Untitled case

I'll verify the case facts before drafting the overview.

Good foundation. Now let me pin down the '084 patent's claims, the accused Snapchat feature, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Case overview and background

Parties. The plaintiff-appellant, BlackBerry Limited, is a Canadian corporation headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario — the former Research In Motion, the company that built the BlackBerry handset business. This matters doctrinally and thematically: BlackBerry is an operating company asserting patents it developed in-house (the '084 patent's assignee of record is BlackBerry Limited, applicant Research In Motion Limited; inventors James Allen Hymel of Kitchener and Jean Philippe Bouchard of Waterloo), not a PAE or university. By 2018, however, BlackBerry had exited the handset hardware business and was running its portfolio as a licensing/monetization program, which is the posture in which it sued. The defendant-appellee, Snap Inc. (Delaware; headquarters in Santa Monica, California), operates Snapchat, which BlackBerry's complaint characterized as "Defendant's primary product in the United States" and which BlackBerry accused of "seiz[ing] on the success of BBM" and building on BlackBerry's messaging innovations (Compl., 2:18‑cv‑02693 Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 60–64). There were no counterclaim-defendants of note and no in-house counsel on Snap's side; Snap's only substantive counterclaims were invalidity/inequitable conduct-type defenses (it sought leave to amend its answer, Dkt. 242‑4).

Accused technology. The accused instrumentality was the Snapchat application plus its backend servers, and specifically the Snap Map feature — the interactive map, launched in 2017, that displays user-submitted Snaps and a color-coded "heat map" of where documenting activity is concentrated. BlackBerry's mapping of claim 1 to Snap Map is unusually explicit in the complaint: Snapchat's servers receive the first user's location; determine "action spots" where other users have captured images/video or sent messages; transmit those spots to the device; and transmit "an indication of an activity level" based on counts of images, videos and messages — which BlackBerry equated to Snap Map's red/blue heat map (Compl. ¶¶ 83–88, quoting Snapchat's own support page: "blue means that there were some Snaps taken at that spot, while red means there are tons"). Infringement turned on claim construction: Judge Wu construed "action spot" as "location or event where at least one activity is occurring relative to the current location of another mobile device" and "activity level" as "level of actions taken by one or more other mobile devices" (Final Ruling on Claim Construction, Dkt. 109, Apr. 5, 2019), which framed Snap's argument that a diffuse heat map is not a discrete "action spot." No damages figure was ever made public; the infringement contentions, BlackBerry's partial summary-judgment motion papers and Judge Wu's § 101 order were all filed at least partly under seal (Dkts. 283, 286, 289).

Patents asserted. BlackBerry asserted six patents against Snap (the court's own count, Dkt. 487 at 2; some press reports said seven). Four overlapped with the companion Facebook case; two were Snap-only:

Procedural posture and why the forum mattered. Filed April 3, 2018 in the Central District of California, assigned to Judge George H. Wu (Courtroom 9D, 350 W. First St., Los Angeles) with Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson ("‑KS"); consolidated for pretrial purposes with BlackBerry v. Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram, No. 2:18‑cv‑01844‑GW‑KS, on Sept. 27, 2018 (Dkt. 92). Venue was both obvious and strategic: Snap is headquartered in Santa Monica, and BlackBerry's U.S. subsidiary and in-house litigation counsel sit in Orange County. More importantly, BlackBerry filed its entire social-media campaign — Facebook (March 2018), Snap (April 2018) and Twitter (Feb. 2019, No. 2:19‑cv‑01444) — before the same judge, which let Judge Wu issue coordinated § 101 rulings that cross-referenced and incorporated one another (see the Twitter order, Oct. 1, 2019, expressly adopting the sealed Facebook/Snap holdings). The eligibility arc is the heart of the case: Judge Wu denied Snap's Rule 12(b)(6) Alice motion as to the '327 and '084 patents in August 2018, holding them "not abstract in light of Core Wireless" and that dismissal was premature under Berkheimer (Dkt. 68); after claim construction and discovery, he granted Snap's summary-judgment motion (Dkt. 272, filed Aug. 2, 2019; heard Sept. 5, 2019), holding in the Oct. 1, 2019 order that the "action spot patents" claim the abstract idea of "locating and mapping activity of interest," with the "action spot"/"activity level" concepts merely confining the idea to the mobile-device field (Dkt. 487 at 36–44). BlackBerry's cross-motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of the '084 patent was denied as moot. Final judgment entered in Snap's favor (Dkt. 118, Nov. 2019 — docket sources give Nov. 11, 15 and 19 dates, so treat the exact day as unsettled); BlackBerry appealed, and the appeals were consolidated into No. 2020‑1256/2020‑1258.

Why the case is notable. (1) It was a centerpiece of BlackBerry's post-hardware monetization campaign — RPX counted 48 patents at issue across the campaign, with overlapping sets asserted against Facebook, Snap and Twitter over notification badges, advertising, time-stamped messages and location sharing, all premised on the claim that these products copied BBM-era innovations. (2) It became one of the more consequential § 101 stress tests for mobile-software patents in the 2018–2020 window, and the '084 patent illustrates the pattern precisely: Core Wireless-style "technological improvement

I'll research the docket and rulings for these consolidated C.D. Cal. actions and the related PTAB proceedings.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — BlackBerry Ltd. v. Snap Inc. (C.D. Cal. No. 2:18‑cv‑02693‑GW‑KS) and the Consolidated Appeal (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2020‑1258 / 2020‑1256)

Two related observations frame everything below. First, the '084 patent was a Snap‑only patent in the district court and was never the subject of a PTAB petition — its validity died solely by way of Judge Wu's § 101 summary judgment, which is why the Federal Circuit appeal is the only appellate event on it. Second, that appeal ended in a Rule 36 affirmance with no written opinion, so there is no precedential Federal Circuit reasoning on the '084 claims.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

I'll research this Federal Circuit appeal and identify the plaintiff's counsel of record.

Bottom line

The metadata caption "Untitled case" is a placeholder — Fed. Cir. No. 2020‑1258 is BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., consolidated with No. 2020‑1256 (BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp, Inc. & Instagram, LLC), both appeals from Judge George H. Wu, C.D. Cal. Nos. 2:18‑cv‑01844‑GW‑KS and 2:18‑cv‑02693‑GW‑KS. U.S. Patent No. 8,825,084 (the "’084 patent," System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device) was one of the Snap‑only patents. The appeals were affirmed in a Rule 36 judgment on December 10, 2020, with the mandate issuing January 19, 2021 (Fed. Cir. Doc. 15, 16; reproduced at 20‑1256 Doc. 64). The plaintiff/appellant was BlackBerry, so "plaintiff's counsel" = the Quinn Emanuel team below.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff‑Appellant BlackBerry Limited (Federal Circuit)

Per the Rule 36 judgment's counsel block (20‑1256 Doc. 64, filed 12/10/2020) and the appearance entries, the appellate team was:

Plaintiff's district‑court counsel of record who did not enter Federal Circuit appearances

These attorneys appeared for BlackBerry in C.D. Cal. but are not in the Federal Circuit counsel block — worth listing because they were "counsel of record" at the trial level:

• Jordan R. Jaffe — Quinn Emanuel, San Francisco (Dkt. 33, 6/25/2018).
• Zachary Christian Flood — Quinn Emanuel, San Francisco (Dkt. 88, 11/26/2018).
• Ray R. Zado — Quinn Emanuel, Redwood Shores (Dkt. 44, 8/2/2018).
• Victoria F. Maroulis — Quinn Emanuel, Redwood Shores (listed on the July 2019 joint filing signature block).
• Kristen Bird and Iman Lordgooei — later G‑123 appearances in the consolidated 18‑cv‑1844 action.
• Dawn M. David — admitted pro hac vice for BlackBerry 7/2/2019 (Dkt. 110, 111). I could not confirm her firm from the docket text in the sources retrieved, so I won't attribute one.

In‑house counsel

• Edward R. McGah, Jr. — Vice President, Deputy General Counsel—Litigation, BlackBerry Corporation, Laguna Niguel, CA (emcgah@blackberry.com). He is listed as counsel on the December 11, 2019 notice of appeal in the companion Facebook action (No. 2:18‑cv‑01844, Dkt. 491; appeal no. 20‑1256) and appeared in BlackBerry's signature blocks in the related PTAB papers. Role: in‑house supervising/co‑counsel, not a Federal Circuit arguing attorney.

What happened on the ’084 patent

Judge Wu granted Snap's § 101 motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to the ’084 and ’327 patents and denied BlackBerry's cross‑motion for partial summary judgment of infringement of the ’084 patent as moot (Amended Civil Minutes, Oct. 1, 2019, quoted in the PTAB record). BlackBerry appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (Doc. 15/64), and the mandate issued 1/19/2021 with costs of $52.32 taxed against BlackBerry (2:18‑cv‑02693 Dkt. 123).

Sourcing caveats

• Counsel identities are taken from the Federal Circuit's own judgment caption (20‑1256 Doc. 64) and CM/ECF appearance entries — both public. Nothing here is inferred from firm marketing.
• The 20‑1258 docket was merged into 20‑1256 after consolidation ("FURTHER ENTRIES WILL BE ADDED TO THE LEAD APPEAL ONLY," 20‑1258 ECF No. 14, 1/9/2020), so most appearance entries live on the 20‑1256 docket.
• Several C.D. Cal. filings in this litigation were filed under seal (e.g., Dkts. 283 and related sealing orders regarding Snap's opposition to BlackBerry's ’084 summary‑judgment motion), but no counsel identity in this case was sealed.
• I did not independently verify individual attorney biographies (bar admissions, prior cases) beyond what the docket shows; the "note" column is limited to case‑specific, docket‑supported facts rather than unverified résumé claims.
• Side note for completeness: a *later, separate appeal (No. 21‑1377, BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., docketed 12/8/2020)* shows different appellate counsel for BlackBerry — Robert Courtney and Michael T. Hawkins (entered 12/22/2020) — and was voluntarily dismissed under FRAP 42(b). That is a distinct appeal from the one you asked about.

Bottom line

Case 2020-1258 is BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., the Snap-side companion to 2020-1256 (BlackBerry v. Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram), both appeals from the C.D. Cal. (Nos. 2:18‑cv‑01844‑GW‑KS and 2:18‑cv‑02693‑GW‑KS, Judge George H. Wu). The two appeals were consolidated on Jan. 9, 2020, orally argued, and affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36 on Dec. 10, 2020 (Lourie, O'Malley, Reyna, JJ.), with the mandate issuing Jan. 19, 2021. The ’084 patent was Count I in the Snap case (final judgment, Dkt. 118, Nov. 15, 2019), and Snap's § 101 summary-judgment motion against the ’084 and ’327 patents was granted (C.D. Cal., Oct. 1, 2019 minute order). The sole defendant-appellee in 2020-1258 was Snap Inc.; it was represented throughout by Paul Hastings LLP.

Counsel of record for Snap Inc. — Federal Circuit (2020-1258)

The Dec. 10, 2020 Rule 36 judgment is the authoritative source for the appellate appearances: "YAR ROMAN CHAIKOVSKY, Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for defendant-appellee Snap Inc. Also represented by DAVID OKANO; CHAD PETERMAN, New York, NY." (CourtListener, Justia); Federal Circuit docket entries per Patexia docket for 2020‑1258 and PACER Monitor.

Additional Snap counsel of record in the underlying C.D. Cal. action (2:18‑cv‑02693)

These attorneys were on the district-court docket but are not listed on the Federal Circuit appearances (the appeal was handled by Chaikovsky, Okano and Peterman):

Snap's representation by Paul Hastings is also confirmed contemporaneously by Bloomberg Law: "Paul Hastings LLP is representing Snap. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP represents BlackBerry" (Bloomberg Law, Aug. 6, 2019).

Caveats and unsourced items

• No in-house Snap counsel appears on either docket. Snap Inc.'s corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 17) and certificate of interested parties (Dkt. 16) were signed by outside counsel only.
• Office locations: Palo Alto (Chaikovsky) and New York (Peterman) come directly from the Federal Circuit judgment. Okano's, Hendershot's, Zapata's, Zaccaro's and Dooley's specific Paul Hastings offices are not stated in the opinion or in the docket text I could retrieve — I have not verified them and am not guessing.
• Sealed material: the C.D. Cal. docket contains sealed filings (e.g., the sealed § 101 summary-judgment ruling and related sealing orders, Dkts. 401/485/494), but no counsel designation or appearance in this matter was filed under seal; all appearances above are from the public docket.
• Experience notes: beyond their roles as recorded in the docket and the Rule 36 judgment, I did not locate firm-biography-level detail (specific prior cases, practice-group titles) in the sources reachable in this session, so I have limited those notes to what the record supports rather than characterizing their broader practices.
• For completeness on the other side: BlackBerry was represented on appeal by Quinn Emanuel (Sanford I. Weisburst argued; James R. Asperger, Pushkal Mishra, Patrick T. Schmidt, Kevin P.B. Johnson, Jeffrey Nardinelli, Richard A. Lowry), and the Facebook appellees by Cooley (Heidi L. Keefe argued).