15 unchanged sentences
The Court denied Meta’s motion on May 30, 2023, and held the claim construction hearing on the same day.
−Removed: The Court adopted certain claim constructions during the hearing, and issued a formal claim construction order consistent with those constructions on July 7, 2023.Fact discovery is ongoing, and is set to close on September 6, 2023.
+Added: The Court adopted certain claim constructions during the hearing, and issued a formal claim construction order consistent with those constructions on July 7, 2023.
+Added: On August 2, 2023, Meta filed a mandamus petition asking the Federal Circuit to reverse the district court’s order on Meta’s transfer motion.
+Added: Immersion responded on August 11, 2023, and Meta filed its reply brief on August 14, 2023.
+Added: Meta’s petition remains pending.
+Added: Fact discovery closed on [October 6, 2023].
In addition, Meta filed inter partes reviews (“IPRs”), IPR2023-00942;
3 unchanged sentences
and 10,269,222, respectively.
−Removed: The Company’s response to IPR2023-00942 and IPR2023-0094 is due on September 8, 2023, and to IPR2023-00944 is due on September 12, 2023.
+Added: The Company filed its response to IPR2023-00942 and IPR2023-0094 on September 8, 2023, and to IPR2023-00944 on September 12, 2023.
Meta filed IPR2023-00945;
3 unchanged sentences
and 10,248,298, respectively.
−Removed: The Company’s response to IPR2023-00945 is due on September 8, 2023, and to IPR2023-00946 and IPR2023-00947 is due on September 12, 2023.
−Removed: On August 2, 2023, Meta filed a mandamus petition asking the Federal Circuit to vacate Judge Albright’s May 30, 2023 order denying transfer of the litigation from the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California and instead transferring the case to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas.
+Added: The Company filed its response to IPR2023-00945 on September 8, 2023, and to IPR2023-00946 and IPR2023-00947 is due on September 12, 2023.
+Added: On August 2, 2023, M eta filed a mandamus petition asking the Federal Circuit to vacate Judge Albright’s May 30, 2023 order denying transfer of the litigation from the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California and instead transferring the case to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas.
The Federal Circuit has set a response deadline of August 11, 2023 for us, and a reply deadline of August 14, 2023 for Meta.
+Added: On November 10, 2023, we filed an additional complaint against Meta in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that Meta’s AR/VR systems, including the Meta Quest 3, infringe five of our patents that cover various uses of haptic effects in connection with such AR/VR systems.
+Added: We are seeking to enjoin Meta from further infringement and to recover a reasonable royalty for such infringement.
+Added: The complaint against Meta asserts infringement of the following patents:
+Added: “System and method for providing complex haptic stimulation during input of control gestures, and relating to control of virtual equipment”
+Added: “Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content”
+Added: “Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content”
+Added: “System with wearable device and haptic output device”
+Added: “Haptically enhanced interactivity with interactive content”
Immersion Corporation vs.
10 unchanged sentences
Siddharth Mathur.
−Removed: Immersion’s preliminary response to Xiaomi’s initial response is due on August 11, 2023.
On July 11, 2023, in the German proceeding Xiaomi filed its nullity action in the German Federal Patent Court, which was served on Immersion on July 27, 2023.
+Added: Immersion has until October 27, 2023, to respond.
+Added: In the German infringement proceeding, Xiaomi’s statement of defense is due on October 25, 2023.
+Added: Xiaomi has until December 21, 2023 to reply to Immersion’s writ of summons in the French proceeding.
+Added: The Court will hear Immersion’s application for a preliminary injunction on January 24, 2024 in the Indian proceeding.
LGE Korean Withholding Tax Matter
8 unchanged sentences
The Company had a hearing on April 27, 2023, and the Korea Administrative Court rendered a decision on this matter on June 8, 2023, in which it ruled that the withholding taxes and penalties which were imposed by the Korean tax authorities on LGE should be cancelled with litigation costs to be borne by the Korean tax authorities.
−Removed: In connection with the Korea Administrative Court’s decision, the Korean tax authorities filed an appeal on June 28, 2023 with the Korea Administrative Court to seek the cancellation of the court’s decision.
+Added: In connection with the Korea Administrative Court’s decision, the Korean tax authorities filed an appeal on June 28, 2023 with the Korea High Court to seek the cancellation of the lower court’s decision.
+Added: The appellate case is in progress at the Seoul High Court and the first hearing has been scheduled for November 30, 2023.
On April 25, 2023, the Company received notice from LGE requesting the Company to reimburse LGE with respect to withholding tax imposed on LGE by the Korean tax authorities following a recent tax audit of LGE for the years 2018 through 2022.
1 unchanged sentence
On June 29, 2023, on behalf of LGE, the Company filed an appeal with the Korea Tax Tribunal regarding their findings with respect to the withholding taxes related to the 2018 to 2022 period.
−Removed: Section 220 Demands
−Removed: On March 14, 2022, we received a stockholder demand (the “ Franchi Demand ”) to inspect our records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law from Anthony Franchi, a purported stockholder of the Company.
−Removed: On March 21, 2022, we responded, noting deficiencies in the stockholder demand, but agreeing to produce certain requested documentation, subject to the execution of a confidentiality agreement relating to the confidentiality of such requested documentation.
−Removed: On April 29, 2022, the parties executed a confidentiality agreement covering such requested documentation.
−Removed: We produced documents in response to the Franchi Demand in May 2022 and since then has heard nothing further regarding the Franchi Demand.
−Removed: We also received a demand for the inspection of books and records under Section 220 on behalf of Interlink Electronics, Inc.
−Removed: (“ Interlink ”) dated May 9, 2022 (the “ Interlink Demand ”).
−Removed: Interlink is a purported beneficial owner of 1.2 million shares of our common stock.
−Removed: The Interlink Demand seeks to inspect certain our books and records.
−Removed: It contends that Interlink requires the books and records in order to investigate a series of transactions and actions that the Company’s board of directors and management effected in 2021 and 2022.
−Removed: On May 19, 2022, we responded to the Interlink Demand by objecting that it failed to meet the requirements of Section 220.
−Removed: However, we agreed to permit Interlink to inspect certain books and records subject to a confidentiality agreement.
−Removed: We most recently provided a draft confidentiality agreement to Interlink in August 2022 and since then has heard nothing further regarding the Interlink Demand.
+Added: On August 7, 2023, the Assessment Authority submitted its answer against the tax appeal.
+Added: On September 8, 2023, the Appellant submitted its rebuttal brief in response thereto.
Immersion Corporation vs.
12 unchanged sentences
Valve responded to the Complaint on July 24, 2023 with a motion to dismiss.
−Removed: Immersion’s response to the motion is due on August 14, 2023.
+Added: Valve re-noted its motion, which changed Immersion’s response deadline from August 14, 2023 to August 21, 2023.
+Added: Immersion timely filed its response, and Valve filed its reply on August 25, 2023.
+Added: The motion remains pending.
+Added: Although the parties have agreed to a case schedule, the Court has not yet entered such case schedule.
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.