Cox Communications Inc. et al v. Sprint Communications Company LP et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Sprint Communication Company LP, Sprint Solutions Inc., Sprint Spectrum LP - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0311-1057712.) - filed by Cox Nebraska Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Omaha LLC, Cox Arkansas Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Inc., Cox Rhode Island Telcom LLC, Cox California Telcom LLC, Cox Ohio Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Louisiana LLC, Cox Connecticut Telcom LLC, Cox District of Columbia Telcom LLC, Cox Iowa Telcom LLC, Cox Maryland Telcom LLC, Cox Kansas Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Arizona LLC, Cox Florida Telcom LP, Cox Communications Hampton Roads LLC, Cox North Carolina Telcom LLC, Cox Colorado Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Kansas Telcom LLC, Cox Arizona Telcom LLC, Cox Oklahoma Telcom LLC, Cox Missouri Telcom LLC, Cox Virginia Telcom LLC, Cox Louisiana Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Gulf Coast LLC, CoxCom LLC, Cox Communications Georgia LLC, Cox Georgia Telcom LLC, Cox Communications Las Vegas Inc., Cox Communications California LLC, Cox Idaho Telcom LLC, Cox Nevada Telcom LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Civil Cover Sheet)(lih)

EXHIBIT O

From: Brody, Michael L.
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 1:15 PM
To: 'Hankel, Aaron E. (SHB)'; Starr, Bart (SHB); Webb, B. Trent (SHB); Reckers, Robert H. (SHB)
Cc: Bloch, David S.; Padmanabhan, Krishnan; Winn, James; Sharifi, Pejman F.; '[e-mail]';
Herndon, Lynn C. (SHB)
Subject: RE: Today's call 

Thanks for the thought, Aaron, but as a general matter, it is not Cox’s practice to
voluntarily subject its subsidiaries to jurisdiction in venues where they are not present,
as, I suppose, was implicit in our motion to dismiss CCI. We would think that a venue
that is the corporate home of all of the affected parties, which will probably see more
patent filings than any other venue in the country this year, and which can draw on the
public record of the work done in the prior cases would be a pretty good choice for
disposition of this controversy. Still, we will take your suggestion to the client and let
you know if our views change as a consequence. 

From: Hankel, Aaron E. (SHB) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 1:00 PM
To: Brody, Michael L.; Starr, Bart (SHB); Webb, B. Trent (SHB); Reckers, Robert H. (SHB)
Cc: Bloch, David S.; Padmanabhan, Krishnan; Winn, James; Sharifi, Pejman F.;
'[e-mail]'; Herndon, Lynn C. (SHB)
Subject: RE: Today's call 

Mike, 

We also appreciate your efforts to work through our disagreements without
contested motion practice. Your email generally tracks our position, although
the wording might be a bit off. 

As for your stated preference to have this dispute “adjudicated in a single
proceeding,” have you given any thought to intervention under Rule 24? For
all the reasons we have discussed, we of course do not think it necessary. But
it is an option at your disposal—or, in your words, another “clear path to
finality.” And, frankly, it is a much better option than transferring this case
to a distant forum having no meaningful connection to the case.  

Thanks. 

Aaron 

From: Brody, Michael L. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 12:06 PM
To: Hankel, Aaron E. (SHB); Starr, Bart (SHB); Webb, B. Trent (SHB); Reckers, Robert H. (SHB)
Cc: Bloch, David S.; Padmanabhan, Krishnan; Winn, James; Sharifi, Pejman F.;
'[e-mail]'
Subject: Today's call 

Aaron – 

Just wanted to confirm our understanding of where we left things: 

As to CCI, it is Sprint’s position that it wants relief against CCI in this case, and
that it believes the there is jurisdiction over CCI in Kansas. We disagree as to
the latter point, but will consider the points you raised and proceed accordingly in
responding to your amended complaint. 

As to the local Cox entities that are not party to this case, but sell allegedly
infringing telecom services or own or operate allegedly infringing devices, our
understanding is that (a) it is not Sprint’s intent to limit this case to the alleged
infringement which you contend occurs in Kansas, (b) Sprint believes that it can
receive all of the nationwide relief to which it may be entitled by pursuing CCI and
CoxComm, (c) Sprint wants to reserve its rights as to the unnamed entities
pending discovery and is not prepared to make a legally binding commitment not
to sue the unnamed entities at this point in the proceeding, and (d) Sprint is not
agreeable to transfer this case to Delaware, where all Cox entities can be joined. 

Let me know if I have misunderstood your position in any way. Thanks for taking
the time to talk this through. We appreciate your willingness to engage in an
effort to get clarity on these issues and to try to find a mutually agreeable posture
for adjudication of this case. Let me emphasize once again that Cox has no
objection to and affirmatively prefers having this dispute adjudicated in a single
proceeding that will be dispositive of and binding on both Sprint and all relevant
Cox parties as to Sprint’s claims. Let me also confirm that we believe that can be
accomplished in Delaware and would have no objection to transferring the case
to that jurisdiction and to adding all relevant entities. Understanding that Sprint is
not agreeable to that option, and in the absence of any other clear path to finality,
we will consider whether Cox wishes to seek transfer to Delaware and seek such
relief as we deem appropriate. 

Mike 

Michael L. Brody  
Partner  
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703 
D: [phone] 
F: [phone] 
Bio | VCard | Email | www.winston.com

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this

message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of
this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate
this message without the permission of the author.
************************************************************************
****** Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot
be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended. 
Mail Gate made the following annotations on Thu Apr 05 2012 12:59:22
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is
intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.