Case 1:14-cv-04988-LAK Document 85 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 2

90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
212-210-9400
Fax: 212-922-3994
www.alston.com
Karl Geercken

Direct Dial: 212-210-9471

Email: karl.geercken@alston.com

March 31, 2015

VIA ECF
Honorable Lewis Kaplan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15C
New York, NY 10007-1312
Re:

Vringo, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-4988

ZTE Corp. v. Vringo, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0986

Dear Judge Kaplan:

On behalf of Vringo Inc. and Vringo Infrastructure, Inc. (Vringo), we write to request a
conference with the Court to discuss the status of both of the litigations pending before this
Court.
Under the scheduling order currently in place in the Vringo, Inc. v. ZTE Corp. litigation
(No. 14-cv-4988, Dkt. No 63), the parties are to have substantially completed document
production by today. However, (1) the parties are still meeting and conferring regarding their
disputes over the form of a protective order,1 (2) the foundational question of whether ZTE needs
to provide discovery related to its communications with Chinese regulatory authorities is subject
to a pending motion to compel, and (3) the parties have not yet begun to produce documents.
More importantly, important events since the filing of Vringos active complaint in the
Vringo, Inc. v. ZTE Corp. have altered the landscape of the dispute between the parties. It now is
apparent that in addition to using Vringos NDA settlement material as the basis for its civil
litigation in the Shenzhen courts, ZTE used and referenced that same information to the NDRC
in early 2014. Now the NDRC has opened an investigation against Vringo, citing prima face
[sic] evidence submitted to it. In early February, the NDRC issued a fine against Qualcomm,
another licensor of cellphone technology, in the amount of $975 million dollars. This second
independent breach of the NDA has dramatically increased the harm to Vringo.
1

In a nutshell, Vringo believes that sensitive information should remain in the United States and be closely
controlled, but can be shared with key decision-makers and/or designated internal counsel. ZTE disagrees with
Vringos limitations, and instead argues that neither decision-makers nor internal counsel should be able to view
sensitive information.

Atlanta Brussels Charlotte Dallas Los Angeles New York Research Triangle Silicon Valley Washington, D.C.

Case 1:14-cv-04988-LAK Document 85 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2

March 31, 2015
Page 2

In addition the two cases overlap significantly, both in terms of the parties legal
positions and in terms of the scope of discovery. ZTE has now taken the position, in ZTE Corp.
v. Vringo, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0986, that U.S. courts are empowered to issue injunctions
against parties before it, even where those injunctions have direct effects in foreign litigation. In
addition, many of ZTEs outstanding discovery requests to Vringo in case no. 14-cv-4988 relate
to the parties pending FRAND dispute, rather than to the breaches of the NDA (see, e.g., ZTE
document requests 17, 23-30, 37-38, attached hereto as Exhibit A).
Accordingly, Vringo respectfully requests that a litigation status conference be held at
this Courts convenience to discuss the status of the pending litigations, including (1) whether
discovery in the actions should be consolidated, (2) the outstanding motions before this Court,
and (3) Vringos anticipated request to file an amended complaint (including the possibility that
Vringo might file an amended pleading that not only includes the new evidence of ZTEs
separate breach of the NDA, but that also consolidates all of its complaint and counterclaim
allegations). Vringo is available on April 6 or 7, 2015 to discuss these issues.
Respectfully submitted,

Karl Geercken
Enclosures
cc: counsel of record (via ECF)
LEGAL02/35462389v1