Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 750

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File - Defendants' Unopposed Renewed Motion for Leave to Serve an Expert Report Regarding Reexamination Procedures in teh United States Patent and Trademark Office by AOL Inc, Amazon.com Inc., MySpace Inc., Softlayer Technologies, Inc., Yahoo! Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Expert Report of N. Godici, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Williams, E Danielle)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 6:09–CV–00269 Hon. Leonard E. Davis JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED RENEWED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE AN EXPERT REPORT REGARDING REEXAMINATION PROCEDURES IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE I. INTRODUCTION The United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has granted two reexamination requests of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,893,120 (the ‘120 Patent). The requests for these reexaminations specifically involved a number of prior art references that the Defendants1 do not intend to use at trial. During both reexaminations, several prior art references that Defendants intend to use at trial were listed in an IDS submitted to the USPTO, but there is no evidence that several of these prior art references were considered by the examiner who conducted the first reexamination. To ensure the jury has a clear understanding of USPTO procedure associated 1 This motion is filed on behalf of Defendants Amazon.com Inc., SoftLayer Technologies, Inc., MySpace, Inc., AOL Inc, and Yahoo! Inc. 01980.51572/4054090.2 US2008 2527592.2 1 with submission and consideration of prior art, as well as the USPTO’s procedures that led to the grant of a second reexamination, Defendants filed a motion for leave to serve an expert report regarding reexamination procedures in the USPTO.2 The motion requested that, if the Court admitted the evidence of the reexaminations of the ‘120 patent, the Court also grant the Defendants leave to disclose an expert with respect to the USPTO’s reexamination process. Subsequently, Magistrate Judge Love granted Defendants’ Motion in Limine #4, which precluded Plaintiff from offering testimony, evidence or argument regarding the reexaminations of the ‘120 patent.3 Thus, Defendants’ motion for leave to serve an expert report regarding reexamination procedures in the USPTO was rendered moot. Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants’ motion. 4 During trial of a co-Defendant in this matter, the Court allowed the Plaintiff to present evidence of one of the reexaminations of the ‘120 patent.5 The Court also permitted the co-Defendant to present testimony from a USPTO expert.6 In consideration of the Court’s decision, Defendants renew their motion to serve an expert report regarding reexamination procedures in the USPTO.7 2 Defendants' Motion for leave to Serve an Expert Report Regarding Reexamination Procedures in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Bedrock Computer Technologies v. SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. et al., 6:09-cv-269 (E.D. Tex. March 28, 2011), DKT 668. 3 Order, Bedrock Computer Technologies v. SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. et al., 6:09-cv269 (E.D. Tex. March 30, 2011), DKT 680. 4 Order, Bedrock Computer Technologies v. SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. et al., 6:09-cv269 (E.D. Tex. March 31, 2011), DKT 691. 5 Bedrock Computer Technologies v. Google, 6:09-cv-269, Trial Transcript, April 11, 2011, Morning Session, 11:14-18. 6 Bedrock Computer Technologies v. Google, 6:09-cv-269, Trial Transcript, April 13, 2011, Afternoon Session, 77:5-167:3. 7 Defendants intend to offer the opinion of Mr. Nick Godici, a former U.S. Patent Examiner and the former Commissioner for Patents. Mr. Godici’s Expert Report was served on April 20, 2011 and is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 01980.51572/4054090.2 US2008 2527592.2 2 Defendants hereby restate all facts and arguments presented in the March 28, 2011, motion for leave to serve and expert report regarding reexamination procedures8 and renew their request that, if the Court decides to permit reference to either or both of the reexaminations,9 the Court also grant the Defendants leave to disclose an expert with respect to the USPTO’s reexamination process. In particular, due to the complexity of the dual reexaminations of the ‘120 Patent, and the fact that the examiner considered some, but not all, prior art submitted, there is a significant danger that the jury will become confused regarding what the examiner’s decision means in the context of the second reexamination, and whether all the prior art was indeed considered. To counter this danger, Defendants renew their request that they be allowed to rely on the testimony of an expert in the USPTO’s reexamination procedures who can guide the jury through the USPTO’s procedures for considering submitted prior art, and also explain why the USPTO granted a second reexamination of the ‘120 patent, before issuing a certificate in the first reexamination. 8 Defendants' Motion for leave to Serve an Expert Report Regarding Reexamination Procedures in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Bedrock Computer Technologies v. SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. et al., 6:09-cv-269 (E.D. Tex. March 28, 2011), DKT 668. 9 Defendants plan to file a Bench Brief in support of excluding all references to both reexaminations as addressed in Defendants’ Motion in Limine #4 [DKT 604] and in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine A [DKT 587]. 01980.51572/4054090.2 US2008 2527592.2 3 Dated: April 21, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alan L. Whitehurst (with permission)_ Alan L. Whitehurst alan.whitehurst@alston.com Marissa R. Ducca marissa.ducca@alston.com ALSTON & BIRD LLP The Atlantic Building 950 F Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 756-3300 Facsimile: (202) 756-3333 /s/ E. Danielle T. Williams __ Steven Gardner E. Danielle T. Williams John C. Alemanni Alton Absher III Michael Morlock KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1001 West 4th Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: 336-607-7300 Fax: 336-607-7500 Frank G. Smith frank.smith@alston.com ALSTON & BIRD LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7240 Facsimile: (404) 256-8184 William H. Boice Russell A. Korn KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 Telephone: 404-815-6500 Fax: 404-815-6555 Michael J. Newton (SBN 24003844) mike.newton@alston.com ALSTON & BIRD LLP Chase Tower 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3601 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 922-3423 Facsimile: (214) 922-3839 J. Thad Heartfield Texas Bar No. 09346800 thad@jth-law.com M. Dru Montgomery Texas Bar No. 24010800 dru@jth-law.com THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM 2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, TX 77706 Telephone: 409-866-2800 Fax: 409-866-5789 Louis A. Karasik (pro hac vice) lou.karasik@alston.com ALSTON & BIRD LLP 333 South Hope Street 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-1148 Facsimile: (213) 576-1100 Attorneys for Defendants SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. Attorneys for Defendants MySpace, Inc. and AOL Inc. 01980.51572/4054090.2 US2008 2527592.2 4 /s/ Christopher D. Bright (with permission) Yar R. Chaikovsky ychaikovsky@mwe.com John A. Lee jlee@mwe.com Bryan K. James bjames@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 275 Middlefield Rd., Suite 100 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: 650.815.7400 Fax: (650) 815-7401 Christopher D. Bright cbright@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 18191 Von Karman Ave, Ste. 500 Irvine, California 92612 Tel: 949.757.7178 Fax: 949.851.9348 Natalie A. Bennett nbennett@mwe.com MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 227 West Monroe Chicago, IL 60614 Tel: 312.984.7631 Fax: 312.984.7700 Jennifer Doan Texas Bar No. 08809050 jdoan@haltomdoan.com J. Scott Andrews Texas Bar No. 24064823 sandrews@haltomdoan.com HALTOM & DOAN Crown Executive Center, Suite 100 6500 Summerhill Rd. Texarkana, Texas 75503 Tel: 903.255.1002 Fax: 903.255.0800 Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo! Inc. 01980.51572/4054090.2 US2008 2527592.2 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the forgoing document via the Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to the Court’s Local Rules this 21st day of April, 2011. /s/ E. Danielle T. Williams _ 01980.51572/4054090.2 US2008 2527592.2 6