Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 178

MOTION to Strike Motorola's Supplemental Infringement Contentions by Apple, Inc.. Responses due by 11/25/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Saunders Haskett, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Pace, Christopher)

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.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DECLARATION OF CHRISTINE SAUNDERS HASKETT
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF
APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE MOTOROLA’S SUPPLEMENTAL
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

I, Christine Saunders Haskett, hereby declare:
1.

I am a partner with the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, counsel of record for

Apple Inc. (“Apple”) in the above-captioned matter. The matters referenced in this declaration
are based on personal knowledge and belief and if called as a witness I could, and would, testify
competently to these matters.
2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of

the Markman hearing held in this matter on October 19, 2011.
3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an e-mail dated May 3, 2011

from me to Richard Erwine, counsel for Motorola.
4.

On August 17, 2011, Motorola served a “revised” set of infringement contentions to

specifically address issues of indirect infringement.
5.

This lawsuit was filed on October 6, 2010. On December 29, 2010, Motorola served

Apple with a first set of document requests and first set of interrogatories. On April 28, 2011,
Motorola served Apple with a second set of interrogatories. These three sets of discovery
requests constituted the only discovery efforts made by Motorola in this case between the filing
of this action and the June 1, 2011 infringement contention deadline. During that time, Motorola
did not notice a single deposition in this case, nor did Motorola make a single complaint to Apple
about Apple’s responses to Motorola’s discovery in this case. Motorola did not serve its Rule
30(b)(6) deposition notice until July 27, 2011.
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the cross-use agreement entered

into by Motorola and Apple on April 6, 2011.
7.

By May 18, 2011, Apple had produced over 8 million pages of documents to Motorola

subject to the cross-use agreement between the parties.
1

8.

Motorola’s October 28, 2011 supplemental infringement contentions cite to nine Apple-

produced documents that are not found in Motorola’s previous infringement contentions. Of the
nine Apple documents that Motorola added to its infringement contentions for the first time on
October 28, 2011, six of them were produced by Apple to Motorola before June 1, 2011. The
remaining three documents were produced no later than July 11, 2011. All nine documents were
produced by Apple pursuant to the parties’ cross-use agreement.
9.

On June 28, 2011, the parties exchanged lists of fifteen proposed claim terms for

construction. The parties met and conferred and ultimately narrowed the number of proposed
claim terms for construction. On July 13, 2011, Apple selected seven proposed claim terms for
the Court to construe based on the allegations set forth in Motorola’s infringement contentions,
served on May 18, 2011. In the selection of its final seven terms, Apple chose not to request a
construction of the term “authorization element” in the ‘737 patent (which was included in
Apple’s original list of fifteen terms) in part because non-infringement of the ‘737 patent by
Apple’s Enterprise Application Distribution System can be demonstrated without a construction
of that term.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on November 7, 2011 at San Francisco, California.

__/s/ Christine Saunders Haskett________
Christine Saunders Haskett

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 7, 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)

3

SERVICE LIST
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU

Edward M. Mullins
Fla. Bar No. 863920
[e-mail]
ASTIGARRAGA DAVIS MULLINS & GROSSMAN, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Electronically served via CM/ECF and via email
Of Counsel:
Charles K. Verhoeven
David A. Perlson
Anthony Pastor
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 93111
[phone]
Raymond N. Nimrod
Edward J. DeFranco
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
[phone]
David A. Nelson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Electronically served via email

4