IconFind, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

Filing 77

OPPOSITION by IconFind, Inc. to 73 RENEWED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D)(Folgers, Anna) Modified on 1/10/2012 (Meuleman, A).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

EXHIBIT D

1
2
3
4
5

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY, LLP
Thomas G. Redmon (SBN 47090)
[e-mail]
Daniel L. Baxter (SBN 203862)
[e-mail]
400 Capitol Mall, 22nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO
Raymond P. Niro (Admitted Pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Raymond P. Niro, Jr. (Admitted Pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Brian E. Haan (Admitted Pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Anna B. Folgers (Admitted Pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
181 West Madison, Suite 4600
Chicago, IL 60602-4515
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13
Attorneys for Plaintiff, IconFind Inc.
14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

ICONFIND, INC.,

Case No. 2:11-cv-00319-GEB-JFM
Plaintiff,

17
18

v.

19

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
JUDICIAL NOTICE

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

20
21

Plaintiff Iconfind, Inc. hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice, pursuant to Rule

22

201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,181,459 (“the ‘459

23

Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,788,274 (“the ‘274 Patent”) filed as Exhibits A and C to Plaintiff’s

24

Memorandum in Opposition to Google’s Renewed Motion for Judgment, for the reasons stated

25

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

26

-1-

1

below.

2

prosecution history of the ’459 Patent.

3

ARGUMENT

Iconfind does not oppose Defendant Google Inc.’s Request for Judicial Notice of the

4

A court may take judicial notice of a fact that is “capable of accurate and ready

5

determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED.

6

R.EVID. 201(b)(2). Where a document is in the public record and is not subject to reasonable

7

dispute, it is appropriate for a Court to take judicial notice of it. Streak Products, Inc. v. Antec,

8

Inc., 2010 WL 3515752, *3 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2010) (citing Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250

9

F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001). “Because [] patents are matters of public record, they are also

10

appropriate subjects for judicial notice under Rule 201.” Lamle v. City of Santa Monica, 2010

11

WL 3734868, *5 (C.D. Cal. Jul 23, 2010) (granting request for judicial notice of two patents)

12

(citing Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986)). The reasoning

13

behind this rule is that a public record, such as a patent, is “not subject to reasonable dispute and

14

is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot

15

reasonably be questioned.” Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Intern., Inc., 2010 WL 5387920, *9 (N.D.Cal.

16

Dec. 22, 2010) (granting request for judicial notice of two patents).

17

The ‘459 Patent is the subject of the Complaint and Google’s Renewed Motion for

18

Judgment on the Pleadings of Invalidity. The ‘274 Patent was also cited by Iconfind in its

19

Complaint (Compl., Dkt. No. 1, ¶9) and its Response in Opposition to Google’s Renewed

20

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Both Patents are published on the United States Patent

21

and Trademark Office website and their accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

22

same reasons, Iconfind does not oppose Google’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. No. 31) of

23

the prosecution history of the ‘459 Patent.

For the

24
25
26

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

-2-

1
2

CONCLUSION

3

Pursuant to the foregoing, Iconfind respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice,

4

pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, of U.S. Patent No. 7,181,459 and U.S. Patent No.

5

7,788,274 filed as an Exhibits A and C, respectively, to Iconfind’s Memorandum in Opposition to

6

Google’s renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

7

Respectfully submitted,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO
Raymond P. Niro (Pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Raymond P. Niro, Jr. (Pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Brian E. Haan (Pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Anna B. Folgers (Pro hac vice)
[e-mail]

/s/ Anna B. Folgers
WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD &
BIRNEY, LLP
Thomas G. Redmon (SBN 47090)
[e-mail]
Daniel L. Baxter (SBN 203862)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, IconFind Inc.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

-3-

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 9, 2012 the foregoing

3

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

4

was filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification
of such filing to the following counsel of record.

5

10

Michael J. Malecek
[e-mail]
Kenneth Maikish
[e-mail]
Kaye Scholer LLP
Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 400
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11

Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.

6
7
8
9

12

I certify that all parties in this case are represented by counsel who are CM/ECF participants.

13
14

/s/ Anna B. Folgers
Attorneys for Plaintiff

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE