Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re Opposed MOTION to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review and Rule 12

E.D. Tex.August 3, 2018

3004555.v1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION UNILOC USA, INC., et al., § § Plaintiffs, § § Case No. 2:17-cv-00650-JRG v. § LEAD CASE § SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., et al., § SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., et al., § Case No. 2:17-cv-00651-JRG § Defendants. § PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW AND RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1062 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 2 III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3 A. SIMPLIFICATION OF ISSUES .................................................................................. 3 1. -650 Lead Case ......................................................................................................... 3 2. -651 Case .................................................................................................................. 5 B. UNDUE PREJUDICE .................................................................................................. 6 C. STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS .............................................................................. 7 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10 Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 1063 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 2015 WL 12835689 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2015) ........................................................................... 2 Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd., No. 2:09-cv-00242-JRG, 2012 WL 194172 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012) ...................................... 5 Cf. Tessera Adv. Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-00671-JRG, 2018 WL 3472700 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 19, 2018)..................................... 1 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) .................................................................................................................... 3 Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2:16-cv-129-JRG, 2017 WL 3836133 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) ................................... 1, 3 DataTreasury Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00431-JRG-RSP, 2014 WL 12704813 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2014) ........................ 7 Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01414-JRG, 2016 WL 7042237 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2017) ............................. 4, 5, 6 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) .................................................................................................................... 2 Papst Licensing GmbH &Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al., No. 6:15-cv-01095, Dkt. No. 726 at 7-8 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2018) ........................................ 4, 6 Parthenon Unified Mem. Arch. LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:14-cv-00690, 2016 WL 3365855 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 17, 2016) ............................................ 7 Perdiemco LLC v. Tellular Corp., No. 2:16-cv-01408, 2017 WL 2444736 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 6, 2017) .............................................. 9 Realtime Data, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Ent. Co., 2018 WL 3608544 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2018) ............................................................................. 6 Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL, 2017 WL 772654 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017) ................... 3, 5, 6 Saint Lawrence Comm’s LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00349-JRG, 2017 WL 3396399 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2017) ............................ 5, 6, 7 Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Tex. 2005) ........................................................................................ 3 Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC, 748 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 7 Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13-cv-01047-WCB, 2015 WL 1069179 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) ........................ passim Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 1064 iii Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Acronis, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01001-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 2899690 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017) ......................... 3 Virtualagility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 7 White Knuckle, IP, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc., 2015 WL 5022579 (D. Utah Aug. 23, 2015) .......................................................................... 2, 5 Rules Rule 12(b)(6) ............................................................................................................................... 1, 2 Statutes 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................... 1 35 U.S.C. § 315 ............................................................................................................................... 5 Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 1065 1 Plaintiffs, Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together “Uniloc”), respectfully submit this opposition to the motion of defendants, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (together “Samsung”), to stay these two cases pending: (1) resolution of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of fewer than all of asserted claims of the patents- in-suit, and (2) Samsung’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the reasons set forth below, the instant motion should be denied. I. INTRODUCTION Samsung first requests that these cases be stayed pending resolution of numerous IPR proceedings. Samsung did not file any of those petitions. Instead, in its motion, Samsung relies solely upon petitions for IPR filed up to more than seven months ago (December 2017) by Apple Inc. (“Apple”). See Motion at 1.1 Uniloc filed the complaints in these cases on September 15, 2017. See Lead Case No. -650, Dkt. No. 1, Case No. -651, Dkt. No. 1. Yet, Samsung did not move to stay these cases based on Apple’s petitions until July 20, 2018. Thus, this is not a case wherein Samsung had to spend months preparing any petition(s) for IPR. Samsung could have moved to stay in December 2017 when Apple first filed petitions for IPR. Samsung’s delay demonstrates that the present motion is “yet another attempt to draw out” litigation and weighs strongly against a stay. Cf. Tessera Adv. Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 2:17-cv- 00671-JRG, 2018 WL 3472700, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 19, 2018). Moreover, Samsung’s two-part argument in support of a stay should also be rejected on the merits. First, courts in this District routinely deny motions for stay prior to the institution of IPR. See, e.g., Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., No. 2:16-cv-129-JRG, 2017 WL 3836133, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017). Thus, the motion should be denied for the -651 case 1 Since filing the present motion, Samsung has requested IPR of the ‘723 Patent. Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 1066 2 because, as Samsung concedes on pages 2-3 of its opening brief, no request for IPR has been filed with respect to the ’556 patent, the only patent asserted in that case. In addition, no IPR has been instituted for the ’902 Patent that is asserted in the -650 Lead Case. Samsung’s argument that institution of IPR of the ’902 Patent is imminent should be rejected as speculative. See, e.g., Trover Group, Inc. v. Dedicated Micros USA, No. 2:13-cv-01047-WCB, 2015 WL 1069179, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015). Thus, the motion to stay the -650 Lead Case should likewise be denied at this time.2 Second, Samsung argues that the pendency of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion also supports granting a stay in these cases. But, a “party is not entitled to a stay by merely filing a dispositive motion and then claiming it is highly likely the motion will be successful.” White Knuckle, IP, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc., 2015 WL 5022579, at *2 (D. Utah Aug. 23, 2015); see also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 2015 WL 12835689, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2015) (denying motion to stay notwithstanding defendant’s argument that its § 101 motion was “likely to be granted”). Thus, the second basis for Samsung’s stay argument should likewise be rejected. II. LEGAL STANDARDS District courts have the inherent power to control their own dockets, including the power to grant a stay. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). How best to manage a court’s docket “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Id. at 254-55. In striking that balance, courts typically consider three factors: (1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the 2 Samsung asserts that the Court has already stayed the related -652 case. Motion at 1. That case, however, is distinguishable because, unlike here, the IPR of the patent-in-suit therein had been instituted and Uniloc did not oppose the stay. Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 1067 3 nonmoving party, (2) the stage of the proceedings and (3) whether a stay will simplify issues in question and trial of the case. See, e.g., Customedia v. Dish Network, 2017 WL 3836133, at *1. The party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing that such a course is appropriate. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. A decision whether to stay a case, vel non, lies within the sound discretion of the district court. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). There is no rule that patent cases must be stayed pending Patent Office proceedings. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL, 2017 WL 772654, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017). For such a rule “would invite parties to unilaterally derail litigation.” Id. (citing Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D. Tex. 2005)). “Federal calendars should not be hijacked in this manner.” Realtime Data v. Rackspace, 2017 WL 772654, at *2 (citation omitted). Moreover, in this District, there is a “universal practice” of denying, or postponing decision on, pre-institution motions to stay. Trover Group v. Dedicated Micros, 2015 WL 1069179, at *6; see also Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Acronis, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-01001-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 2899690, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2017). III. ARGUMENT A. SIMPLIFICATION OF ISSUES 1. -650 Lead Case Citing Patent Office statistics, Samsung argues that a stay is appropriate because “the IPRs will likely simplify the issues.” Mot. at 7-8. As set forth above, however, this is purely speculation with respect to the ’902 Patent. As Judge Bryson previously explained: [T]he overall statistics for the number of petitions that are reviewed and the number of claims that are invalidated are not especially enlightening as to the likely disposition of any particular patents or claims, since the likelihood of invalidation depends entirely on the particulars of the patents and claims in dispute. Thus, it would be speculative for the Court to extrapolate from the statistics and conclude Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 1068 4 that it is likely that the PTAB will institute inter pares review in this case and invalidate some or all of the claims of the [patent-in-suit]. Trover Group v. Dedicated Micros, 2015 WL 1069179, at *4; see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01414-JRG, 2016 WL 7042237, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2017) (“it would be speculative for the Court to extrapolate from the cited statistics and conclude that the PTAB will institute CBM review in this case and then go further to invalidate some or all of the claims of the challenged patents”). Moreover, as Judge Schroeder very recently stated in another multi-patent case in which fewer than all asserted claims were under IPR and Samsung moved for a stay of claims not subject to any IPR: A stay would do little to simplify the issues in this case. The ’449 patent is not subject to any current IPR proceeding, and none of the claims of the ’449 patent have been invalidated. Claims 1 and 17 of the ’449 patent will remain valid regardless of the outcome of the other IPR decisions on appeal. See Papst Licensing GmbH &Co., KG v. Apple Inc., Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al., No. 6:15- cv-01095, Dkt. No. 726 at 7-8 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2018).3 The same applies here and the stay should be denied for the ’902 case.4 As the Court has also recognized, “[g]ranting a motion to stay on such a provisional ground ‘would invite parties to unilaterally derail timely patent case resolution by seeking reexamination and not promote the efficient and timely resolution of patent cases.’” Ambato Media, LLC v. Clarion Co., Ltd., No. 2:09-cv-00242-JRG, 2012 WL 194172, at *2 (E.D. Tex. 3 A copy of Judge Schroeder’s Memorandum Opinion and Order is submitted herewith as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Kevin Gannon (“Gannon Decl.”). 4 In the Papst case, Judge Schroeder denied Samsung’s motion for a stay of the ’449 patent that were not the subject of any ongoing IPR and severed those claims for separate trial, see Gannon Decl., Ex. B at 11, which makes equal sense here for the asserted claims that are unchallenged in IPR. Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 1069 5 Jan. 23, 2012) (citation omitted). Hence, the practice of the courts in this District is to deny pre- institution stays. Where (as in the -650 Lead Case) one of the patents-in-suit is not subject to an instituted IPR, and a claim is not even challenged in any petition for IPR, a stay is particularly inappropriate. See, e.g., Saint Lawrence Comm’s LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00349-JRG, 2017 WL 3396399, at **2-3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2017). 2. -651 Case Denial of the motion for stay in the -651 case is even more compelling. As Samsung concedes, no petition for IPR has been filed against the ’556 patent. Motion at 7. Accordingly, absent any petition for IPR, there is no good reason for staying the -651 case. Samsung attempts to fill this gap by arguing that its pending motion to dismiss warrants staying the -651 case. Id. at 9-10. As set forth above, however, a “party is not entitled to a stay by merely filing a dispositive motion and then claiming it is highly likely the motion will be successful.” White Knuckle v. Elec. Arts, 2015 WL 5022579, at *2. Moreover, Samsung cites no case, and Uniloc is aware of none, from this District granting a stay in such circumstances.5 Samsung also argues that its willingness to be bound by the IPR estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315 favors granting a stay. Motion at 7-8. The two cases Samsung cites in support are instructive and weigh against staying these two cases. In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. HCC Ins. Holdings, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-00660-JRG-KNM, asserted claim 14 survived IPR. See Gannon Decl., Ex. B at 1. As a result, the Court lifted the stay and the case is now proceeding following the 15-month delay caused by the stay. Id. Likewise, in Realtime Data, LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Nos. 6:16-cv-00086, -87, -89-RWS-JDL, all challenged claims of three of the patents-in-suit 5 Samsung relies upon one case from the Southern District of Ohio and one case from Delaware. Motion at 9. Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 1070 6 survived IPR and the stay has now been lifted with respect to those three patents following a more than 17-month delay caused by the stay, with the Court noting another 13 months delay being possible for completion of the PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings regarding the other patents-in-suit. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Hewlett Packard Ent. Co., 2018 WL 3608544 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2018). B. UNDUE PREJUDICE Samsung argues that a delay in Uniloc’s timely enforcement of its patents is “present in every case in which a patentee resists a stay.” Motion at 8. But, as this Court stated in Saint Lawrence v. ZTE: a plaintiff has a right to timely enforcement of its patent rights. Trover Grp., 2015 WL 1069179, at *2. Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor further weighs against staying these proceedings. 2017 WL 3396399, at *2 (italics added). In Trover Grp., Judge Bryson stated that it is “the general right of patent owners to timely enforcement of their patent rights” and that prejudice resulting from a delay in asserting those rights cuts against a stay.” See 2015 WL 1069179, at *2. In addition, as Judge Schroeder stated in Papst v. Apple/Samsung, in which Samsung moved to stay, “the additional prejudice that would be suffered if th[e] case[s] were to be stayed as to the ’449 patent pending exhaustion of the [IPR] appeals of the other four patents is considerable.” See Ex. A at 5. Samsung’s lack of prejudice argument here should likewise be rejected where claims not involved in any IPR will be held up by appeals of adverse rulings regarding claims in the instituted IPRs. As demonstrated in the Intellectual Ventures v. HCC and Realtime Data v. Dell cases cited by Samsung addressed above, the delay caused by a stay can easily last for 15 months. Moreover, as Samsung points out, no claims of the ’556 Patent are subject to IPR and asserted Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 1071 7 claim 20 of the ’508 Patent is unaffected by any IPR because Apple did not challenge that claim. Motion at 7. Thus, “[a] stay would prejudice [Uniloc’s] right to assert the unchallenged claims [of the ’556 and ’508 Patents] and would prejudice [Uniloc’s] right to conduct its business.” Parthenon Unified Mem. Arch. LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:14-cv-00690, 2016 WL 3365855, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 17, 2016). Such prejudice weighs against a stay in these cases. Id. Samsung also argues that Uniloc’s decision not to request preliminary injunctive relief favors granting a stay. Motion at 8-9. That argument has previously been rejected and should likewise be rejected here. For example, in Saint Lawrence v. ZTE, this Court stated that: [w]hile it is certainly reasonable to infer that an allegation of irreparable harm sufficient to support an injunction would add to any prejudice resulting from a stay, the failure to seek an injunction does not amount to an admission by plaintiff that it will not be prejudiced by a stay. 2017 WL 3396399, at *2. As the Federal Circuit has stated, “[w]e acknowledge, as the district court did, that there could be a variety of reasons that a patentee does not move for a preliminary injunction.” Virtualagility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As this Court also previously stated: [a]s the formidable showing for a preliminary injunction reflects, it is “an extraordinary remedy,” and the Court does not weigh it against Plaintiff that it chose not to seek an extraordinary remedy. DataTreasury Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00431-JRG-RSP, 2014 WL 12704813, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 27, 2014) (quoting Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC, 748 F.3d 1159, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Parthenon v. HTC, 2016 WL 3365855, at *2 (“stay would prejudice [plaintiff’s] . . . right to conduct its business”). Thus, this factor weighs against a stay. C. STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS Samsung argues that “[t]his case is in its early stages.” Motion at 5. Samsung, however, ignores the significant and substantial effort that the parties have already expended in the ten Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 1072 8 months that have passed since the complaints in these cases were filed. These efforts include preparing and filing four sets of briefs addressing: Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim See -650 Lead Case, Dkt. Nos. 24, 26, 29, 32; Samsung’s Motion to Change Venue See -650 Lead Case, Dkt. Nos. 28, 33, 42, 50; Samsung’s present Motion to Stay See -650 Lead Case, Dkt. No. 65. In addition, the parties have prepared and filed the following: Agreed Docket Control Order See -650 Lead Case, Dkt. No. 36; Amended Docket Control Order See -650 Lead Case, Dkt. No. 40; Agreed Discovery Order See -650 Lead Case, Dkt. No. 37; Agreed Protective Order See -650 Lead Case, Dkt. No. 51; Joint Claim Construction Order and Prehearing Statement See -650 Lead Case, Dkt. No. 67. Furthermore, the parties have prepared and exchanged their respective P.R. 3-1/3-2 and P.R. 3- 3/3-4 contentions and document productions. See Gannon Decl., ¶¶ 4-5. Also, as Samsung states, fact discovery has commenced. Motion at 5. To that end, the parties are attempting to reach agreement on dates for the deposition of Samsung’s witness, Mr. Shin, in Korea this summer. See id., ¶ 6. Thus, these cases, that have already been pending for ten months, are not in their early stages. Delay in requesting IPR also weighs against staying an action. Trover Grp., 2015 WL 1069179, at *3. This is, inter alia, because the delay in deciding whether to institute vel non can Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 1073 9 be disruptive to the deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order(s). See, e.g., Perdiemco LLC v. Tellular Corp., No. 2:16-cv-01408, 2017 WL 2444736, at **2-3 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 6, 2017) (noting unnecessary disruption to scheduled claim construction process should a stay be entered but the petition for IPR is thereafter denied). Apple filed its first petitions for IPR relied upon by Samsung in these cases on December 22, 2017. See Motion at 1, ns. 1, 2. As set forth above, the complaints herein were filed on September 15, 2017.6 Thus, Samsung could have moved to stay seven months ago, after Apple filed its first petitions. Samsung chose not to. Such self-induced delay is not excused by Samsung needing time to prepare its own petition for IPR, because it has filed none and relies exclusively upon Apple’s petitions going back to December 2017. See Motion at 1. Such unexcused delay weighs against granting a stay. See, e.g., Trover Group v. Dedicated Micros, 2015 WL 1069179, at *3 (“court may deny a request for a stay where the movant has unjustifiably delayed seeking reexamination”) (citation omitted). Apple filed its second petition for IPR of the ’902 Patent on May 4, 2018. See Motion at 1, n. 3. The Claim Construction hearing in these cases is scheduled for October 16, 2018. See Docket Control Order (Lead Case Dkt. No. 38), p. 2. Accordingly, as in Perdiemco, granting a stay of these cases “will clearly affect the parties’ ability to prepare for the [October] 2018 claim construction hearing” because “if the PTAB declines to institute review on the [second] petition[], the Court’s schedule will have been unnecessarily disrupted.” Perdiemco, 2017 WL 2444736, at *2. This further weighs against a stay. Id. at *3. 6 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. was served on September 18, 2017 and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. agreed to waive service on October 4, 2017. See Lead Case No. -650, Dkt. No. 16; Case No. -651, Dkt. No. 16. Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 1074 10 IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Samsung is not entitled to a stay of these proceedings and its motion should be denied. A proposed Order is attached. Date: August 3, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kevin Gannon Paul J. Hayes Massachusetts State Bar No. 227,000 James J. Foster Massachusetts State Bar No. 553,285 Kevin Gannon Massachusetts State Bar No. 640,931 PRINCE LOBEL TYE LLP One International Place, Suite 3700 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 456-8000 Fax: (617) 456-8100 Email: phayes@princelobel.com Email: jfoster@princelobel.com Email: kgannon@princelobel.com Edward R. Nelson III ed@nelbum.com Texas State Bar No. 00797142 Anthony M. Vecchione anthony@nelbum.com Texas State Bar No. 24061270 NELSON BUMGARDNER ALBRITTON PC 3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Tel: (817) 377-9111 Fax: (817) 377-3485 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on August 3, 2018. /s/ Kevin Gannon Case 2:17-cv-00650-JRG Document 72 Filed 08/03/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 1075