Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 141

MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Length of Markman Hearing by Apple, Inc.. Responses due by 10/28/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order re Length of Markman Hearing)(Pace, Christopher)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-23580-UU MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. APPLE INC., Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Counterclaim-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO EXTEND LENGTH OF MARKMAN HEARING At the conclusion of the tutorial, the Court inquired whether three days might be required for the Markman hearing. After a further review of the matters to be covered, including the legal discussion requested by the Court, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) agrees that the Court should reserve three days for the Markman hearing. Even with the parties’ agreement on the construction of the term “gesture,” there remain 13 terms to discuss, some with subparts and nuances requiring more discussion than a single term. Indeed, a rough estimate of 30 minutes per term per party on average fills more than two days, not counting the initial legal background discussion. Therefore, Apple respectfully moves the Court for an order extending the length of the Markman hearing to three days, from October 17, 2011 through October 19, 2011, from 10am to 4pm each day. Counsel for Motorola has not raised any scheduling conflict on October 19, 2011, but has indicated they oppose Apple’s request for the third day. Dated: October 11, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christopher R. J. Pace Christopher R. J. Pace Edward Soto WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 577-3100 Facsimile: (305) 374-7159 Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc. Of Counsel: Mark G. Davis WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 Facsimile: (202) 857-0940 2 Jill J. Ho WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Matthew D. Powers Steven S. Cherensky Tensegrity Law Group LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Tel: (650) 802-6000 Robert T. Haslam (CA Bar No. 71134) COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Robert D. Fram (CA Bar No. 126750) Christine Saunders Haskett (CA Bar No. 188053) Samuel F. Ernst (CA Bar No. 223963) Winslow B. Taub (CA Bar No. 233456) COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 11, 2011, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List via email and CM/ECF. /s/ Christopher R. J. Pace Christopher R.J. Pace (Fla. Bar No. 0721166) 4 SERVICE LIST Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU Edward M. Mullins Fla. Bar No. 863920 ASTIGARRAGA DAVIS MULLINS & GROSSMAN, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-8282 Facsimile: (305) 372-8202 Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc. Electronically served via CM/ECF and via email Of Counsel: Charles K. Verhoeven QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 93111 (415) 875-6600 Edward J. DeFranco QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 (212) 849-7000 David A. Nelson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 (312) 705-7400 Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc. Electronically served via CM/ECF and via email 5

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?