Litigation

BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc.

judgment

2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS

Terminated
2019-11-15

Patents at issue (1)

8296351

Plaintiffs (1)

Defendants (1)

Summary

BlackBerry asserted the '351 and '929 patents against Snap Inc. in a case consolidated with the Facebook action. The court found the '351 claims invalid under § 101, and final judgment was entered November 15, 2019.

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 against available sources before drafting.

Let me dig into the docket, the patents, and the IPR/appeal trail.

Now let me verify the docket tail, the appeal outcome, and the final judgment details.

Case Overview: BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.)

The parties. BlackBerry Limited is a Canadian corporation (Waterloo, Ontario) — the former Research In Motion, i.e., the company that built the BlackBerry handset line. By the time it filed this suit in April 2018, BlackBerry had largely exited hardware and repositioned itself as an enterprise software/security and IP-licensing company, and it held a portfolio that its own filings described as exceeding 35,000 patents, managed by a dedicated Intellectual Property & Licensing department (see the Court's Aug. 20, 2019 discovery minutes, Dkt. 115, discussing Snap's requests for documents on "the role of patent licensing and patent monetization in BlackBerry's overall business strategy"). That makes this an operating-company assertion of internally developed R&D patents rather than a classic NPE/PAE suit — but Snap litigated it partly as a monetization campaign, and RPX and other observers characterize BlackBerry's 2018–2019 suits against Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram, Snap, and Twitter as an overlapping, multi-defendant licensing push drawn from a 48-patent campaign. Snap Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Venice, California, whose business is the Snapchat camera-and-messaging application and its advertising platform. Snap is the accused infringer, not a patent plaintiff; it counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement. (/insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/cacdce-705956-blackberry-v-snap; courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.705956/gov.uscourts.cacd.705956.115.0_1.pdf)

The accused technology and the patents. The accused instrumentality is Snapchat itself — the app plus Snap's backend servers and ad-delivery systems. Per the complaint, BlackBerry mapped the advertising patents to Snapchat's targeted-advertising platform (ads served into Stories and Discover, selected using user location and demographics); mapped the location patents to Snap Map's color-coded "heat map" of user activity ("activity spots" and "activity levels"); and mapped the messaging patents to per-message timestamps and the numeric unread-message badge on the app icon. (ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/cacd/2:18-cv-02693/doc/analysis/1, summarizing Compl. ¶¶ 84–88, 108, 164, 190–210.) Case metadata for this docket lists U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351 as the patent at issue; that patent, and its continuation, drove the case. The operative complaint, however, asserted six patents, all sharing the title "System and Method for Pushing Information to a Mobile Device" or its mobile-UI family: the '351 patent (issued Oct. 23, 2012; priority to a July 23, 2001 provisional), claiming a "proxy content server" that sorts content and advertising into channel memory locations and picks a channel for transmission to a phone based on a position feedback signal; the '929 patent (U.S. 8,676,929, issued Mar. 18, 2014), a continuation claiming detection of a time-triggering event, retrieval of relevant content from a channel, and insertion of a "meta tag" identifying ads and their display requirements before pushing the content to the device; the '634 patent (U.S. 8,209,634), on displaying unread-message information; the '713 patent (U.S. 8,301,713), on time-stamping messages; the '327 patent (U.S. 8,326,327), on determining and transmitting "action spots" where other users have documented activity; and the '084 patent (U.S. 8,825,084), on transmitting an indication of activity level at those spots. (Markman ruling, Apr. 5, 2019, Dkt. 109; Oct. 1, 2019 Final Rulings at 2–3; Snap's Final Election of Prior Art.) The '120 patent (U.S. 9,349,120, per-thread notification silencing

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the core docket and the § 101 ruling.

Now let me research the appeal and the specific docket entries.

Let me verify the PTAB proceedings and the final judgment scope.

BlackBerry Ltd. v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.) — Legal Developments & Outcome

Analyst's note on scope. The case metadata lists only the '351 patent, but the Snap action as filed asserted six patents (the '351, '929, '634, '713, '327, and '084), and it was consolidated for pretrial purposes with BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (lead case). The '351 was the flagship, but the disposition of the Snap case turned on two separate § 101 summary judgment rulings and on the validity of the '351, '929, '327, and '084. I've flagged where facts are less than fully sourced.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

2018-04-03 — Complaint filed (Snap Case, Dkt. 1). BlackBerry, represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, sued Snap Inc. over six patents, targeting the Snapchat app and backend, including Snap Map ("heat maps"/"action spots"), chat timestamps, icon notification badges, and the Discover/Stories advertising platform. BlackBerry sought a reasonable royalty. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 81–210; damages theory noted in Dkt. 115.) Snap's counsel throughout was Paul Hastings LLP (Yar R. Chaikovsky), with Quinn Emanuel later noting Paul Hastings' role in the appeal.

  • Notably, BlackBerry's lead counsel in the appeal included Sanford I. Weisburst, James R. Asperger, Pushkal Mishra, and Patrick T. Schmidt (Quinn Emanuel); Facebook's appellees' counsel was Cooley LLP (Heidi Lyn Keefe, Matthew J. Brigham, Dena Chen, Mark R. Weinstein).

2018-06 — First § 101 attack via Rule 12(b)(6). Snap moved to dismiss under Alice, arguing the '351 and '929 patents claimed the abstract idea of "sending advertisements to users based on triggering events"; the '634, "displaying information regarding unread messages"; the '713, "time stamping"; and the '327 and '084, "locating and mapping activity." (RPX, Claims from BlackBerry Messaging and Social Media Patents Invalidated Under Alice; BlackBerry's opposition, Dkt. 38.)

2018-08-21 — MTD ruling (Dkt. 68, lead case). Judge George H. Wu granted in part and denied in part. The only claim knocked out at the pleading stage was Snap's challenge to the '713 patent (abstract "displaying a timestamp based on whether a predetermined duration of time has passed," no inventive concept). All other patents survived, with the court holding dismissal premature under Berkheimer/Aatrix and relying on Core Wireless v. LG Electronics for the '634, '327, and '084. (RPX, supra; The Recorder, 2018-08-22, "BlackBerry Mostly Survives Facebook's and Snap's Section 101 Attack.")

Fall 2018 — Answer and counterclaims. Snap answered and asserted invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims; BlackBerry answered the counterclaims. (Caveat: I could not confirm the exact Snap-case docket numbers/dates for the answer; in the lead Facebook case the answer/counterclaims were filed 2018-09-04 (Dkt. 80) and BlackBerry's reply 2018-09-25 (Dkt. 89), and the parties adopted the Patent Local Rules by joint notice on 2018-08-27 (Snap Case, Dkt. 54).)

2018-09-27 — Consolidation for pretrial purposes with the Facebook action (Dkt. 92 in the lead case). The two cases thereafter shared a claim construction record, a joint invalidity election, a coordinated damages/discovery track, and (initially) a single trial schedule.

2. Claim Construction (Markman)

2019-04-05 — Final Ruling on Claim Construction (Snap Case, Dkt. 109; lead case Dkt. 156/157), with a Corrected Final Ruling clarifying which '929 claim fell to § 112 ¶ 4 (claim 2).

Key outcomes for the Snap patents:

Term Outcome
"proxy content server" ('351) No construction necessary — the court rejected both sides' proposals, including BlackBerry's "server that aggregates information… for distribution," finding it added nothing to the claim language
"meta tag" ('929) No construction necessary; "hidden, descriptive text within HTML code" is not a meta tag
"channels" Stipulated by the parties to mean "memory locations" — a stipulation that became decisive against BlackBerry at summary judgment
"default/static/dynamic advertising information" Stipulated to correspond to well-known real-world advertising categories

This was the pivotal pretrial event: Snap and Facebook later argued that the absence of a narrowing construction — plus the "memory locations" stipulation — "revealed that the concepts embodied by the claims add nothing to the abstract ideas." (Snap/Facebook MSJ, Dkt. 226-1 at 4; BlackBerry's opposition conceded the court had "found that no construction was necessary" for these terms.) BlackBerry characterized the Markman order as supporting eligibility because it identified factual issues; the court ultimately disagreed.

2018-08-21 and 2019-04-05 as the two "saves." BlackBerry repeatedly pointed out that "[t]wice before in this case — at the conclusion of the motion-to-dismiss and claim construction proceedings — the Court cited factual issues that precluded any resolution of Defendants' § 101 theories." (BlackBerry Opp. to MSJ, Dkt. 281 at 2, citing Dkt. 68 and Dkt. 156.) That argument did not carry the day a third time.

3. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

2019-04-16 — Motion to stay pending IPR filed by Defendants (Ex. 2003 to IPR2019-00925). Withdrawn 2019-04-26 (Ex. 2005) after the court's 2019-04-22 status conference, at which Judge Wu gave "initial thoughts" indicating he would not stay the case. This is a strategically important, and largely overlooked, data point: the Central District was signaling Fintiv-style reluctance to defer to the Board before Fintiv, and the defendants elected to press § 101 in court rather than wait for the PTAB.

2019-05-15 — Trial schedule set (Ex. 2006); 2019-05-31 BlackBerry's Final Election of Asserted Claims (Ex. 2007); 2019-06-14 Snap's Final Election of Prior Art (asserting, inter alia, Fishwrap, Castanet, Aufricht, Boyle, Martin, and junk-mail systems against the '351/'929).

2019-07 (first round of Alice motions) — struck. Facebook and Snap each moved for summary judgment of invalidity against the '351 and '929 (Facebook also added the '120). Judge Wu struck the motions the next day for "reasons of judicial economy and case management" and excessive combined page count, ordering a single shorter consolidated motion within seven days. (RPX, supra.) This is an unusual procedural moment worth noting: the court effectively forced the defendants into a joint § 101 motion.

2019-08-20 — Discovery sanction-adjacent order on damages disclosures (Dkt. 115). Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson (or the district judge on the discovery dispute) held BlackBerry's Rule 26(a)(1) and Interrogatory No. 6 damages disclosures deficient under Brandywine and THX: BlackBerry had "provided no computations whatsoever of its damages, has not identified a single product on which it intends to base its lost profits damages, and has not specifically identified a single of its own license agreements" — two weeks before the close of fact discovery. This is a significant strategic loss for BlackBerry on the damages track and would have complicated any trial on the surviving patents.

2019-08-30 — Close of fact discovery.

2019-09-05 — Consolidated § 101 motions heard and taken under submission (Dkt. 239 consolidated MSJ on '351/'929/'120; Dkt. 272 Snap's MSJ on '084/'327; Dkt. 244 BlackBerry's MSJ of infringement on '084; Dkt. 242-4 Snap's motion for leave to amend its answer/counterclaims).

4. The Dispositive Ruling — 2019-10-01

Final Ruling on six motions (Snap Case Dkt. 116; lead case Dkts. 468/487; amended ruling also issued). In relevant part for Snap:

  1. Consolidated MSJ on the '351, '929, and '120 — GRANTED IN PART / DENIED IN PART. The court held claims 1, 2, 14, 20, and 21 of the '351 patent and claims 1, 9, and 16 of the '929 patent invalid under § 101. The '120 patent (notification silencing) survived — the court had previously denied dismissal of it, and the grant was partial.
  2. Snap's MSJ on the '327 and '084 — GRANTED. Both patents invalid under § 101.
  3. BlackBerry's MSJ of infringement on the '084 — DENIED AS MOOT.
  4. Snap's motion for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaims — DENIED AS MOOT.

The court's reasoning on the '351/'929 adopted the defendants' framing: the claims were directed to "collecting and sending ads or other content to a user based on location or time of day," an idea "[b]usinesses have promoted… for generations by sending coupons for a free dessert on a customer's birthday or handing a customer a coupon when they walk by a store." At step two, the "proxy content server," "channels," and "meta tags" added nothing conventional, particularly given the Markman outcome and the parties' stipulation that "channels" means "memory locations."

This ruling did more than invalidate four patents — because it granted Snap's '327/'084 motion while denying as moot BlackBerry's mirror-image infringement motion, it eliminated BlackBerry's entire remaining case against Snap. (For completeness: in the parallel Twitter case, No. 2:19-cv-01444, a separate ruling invalidated claim 10 of the '929 on Rule 12(b)(6).)

5. Judgment and Appeal

2019-11-15 — Final judgment entered in Snap's favor (Snap Case Dkt. 118). Note a discrepancy in the record: the PTAB and BlackBerry both cite November 15, 2019 for the Snap final judgment, while a later stipulation in the Facebook case recites "November 19, 2019," and a joint status update to the Board recites "November 27, 2019" for the Facebook final judgment. The case metadata (terminated 2019-11-15) and the PTAB exhibit list (Dkt. 118, Nov. 11/15, 2019) are the better sources for the Snap docket; the November 27 date appears to be the Facebook-case judgment.

2019-12-11 — Notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit (BlackBerry's notice; the Board was notified the same day by joint status update in IPR2019-00940/00941).

2019-12-18 — Statutory disclaimer by BlackBerry of '351 claims 9 and 15 (and later '929 claims 5, 8, and 13) — i.e., the dependent claims the district court had not addressed because they were no longer asserted. This narrowed the '351 to the adjudicated claims and undercut the PTAB's ability to do anything useful.

2020-01-09 — Appeals consolidated: No. 2020-1256 (Facebook, lead) and No. 2020-1258 (Snap, companion), assigned to the same merits panel, with all further entries in the lead appeal. Briefing: BlackBerry's opening brief (due 2020-02-18), Snap's response brief 2020-05-29 (73 pages, Yar Chaikovsky), BlackBerry's reply 2020-07-02 (31 pages).

2020-12-10 — AFFIRMED. BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., Nos. 2020-1256, 2020-1258 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10,

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research the counsel of record for BlackBerry Limited in this case.

Now let me verify the lead counsel and firm details from the complaint's signature block and related records.

Let me verify the additional plaintiff-side attorneys' firms and check for a lead counsel designation for BlackBerry.

Bottom line

BlackBerry Limited was represented in this case almost entirely by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, acting as lead and trial counsel out of its Los Angeles office (with Redwood Shores, San Francisco, Washington D.C., and New York support). There was no separate local-counsel firm — Quinn Emanuel's L.A. office filled that role, and QE's Patrick T. Schmidt was formally designated local counsel on the two pro hac vice admissions. BlackBerry also had in-house counsel of record: Edward R. McGah, Jr., Vice President & Deputy General Counsel of BlackBerry Corporation, who appears in the signature blocks as co-counsel.

Because this case was related to and coordinated with BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (the lead consolidated case), the same Quinn Emanuel team appeared on both dockets; the Fed. Cir. appeal was captioned under the Facebook case number with the Snap case consolidated.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited

# Name Role Firm / Office Note
1 James R. Asperger (Bar No. 83188) Lead counsel / ECF filer of record Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP — 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl., Los Angeles, CA QE partner and the attorney whose name heads virtually every BlackBerry signature block in this case and in the related Facebook action; signed the Nov. 13, 2019 joint stipulation to dismiss and was on the Fed. Cir. brief in BlackBerry v. Facebook (No. 20-1256).
2 Edward R. McGah, Jr. (SBN 97719) In-house counsel of record BlackBerry Corporation — VP, Deputy General Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA Listed with QE as "Attorneys for BlackBerry Limited" in the operative signature blocks, including the Oct. 4, 2019 joint report (Dkt. 470) and the July 11, 2019 scheduling stipulation (Dkt. 112).
3 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129) Trial/lead team Quinn Emanuel — 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Fl., Redwood Shores, CA Longtime QE patent trial partner; on the BlackBerry team through Markman, the § 101 summary-judgment phase, and the Federal Circuit appeal.
4 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) Of counsel/team Quinn Emanuel — Redwood Shores, CA Appears in BlackBerry's signature blocks throughout the consolidated litigation and on the Fed. Cir. briefing.
5 Patrick T. Schmidt (Bar No. 274777) Local counsel designee / case team Quinn Emanuel — Los Angeles, CA The court's PHV orders (Dkts. 111, 114) expressly designate "Patrick Schmidt as local counsel" for the pro hac vice admissions of Dawn M. David and Richard A. Lowry; filed a Notice of Appearance Jan. 23, 2019.
6 Pushkal Mishra (Bar No. 298695) Case team Quinn Emanuel — Los Angeles, CA Notice of Appearance Mar. 28, 2019; also listed on the Fed. Cir. judgment as counsel for plaintiff-appellant.
7 Jeffrey W. Nardinelli Case team Quinn Emanuel — San Francisco, CA (per Fed. Cir. counsel listing) Notice of Appearance Nov. 13, 2018; listed among appellant's counsel in the Federal Circuit judgment.
8 Richard A. Lowry Case team (pro hac vice) Quinn Emanuel — Washington, D.C. (per Fed. Cir. counsel listing) PHV application filed July 15, 2019 (Dkt. 113); order granting July 17, 2019 (Dkt. 114).
9 Dawn M. David Case team (pro hac vice) Then Quinn Emanuel — Salt Lake City, UT office (per Casetext counsel listing in the related Facebook case) PHV application filed July 1, 2019 (Dkt. 110); granted July 2, 2019 (Dkt. 111). QE trial attorney 2018–2025; now a partner at Quarles & Brady.
10 Sanford I. Weisburst Appellate counsel (not district-court counsel of record here) Quinn Emanuel — New York, NY Entered as principal counsel for BlackBerry in the Federal Circuit appeal (20-1256, ECF No. 5, Dec. 31, 2019) and argued the appeal decided Dec. 10, 2020.
11 Zachary C. Flood Case team Not independently verified Notice of Appearance as counsel of record for BlackBerry filed Nov. 26, 2018. I could not confirm his firm from the sources reviewed — he does not appear in the QE signature blocks I retrieved.

Also seen in Quinn Emanuel's BlackBerry signature blocks in the consolidated litigation (not confirmed to have entered an appearance on the Snap docket itself): Ray R. Zado (Bar No. 208501), Quinn Emanuel, Redwood Shores.

How this was verified, and what I could not verify

Verified from primary court records:

Caveats:

  • No formal "Notice of Change of Lead Counsel" for BlackBerry appears in the docket materials I retrieved (unlike Snap, which filed one on Aug. 3, 2018, Dkt. 46, switching from Michael Hendershot to Yar R. Chaikovsky of Paul Hastings). Asperger functions as lead by virtue of being the filer/attorney heading every BlackBerry signature block, but the docket does not formally anoint him "lead" the way the local rules permit.
  • Sealed material: several substantive filings in the consolidated litigation were filed under seal (e.g., Snap's objections to BlackBerry's supplemental damages disclosure, sealed by Judge Stevenson Oct. 3, 2019). Counsel's identities, however, come from public appearances and signature blocks, so sealing does not affect this list.
  • Zachary Flood's firm is the one item I could not source. I have not guessed it.
  • No Reuters Legal or Law360 article I found named the individual BlackBerry-side attorneys; the Law360 coverage of the case (Oct. 2, 2019 ruling, Dec. 10, 2020 affirmance) discusses outcomes only.

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 appearances for Snap Inc. in this case.

Let me pull the full docket and verify each attorney's firm and role.

Counsel of Record for Snap Inc. — BlackBerry Ltd. v. Snap Inc., No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.)

Snap's defense was run out of Paul Hastings LLP for the entire life of the case. The docket (CourtListener RECAP mirror of C.D. Cal. No. 2:18-cv-02693) shows the following attorneys appearing for Snap Inc. I've flagged where I could not verify a firm from a primary source.

Lead counsel

Attorney Role Firm / office Notes
Yar R. Chaikovsky (SB# 175421; USPTO Reg. No. 39,625) Lead counsel — formally designated lead as of Aug. 3, 2018 Paul Hastings LLP, 1117 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA Filed the Notice of Change of Lead Counsel, Dkt. 46 (Aug. 3, 2018): "Yar R. Chaikovsky of Paul Hastings LLP is an attorney of record for Defendant Snap Inc. and is the Lead Attorney representing Snap Inc." Also lead counsel on Snap's IPR2020-00392 petition against the '351 patent, which recites that the '351 patent had already been held ineligible against Snap, Facebook and Twitter in C.D. Cal. (Dkt. 46; IPR2020-00392 petition)
Michael C. Hendershot (SB# 211830) Original lead counsel (superseded Aug. 3, 2018) Then Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto Named in Dkt. 46 as the lead counsel being replaced. Longtime first-chair patent trial lawyer (eBay v. MercExchange; Google and Twilio § 101 defense wins); he later moved to Jones Day's Silicon Valley office, where his Legal 500/Jones Day bios place him from 2020 onward (Dkt. 46; Jones Day announcement)

Local / Los Angeles counsel

Attorney Role Firm / office Notes
Thomas A. Zaccaro (SB# 183241) L.A.-based counsel of record (C.D. Cal. local presence) Paul Hastings LLP, 515 S. Flower St., 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Filed Notice of Appearance Sept. 13, 2018, stating "Counsel of record for the following party: Defendant Snap Inc." (Dkt. 65)

Other counsel of record / case team

Attorney Role Firm / office Notes
Philip Ou (SB# 259896) Of counsel / case team (appears on Snap's district-court filings) Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto Listed in the signature block as counsel "for Snap Inc." on the consolidated-case filing at Dkt. 181 (Dkt. 181)
David Okano (SB# 278485; USPTO Reg. No. 66,657) Case team; back-up counsel in the parallel IPR Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto Listed with Chaikovsky and Ou on the Snap signature block in the district court (Dkt. 181) and named back-up counsel in IPR2020-00392 (Dkt. 181; IPR petition)
Chad Peterman Back-up counsel in the parallel IPR (pro hac vice requested); service contact in PTAB filings Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto Confirmed in PTAB papers (service e-mail Snap-Blackberry-PH-IPR@paulhastings.com); I did not confirm a separate district-court appearance on this docket
Ryan Kieran Dooley (USPTO Reg. No. 76,234) Counsel of record (appeared Nov. 21, 2018) Firm of record at the time not verified; his current firm is Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP, Foster City/Burlingame, CA Docket: "Adding Ryan Dooley as counsel of record for Defendant, Snap Inc." (11/21/2018). His current firm bio expressly lists "BlackBerry v. Snap (C.D. Cal.) — Represented Snap in a patent litigation case relating to ad serving, chat time stamping, chat notifications, and location mapping." His bio notes prior work at "an international law firm," which may be Paul Hastings, but I could not confirm the firm of record from the G-123 PDF itself (firm bio)
Kimberly Zapata Counsel of record (appeared Nov. 1, 2018; withdrawn Jan. 21, 2021) Firm of record not verified; public bios describe a Silicon Valley IP litigator (formerly McDermott Will & Emery; now GRSM, San Diego) Dkt. 75 (appearance) and Dkt. 125 (Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal filed by Chaikovsky: "Kimberly Zapata is no longer counsel of record") (docket)
Anthony Tartaglio Counsel who withdrew (appeared, then notice of withdrawal filed by Chaikovsky) Firm not verified Docket entry: "NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel for attorney Anthony Tartaglio filed by defendant, Snap Inc."
Thomas O'Brien Counsel who withdrew Firm not verified Docket entry: "NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel for Thomas O'Brien, Snap Inc."

Caveats and gaps

  • No in-house Snap attorney appears on this docket. All recorded counsel of record are outside counsel; I found no appearance by a Snap legal-department lawyer.
  • Firm attribution for the G-123 notices is not self-evident from the docket text. The C.D. Cal. G-123 "Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal" entries name the attorney but the firm appears only in the underlying PDF. For Dooley, Zapata, Tartaglio and O'Brien I could not retrieve/verify the firm named in those PDFs; the firms shown above for Dooley and Zapata come from their public professional bios, which is secondary support, not the docket.
  • Nothing in the sources retrieved suggests Snap's counsel filings were sealed. The docket is a normal public patent docket (Complaint, Dkt. 1; Markman ruling; summary-judgment rulings; Dkt. 125 as the last entry, Jan. 21, 2021). If any attorney declaration or fee/billing submission was filed under seal, I did not find it.
  • Timing context: the case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with BlackBerry Ltd. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KS (Dkt. 92), and Snap's counsel signed consolidated filings in both captions. Snap's counsel jointly moved for letters rogatory to Canadian and other third parties (Dkt. 181, granted by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson), and Judge George H. Wu granted Snap summary judgment of invalidity of the '351 patent under § 101, with judgment entered Nov. 15, 2019 — the outcome Chaikovsky later recited to the PTAB when Snap petitioned for IPR of the '351 in IPR2020-00392.
  • Sourcing note: I relied on the CourtListener RECAP docket for No. 2:18-cv-02693, the underlying PDFs on storage.courtlistener.com, and Snap's PTAB filings. I did not have direct PACER access in this session, so docket-item numbers for the Tartaglio/O'Brien withdrawals and the Zapata appearance are from the mirrored docket summaries rather than the PACER docket sheet itself; treat those two withdrawal entries as directionally accurate but worth a PACER check if precision matters.