Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 566

Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from Karen Jacobs regarding parties' competing proposals for schedule of pretrial order exchanges. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pretrial Order Schedules)(Jacobs, Karen) (Attachment 1 replaced on 1/29/2014) (ntl).

PUM’s Proposed Pretrial Order Schedule in PUM/Google 09-525-LPS

Date

Event

Fri Jan 31

Google provides its sections of the pretrial order on
which it bears the burden of proof, comments to the Joint
Pretrial Order and rebuttal to the sections of the pretrial
order that PUM provided on January 20, 2014.
Google provides its list of its total of 10 references and
no more than 15 obviousness combinations of no more
than six references each, as ordered by the Court during
the teleconference of January 27, 20141

Mon Feb 3

Google provides deposition designations and trial exhibit
list2

Wed Feb 5

Google provides counter-designations and objections to
PUM’s deposition designations3

Mon Feb 10

Parties exchange opening motions in limine, and PUM
provides its revised exhibit list

Fri Feb 14

PUM provides deposition counter-designations,4
objections to Google’s deposition designations, and
rebuttal to Google’s sections of the Pretrial Order

1

PUM needs to review Google’s portions of the pretrial order, including Google’s exhibit
list, before it can provide a meaningful reduction in its exhibit list.

2

PUM proposes that Google provide no later than February 3, if not by January 30 or 31,
the deposition designations and exhibits on which it will rely to make its case pursuant to
the Court’s instruction in the January 27 teleconference that Google should provide PUM
as soon as possible with those parts of the case on which Google bears that burden of
proof. PUM already compromised with Google and proposed February 3 for these
exchanges, instead of PUM’s original proposal of January 30.

3

Google should not need more time than the February 5 deadline to provide its counterdesignations and objections, which was the deadline under even its interpretation of the
local rules.

4

PUM cannot provide counter-designations one week after receiving Google’s
designations, and 5 days is sufficient for Google to provide its objections to PUM’s
counter-designations.

Date

Event
PUM notifies Google of its reduction of accused products
and/or claims, if any5
Parties exchange motion in limine oppositions

Tues Feb 18
Wed Feb 19

File Final PTO

Wed Feb 26

Pretrial conference (2 pm ET)

March 3

5

Parties serve motion in limine replies and exchange final
objections to trial exhibits

Parties provide notice of any claims, products,
combinations, or other issues they will not pursue at trial

Google's attempt to impose arbitrary limits on the number of accused products and
asserted claims should be rejected. PUM is committed to working toward further
narrowing its case, but Google's arbitrary date and limits are improper and should be
rejected.

2

Google’s Proposed Pretrial Order Schedule in PUM/Google 09-525-LPS
Fri Jan 31

Google provides its list of its total of 10
references and no more than 15
obviousness combinations of no more than
six references each
PUM provides a reduced list of no more
than 500 trial exhibits and copies of the
exhibits1

Wed Feb 5
Mon Feb 10

Mon Feb 10

Google provides the narrative sections of
the pretrial order on which it bears the
burden of proof, as well as its rebuttal to
the narrative portions of the Joint Pretrial
Order that PUM provided on January 20,
2014 and comments to Joint Pretrial Order
Google provides its deposition
designations and trial exhibit list 2
Google provides counterdesignations and
objections to PUM’s deposition
designations3
Parties exchange opening motions in limine

1

Google proposes that PUM provide a reduced trial exhibit list, and copies of the
exhibits, by January 31. PUM proposes that it not do so until February 10, which is the
same date on which the parties will serve motions in limine. Google needs PUM's actual
exhibit list before that deadline because it wishes to consider that information in
connection with finalizing the issues on which it will move in limine. PUM's contention
that it needs Google's exhibit list before it can reduce the number of exhibits on its
exhibit list is false. Most of the exhibits currently included on PUM's 1500+ exhibit list
relate to its infringement case and therefore Google's disclosures regarding the claims on
which it bears the burden of proof have no bearing.
2

Google proposes February 5 for this deadline, as that is the deadline set forth in the
Local Rules and therefore the deadline Google was working to comply with.
3

Google proposes that it provide objections and counter-designations to PUM's
deposition designations by February 10. PUM designated testimony from the depositions
of 24 different witnesses. Google needs time to review and prepare objections and
counter-designations thereto. Google notes that it seems highly unlikely that PUM will
present all of the designated testimony at trial. PUM's claim that February 5 is the
deadline for Google to provide these objections and counter-designations is incorrect.
The Local Rules do not provide a deadline for either party to provide objections and
counter-designations to the opposing party's deposition designations.

Wed Feb 12

Thurs Feb 13

Fri Feb 14

Google objects to PUM’s exhibits4
PUM provides deposition counterdesignations and objections to Google’s
deposition designations5
PUM reduces the number of asserted claims
and/or accused products to no more than 6
claims total, and no more than four accused
features in accused products (i.e. features
that require separate infringement analysis
count as a separate feature.)6
Parties exchange motion in limine
oppositions
PUM objects to Google’s exhibits

Tues Feb 18
Tues Feb 18
Tues Feb 18

Wed Feb 19
Wed Feb 26
Mon, March 3

PUM provides its rebuttal to Google's
sections of the Pretrial Order
Parties serve motion in limine replies
Parties provide objections to the opposing
parties’ counter-deposition designations
Google serves any revisions to its portions
of the pretrial order necessary to respond to
PUM’s defenses to Google’s
counterclaims. This will be limited to
revisions to the narrative portions, and not
the exhibit list or deposition designations
File Final PTO
Pretrial conference (2 pm ET)
PUM to provide any further narrowing of
asserted patents or accused products.

4

Google proposes that it serve objections to PUM's trial exhibits by February 10, and
that PUM serve objections to Google's trial exhibits by February 14. This allows for time
for the parties to attempt to meet and confer over any objections prior to filing the Joint
Pretrial Order on February 19.
5

Google proposes that PUM provide deposition counter-designations and objections to
Google’s deposition designations on February 12. This allows time for Google to object
to PUM's counter-designations.
6

Pursuant to the Court's guidance during the January 27 teleconference, Google
requests that PUM reduce the number of asserted claims and/or accused products to no
more than 6 claims total, and no more than 4 accused features in accused products (i.e.
features that require separate infringement analysis count as a separate feature) by
February 13. This is two weeks after Google will have reduced its invalidity case.
2