COMPLAINANTS’ OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT ZTE’S URGENT MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC SETTLEMENT MEETING AND A SHORTENED RESPONSE TIME [MOTION DOCKET # 853-015]

ZTE offers two excuses in support of its request for relief from the in-person settlement requirement of Order No. 7 [Setting Procedural Schedule]. First, ZTE suggests that it “accommodated” Complainants by traveling to Washington, D.C. for the first settlement conference and that Complainants should now reciprocate by traveling to ZTE’s headquarters. Second, ZTE submits a declaration from a “senior officer,” Mr. James Ray Wood stating that he cannot travel to Washington, D.C. this week. Both arguments are meritless. In addition, ZTE offers no justification whatsoever for burdening the Court and Complainants with an “urgent” motion when the Court scheduled the deadline for the parties’ second settlement conference months ago. For these reasons, ZTE’s motion should be denied. Even if it were true that it is “common protocol in licensing and settlement discussions for the parties to rotate venues,” (ZTE Motion at 2) the notion that ZTE “accommodated Complainants” (ZTE Motion at 1), or that ZTE traveled to Complainants’ preferred venue for the first settlement conference, is false. Complainant Technology Properties Limited—the party with authority to conduct settlement negotiations on behalf of all Complainants—is headquartered in Cupertino, California. As it did this time, the first time around TPL offered to conduct settlement conferences at its offices in Cupertino or to meet the parties in Washington, D.C. Although Washington, D.C. is almost as far from TPL’s California headquarters as

2

anywhere in the Continental U.S., TPL proposed it with the idea that no party would have grounds to complain about meeting there; Washington is where the ITC is situated and where trial will take place. Having taken advantage of meeting on neutral ground the first time, ZTE now seeks to force TPL to travel to its own headquarters in Texas – while at the same time TPL is conducting in-person meeting with 11 other groups of Respondents (none of which have complained about venue) in California or Washington, D.C. ZTE’s lopsided request is particularly unjustified because it is made less than week before the deadline by which the conference must take place. As shown in the attached correspondence to ZTE’s declarant, Mr. Wood, TPL has bent over backwards to accommodate ZTE with respect to the second settlement conference. See Exhibit A. Not only has TPL offered to meet on neutral ground once again, TPL has has provided many potential dates and times, and has agreed to meet after hours or on weekends. Further, TPL has reached out to ZTE 18 times since the first settlement conference in an attempt to accommodate ZTE’s schedule. Id. While ZTE gives lip service to the importance of the second settlement conference (Wood Declaration, ¶6), TPL has made every effort to make it happen. If Mr. Wood knew he would be unavailable this week, ZTE should have responded to one of TPL’s 18 earlier communiqués to arrange a different date. As it is now, ZTE’s motion is silent on why ZTE cannot authorize another employee to attend a settlement conference—just as the other 11 Respondent groups are doing. For the foregoing reasons, Complainants respectfully request that ZTE’s motion be denied in its entirety.

3

Dated: January 23, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James C. Otteson James C. Otteson Thomas T. Carmack Phillip W. Marsh Irvin E. Tyan Jed Phillips AGILITY IP LAW, LLP 149 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: (650) 227-4800 TPL853@agilityiplaw.com

Michelle G. Breit James R. Farmer AGILITY IP LAW, LLP 14350 North 87th Street, Suite 190 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 Telephone: (480) 646-3434 TPL853@agilityiplaw.com