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).

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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Edward M. Mullins (863920)
Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Edward J. DeFranco
Raymond Nimrod
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
David A. Nelson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison St., Ste. 2450
2

Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
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
[e-mail]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Apple, Inc.
Electronically served via e-mail
Of Counsel:
Matthew D. Powers
[e-mail]
Steven S. Cherensky
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Mark G. Davis
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Robert T. Haslam
[e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Robert D. Fram
[e-mail]
Christine Saunders Haskett
[e-mail]
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Apple, Inc.
Electronically served via e-mail