I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing: 825
MOTION for New Trial on the Dollar Amount of Past Damages by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.âS RULE 59
MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF PAST DAMAGES
Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (âI/P Engineâ) respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Rule
59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to vacate the juryâs responses to question III.C of the
verdict form and order a new trial to determine the dollar amount of past damages.
As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, this Court should order a new
trial on the dollar amount of past damages for five reasons. First, the timing and Court
implementation of its laches ruling after the close of the partiesâ respective cases, and the Courtâs
forbidding I/P Engine to identify a specific damages amount to the jury, was fundamentally
unfair and highly prejudicial to I/P Engine. I/P Engine was precluded from explaining how the
evidence supported $118 million of damages accrued since September 15, 2011. Second, this
Court wrongly prevented I/P Engine from introducing evidence of Defendantsâ accused
revenues, which formed the total revenue base. This evidence also would have enabled I/P
Engine to explain the damages amounts from September 15, 2011. Third, the juryâs damages
award is internally inconsistent; the jury awarded 35% of I/P Engineâs initial claimed damages
1
against four defendants, but only 3.5% of I/P Engineâs initial claimed damages against Google.
Fourth, as set forth in detail in I/P Engineâs post-trial motion regarding laches, this Courtâs
exclusion of damages from September 15, 2005 to September 15, 2011 was error. Fifth,
applying laches to AOL and Gannett was error, because there was no record evidence that either
had indemnification agreements with Google.
Dated: December 18, 2012
By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)
W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC
150 West Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone:
(757) 623-3000
Facsimile:
(757) 623-5735
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
Dawn Rudenko Albert
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone:
(202) 420-2200
Facsimile:
(202) 420-2201
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 18th day of December, 2012, the foregoing PLAINTIFF I/P
ENGINE, INC.âS RULE 59 MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE DOLLAR
AMOUNT OF PAST DAMAGES, was served via the Courtâs CM/ECF system on the
following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
robert.burns@finnegan.com
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
cortney.alexander@finnegan.com
/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
3
