Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.
Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from Richard L. Horwitz regarding request for dispute conference. (Horwitz, Richard)
1313 North Market Street
P.O. Box 951
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
302 984 6000
Richard L. Horwitz
Attorney at Law
302 984-6027 Direct Phone
302 658-1192 Fax
January 17, 2014
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 09-00525-LPS
Dear Judge Stark:
Google received PUM’s letter to the Court dated January 17, 2014 (D.I. 548) at 4:45 pm,
while Google was reviewing a different draft of the letter that was supposed to be the parties’
Google agrees that there are multiple issues for the Court to resolve:
1. Google’s request that PUM reduce the number of asserted claims and accused products,
before Google is required to narrow its obviousness case.
2. PUM’s request that Google reduce the number of obviousness references earlier and
beyond what Google has already committed to do by February 5.
3. When PUM is required to provide its portions of the Pretrial Order. While PUM states
that its position is that it need first provide first its portions of the Pretrial Order that
relate to “plaintiff’s case,” the Local Rules require PUM to provide all of its portions of
the Pretrial Order first. Local Rule 16.3(c), (d)(1) ((providing “plaintiff’s” portions of the
Pretrial Order due 30 days before the Pretrial Order is due, and “all other parties shall
provide the plaintiff and each other party with their responses to the plaintiff’s draft
order,” 14 days before the Pretrial Order is due).)
To the extent that the Court decides to address these issues through a teleconference,
Google requests permission to submit a letter brief in advance setting forth its positions in more
/s/ Richard L. Horwitz
Richard L. Horwitz
Clerk of Court (via Hand Delivery)
Counsel of Record (via Electronic Mail)
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?