Money Data Protection Lizenz GmbH Co

General

Total Cases1

Active Cases1

Patents--

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeNPE

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

L1

B

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/15/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Reply Expert Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg; (2) Reply Expert Report of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903; and (3) Reply Expert Report of Lauren R. Kindler filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc..(Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
11/15/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. [210] ), which the Court will treat as relating to outstanding discovery dispute Issue # 5 (Plaintiff’s issue)—an issue that is further described in D.I. 250—hereby addresses Issue # 5, which is Plaintiff’s request for “an order excluding, as untimely and improper, Defendants’ assertion of three new invalidity references [A11, A12 and A13], in their June 7, 2024 Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions [“SSIC”].” (D.I. [263] at 1) The Court has also reviewed the briefing related to this request. (D.I. [263] ; D.I. [278] ; D.I. [290] ) Having done so, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) The disputes here relate to a stipulation the parties jointly entered into on May 2, 2024 (the “May 2 stipulation”); in that stipulation, the parties noted “WHEREAS, the Court has recently issued its Markman opinion (D.I. 169 ) and the parties may wish to supplement contentions...” and later stated that Defendants now had until June 7, 2024 to “serve supplemental invalidity contentions[.]” (D.I. [179] at 1-2) Defendants then filed the SSIC on June 7, and in that document, they first disclosed their intent to assert A11, A12 and A13. (D.I. [263] at 1) The question is whether the assertion of these new references falls within the letter of the May 2 stipulation. If it did (as Defendants argue), (D.I. [278] ), then Defendants are fine. If it didn’t, then Defendants would be out of luck—since a prior Scheduling Order requires them to show good cause in order to later supplement their invalidity contentions, (D.I. [45] at para. 7), and there wouldn’t be good cause here, since Defendants’ answering letter brief and Plaintiff’s reply letter brief makes it clear that not only have Defendants known about A11-13 since at least December 2023 (if not longer), (D.I. [263] at 2; see D.I. [264] , ex. B at 1), but they could easily have known of the need to assert the references back then (in light of the parties’ then-current positions in the case). (D.I. [278] at 2; D.I. [290] at 1); (2) That said, with regard to A12 and A13, the Court must DENY the Motion, simply due to the breadth of the relevant language in the May 2 stipulation. If Plaintiff had wanted that stipulation to narrowly limit Defendants to only being able to supplement their invalidity contentions if the supplementation “relates to new claim constructions, not proposed by the parties, that the District Court entered after the Markman hearing” (or a similarly cabined set of scenarios) then they could have written the stipulation in just that way. But instead, they agreed to a stipulation that was very broadly worded, such that it facially permitted supplementation so long as the supplementation had something to do with the fact that the Court had “issued its Markman opinion.” And in their answering letter brief, Defendants do at least articulate some plausible (if admittedly creative) basis to suggest that the assertion of A12 and A13 had something to do with something that happened during the Markman hearing (and the subsequent issuance of the Court’s oral Markman order). (D.I. [278] at 2; see also D.I. [189] ) Defendants’ argument here is a thin reed, to be sure. (D.I. [290] at 1) But in the Court’s view, the fault for it having succeeded lies with Plaintiff, who allowed a broad and vague stipulation to be entered as to this issue—and not with Defendants for making the argument.; and (3) As to A11, however, the Court will GRANT the Motion. Even Defendants can’t come up with a plausible basis to suggest that A11’s inclusion in the SSIC had anything to do with something that happened in the Markman hearing and/or the subsequent Markman order. (D.I. [278] at 2) Thus, the text of the May 2 stipulation isn’t a reason to permit A11’s late entry into this case. (See also id., ex. A at 5 (e-mail from Plaintiff’s counsel prior to the entry of the May 2 stipulation, making clear that at minimum, the stipulation was meant to “allow the parties to supplement contentions in light of the Court’s Markman order and hearing”)) All Defendants say is that this reference (Duo Push 2011) is very similar to another reference (Duo Push 2010) that Defendants have previously and timely asserted in the case. (Id. at 2) But that just goes to show that there wasn’t good cause for injecting the reference into the case on June 7, 2024; Defendants could have done so long ago (such as when Duo Push 2010 first made an appearance in the case back in 2023). (D.I. [290] at 1) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/15/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/15/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. [210] ), which the Court will treat as relating to outstanding discovery dispute Issue # 5 (Plaintiff’s issue)—an issue that is further described in D.I. 250—hereby addresses Issue # 5, which is Plaintiff’s request for “an order excluding, as untimely and improper, Defendants’ assertion of three new invalidity references [A11, A12 and A13], in their June 7, 2024 Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions [“SSIC”].” (D.I. [263] at 1) The Court has also reviewed the briefing related to this request. (D.I. [263] ; D.I. [278] ; D.I. [290] ) Having done so, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART in the manner and for the reasons that follow: (1) The disputes here relate to a stipulation the parties jointly entered into on May 2, 2024 (the “May 2 stipulation”); in that stipulation, the parties noted “WHEREAS, the Court has recently issued its Markman opinion (D.I. 169 ) and the parties may wish to supplement contentions...” and later stated that Defendants now had until June 7, 2024 to “serve supplemental invalidity contentions[.]” (D.I. [179] at 1-2) Defendants then filed the SSIC on June 7, and in that document, they first disclosed their intent to assert A11, A12 and A13. (D.I. [263] at 1) The question is whether the assertion of these new references falls within the letter of the May 2 stipulation. If it did (as Defendants argue), (D.I. [278] ), then Defendants are fine. If it didn’t, then Defendants would be out of luck—since a prior Scheduling Order requires them to show good cause in order to later supplement their invalidity contentions, (D.I. [45] at para. 7), and there wouldn’t be good cause here, since Defendants’ answering letter brief and Plaintiff’s reply letter brief makes it clear that not only have Defendants known about A11-13 since at least December 2023 (if not longer), (D.I. [263] at 2; see D.I. [264] , ex. B at 1), but they could easily have known of the need to assert the references back then (in light of the parties’ then-current positions in the case). (D.I. [278] at 2; D.I. [290] at 1); (2) That said, with regard to A12 and A13, the Court must DENY the Motion, simply due to the breadth of the relevant language in the May 2 stipulation. If Plaintiff had wanted that stipulation to narrowly limit Defendants to only being able to supplement their invalidity contentions if the supplementation “relates to new claim constructions, not proposed by the parties, that the District Court entered after the Markman hearing” (or a similarly cabined set of scenarios) then they could have written the stipulation in just that way. But instead, they agreed to a stipulation that was very broadly worded, such that it facially permitted supplementation so long as the supplementation had something to do with the fact that the Court had “issued its Markman opinion.” And in their answering letter brief, Defendants do at least articulate some plausible (if admittedly creative) basis to suggest that the assertion of A12 and A13 had something to do with something that happened during the Markman hearing (and the subsequent issuance of the Court’s oral Markman order). (D.I. [278] at 2; see also D.I. [189] ) Defendants’ argument here is a thin reed, to be sure. (D.I. [290] at 1) But in the Court’s view, the fault for it having succeeded lies with Plaintiff, who allowed a broad and vague stipulation to be entered as to this issue—and not with Defendants for making the argument.; and (3) As to A11, however, the Court will GRANT the Motion. Even Defendants can’t come up with a plausible basis to suggest that A11’s inclusion in the SSIC had anything to do with something that happened in the Markman hearing and/or the subsequent Markman order. (D.I. [278] at 2) Thus, the text of the May 2 stipulation isn’t a reason to permit A11’s late entry into this case. (See also id., ex. A at 5 (e-mail from Plaintiff’s counsel prior to the entry of the May 2 stipulation, making clear that at minimum, the stipulation was meant to “allow the parties to supplement contentions in light of the Court’s Markman order and hearing”)) All Defendants say is that this reference (Duo Push 2011) is very similar to another reference (Duo Push 2010) that Defendants have previously and timely asserted in the case. (Id. at 2) But that just goes to show that there wasn’t good cause for injecting the reference into the case on June 7, 2024; Defendants could have done so long ago (such as when Duo Push 2010 first made an appearance in the case back in 2023). (D.I. [290] at 1) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/15/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/15/2024)
11/13/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. 210), which the Court will treat as relating to both outstanding discovery dispute Issue # 3 (Defendants’ issue) and Issue # 5 (Plaintiff’s issue)—issues that are further described in D.I. 250—hereby addresses Issue # 3, which is Defendants’ request for Plaintiff to supplement its infringement contentions to “specifically identify, by source code file name(s) and line number(s), what in the accused product [Plaintiff] contends meets the ‘authentication function’ element and how it does so[,]” (D.I. 265 at 2). The Court has also reviewed the briefing related to this request. (D.I. 265; D.I. 277; D.I. 285) Having done so, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ request is GRANTED and that Plaintiff shall comply with the request by no later than 10 days from today’s date. The Court does so for the following reasons: (1) When you strip away the parties’ dispute about whether the Plaintiff’s underlying theory of infringement relating to the authentication function element is viable (which is not at issue here), Defendants’ remaining complaint is that in its then-current infringement contentions, Plaintiff had cited to “huge swaths of source code with no further explanation” in attempting to state how the accused product purportedly satisfies the relevant authentication function-related claim limitations/elements. (D.I. 265 at 2) Defendants helpfully included a declaration from their expert to explain why Plaintiff’s source code citations “provide no guidance on the ‘authentication function’”—including how the relevant citations in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions were to “tens of thousands of lines of code with no explanation[,]” such that it was “impossible for Defendants—even with expert help—to understand [Plaintiff’s] purported theories.” (D.I. 285 at 1 (emphasis omitted); see also D.I. 286); and (2) This explanation is sufficient to articulate why further supplementation of the type called for by Defendants is appropriate. See B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Twitter, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-621-GBW, D.I. 141 (D. Del. May 30, 2024). Indeed, in its briefing, Plaintiff suggests that it is not necessarily opposed to this type of supplementation (though it had not provided it as of the time of briefing). (D.I. 277 at 1-2) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/13/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/13/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties’ pending discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. 210), which the Court will treat as relating to both outstanding discovery dispute Issue # 3 (Defendants’ issue) and Issue # 5 (Plaintiff’s issue)—issues that are further described in D.I. 250—hereby addresses Issue # 3, which is Defendants’ request for Plaintiff to supplement its infringement contentions to “specifically identify, by source code file name(s) and line number(s), what in the accused product [Plaintiff] contends meets the ‘authentication function’ element and how it does so[,]” (D.I. 265 at 2). The Court has also reviewed the briefing related to this request. (D.I. 265; D.I. 277; D.I. 285) Having done so, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants’ request is GRANTED and that Plaintiff shall comply with the request by no later than 10 days from today’s date. The Court does so for the following reasons: (1) When you strip away the parties’ dispute about whether the Plaintiff’s underlying theory of infringement relating to the authentication function element is viable (which is not at issue here), Defendants’ remaining complaint is that in its then-current infringement contentions, Plaintiff had cited to “huge swaths of source code with no further explanation” in attempting to state how the accused product purportedly satisfies the relevant authentication function-related claim limitations/elements. (D.I. 265 at 2) Defendants helpfully included a declaration from their expert to explain why Plaintiff’s source code citations “provide no guidance on the ‘authentication function’”—including how the relevant citations in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions were to “tens of thousands of lines of code with no explanation[,]” such that it was “impossible for Defendants—even with expert help—to understand [Plaintiff’s] purported theories.” (D.I. 285 at 1 (emphasis omitted); see also D.I. 286); and (2) This explanation is sufficient to articulate why further supplementation of the type called for by Defendants is appropriate. See B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Twitter, Inc., Civil Action No. 20-621-GBW, D.I. 141 (D. Del. May 30, 2024). Indeed, in its briefing, Plaintiff suggests that it is not necessarily opposed to this type of supplementation (though it had not provided it as of the time of briefing). (D.I. 277 at 1-2) Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/13/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/13/2024)
11/07/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to serve Reply Expert Reports to November 15, 2024 - filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc.. (Murray, Travis) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/07/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	SO ORDERED, D.I. [312] STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to serve Reply Expert Reports to November 15, 2024 filed by Duo Security, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/7/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/07/2024)
11/01/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Andrew L. Brown as co-counsel. Reason for request: No longer with the firm of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP. (Moore, David) (Entered: 11/01/2024)
10/24/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Verification of Ben Murray for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-4) and Defendants' First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 13, 15-19); (2) Verification of William Silverio for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 5, 6, and 10) and Defendants' First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 20); (3) Verification of Darcie Gainer for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (No. 11); (4) Verification of Prasad Parthasarathi for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (No. 9); (5) Verification of Robert Hamilton for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (No. 7); and (6) Verification of Shannan Orozco for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 8 and 12) and Defendants' First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 14) filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc..(Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/24/2024) NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Verification of Ben Murray for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-4) and Defendants' First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 13, 15-19); (2) Verification of William Silverio for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 5, 6, and 10) and Defendants' First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 20); (3) Verification of Darcie Gainer for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (No. 11); (4) Verification of Prasad Parthasarathi for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (No. 9); (5) Verification of Robert Hamilton for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (No. 7); and (6) Verification of Shannan Orozco for Defendants' Sixth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Amended First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 8 and 12) and Defendants' First Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (No. 14) filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc..(Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/24/2024)
10/21/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of Validity Expert Report of Michael Shamos, Ph.D. Regarding U.S. Patent 9,246,903 with Exhibits 1-2 [Highly Confidential - Source Code] filed by CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG.(Brown, Andrew) (Entered: 10/21/2024)
10/18/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	NOTICE OF SERVICE of (1) Expert Report of Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D. Regarding Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903; (2) Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg; and (3) Rebuttal Expert Report of Lauren R. Kindler filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc..(Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/18/2024)
09/24/24	Cosmokey Solutions GmbH & Co KG v. Duo Security Inc 1:18-CV-01477 ( D. DE )	NOTICE of Amended Subpoena by Cisco Systems, Inc., Duo Security, Inc. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit 1)(Ying, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/24/2024)