Litigation

BlackBerry Limited v. Twitter, Inc.

dismissed

2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS

Filed
2019-02-27
Terminated
2020-01-02

Patents at issue (1)

8296351

Plaintiffs (1)

Defendants (1)

Summary

BlackBerry asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,296,351, among five patents, against Twitter. After Twitter moved to dismiss on collateral estoppel grounds, the court granted a joint stipulation to vacate the prior invalidation order and dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice on January 2, 2020.

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 across docket sources, court opinions, and legal press before drafting.

Case overview — BlackBerry Ltd. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KS (C.D. Cal.)

The parties. BlackBerry Limited is a Canadian corporation headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario (FAC ¶18, Dkt. 36), and this is a case brought by an operating company with a deep in-house R&D portfolio rather than by a classic PAE. By the time it sued in February 2019, BlackBerry had already exited the handset business it was famous for and was repositioning around enterprise software, security, and — critically — patent licensing, with the litigation function housed in-house (Edward R. McGah, Jr., VP & Deputy General Counsel–Litigation) working alongside Quinn Emanuel (James R. Asperger, Yury Kapgan, Victoria F. Maroulis, Jordan R. Jaffe, Patrick T. Schmidt). Twitter, Inc., a Delaware corporation then headquartered at 1355 Market Street, San Francisco, is the social-media and digital-advertising platform; in the complaint BlackBerry called it a "relative latecomer to the mobile messaging world" that had co-opted BlackBerry's innovations (Compl. ¶4). Twitter's IPR work was handled by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (J. Steven Baughman, Megan Raymond); I did not independently verify the district-court signature block for Twitter's trial counsel in the materials I reviewed, so I flag that rather than name the firm.

The accused technology. The accused instrumentalities were broad rather than a single product: the Twitter application across iOS, Android, Windows and web, the Twitter Ads platform, and Twitter's backend servers and database systems (FAC ¶13 & n.1;

Key legal developments & outcome

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

BlackBerry Ltd. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KSx (C.D. Cal.) — chronological developments

Scope note / correction to the prior summary. The docket does not support the description of Twitter's dismissal motion as a "collateral estoppel" motion. Twitter's Rule 12(b)(6) motion was an Alice/Mayo § 101 motion; the court's ruling expressly incorporated by reference its parallel § 101 holdings from the consolidated Facebook/Snap cases. The "vacatur" in the final order was of that § 101 invalidation ruling (Dkt. 51), not of an estoppel ruling. Also note the case was assigned to Judge George H. Wu with Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson ("KS").

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Date Event Source
2019-02-27 BlackBerry Limited files complaint for patent infringement in C.D. Cal.; case assigned to Judge Wu as 2:19-cv-01444-GW-KSx. The case's AO-120 patent report lists five patents: 8,286,089; 8,296,351; 8,572,182; 8,676,929; 9,021,059 Dkt. 1; AO 120 filed 2020-01-03 (Dkt. 60)
2019-04-08 Twitter served (answer originally due 2019-04-29); deadline later extended by stipulation Docket report (Unified Patents)
2019-04/05 Twitter's first motion to dismiss (Dkt. 17) noticed for hearing 2019-07-25 Dkt. 38 (recites Dkt. 17)
2019-06-04 BlackBerry files First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 36), expanding to seven patents: '929, '351, '120, '059, '089, '182, '777 Dkt. 36; Twitter Answer ¶13 (Dkt. 54)
2019-06-17 Stipulated order extends Twitter's response to 2019-06-25, sets MTD briefing (opp. 2019-07-24; reply 2019-08-15; hearing 2019-08-29) and vacates Dkt. 17 as moot Dkt. 38

Accused products: the Twitter app (iOS/Android/Windows/web) and the Twitter Ads service, including backend servers (FAC ¶13 & n.1). The '351 and '929 were pleaded as the "advertising patents" — a proxy content server storing ad/content information in "channels," keyed to a mobile device "feedback signal" (location) and time-based triggering events.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Twitter's Rule 12(b)(6) § 101 motion (Dkt. 39).

  • 2019-06-25 — Twitter moves to dismiss the FAC, arguing each asserted patent claims an abstract idea (for the '351/'929: "assembling targeted advertising"). Dkt. 39; Reply (Dkt. 43) at 22–26.
  • 2019-07-24 — BlackBerry opposition (Dkt. 40), arguing the '351/'929 claim a concrete "proxy content server"/"channel" architecture solving mobile bandwidth/battery problems, and that the parallel Facebook case's Markman ruling and MTD denial had already identified factual issues precluding § 101 resolution.
  • Hearing continued from 2019-08-29 to 2019-09-05 (minute order resetting hearings; replies due 2019-08-15). BlackBerry also filed a supplemental memorandum after the hearing.
  • 2019-10-02 — Final Ruling (Dkt. 51): GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
    • The court incorporated its 2019-10-01 § 101 ruling from BlackBerry v. Facebook / BlackBerry v. Snap (consolidated, No. 2:18-cv-01844) and invalidated the claims of the '929, '351, '182 and '777 patents, dismissing Counts I, II, VI and VII (Joint Stip. Dkt. 56 ¶ recitals

Plaintiff representatives

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

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

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff BlackBerry Limited

Bottom line: BlackBerry was represented by a single firm — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP — with no separate local-counsel firm (all of the QE lawyers on the matter were California-barred and appeared in the C.D. Cal. offices), plus one in-house lawyer from BlackBerry Corporation. The team was essentially identical to the one BlackBerry used in the companion C.D. Cal. cases against Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp (No. 2:18-cv-01844-GW-KSx) and Snap (No. 2:18-cv-02693-GW-KSx), which is why the same names appear in the § 101 briefing in all three cases.

Caveat on sourcing: PACER itself is paywalled and I could not pull the live docket sheet directly; the roster below is reconstructed from the filed documents (complaint, proofs of service, briefs, and the December 2019 stipulation), the Unified Patents mirror of the C.D. Cal. docket, UniCourt's attorney list, and the PTAB filings in the parallel IPRs. No attorney below is inferred — each name appears in a document filed in this case.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (outside counsel)

Attorney Role Office Notes
James R. Asperger (SBN 83188) Lead counsel — first-listed and primary signatory from the complaint (Dkt. 1, filed 2/27/2019) through the joint stipulation to dismiss/vacate (Dkt. 58, 12/24/2019); argued the § 101 issue on BlackBerry's behalf 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90017 QE patent litigator and the constant lead across BlackBerry's whole 2018–2020 enforcement campaign (Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, Snap, Twitter), including BlackBerry's defense in Facebook's N.D. Cal. DJ action, No. 4:18-cv-05434-JSW.
Yury Kapgan (SBN 218366) Co-lead / core team — signed the complaint and the dismissal stipulation, and was the "attorney for plaintiff" named on the proof of service effecting service on Twitter (Dkt. 13, 4/16/2019) 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl., Los Angeles QE partner; also on the BlackBerry team in the Facebook/Snap C.D. Cal. cases and the N.D. Cal. action.
Victoria F. Maroulis (SBN 202603) Of counsel / case team — named on the signature blocks of BlackBerry's substantive briefs and the dismissal stipulation 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Fl., Redwood Shores, CA QE partner on BlackBerry's mobile-messaging patent campaign in both C.D. Cal. and N.D. Cal.; frequently the technical/claim-construction lead on the BlackBerry matters.
Jordan R. Jaffe (SBN 254886) Of counsel / case team — named on signature blocks of the Sept. 10, 2019 supplemental § 101 memorandum (Dkt. 49) and the Dec. 24, 2019 stipulation (Dkt. 58) 50 California St., 22nd Fl., San Francisco, CA QE partner; part of the standing BlackBerry team across the Twitter, Facebook and Snap matters and the parallel N.D. Cal. litigation.
Pushkal Mishra (SBN 298695) Associate / case team — filed a formal Notice of Appearance adding him as counsel of record for BlackBerry on 9/4/2019; signed the 9/10/2019 supplemental memorandum (Dkt. 49) and the dismissal stipulation 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl., Los Angeles Then a QE associate doing day-to-day briefing work on the § 101 motions that drove this case's outcome.

In-house counsel

Attorney Role Office Notes
Edward R. McGah, Jr. (SBN 97719) In-house counsel — Vice President, Deputy General Counsel–Litigation, BlackBerry Corporation; appeared on the signature blocks as co-counsel for plaintiff, i.e., a California-barred in-house lawyer actively on the pleadings rather than a supervising-only contact 41 Ticknor Place, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Listed on BlackBerry's briefs and the dismissal stipulation alongside the QE team; the only non-firm lawyer of record for the plaintiff.

Notes, gaps, and things worth flagging

  • No separate local-counsel firm. Unlike Twitter — which used Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow (Ekwan E. Rhow, Grace W. Kang, A. Howard Matz) as local counsel with Paul, Weiss as national counsel — BlackBerry relied on QE's Los Angeles/San Francisco/Redwood Shores offices for the local presence. Any docket entry describing "local counsel" for plaintiff would therefore point to Asperger/Kapgan/Mishra in Los Angeles.
  • PTAB counsel who did not appear in the district court case. In the parallel IPRs of the BlackBerry patents (e.g., IPR2019-01599 and the Twitter/Facebook/Snap-filed petitions), BlackBerry's lead PTAB counsel is James M. Glass (Reg. No. 46,729) with backup John T. McKee (Reg. No. 65,926), both of Quinn Emanuel's New York office (51 Madison Ave.), using the service address qe-blackberry-ipr@quinnemanuel.com. I found no pro hac vice application or notice of appearance for either in the C.D. Cal. docket; treat them as IPR-only counsel here. If you need certainty on whether Glass ever entered an appearance in 2:19-cv-01444, that requires a live PACER docket-sheet pull.
  • Nothing is sealed as to counsel. Several substantive briefs and the court's § 101 rulings were filed under seal/redacted in the related cases, but the attorneys' identities and contact information are fully public in the filings cited above.
  • Case-outcome context tying to counsel work: BlackBerry's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 36, 6/4/2019) asserted seven patents; Twitter moved to dismiss (Dkt. 39, 6/25/2019); Judge Wu's October 2, 2019 Final Ruling (Dkt. 51) dismissed the claims on the '929, '351, '182 and '777 patents; after Twitter raised collateral estoppel from the Facebook/Snap rulings, the parties stipulated on December 24, 2019 (Dkt. 58) to vacatur of the MTD order and dismissal with prejudice, which the Court entered on January 2, 2020 — the QE team (Asperger, Kapgan, Maroulis, Jaffe, Mishra) and McGah signed that stipulation, making it the definitive list of plaintiff's counsel of record at case close.

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 Twitter in this case.

Let me pull the docket entry list and the appearances of record to confirm each attorney.