Litigation

Untitled case

on appeal; outcome not stated

2020-1256

Patents at issue (1)

8326327

Summary

Federal Circuit appeal arising from the Facebook consolidated action, 2:18-cv-01844; listed as related to U.S. 8,326,327. The narrative does not state the final disposition.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case carefully, starting with the patent and the Federal Circuit appeal number.

Key finding: Appeal 20-1256 is BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. Now I'll pin down the district court record, the patents, and the rulings.

Now let me dig into the Federal Circuit docket for 20-1256 and the specific § 101 ruling on the '327 patent.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

I've identified the case: BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2020-1256, -1258). Now let me dig into the district court record, the § 101 rulings, and parallel PTAB proceedings.

BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. — Litigation & Appeal Report

Case: BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., Instagram, LLC (and BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc.), C.D. Cal. Nos. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx and 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KSx (Judge George H. Wu; Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson), aff'd without opinion, Nos. 2020-1256, 2020-1258 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2020) (Rule 36 judgment).

Critical correction to the existing case summary: the appeal outcome is documented. The Federal Circuit entered a Rule 36 judgment of affirmance on 2020-12-10 in both appeals, so there is no precedential or nonprecedential opinion — only the one-page judgment. The '327 patent was

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this case and its counsel.

Confirmed the appeal is BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2020-1256 (Fed. Cir.), from C.D. Cal. No. 2:18-cv-01844. Now let me identify plaintiff's counsel of record.

Now let me pin down the Federal Circuit appellate counsel and their firms.

Bottom line

The plaintiff/appellant is BlackBerry Limited (a Canadian corporation). Both in the district court and on appeal, BlackBerry was represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as lead trial/appellate counsel, with BlackBerry Corporation's in-house legal department (Edward R. McGah, Jr.) appearing as counsel of record as well.

Two notes on the record before the names:

  • The case is BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2020-1256 (Fed. Cir.), appealed from BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.) (Judge George H. Wu; Mag. J. Karen L. Stevenson). The appeal was decided by Rule 36 judgment on December 10, 2020 (nonprecedential affirmance) — filling the gap in the existing summary — per the Federal Circuit's own opinions/orders page for that date.
  • The Justia docket snapshot for No. 20-1256 lists Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Snap Inc. as defendant-appellees, reflecting the consolidation below with BlackBerry's parallel Snap action (No. 2:18-cv-02693). The '327 patent was among the patents BlackBerry asserted and that were subject to the § 101 dismissal motions.

Appellate counsel of record — No. 2020-1256 (Fed. Cir.)

Per the Federal Circuit docket (via Justia's docket for No. 20-1256, last retrieved Feb. 5, 2020):

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Sanford I. ("Sandy") Weisburst Principal counsel for Appellant BlackBerry Limited (Entry of Appearance, Dec. 31, 2019) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP — New York, NY (51 Madison Ave., 22d Floor) Co-chair of Quinn Emanuel's National Appellate Practice; Federal Circuit patent experience includes Multimedia Patent Trust v. LG Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2013, argued with Kathleen Sullivan) and the Alacritech v. Intel appeals (No. 19-1443 et al.); clerked for D.C. Cir. Judge Silberman and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Patrick Schmidt Of counsel for Appellant (Entry of Appearance, Jan. 24, 2020) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (signature blocks in the C.D. Cal. case alongside Asperger; office most likely Los Angeles — 865 S. Figueroa St.) Member of the Quinn Emanuel team that litigated the underlying C.D. Cal. action; appears in the district-court signature blocks as "James R. Asperger, Patrick Schmidt, Pushkal Mishra, Quinn Emanuel." Firm confirmed; specific office inferred from filing address — verify before relying on it.
Richard Lowry Of counsel for Appellant (Entry of Appearance, Dec. 31, 2019) Firm affiliation not confirmed in the sources I could reach Appeared on the Federal Circuit docket as of counsel for BlackBerry; I could not corroborate his firm or office from a public source, so I am flagging rather than guessing.

Caveat: the Justia docket I could access is a snapshot "last retrieved on February 5, 2020." Appearances, substitutions, or withdrawals after Jan. 24, 2020 (e.g., additional argument counsel for the eventual Rule 36 submission) would not be captured. No sealed-counsel issue is apparent — the appearances are public docket entries.

District court counsel of record — No. 2:18-cv-01844 (C.D. Cal.)

The PACER docket extract in the record (reproduced in IPR exhibit filings) lists:

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
James R. Asperger (Cal. Bar No. 83188) Lead trial counsel — docket designates him "LEAD ATTORNEY… ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP — 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017 Filed and signed the principal BlackBerry briefs, including the § 101 opposition and the July 2020 request for oral argument on the '236 patent. Longtime Quinn Emanuel patent/tech litigator.
Edward R. McGah, Jr. (SBN 97719) In-house counsel — appears on BlackBerry's signature blocks as "Attorneys for BlackBerry Limited" BlackBerry Corporation, Office of the General Counsel — Laguna Niguel, CA (Vice President, Deputy General Counsel) Co-signed the district court's joint stipulation filings (e.g., Dkt. 679, 681) with Quinn Emanuel.
Kristen Bird; Scott L. Watson Of counsel / trial team (Quinn Emanuel) Quinn Emanuel (per the 487 F. Supp. 3d 870 counsel listing) Listed as counsel for BlackBerry Limited in BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., 487 F. Supp. 3d 870 (C.D. Cal. 2019).
Ray R. Zado; Kevin P. B. Johnson Of counsel / trial team Quinn Emanuel — Redwood Shores, CA Same appearance listing.
Dawn M. David Of counsel (pro hac vice) Quinn Emanuel — Salt Lake City, UT Signed multiple BlackBerry reply declarations (e.g., Dkt. 247/317 reply papers).
Iman Lordgooei; Jeffrey William Nardinelli; Jordan R. Jaffe; Zachary Christian Flood Of counsel / trial team Quinn Emanuel — San Francisco, CA Same appearance listing; Jaffe and Lordgooei appear on the PACER attorney list.
Pushkal Mishra Associate / trial team Quinn Emanuel Named in the counsel listing and in district-court signature blocks.
Miles D. Freeman Former counsel — withdrew July 29, 2020 Then Quinn Emanuel (Los Angeles); now listed at the FTC Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel filed July 29, 2020 (G-123 notice). Not counsel of record for the appeal.

What I could not verify

  • Richard Lowry's firm and office. He is on the Federal Circuit docket as of counsel for BlackBerry (Dec. 31, 2019 EoA), but I have no reliable public source tying him to a firm in this matter.
  • Whether any BlackBerry appellate counsel appeared in person at the Federal Circuit. The appeal terminated by Rule 36 on Dec. 10, 2020, so there may have been no oral argument; I found no argument notice.
  • The precise judgment appealed. The appeal was noticed in late December 2019, following Judge Wu's October 1, 2019 § 101 ruling, 487 F. Supp. 3d 870, and the subsequent dismissal/summary-judgment rulings in the consolidated Facebook and Snap actions; the Justia docket header does not state the appealed order, and I did not retrieve the Federal Circuit docket's "statement of the case."
  • No indication that counsel information in this matter was sealed.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel records for this appeal and the underlying district court case.

Key correction already emerging: the underlying case was in the C.D. Cal. (Judge George H. Wu), not N.D. Cal. Let me verify counsel appearances on both dockets.

Now let me confirm the district court appearances and the § 101 ruling tied to the '327 patent, plus the PTAB side where Cooley was petitioner's counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendant-Appellees

Correction to earlier sections before the counsel analysis: the underlying litigation was in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California before Judge George H. Wu (Nos. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS and 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS), not N.D. Cal., and appeal Nos. 20-1256 and 20-1258 were consolidated. The Rule 36 judgment of Dec. 10, 2020 lists both. Also, 20-1256 is the Facebook-defendants appeal; the '327 patent was asserted against Snap (Count II in No. 2:18-cv-02693, per the Nov. 15, 2019 Final Judgment), and Judge Wu granted Snap's § 101 summary judgment motion as to the '327 and '084 patents (Dkt. 272) — so the '327-specific defense team is Paul Hastings, while the lead appeal's defense team is Cooley. (Fed. Cir. judgment, D.I. 64; Final Judgment, No. 2:18-cv-02693)

1. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., Instagram, LLC — Cooley LLP

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Heidi Lyn Keefe Lead counsel (trial and appeal); argued for the Facebook appellees at the Federal Circuit Cooley LLP, 3175 Hanover St., Palo Alto, CA Entered appearance 1/2/2020 (Fed. Cir. D.I. 11 predecessor filings; she signed the appellees' 1/22/2020 response, D.I. 16). Longtime Facebook/Meta lead patent counsel, including Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, Nos. 2018-1400 et al. (Fed. Cir. 2020) (en banc-rehearing-modified opinion).
Mark R. Weinstein Of counsel / partner (appellate team) Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA Fed. Cir. Entry of Appearance 1/2/2020 (D.I. 10); also on the Windy City appeal team.
Matthew J. Brigham Of counsel (appellate team); district-court team since 2018 Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA Fed. Cir. EOA 1/2/2020 (D.I. 11). First appeared for all four Facebook-side entities 4/23/2018 (C.D. Cal. Dkt. 24); handled evidentiary/claim-construction declarations (e.g., Dkt. 662, 4/6/2020).
Dena Chen Of counsel (appellate team) Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA Fed. Cir. EOA 5/29/2020 (D.I. 29).
Elizabeth B. Prelogar Of counsel (appellate; Washington, D.C. presence) Cooley LLP, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC Fed. Cir. EOA 5/29/2020 (D.I. 28). Then a Cooley appellate partner (later U.S. Solicitor General, 2021–2025; rejoined Cooley in 2025 and now leads its Supreme Court & appellate group).
Michael G. Rhodes California local counsel of record (district court) Cooley LLP, 101 California St., San Francisco, CA (SBN 116127) Appears in every Cooley signature block for the Facebook defendants in the district court, alongside the Palo Alto team.

Additional Cooley names appearing on the district court's counsel list for the consolidated action (not individually verified in the Federal Circuit docket): Lowell D. Mead (Palo Alto; also an IPR and Windy City attorney), Andrew C. Mace and Phillip E. Morton (Washington, DC), and Elizabeth Stameshkin. Treat these as "of counsel/appearance per court list," not as confirmed appellate counsel.

2. Snap Inc. — Paul Hastings LLP (the defendant that faced the '327 patent; appellee in consolidated No. 20-1258)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Yar R. Chaikovsky Lead counsel; argued for Snap at the Federal Circuit Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA (SB# 175421) Listed in the Fed. Cir. Rule 36 judgment as Snap's arguing counsel; signed Snap's C.D. Cal. filings, including the § 101 summary judgment papers on the '327/'084 patents (Dkt. 272 reply).
David Okano Of counsel Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA (SB# 278485) Listed in the Fed. Cir. judgment and in district-court signature blocks.
Chad J. Peterman Of counsel (appellate) Paul Hastings LLP, 200 Park Ave., New York, NY Listed in the Fed. Cir. judgment; appeared pro hac vice in the district court.
Philip Ou Of counsel (district court) Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA (SB# 259896) District-court appearances (e.g., Dkt. 239/272 briefing).
Thomas Zaccaro Of counsel (district court) Paul Hastings LLP, Los Angeles, CA (SB# 183241) District-court signature block appearances.

Caveats and sourcing limits

  • No in-house counsel entry of appearance was located for Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, or Snap in either the C.D. Cal. or Federal Circuit dockets; the appellees were represented by outside counsel (Cooley; Paul Hastings). Facebook in-house declarants appear in related matters (e.g., the NSO Group case) but not as counsel here.
  • Several § 101 filings were filed under seal (C.D. Cal. Dkt. 284-1, 316-1, 342, 364), so the full roster of attorneys who worked on sealed briefs is not publicly verifiable; the names above come from public signature blocks, the Federal Circuit entries of appearance, and the Rule 36 judgment's counsel line.
  • Attorneys' present-day firm affiliations should be re-verified — e.g., Prelogar's government service (2021–2025) means she was not at Cooley continuously during the post-appeal district court proceedings (the case settled and was dismissed by stipulation on 2/13/2021, Dkt. 681, following the 12/10/2020 Rule 36 affirmance and 1/19/2021 mandate).