Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 172

REDACTION to 117 Supplemental Bridges Declaration in Support of Preliminary Injunction (Re-filed pursuant to order dated 9/10/2010.) by CrunchPad, Inc., Interserve, Inc.. (Scherb, Matthew) (Filed on 9/16/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Andrew P. Bridges (SBN: 122761) ABridges@winston.com David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) DBloch@winston.com Matthew A. Scherb (SBN: 237461) MScherb@winston.com WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 101 California Street, 39th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 Attorneys for Plaintiffs INTERSERVE, INC., dba TECHCRUNCH and CRUNCHPAD, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Winston & Strawn LLP INTERSERVE, INC., dba TECHCRUNCH, ) a Delaware corporation, and CRUNCHPAD, ) INC., a Delaware corporation, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD., a Singapore ) company, ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) Case No. CV-09-5812 RS (PVT) DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF ANDREW P. BRIDGES IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Date: Time: Place: May 13, 2010 1:30 P.M. Courtroom 3, 17th Floor -1SUPP. DECL. OF A. BRIDGES ISO MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. - Case No. 09-CV-5812 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 I, Andrew P. Bridges, declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746: 1. Strawn LLP. 2. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief supporting their preliminary injunction motion on I am counsel of record for Plaintiffs and a partner with the law firm of Winston & May 3, 2010. On May 3, 2010 and again on May 5, 2010, Defendant and third-party McGrath Power produced additional documents. In these productions, Defendant produced approximately another 9,200 pages and McGrath Power produced approximately 27,000 pages. Plaintiffs did not have the opportunity to incorporate these documents into their reply brief. Plaintiffs nonetheless believe that the Court should have the opportunity to review a small number of these documents before the hearing on Plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. I attach them to this declaration. 3. Exhibit 1 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the document that third party 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Winston & Strawn LLP McGrath Power produced in this litigation starting with Bates number MP025816. (UNDER SEAL) The document is a September 18, 2009 email from Jonathan Bloom to his colleagues at McGrath. Mr. Bloom discusses Fusion Garage as a prospective client. McGrath would help Fusion Garage divorce from Plaintiffs and "tamp down . . . blow-back from Arrington." In this pre-divorce email, Mr. Bloom states he already had seen a "beautiful" "near-production ready prototype" that could "survive the divorce." 4. Exhibit 2 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the document that third party McGrath Power produced in this litigation starting with Bates number MP025175. (UNDER SEAL) This is a November 12, 2009 email from McGrath setting forth concerns about the script Mr. Rathakrishnan was set to use to introduce the JooJoo to the public. It responds to Mr. Rathakrishnan's edits to the script the day before. McGrath worries that Mr. Rathakrishnan's description "reads as if we built [the JooJoo] the way [Mr. Arrington] wanted it and are now taking the product away from him and simply changing the name." 5. Exhibit 3 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the documents that Defendant produced in this litigation starting with Bates numbers FG00034534 and FG00034536. (UNDER SEAL) The first document is an email chain from March 23-24, 2010 between Nvidia and Fusion Garage. Fusion Garage is sharing a presentation about the JooJoo entitled "JooJoo: the -2SUPP. DECL. OF A. BRIDGES ISO MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. - Case No. 09-CV-5812 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 internet is everything." The presentation copies significant elements of a presentation from April 2009 that originated with Plaintiffs titled "CrunchPad: the internet is everything." 6. Exhibit 4 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the document that Plaintiffs produced in this litigation starting with Bates numbers TC63. This email shows Heather Harde's conception of the slogan "the internet is everything" for marketing the CrunchPad. 7. In addition to this declaration, Plaintiffs also submit the declaration of Keith Teare. It attaches the "CrunchPad: the internet is everything" presentation and describes its creation. Mr. Teare could not view Exhibit 3 to this declaration, the JooJoo presentation, and compare it to the CrunchPad presentation because Fusion Garage has designated the JooJoo presentation as confidential. Nevertheless, the Court can note the many obvious similarities between the two presentations and note Mr. Teare's statements that he and others affiliated with Plaintiffs originated much of the April 2009 CrunchPad presentation that later became the March 2010 JooJoo presentation (Exhibit 3). I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed May 11, 2010. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Winston & Strawn LLP Andrew P. Bridges SF:281651.2 -3SUPP. DECL. OF A. BRIDGES ISO MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ. - Case No. 09-CV-5812

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?