Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 372

Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from Karen Jacobs Louden regarding Response to Google's July 31, 2012 letter opposing P.U.M's request that a pretrial conference and trial date be set - re 371 Letter. (Louden, Karen)

MoRRIS, NicHoLs, ARsHT
1201

& TuNNELL

LLP

NoRTH MARKET STREET

P.O. Box 1347
19899-1347

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE

302 658 9200
302 658 3989 FAX

KAREN JAcoss LouDEN

302 351 9227
302 425 4681

FAx

August 2, 2012

[e-mail]

BYE-FILING
The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801

Re:

Personalized User Model, L.L.P. v. Google, Inc.
C.A. No. 09-525 (LPS)

Dear Judge Stark:
We write on behalf of Plaintiff Personalized User Model, L.L.P. ("PUM") in response to
Google Inc.'s ("Google") July 31, 2012 letter opposing P .U .M.' s request that a pretrial
conference and trial date be set in this action.
After three years of this litigation, all that PUM is requesting is that the Court assign
dates in the March 2013 time frame for a final pretrial conference and trial. Google objects to the
setting of dates essentially for three reasons. First, Google points to the pending Motion to
Dismiss for lack of standing. We are confident that this motion will be denied or, alternatively,
that PUM's licensor Levino will be substituted as a plaintiff. Nevertheless, the existence of this
motion should not prevent the setting of dates because those dates can be eliminated should
Google's motion succeed.
Second, Google refers the Court to two pending reexamination proceedings. However, no
motion for a stay of this litigation has been filed. Nor does PUM believe that under the relevant
case law would such a motion at this very late stage be granted. As Google itself acknowledges,
PUM has not yet been heard on its responses. Moreover, the examiner's rulings on the
reexaminations will likely be appealed, regardless of which side prevails, and thus it may be
years before the matters are finally resolved. Thus, this, too, should not prevent the setting of
dates as requested. Yet Go ogle seeks a de facto stay of the proceedings notwithstanding that
Google itself concedes that the stage of the reexamination proceedings do not yet warrant filing a
motion for stay.

The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
August 2, 2012
Page2

Third, Google argues that setting these dates would be impractical in light of the date for
the filing of case-dispositive motions and the trial schedule of its counsel. Again, in our view
firm pretrial and trial dates should be set at whatever time the Court believes is feasible.
Counsel's trial schedule on another matter is not a reason not to set firm dates in this case.
As the Court is aware, this has been a hard fought and complex litigation which will soon
enter its fourth year. Setting pretrial and trial dates will keep this case on track and avoid further
delays in the proceedings.
Counsel are available for a teleconference at the Court's convenience should the Court
wish to discuss the matter further.
Respectfully,

/s/ 1(pren Jaco6s Louaen
Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881)
KJL/cht
cc:
Clerk of the Court (bye-filing and hand delivery)
All counsel of record (by e-mail)
6166949