Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 191

MOTION Request for Oral Argument re 178 MOTION to Strike Motorola's Supplemental Infringement Contentions by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. (Giuliano, Douglas) Modified relief on 12/2/2011 (tp).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Plaintiff, v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED APPLE INC., Defendant. APPLE INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Counterclaim Defendants. MOTOROLA MOBILITY’S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE MOTOROLA’S SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS Plaintiff Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) requests oral argument on defendant Apple, Inc.’s motion to strike (D.E. 178) Motorola's supplemental infringement contentions (D.E. 160). The issues raised in Apple's motion to strike, and Motorola's opposition, are significant, in that the outcome of Apple's motion will determine whether the parties should be allowed to supplement their infringement contentions to include new accused products and information obtained during the regular course of discovery, or whether entirely new lawsuits may be necessary. The parties each have filed multiple briefs and many exhibits regarding this issue. See D.E. 160 (Motorola's notice of filing supplemental infringement contentions and accompanying exhibits A through F), 162 (Apple's response to Motorola's notice and accompanying exhibits 1 through 7), 165 (Motorola's reply to Apple's response to Motorola's notice), 178 (Apple's motion to strike, accompanying declaration and exhibits 1 through 3), and 185 (Motorola's response to Apple's motion to strike, accompanying declaration and exhibits 1 through 14). Moreover, Motorola also has served supplemental invalidity contentions based on new information obtained during the regular course of discovery. Apple has stated it objects to these supplementations for reasons identical to its objection to Motorola's service of supplemental infringement contentions, and has demanded that Motorola withdraw them. Motorola disagrees, and it appears likely that one or both parties may seek relief from the Court on this issue as well. Given the copious number of past and possible future filings on these issues, Motorola respectfully suggests that oral argument would help the court narrow the issues presented in those filings. 1 Motorola estimates that the oral argument would last no longer than thirty minutes. Motorola respectfully suggests that, given out-of-town counsel, the hearing could be held telephonically if the Court so desires. Apple has stated that it opposes this Request, but failed to provide a reason. Respectfully submitted, Dated: December 1, 2011 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. (f/k/a MOTOROLA, INC.) AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. By: /s/ David Perlson David Perlson Charles K. Verhoeven David Perlson David Eiseman QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Email: Edward M. Mullins (863920) Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: (305) 372-8282 Fax: (305) 372-8202 Email: Edward J. DeFranco Raymond Nimrod Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 Phone: (212) 849-7000 Fax: (212) 849-7100 Email: David A. Nelson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 West Madison St., Ste. 2450 2 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 Email: Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant Motorola Solutions, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 1, 2011, I served the foregoing document via electronic mail on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List. /s/ Edward M. Mullins Edward M. Mullins 3 SERVICE LIST Motorola Mobility, Inc. versus Apple Inc. Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Christopher R.J. Pace Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel.: (305) 577-3100 / Fax: (305) 374-7159 Attorneys for Apple, Inc. Electronically served via e-mail Of Counsel: Matthew D. Powers Steven S. Cherensky WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 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 Robert T. Haslam COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Robert D. Fram Christine Saunders Haskett COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 Attorneys for Apple, Inc. Electronically served via e-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?