to reexamination or review proceedings

because neither permits broadening of patent claims. See Software Rights, 2014 WL 116366, at *2. 

But claims may be restructured in those proceedings in a way that would benefit from access to an

alleged infringer’s proprietary information, and IPR proceedings “carry the potential to

modify–directly or indirectly–the scope or maintenance of patent claims.” Id. at *2-*3. 

C 13-04203 MMC (LB)

ORDER 4

Foursquare offered to allow Ms. McCrary to participate in the IPR if EI agreed not to amend any

claims during the IPR. Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 105 at 2. EI refused the offer but pointed out

that it has no right to amend the claims, must file a motion to do so, and bears the burden to prove

that the proposed amendment is supported by the initial written description and is narrower in scope

than the claim being amended. Id. at 3. It said at the hearing that even if Ms. McCrary had accessed

confidential information, which she did not, the risk of its use was exceedingly unlikely. See id.

Paragraph 8 of the Model Protective Order (the “MPO”), which is in place pursuant to N.D. Cal.

Patent L.R. 2-2, bars attorneys who have had access to highly confidential information from

participating in “prosecution” of applications directed to the subject matter of the disclosed

documents. See Joint Letter Brief at 2. “Prosecution” includes “drafting, amending, advising, or

otherwise affecting the scope or maintenance of patent claims” in, “for example, original

prosecution, reissue and reexamination proceedings.” Id.

ANALYSIS

“[T]he party seeking an exemption from a patent prosecution bar must show on a counsel-by

counsel basis: (1) that counsel’s representation of the client in the PTO does not and is not likely to

implicate competitive decisionmaking related to the subject matter of the litigation so as to give rise

to a risk of inadvertent use of confidential information learned in litigation, and (2) that the potential

injury to the moving party from restrictions imposed on its choice of litigation and prosecution

outweighs the potential injury to the opposing party caused by such inadvertent use.” In re Deutsche

Bank Trust Co. Americas, 605 F. 3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Any prosecution bar should

serve only to mitigate the risk of inadvertent use of proprietary information by a patentee, not to

unduly burden a patentee with additional expense.” Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook,

Inc., No. C 12-3970 RMW (PSG), 2014 WL 116366, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014).2

Case 5:13-cv-04203-RMW Document 108 Filed 03/29/14 Page 4 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 13-04203 MMC (LB)

ORDER 5

If Foursquare were a party to the IPR proceedings, the limitations proposed by EI to Ms.

McCrary’s involvement would be sufficient, as the IPR proceeding and this litigation would be “two

fronts in the same battle.” Id. at 3. That would mean that “allowing a limited role for a patentee’s

litigation counsel while prohibiting counsel from crafting or amending claims is reasonable.” Id.

That result is grounded in considerations of fairness: it would not be fair to allow a defendant to file

for reexamination while excluding plaintiff’s counsel from participating in the reexamination,

thereby forcing a plaintiff to defend a patent in two forums with two teams of attorneys. See id.

That fairness concern–about a defendant’s litigating in two forums, interfering with a plaintiff’s

choice of counsel, and forcing a defense with two different legal teams in two forums–is not present

here because Foursquare did not initiate the IPR and is not participating in it. On the other hand,

Foursquare potentially can take advantage of the efforts of the other defendants in the IPR

proceedings while avoiding the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) in this litigation. 

In the end, the court finds EI’s proposed limitation to Ms. McCrary’s participation reasonable

and sufficient given that she only sorted documents into folders and did not review the contents of

the documents. The modest time she spent for 14,000 documents supports her representations, as

does her double-checking of her records to confirm that she did not engage in a content review. The

court also is persuaded by EI’s showing about the burden given eight IPR petitions asserted by four

defendants in other litigation. Ms. McCrary may participate in the IPR proceeding with the

limitation that she cannot participate in any way with any crafting or amendment of patent claims. 

See Grobler, 2013 WL 3359274, at *2. 

In reaching this conclusion, the court finds relevant Foursquare’s offer of allowing Ms.

McCrary’s participation if EI agreed not to draft new claims or claim amendments during the IPR. 

See Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 105 at 2. The issue is whether relevant highly-confidential

information could be helpful in drafting new claims or claim amendments, and the court concludes

that it could. See Software Rights, 2014 WL 116366, at *2. -*3. But just as not drafting new claims

or claims amendments addresses the risks, so too does Ms. McCrary’s lack of knowledge about the

content of the highly-confidential information. The court appreciates Foursquare’s concern

(articulated at the hearing) about how can it be sure, but the risk of uncertainty about counsel’s not

Case 5:13-cv-04203-RMW Document 108 Filed 03/29/14 Page 5 of 6
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C 13-04203 MMC (LB)

ORDER 6

complying with his or her obligations is present in any litigation. And counsel is presumed to

comply with her obligations and the court’s orders. Moreover, nothing in Ms. McCrary’s

declaration under penalty of perjury or her statements at the hearing raised any concerns, and indeed,

her declaration and representations assuage any concerns and are sufficient to establish the

reasonableness of EI’s proposed limitation on her participation in the IPR. 

CONCLUSION

The court grants EI’s motion to allow modification of the protective order’s prosecution bar and

allows Ms. McCrary to participate in the IPR proceeding with the limitation that she cannot

participate in any way in any crafting or amendment of patent claims. Also, she cannot review

Foursquare’s highly-confidential information. This disposes of ECF No. 105.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2014 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04203-RMW Document 108 Filed 03/29/14 Page 6 of 6