IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00454 JRG-RSP 

(LEAD CASE)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY; ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00457-JRG-RSP

(MEMBER CASE)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT MOTION FOR PARTIALLY DISPUTED ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”) and Defendants Cisco Systems, Inc., 

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and Aruba Networks, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) 

(collectively, the “Parties”) file this Joint Motion for entry of the attached partially disputed 

Protective Order. In accordance with the Court’s Order of December 19, 2023 (Dkt. No. 37), the 

Parties submit to the Court their competing proposal as Exhibit A and provide a summary of their 

disagreements below:

I. Location of Code Production 10(a)

A. Plaintiff’s Summary of Disagreement

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 202
Cobblestone’s proposal that Defendants host the stand-alone computer in Los Angeles is 

reasonable. Source code restrictions are exceptional requests in the context of Rules 26 and 34, 

which impose real burdens on plaintiffs. The burden rests with Defendants seeking this restriction 

to establish good cause. Cobblestone’s attorneys are primarily based in Los Angeles. Cobblestone 

anticipates disclosing code reviewers who are also based out of Los Angeles, such as Mr. Matthew 

K. McKune of Manheim Consulting. Counsel for Defendants, Duane Morris, also has an office in 

Los Angeles. Their website for the Los Angeles office indicates they have over two dozen 

attorneys. Thus, source code review should be hosted in Los Angeles. 

Defendants’ proposal to make code review available in Texas is not reasonable in light of 

these facts. Travel to and from Texas imposes substantial burdens on Plaintiff’s counsel and 

experts. Defendants’ request would hinder Plaintiff’s effective preparation of its case. For instance, 

it makes it far more costly for attorneys to join an expert to look at and discuss code together. It 

also imposes substantial financial costs on Plaintiff. For Defendants, the burden of producing at 

its Los Angeles office is trivial, given a firm and staff of Duane Morris’s size. To the extent 

Defendants are concerned about where third parties need to make code available, that concern is 

premature. Plaintiff remains open to meet and confer with those third parties at that time.

Courts have required defendants to make source code review available at locations 

convenient for the plaintiff where it makes sense to do so. See, e.g., N.D. Cal. Model Protective 

Order at n.15 (“Any source code produced in discovery shall be made available for inspection...at 

a location that is reasonably convenient for the Receiving Party and any experts to whom the source 

code may be disclosed. This alternative may be appropriate if the Producing Party and/or its 

counsel are located in a different jurisdiction than counsel and/or experts for the Receiving 

Party.”); ImmersionVision, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-1484, D.I. 136 (D. Del. Aug. 4, 2023) 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 203
(ordering defendant to produce source code both in Delaware (where plaintiff’s counsel was 

located) and Santa Monica (where plaintiff’s expert was located)).

Source code of Defendants should therefore be made available in Los Angeles.

B. Defendants’ Position Statement 

In these cases, Cobblestone selected Texas as its forum of choice, yet it demands that 

Defendants Cisco and HPE present their highly confidential source code for review in Los 

Angeles, California, rather than Texas, simply for the convenience of Plaintiff’s counsel because 

that is where they reside and “traveling to Texas at the end of fact discovery would be too 

burdensome.” Aside from this complaint, Cobblestone has not presented any other reason for 

departing from the protective order provision it agreed to in its case against Samsung and in its 

cases against T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon which both provide: “Source Code Computer(s) will 

be made available for inspection at the offices of outside counsel or any other mutually agreedupon location.” Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRGRSP, Dkt. 36 at 7 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2023); Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 

No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP (Lead Case), Dkt. 77 at 7 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2023). 

Cisco and HPE contend that, under the circumstances of this case, source code should be 

made available at its counsel’s offices in Texas, which have appropriate staffing and resources to 

handle source code reviews. While Defendants’ counsel has an office in the Los Angeles area, that 

office does not have similar personnel and resources available for a source code review. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s convenience is insufficient to require Defendants to produce highly sensitive 

code in Los Angeles when no one from Defendants’ counsel’s Los Angeles office is working on 

the case and the case has no connection to Los Angeles. See Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd.., No. 

2:05-cv-00520-DF, Dkt. 101 at 6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007) (denying request for production of 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 204
source code in Los Angeles where “[d]efendants state there is no one in the Los Angeles office 

working on this case, and this case has no connection to Los Angeles”). Accordingly, Cisco and 

HPE request that the Court adopt Defendants’ proposed provision, which is consistent with this 

Court’s Sample Protective Order for Patent Cases and identifies that the code will be made 

available in Texas.

II. Source Code Pages 10(h)

A. Plaintiff’s Summary of Disagreement

Cobblestone’s proposal that Defendants presumptively provide 800 pages of source code 

printouts is reasonable. Cobblestone does not know the volume of Cisco/HPE and any third 

parties’ code production, but anticipates it could be quite voluminous. Cobblestone’s infringement 

contentions have identified at least 31 of Defendants’ products at issue. As discovery progresses, 

Cobblestone anticipates that it may need to request more than 800 pages of printouts given the 

complexity of the accused technology (80+80 MHz). Defendants lack good basis for its request to 

limit source code printouts presumptively to 500 pages. In the case Video Solutions Pte. Ltd. v. 

Cisco Systems, Inc., no source code page limits were ordered at all. See No. 23-222-JRG, Dkt. No. 

34 at 6-7 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2023). Thus, it is not reasonable for Cobblestone to be limited to 

merely 500 total pages of Source Code Material. 

The 800 pages of code Cobblestone requests is typical in cases of this level of complexity 

and higher page limits have been appropriate in cases involving some of the same patents. In 

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., the parties agreed that Cobblestone could 

request 1,500 pages of code. See No. 2:22-cv-477, Dkt. No. 77 at 10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2023). In 

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., the Court ordered that 

Cobblestone could request 1,000 pages code. See No. 2:23-cv-285, Dkt. No. 36 at 10 (E.D. Tex. 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 205
Dec. 1, 2023). To the extent Defendants attempt to distinguish these cases based on the quantity 

of patents asserted, that is not the proper metric. What matters is the volume of the code production, 

and the differences of code between each accused product or version, which Defendants have 

provided Plaintiff with no information. 

Again, source code restrictions are exceptional requests and Defendants have failed to 

demonstrate good cause in light of Cobblestone’s needs.

B. Defendants’ Position Statement 

Defendants have informed Plaintiff that the relevant source code resides with third-party 

chipset suppliers. If Plaintiff seeks source code from third-party chipset suppliers, it will then likely 

negotiate protective orders with those third-parties to dictate the terms of that discovery. See e.g.,

Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00203-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 48 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2023) 

(motion for entry of supplemental protective order for third-party Texas Instruments); Bell 

Northern Research, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-00286-JRG, Dkt. 61 (E.D. Tex. 

July 28, 2020) (motion for entry of supplemental protective order for third-party Qualcomm). The 

present dispute, however, is focused on Defendants Cisco’s and HPE’s source code production, if 

required. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s request to print 800 pages of code per Defendant is 

unreasonable because of the limited scope of this single patent case involving no more than seven 

patent claims. This is in stark contrast to this Court’s limit of 1,000 total pages in Cobblestone v. 

Samsung, which involves five asserted patents. No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 36 at 10 (E.D. 

Tex. Dec. 1, 2023); see also Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:22-cv00477-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 77 at 10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2023) (allowing 1,500 total pages in cases 

involving four asserted patents). Five-hundred pages per Defendant should be sufficient and, if it 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 206
is not, Defendants propose a reasonableness standard to increase the number of pages, consistent 

with what this Court has entered before, including in prior cases involving Defendants - wherein 

limits of 500 total pages are deemed de facto reasonable, but subject to adjustment. BillJCo, LLC 

v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00181-JRG (Lead Case), Dkt. 47 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 

2021); BillJCo, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., No. 2:21-cv-00183-JRG (Member Case), 

Dkt. 47 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2021).

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 207
Dated: January 11, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Reza Mirzaie 

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Marc A. Fenster 

CA State Bar No. 181067

Neil A. Rubin 

CA State Bar No. 250761

Christian W. Conkle 

CA State Bar No. 306374

Amy E. Hayden 

CA State Bar No. 287026

Jonathan Ma

CA State Bar No. 312773

Jacob R. Buczko 

CA State Bar No. 269408

Peter Tong

TX State Bar No. 24119042

Matthew D. Aichele 

VA State Bar No. 77821

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

rmirzaie@raklaw.com 

mfenster@raklaw.com

nrubin@raklaw.com

cconkle@raklaw.com

ahayden@raklaw.com

jma@raklaw.com

jbuczko@raklaw.com

ptong@raklaw.com

maichele@raklaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC

/s/ Holly Engelmann

Holly Engelmann

State Bar No. 24040865

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

Las Cimas IV

900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 300

Austin, Texas 78746

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 208
Tel: (512) 277-2246

Fax: (512) 597-2301

HEngelmann@duanemorris.com

Louis N. Jameson 

GA State Bar No. 003970

Matthew S. Yungwirth

GA State Bar No. 783597

Jayla C. Grant

GA State Bar No. 312669

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700

Atlanta, GA 30309

Tel: (404) 253-6915

Fax: (404) 253-6901

WJameson@duanemorris.com

Msyungwirth@duanemorris.com

Jcgrant@duanemorris.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

/s/ Tyler Marandola

Jennifer H. Doan

Texas Bar No. 08809050

Joshua R. Thane

Texas Bar No. 24060713

HALTOM & DOAN

6500 Summerhill Rd., Suite 100

Texarkana, TX 75503

Telephone: (903) 255-1000

Facsimile: (903) 255-0800

jdoan@haltomdoan.com

jthane@haltomdoan.com

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

GA State Bar No. 783597

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700

Atlanta, GA 30309

Telephone: 404.253.6900

Facsimile: 404.253.6901

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 209
Tyler Marandola 

PA State Bar No. 313585

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

30 S. 17th St.

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Telephone: 215.979.1000

Facsimile: 215.979.1020

tmarandola@duanemorris.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY AND ARUBA NETWORKS, 

LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 210
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on January 11, 2024. 

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies that counsel complied with the requirements of Eastern District 

of Texas Local Rule CV-7(h). Counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant held several 

conferences by telephone and over email between January 3, 2024 and January 11, 2024. The 

parties were able to resolve many disputes, but could not resolve their differing views on the two 

issues set forth herein. 

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 44 Filed 01/11/24 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 211