IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP

SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO COBBLESTONE’S MOTION TO MODIFY 

PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 515
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1

III. LEGAL STANDARD..........................................................................................................4

IV. ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................4

A. The Nature Of the Current Protective Order Weighs Against Modifying It ...........4

B. The Requested Modification Was Foreseeable At The Time The Order 

Issued .......................................................................................................................6

C. The Samsung Defendants Have Relied On The Current Protective Order..............9

D. There Is No Good Cause For Modification ...........................................................11

V. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................14

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 516
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,

2017 WL 772486 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017)...........................................................4, 6, 8, 9, 11

In the Matter of Certain Integrated Cirs., Mobile Devices Containing the Same, & 

Components Thereof

USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1335 (Jan. 11, 2023)........................................................................13

In the Matter of Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules & 

Components Thereof,

USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1378 (Jan. 8, 2024)..........................................................................14

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless,

Case No. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP, ECF No. 49 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2023)............................3

Diamond Consortium, Inc. v. Manookian,

2017 WL 2364040 (E.D. Tex. May 31, 2017)...........................................................................9

Infernal Technology, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc.,

Case No. 2:15-cv-01523-JRG-RSP, ECF No. 133 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017).........................10

Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,

2021 WL 3012355 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2021)....................................................................5, 7, 8

MyChoice, LLC v. Taiv, Inc.,

2024 WL 69063 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2024)................................................................................12

In re OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.,

2021 WL 4130643 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2021) .........................................................................13

Peoples v. Aldine Indep. School Dist.,

2008 WL 2571900 (S.D. Tex. June 19, 2008)...........................................................................5

Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Sys. Corp.,

2008 WL 4371679 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2008)......................................................4, 5, 8, 10, 11

Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Nokia Corp.,

2009 WL 10677277 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2009) .........................................................................9

Team Worldwide Corp. v. Walmart Inc., et al.,

2019 WL 13078780 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2019)..................................................................11, 12

United States v. Ocwen Loan Serv’g, LLC,

2016 WL 278968 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2016)........................................................................9, 11

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 517
iii

Statutes and Rules

28 U.S.C. § 1781..............................................................................................................................4

28 U.S.C. § 1782......................................................................................................................5, 6, 8

Rule 26.............................................................................................................................................1

Rule 4(f)(3) ....................................................................................................................................13

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 518
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Cobblestone chose to file three separate sets of lawsuits—two against certain wireless 

carriers, and this one against the Samsung defendants—accusing the same Samsung products of 

infringing the same patents in the same way. Knowing it had done so, Cobblestone voluntarily 

agreed to a protective order in this case that did not include a cross-use provision allowing it to use 

discovery produced in this case in the Carrier Cases—and in fact included a provision expressly 

forbidding cross-use of discovery produced in this case in any other case. Cobblestone now seeks 

to undo that decision, asking the Court to modify the protective order in this case such that 

discovery Samsung produces in this case can also be used in the Carrier Cases. Cobblestone’s 

request is improper and should be denied for failure to satisfy Rule 26 or any of the criteria courts 

consider when analyzing a request to modify a stipulated protective order. Indeed, as shown 

below, Cobblestone does not even attempt to engage with the law governing such requests. 

Additionally, Cobblestone’s proposed modification would allow it to use discovery produced by 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”)—a Korean corporation from whom third-party discovery

in the Carrier Cases is available only under the Hague Convention—without following the 

procedures laid out in that Convention. Cobblestone’s decision to file three sets of cases asserting 

the same patents against the same products, while bizarre and inefficient, may have been within 

its rights. But Cobblestone caused any perceived inefficiencies resulting from that choice. And 

certainly Cobblestone’s desire to mitigate any such inefficiencies for itself does not justify its 

requested end-run around the existing protective order, Rule 26, and the United States’s Hague 

Convention obligations. Cobblestone’s motion should be denied.

II. BACKGROUND

Cobblestone brought its first set of cases against wireless carriers (what Cobblestone calls 

the “First Carrier Actions”) on December 15 and 16, 2022, asserting four of the five patents it now 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 519
2

asserts against Samsung. Mot. at 4. Cobblestone’s complaints in the First Carrier Actions alleged 

infringement by “the tablets and phones accused of infringement in this case,” which Cobblestone 

admits “include Samsung mobile devices and base stations.” Id. at 4-5 (emphasis removed).

Cobblestone also acknowledges that it subpoenaed Samsung Electronics America (“SEA”)—

SEC’s US subsidiary—in those cases and that SEA has produced documents in response to those 

subpoenas. Id. at 5.

Cobblestone brought what it calls the Second Carrier Actions on August 25, 2023, alleging 

infringement of the fifth and final patent it now asserts against the Samsung defendants. Id. Again,

Cobblestone accused “tablets and phones . . . includ[ing] Samsung mobile devices and base 

stations.” Id. at 5-6. Cobblestone again subpoenaed SEA; the response date for those subpoenas 

has not passed. Id. at 6. While Cobblestone faults the Samsung defendants for not “agree[ing] to 

produce to Cobblestone in the Carrier Actions all of the discovery it has produced and will produce 

in this case,” Mot. at 6, it omits that its subpoenas in the Carrier Actions include no such request. 

Exs. A, B. Cobblestone also omits that the discovery it seeks from the Samsung defendants in this 

action is broader and materially different from the discovery it seeks from SEA for either Carrier 

Case subpoena. See, e.g., Ex. C (Request Nos. 18-25, 27-34, 36-62, 66-72, 74-86).

Cobblestone sued the Samsung defendants on June 16, 2023. ECF No. 1. As Cobblestone 

admits, “[t]he patents asserted against Samsung in this case are the same patents asserted in the 

Carrier Actions,” and the accused products in this case include the same mobile devices and base 

stations accused in the Carrier Cases. Mot. at 6. The parties extensively negotiated a proposed 

protective order, and on November 10, 2023 filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Disputed Protective 

Order. ECF No. 32. The sole dispute was “the number of pages of source code that may be printed 

by a party.” Id. The undisputed portion of the Protective Order included a provision prohibiting 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 520
3

using designated discovery in any other action, stating that “[d]ocuments, information or material 

produced pursuant to any discovery request in this Action, including but not limited to Protected 

Material designated as DESIGNATED MATERIAL, shall be used by the Parties only in the 

litigation of this Action and shall not be used for any other purpose.” ECF No. 32-1 ⁋ 8

(emphasis added). The Court entered the Protective Order, including that provision, on December 

1, 2023. ECF No. 36 ⁋ 8.

Thus, Cobblestone has thus far filed three sets of lawsuits accusing the same products of 

infringing the same patents. Noting the “procedural quagmire” created by “Cobblestone’s decision 

to file its cases in this piecemeal manner”—a quagmire that potentially includes up to “seven trials, 

three different scheduled Markman hearings, three different pre-trial conference dates, three 

different discovery periods, and three different rounds of potential dispositive motions before the 

Court”—the carriers moved to consolidate the Carrier Cases on December 15, 2023. See 

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Case No. 2:23-cv00382-JRG-RSP, ECF No. 49 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2023).1

 Cobblestone opposed. See id., ECF 

No. 86 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2024).

Cobblestone’s motion seeks to use discovery produced by either Samsung defendant in this 

case in the Carrier Cases. Mot. at 8. SEC is a corporation headquartered in, and organized under 

the laws of, the Republic of Korea. ECF No. 1 ⁋ 2. The United States and the Republic of Korea 

are both signatories to the 1970 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or 

Commercial Matters.2

1

 The carriers filed the same motion in each of the carrier cases.

2

 See HCCH Members https://www.hcch.net/en/states/hcch-members (last visited Mar. 7, 2024); 

see also 28 U.S.C. § 1781.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 521
4

III. LEGAL STANDARD

“In deciding whether to modify a stipulated protective order at the behest of a party that 

originally agreed to the order for reasons related to the private interests of the parties to the action,

the court considers four factors: (1) the nature of the protective order, (2) the foreseeability, at the 

time of issuance of the order, of the modification requested, (3) the parties’ reliance on the order; 

and most significantly (4) whether good cause exists for the modification.” Raytheon Co. v. Indigo 

Sys. Corp., 2008 WL 4371679, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2008) (footnote and internal quotation 

omitted).

IV. ARGUMENT

A. The Nature Of the Current Protective Order Weighs Against Modifying It

The “nature of the protective order” factor refers to the protective order’s “scope and 

whether it was court imposed or stipulated to by the parties.” Allergan, Inc. v. Teva 

Pharmaceuticals USA, 2017 WL 772486, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017) (internal quotation 

omitted). Specifically, this factor focuses on whether the protective order is (1) a “specific 

protective order[]” that “cover[s] specifically identified information”; (2) an “umbrella protective 

order[]” that “provide[s] for the designation of all discovery as protected without any screening by 

either the parties or the court”; or (3) a “blanket protective order[]” that “require[s] the parties to 

designate as protected that information that each side reasonably believes to be particularly 

sensitive.” Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2. Specific protective orders are the least prone to 

modification, umbrella protective orders are the most, and “blanket protective orders fall 

somewhere in between.” Id. This factor disfavors modification where the protective order is 

stipulated because “a party’s prior consent to the protective order will weigh against its motion for 

modification.” Peoples v. Aldine Indep. School Dist., 2008 WL 2571900, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 

19, 2008) (internal quotation omitted); Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 522
5

Here, this factor weighs against modification. The Protective Order in this case is a blanket 

protective order—it “allows the parties to designate information as protected that they, in good 

faith, deem to be worthy of heightened secrecy.” Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2; see also 

ECF No. 36 ⁋ 1. The Protective Order in this case was also stipulated, except as to one narrow 

provision (involving the number of source code pages a party can print) not implicated by 

Cobblestone’s motion. ECF Nos. 32, 32-1. In Raytheon, the court confronted a nearly identical 

situation with respect to this factor: a stipulated blanket protective order. The court there noted 

that “[t]hough blanket orders are moderately susceptible to modification, the parties stipulated to 

the protective order, and that factor weighs against modification,” ultimately concluding that “[t]he 

nature of the protective order weighs in favor of denying modification.” Raytheon, 2008 WL 

4371679, at *2. The same result is proper here.

Cobblestone’s motion does not try to analyze this factor under the proper legal standard as 

laid out in Raytheon. Instead, Cobblestone simply asserts that, because it claims the Carrier Cases 

feature “virtually identical protective orders . . . this factor [] weighs in favor of granting 

Cobblestone’s motion.” Mot. at 9. In support of this, Cobblestone cites only Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple 

Inc., 2021 WL 3012355 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2021). But Maxell was a Section 1782 opinion 

concerning Maxell’s request to use Apple’s and Intel’s previously-produced documents in a copending German litigation. Id. at *1. The court there held, after a detailed analysis of the Section 

1782 Intel factors (id. at *3-4), that “good cause exist[ed] to modify the protective order to allow 

Maxell’s narrowly tailored use of Apple and Intel’s previously produced materials.” Id. at *4. 

That Section 1782 analysis (of four entirely distinct factors from those used in analyzing motions 

to amend protective orders) has nothing to do with the facts or legal issues here. Even setting that 

aside, Cobblestone’s assertion that “the scope and breadth of the requested modified Protective 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 523
6

Order would protect Samsung’s documents and information just as forcefully as the current 

Protective Order” misses the point. Mot. at 9. The current Protective Order prevents the Samsung

defendants’ materials from being used in any other case (ECF No. 36 ⁋ 8); Cobblestone’s proposed 

modifications would allow it to use those materials in other cases, to which the Samsung 

defendants are not parties, however it saw fit. Mot. at 12. That is by definition not the same level 

of protection. Thus, the nature of the Protective Order in this case weighs against modification.

B. The Requested Modification Was Foreseeable At The Time The Order Issued

“Parties that agree to a protective order are responsible for its terms.” Allergan, 2017 WL 

772486, at *5. Cobblestone admits that the Protective Order the Court entered in this case “was 

based on a joint motion filed [by] Cobblestone and Samsung,” and does not dispute that the agreed 

portion of the Protective Order included a provision barring use of discovery produced in this case 

for any purpose other than the litigation of this case. Mot. at 9; ECF No. 32-1 ⁋ 8; ECF No. 36 

⁋ 8. But Cobblestone asserts that at the time of the joint filing (November 10, 2023), “it could not 

have known that Samsung would refuse to agree to a cross-use between this case and the related 

Carrier Actions.” Mot. at 9. The agreed facts here squarely rebut that assertion: the parties 

negotiated and stipulated to a Protective Order that expressly bans cross-use, ordering that 

documents and other information “produced pursuant to any discovery request in this Action ... 

shall be used by the Parties only in the litigation of this Action and shall not be used for any other 

purpose.” ECF No. 32-1 ⁋ 8; ECF No. 36 ⁋ 8 (emphasis added).

Thus, Cobblestone not only could have known the Samsung defendants would not agree to 

cross-use, it did know that the Samsung defendants wanted a provision prohibiting cross-use—

and Cobblestone agreed to that provision. Nor does Cobblestone’s assertion that it “could not have 

known . . . that Samsung would refuse to provide, in the Carrier Actions, the same discovery it was 

providing in this case” help its argument. Mot. at 9-10. The Samsung defendants, which are not 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 524
7

parties to the Carrier Cases, had (and have) no obligation to provide “the same discovery” in those 

cases they are “providing in this case,” where they are parties. That is particularly true because

Cobblestone is seeking materially different discovery in this action from the Samsung defendants 

compared to the subpoena it served in the Carrier Cases on SEA. Cobblestone has subpoenaed 

SEA (the US entity) in both sets of Carrier Cases; SEA has produced responsive documents in the 

first set of Carrier Cases and its production is not yet due in the second. Supra at 2. Cobblestone 

does not meaningfully argue that SEA’s productions in the Carrier Cases are deficient and, indeed,

expressly states that it is not asking the Court to compel further production from the Samsung

defendants in this case or the Carrier Cases. Mot. at 10 n.4. In any event, if Cobblestone took 

issue with the Samsung defendants’ third-party productionsin the Carrier Cases, the remedy would 

not be to circumvent the rules of discovery and allow it to use discovery from this case in those 

cases.

Again, the only case Cobblestone cites in support of its argument on this factor is Maxell, 

Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 3012355 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2021). Again, that case does not support 

Cobblestone’s position. There, Maxell filed its first German case about a month after the 

protective order was entered. Id. at *1. When Apple raised certain non-infringement positions in 

the German proceedings, Maxell sought amendment of the protective order to allow it to use 

previously-produced materials in the German case. Id. The court—after, again, a detailed analysis 

of the entirely distinct Section 1782 Intel factors—allowed Maxwell to do so. Id. at *3-5. In the 

language Cobblestone quotes, the court noted that “to require Maxell to have negotiated the 

original protective order with every possible parallel proceeding in mind is both impractical and 

burdensome.” Id. at *4. Here, no one expected Cobblestone to have “every possible parallel 

proceeding in mind” when the parties negotiated the Protective Order—just the two sets of alreadyCase 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 525
8

pending cases in which Cobblestone accused the same products of infringing the same patents. In 

stark contrast to Maxell, where the parallel German case had not yet been filed when the court 

entered the protective order at issue, here both sets of Carrier Cases were pending when the parties 

negotiated the Protective Order in this case. Supra at 2. Maxell, again, does not apply to the facts 

before the Court here.

Instead, this case is again very similar to Raytheon. There, the court phrased the 

foreseeability inquiry as “could the parties have been reasonably expected to anticipate the 

exigency which prompted the instant Motion?” Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679, at *2. With that 

standard in mind, the court found that the moving party—which sought to gain access to 

confidential materials for certain in-house employees—had known since the beginning of the case 

that those employees were accused of wrongdoing and thus that it might be useful for them to have 

access to discovery materials. Id. So too here: Cobblestone has known since it filed this case that 

it had co-pending lawsuits against the carriers in which it accused the same Samsung products of 

infringing the same patents, and nonetheless agreed to a provision that bans the type of cross-use 

it now asks the Court to allow. Supra at 2-3. “Whether [Cobblestone’s] failure to secure [its 

desired cross-use provision] was an oversight or a result of the balance struck between the parties 

regarding the competing interests addressed in the protective order, [Cobblestone] should not now 

be allowed to dramatically and unilaterally reposition that balance at this stage in the litigation.”

Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679 at *2; see also Allergan, 2017 WL 772486, at *5 (this factor weighed 

against modification where moving party’s desire to amend “was foreseeable . . . at the time [it] 

accepted the protective order as governing”); United States v. Ocwen Loan Serv’g, LLC, 2016 WL 

278968, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2016) (foreseeability factor weighed against modification where 

proposed change “was foreseeable at the time the parties negotiated and agreed to the Protective 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 526
9

Order”). This factor strongly weighs against modification.

C. The Samsung Defendants Have Relied On The Current Protective Order

“The reliance factor focuses on the extent to which the party opposing the modification 

relied on the protective order in deciding the manner in which documents would be produced in 

discovery.” Allergan, 2017 WL 772486, at *5 (quoting Ocwen Loan Serv’g, 2016 WL 278968, at 

*2). It is “presumptively unfair” to modify a protective order that assures confidentiality and on 

which the non-moving party has reasonably relied. Id. As a result, this factor weighs against 

modification where the non-moving party has “made huge documentary productions under the 

governing protective order” and did so “in reliance on the terms of” that protective order. Id. at 

*6. As Cobblestone admits, the Samsung defendants have done just that: they have produced 

nearly half a million pages of documents between them, and designated most of them as 

“Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective Order. Mot. at 7. That alone tilts this factor against 

modification. Allergan, 2017 WL 772486, at *5; see also Ocwen Loan Serv’g, 2016 WL 278968, 

at *3 (“[B]ecause Defendants relied on the Protective Order when producing documents . . . the 

third factor weighs against modification of the Protective Order.”); Saxon Innovations, LLC v. 

Nokia Corp., 2009 WL 10677277, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2009) (reliance factor weighed against 

modification where “the Court has no reason to believe that [the non-moving party] did not rely 

on [the disputed paragraph] to inform its decisions throughout fact discovery”); Diamond 

Consortium, Inc. v. Manookian, 2017 WL 2364040, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 31, 2017) (“The reliance 

factor thus weighs against modifying the protective order” because this factor “focuses on the 

extent to which the party opposing the modification relied on the protective order in deciding the 

manner in which documents would be produced in discovery” (quoting Raytheon, 2008 WL 

4371679 at *3)).

Again, Cobblestone does not meaningfully engage with the law governing this factor. 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 527
10

Instead, Cobblestone simply declares that this factor favors modification because the protective 

orders in the Carrier Cases are similar to the Protective Order in this case. Mot. at 10-11. But 

Cobblestone does not explain why that means the Samsung defendants could not have reasonably

relied on the Protective Order in this case in deciding what and how to produce in this case. And 

the only case Cobblestone cites in this section is Infernal Technology, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc., Case 

No. 2:15-cv-01523-JRG-RSP, ECF No. 133 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2017), which Cobblestone cites 

for the proposition that the “typical factors assessed by a court when deciding whether to modify 

a protective order are therefore not as salient in a case . . . where it appears that the protected 

information will in fact remain protected.” Mot. at 11. But Infernal Technology is readily 

distinguishable. There, the moving party sought to modify the protective order to “use certain 

material that has been designated confidential under the protective order in related inter partes 

review (IPR) proceedings.” Id. at 1. The Court heavily relied on the fact that the related 

proceedings were IPRs in granting the motion, noting that the non-moving party’s “complaint 

about the scope of IPR discovery is one for the Patent Office, not this Court.” Id. at 2. That case 

has no bearing here, where the related proceeding is another district court case in which the 

Samsung defendants are not parties—and in which discovery is available from SEC only via the 

Hague Convention. Cobblestone also reads the language of Infernal Technology far too broadly: 

if Cobblestone were right that this sort of modification is appropriate wherever the parallel 

proceedings also had a protective order, the effect would be to create an almost automatic crossuse provision in every case where either party wants one, even where (as here) the parties had 

previously agreed to a protective order that expressly forbids cross-use.

Thus, the Samsung defendants’ reasonable reliance on the existing Protective Order weighs 

heavily against Cobblestone’s requested modification.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 528
11

D. There Is No Good Cause For Modification

“Good cause requires changed circumstances or new situations warranting modification of 

a protective order.” Allergan, 2017 WL 772486, at *6 (quoting Ocwen Loan Serv’g, 2016 WL 

278968 at *4). “The Court must weigh the moving party’s need for modification against the other 

party’s need for protection, and ought to factor in the availability of alternatives to better achieve 

both sides’ goals.” Id. And “[b]ecause the protective order was entered for good cause, it is the 

[moving party’s] burden to establish good cause for modifying” it. Raytheon, 2008 WL 4371679 

at *3 (footnote omitted). Again, Cobblestone does not try to engage with the legal standard 

governing this factor—in other words, Cobblestone does not and cannot suggest that any changed 

circumstances warrant its proposed modification. Instead, it simply asserts that good cause exists

because the patents and products at issue in this case are the same as those at issue in the Carrier 

Cases, so allowing Cobblestone to use discovery from this case as though it was also produced in 

those cases would create efficiencies across the cases. Mot. at 11-12. But those supposed 

efficiencies (which Cobblestone itself rejected in favor of filing three sets of lawsuits and rejected 

again in opposing their consolidation) are not the sort of “changed circumstances or new 

situations” that amount to good cause to modify a stipulated protective order. Allergan, 2017 WL 

772486, at *6.

Indeed, the only case Cobblestone cites as supporting its position is Team Worldwide Corp. 

v. Walmart Inc., et al., 2019 WL 13078780 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2019). But Team Worldwide, like 

Infernal Technology, concerned use of discovery from a district court case in a parallel IPR 

proceeding, as well as an arbitration. Id. at *1. And there the Court granted only a “narrow[]” 

modification to the protective order, taking care to note that “amending the Protective Order to 

permit the use of information produced in this matter to also be used before the PTAB does not 

mean that such material is discoverable (or can in fact be used) at the PTAB” and that instead the 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 529
12

modification only meant that “should the PTAB authorize additional discovery on any documents 

covered by the Protective Order . . . TWW may produce information from this litigation without 

violating this Court’s Protective Order.” Id. at *2. Here, Cobblestone is not asking for 

authorization to use a relatively small number of documents (only 55 were at issue in Team 

Worldwide) should the Court in the Carrier Cases authorize it to do so; it is asking for blanket 

authority to use hundreds of thousands of pages (and eventually source code) produced in this case 

in other cases as it sees fit.

That would be improper even if all affected parties were US-based companies. But as 

discussed above (supra at 3-4), SEC is a Korean corporation, and thus third-party discovery is only 

available from it via the Hague Convention because “[t]he Hague Convention procedure is 

mandatory if available at the place of service.” MyChoice, LLC v. Taiv, Inc., 2024 WL 69063, at 

*2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 4, 2024) (internal quotation omitted); see also Hague Convention, 20 U.S.T. at 

362 (“The present Convention shall apply in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there 

is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.”) (emphasis added). 

Cobblestone has made no effort to serve SEC via the required Hague procedures. Instead,

Cobblestone, by asking the Court to allow it to use discovery taken from a Korean company in this 

case in other cases in which that company is not a party, seeks an end run around the Hague 

Convention’s requirements. And Cobblestone’s bare assertions that doing so would be more 

convenient (for Cobblestone) do not justify the relief it seeks. See Mot. at 11-12. The Federal 

Circuit has cautioned—albeit in the context of requests for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3)—

that the Hague Convention’s requirements cannot be avoided where they are “merely 

inconvenient.” In re OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 2021 WL 4130643, at *3–4 (Fed. 

Cir. Sept. 10, 2021). The same logic should apply here, and Cobblestone’s attempt to avoid 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 530
13

mandatory requirements imposed by a treaty to which the United States is a signatory further 

precludes a finding of good cause.

Similarly, Cobblestone’s proposed change to the Protective Order would force SEC to 

incur the significant time and expense of complying with Korean law governing the export of 

technology. The South Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (“MOTIE”) administers 

Korea’s Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection of Industrial Technology, commonly 

called the “Industrial Technology Act” or “ITA.” See Seok Hee Lee, John J. Kim & Ho-Yeon 

Lee, 2 Trade Secrets Throughout the World § 24:26 (2023). Information designated “National 

Core Technology” under the ITA may not be disclosed without the approval of MOTIE’s Industrial 

Technology Protection Committee. Id.; see also Act on Prevention of Divulgence and Protection 

of Industrial Technology, Act No. 19166, 03 Jan. 2023, Partial Amendment, Article 9-2. 

“Exporting national core technology without obtaining approval” from MOTIE is a violation of 

the ITA subject to penalties. Id. Article 14(5).

Samsung’s technical documents and source code related to 4G and 5G technology are 

designated as national core technology subject to the ITA, and ITA compliance regularly takes 

Samsung considerable time and expense when Samsung technology is at issue in U.S. litigation. 

See, e.g., In the Matter of Certain Integrated Cirs., Mobile Devices Containing the Same, & 

Components Thereof USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1335 (Jan. 11, 2023) (granting in-part mot. to 

amend procedural schedule) (noting “delay in Samsung’s ability to produce certain materials 

subject to the restrictions imposed by the Korean Ministry of Technology, Industry and Energy 

(‘MOTIE’).”); In the Matter of Certain Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Modules & 

Components Thereof, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1378 (Jan. 8, 2024) (adopting procedural schedule) 

(discussing “delays associated with obtaining approval for discovery, as many [sic] be required, 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 531
14

from the Korean Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (‘MOTIE’)”). Indeed, Samsung is

currently working through the process to secure MOTIE approval to produce documents and 

source code in this case. But MOTIE approval for such production would be limited to this case. 

If the Court granted Cobblestone’s requested cross-use provision, SEC would incur significant 

additional time and expense to secure MOTIE approval to produce the relevant documents and 

source code in the Carrier Cases as well. This additional burden further cuts against a finding of 

good cause.

Ultimately, Cobblestone asks the Court to relieve it of its obligations under the Protective 

Order in this case, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Hague Convention, and to subject 

Samsung to additional burdens under the ITA—all to ease the burden it imposed on itself by 

choosing to file three sets of cases accusing the same products of infringing the same patents.

Cobblestone has failed to show good cause for its requested modification of the Protective Order.

V. CONCLUSION

Samsung respectfully requests that the Court deny Cobblestone’s motion.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 532
15

Dated: March 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Melissa R. Smith 

Victoria F. Maroulis

California Bar No. 202603 (admitted in E.D. Tex.)

victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Tel: 650-801-5000

Fax: 650-801-5100

Sean Pak

California Bar No. 219032 (pro hac vice)

seanpak@quinnemanuel.com

Iman Lordgooei 

California Bar No. 251320 (admitted in E.D. Tex.)

imanlordgooei@quinnemanuel.com

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: 415-875-6600

Fax: 415-875-6700

Kevin Hardy

D.C. Bar No. 473941 (admitted in E.D. Tex.)

kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, 

LLP

1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 202.538.8000

Fax: 202.538.8100

Melissa R. Smith

Texas State Bar No. 24001351 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670

Phone: (903) 934-8450

Fax: (903) 934-9257

Counsel for Defendants 

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 533
16

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 534
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify 

that, on March 7, 2024, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served 

with a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

Dated: March 7, 2024 /s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 03/07/24 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 535