Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 539

Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from Karen Jacobs regarding Response to Google's November 7, 2013 letter concerning the March 10, 2014 trial date [D.I. 538] - re 538 Letter. (Jacobs, Karen)

MoRRIS, NicHoLs, ARsHT

& TuNNELL

LLP

1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 1347
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
[phone]
[phone] FAX
KAllEN JACOBS

[phone]

(302) 4254681 FAX
kja.(~)[e-mail]

November 12, 2013

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 in response to Google's November 7, 2013 letter concerning the March
10, 2014 trial date (D.I. 538), which Goog1e sent without any discussion with or notice to PUM.
As the Court is aware, this matter will have been pending nearly five years before even the
liability phase of this case is heard. When PUM received the Court's ruling on October 28 on
Google's motion for reconsideration setting a March 10, 2014 trial date, PUM asked that its
clients, fact witnesses and expert witnesses adjust their schedules, if necessary, to ensure their
attendance, and this was done. PUM is prepared to begin trial on March 10,2014 as Your Honor
directed.
PUM thus opposes Google's request for a postponement of the trial date and
respectfully requests that the trial commence March 10,2014 as Your Honor directed. However,
should the Court be inclined to reschedule the trial for April, PUM respectfully requests that trial
not be scheduled before April 28. Certain of PUM's fact witnesses (the co-inventors) and trial
team are unavailable and carmot prepare for trial during some of the Passover holiday, which is
April 14-22, 2104. Certain of PUM's client representatives also are unavailable during that
entire period. And, PUM's infringement expert, Dr. Pazzani, is unavailable April22-24, 2014.
In any event, Google's suggestion that it carmot otherwise be available until
August (nearly a year after the Court's summary judgment ruling) should again be rejected. The
Court already considered, and rejected, Google's assertions about its lack of availability.

The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
November 12,2013
Page2
(D.I. 537 at 3-4). 1 PUM further notes that the ViaSat court did not refuse to reschedule the trial
date in that matter in its Order, but merely noted that it would "prefer" to keep the March 18,
2014 trial date, and that the case has only been pending since February I, 2012. D. I. 538, Ex. A.
As a result, PUM requests that Google' s letter request be denied.
Respectfully,

~s~~
cc:

Clerk of the Court (by hand)
All Counsel of Record (by e-mail)

7765207

Google only explains its conflict with March I 0, 2014 and provides no good cause why it
cannot otherwise be available before August. Google largely relies on Mr. Verhoeven's
availability in its letter, but Google provides no evidence that Mr. Verhoeven cannot be
available before August 2014. Rather, PUM understood from prior discussions that
Google claimed unavailability, for example, for an entire month due to a teaching
engagement of one of its hired experts.