Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 205

Plaintiff's MOTION to Amend/Correct 88 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief the Procedural Schedule to Serve Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support and Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan in Support Thereof by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. Responses due by 1/6/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 9 Exhibit H to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 10 Exhibit I to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 11 Exhibit J to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 12 Exhibit K to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 13 Exhibit L to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 14 Exhibit M to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan, # 15 Exhibit N to Declaration of Cathleen Garrigan)(Mullins, Edward)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS

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'S MOTION TO AMEND THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
TO SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
AND ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Motorola Solutions,
Inc. (f/k/a/ Motorola, Inc.) (collectively "Motorola") request that the Court grant Motorola leave
to serve supplemental invalidity contentions with respect to certain of the patents asserted in the
Counterclaim brought by Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple, Inc. ("Apple"). Good
cause exists because Motorola has been diligent in its notifying Apple of its invalidity
contentions and supplementation is a necessary result of Apple's own late production of
documents and new positions Apple has taken with respect to the scope of its asserted patents in
its Counterclaim.
Apple seeks to prevent Motorola for supplementing its invalidity contentions despite the
fact that Motorola's request comes as a direct result of Apple's own dilatory conduct. Apple
failed to timely produce highly relevant prior art (i.e. products or publications available prior to
the claimed "invention," which could invalidate the patents) from another litigation involving a
related patent Apple owns until Motorola demanded its production by letter. It is no wonder that
Apple seeks to preclude this prior art—the Court in that litigation found that the prior art likely
invalidates the European equivalent of Apple’s U.S. Patent No. 7,657,849 B2 ("the '849 patent").
See Ex. A ¶¶ 4.45-4.48 (Netherlands court order discussing invalidity of the European
counterpart to Apple’s asserted '849 patent in light of the Neonode reference that was prior to the
invention).1 Apple cannot possibly claim prejudice from prior art it was already aware of from
another litigation and should not be rewarded for its discovery deficiencies. Apple did not
produce this prior art before the time for invalidity contentions despite that Motorola's discovery
requests asked for it. In addition, given that Apple was a party to that litigation, it uniquely was
aware of this potentially invalidating prior art.
1

"Ex. __" refers to the exhibits attached to the declaration of Cathleen Garrigan filed
concurrently with this motion.

1

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
Nor can Apple claim prejudice from Motorola's response to Apple’s new and expansive
interpretation of Apple’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,282,646 B1 ("the '646 patent") and 7,380,116 B2
("the '116 patent"). At the technical tutorial in this matter before Judge Ungaro, Apple asserted
for the first time that its '646 and '116 patents claim "Plug and Play," which refers to computer
devices that can be configured with no user intervention. The technical tutorial was held months
after the deadline for invalidity contentions.
Apple did not invent Plug and Play, which was, for example, present in the Windows® 95
operating system.

The Windows® 95 operating system was released three years before the

priority date of the '646 and '116 patents and thus constitutes potential invalidating prior art to
Apple’s patents. In any event, Apple improperly seeks to expand the scope of its '646 and '116
patents beyond the language of the claims and Motorola should be granted leave to respond to
that expansion with its supplemental invalidity contentions.
These circumstances present good cause for supplemental contentions. If not permitted
in these circumstances, a party like Apple that withholds evidence and theories until after the
contention deadline passes will be rewarded, because the other party will be precluded from
responding. Such discovery gamesmanship should not be encouraged. This is especially true for
a key issue such as the validity of the patents themselves, which has ramifications beyond this
litigation.
I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Procedural History

On April 25, 2011, the parties submitted a joint proposal to the Court requesting entry of
a scheduling order detailing the deadlines for preliminary contentions. (D.E. 77.) That proposal

2

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
included a June 20, 2011 deadline for preliminary invalidity contentions. (Id. at 1.) On June 1,
2011, the Court entered the parties' proposed scheduling order. (D.E. 88.)
In accordance with the scheduling order, the parties exchanged preliminary invalidity
contentions on June 20, 2011. Motorola served nearly two thousand pages of charts detailing
element-by-element the invalidity of Apple's six asserted patents. Both parties' preliminary
invalidity contentions explicitly stated that they were preliminary and reserved the right to
supplement in light of continued discovery. See. e.g. Ex. B at 7 (Apple's Invalidity Contentions
stating, "Discovery is ongoing, and Apple’s prior art investigation and third party discovery are
therefore not yet complete. Apple reserves the right to present additional items of prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g), and/or § 103 located during the course of discovery or
further investigation."); Ex. C at 1 (Motorola's Invalidity Contentions stating, "These invalidity
contentions are preliminary and are based on Motorola's current knowledge, understanding, and
belief as to the facts and information available as of the date of these contentions. Motorola has
not yet completed its investigation, discovery, or analysis of information related to this action,
and additional discovery may require Motorola to supplement or amend its invalidity
contentions.").2
B.

Apple's Production of '849 Prior Art After the Deadline for Invalidity
Contentions

2

Apple has taken the position that the June 20 invalidity contentions were “final” based
upon the fact that the word “preliminary” was not included in the deadline. Apple previously
took a similar position before Judge Ungaro with respect to infringement contentions. (D.E. 197
at 1-2.) Ultimately, Apple was successful in arguing before Judge Ungaro that the infringement
contentions deadline was meant to be a final deadline. (D.E. 198.) While Motorola believes that
Apple’s positions are inconsistent with the parties’ intentions when submitting the agreed
scheduling order (as evidenced by both parties’ reservation of rights in their exchanged
infringement and invalidity contentions (D.E. 185 at 4-5) and its position in the parties' copending litigation in Illinois (formerly Wisconsin) (D.E. 185 at 7-10)), Motorola seeks leave to
serve supplemental invalidity contentions given Judge Ungaro's Order.

3

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
Apple is engaged in litigation across the globe with various technology companies that
use the Android platform in their smartphones and tablet computers. Knowing that Apple is
engaged in many litigations involving the same or related patents, Motorola requested prior art
produced or identified in other litigations in the document requests it served on Apple. See e.g.
Ex. D at 7, Request for Production No. 18. Specifically, on December 29, 2010, Motorola
served a written request for the production of, "All documents and things concerning any Prior
Art relating to the Apple Asserted Patents, including any document or thing identified as
potential Prior Art to Apple by any third party." Id.
On August 24, 2011, a Netherlands court issued an order in Apple's litigation against
Samsung Electronics denying Apple's requested relief with respect to EP 1 964 022 ("EP 022")
because "there is a reasonable chance that EP 022 . . . will be considered invalid" after a full trial
on the merits. Ex. A at ¶¶ 4.45-4.48. EP 022 is the European counterpart to Apple's '849 patent
that it is asserting against Motorola in this litigation. This ruling, of course, was entered months
after the "deadline" for invalidity contentions in this matter.
On September 1, 2011, Motorola sent a letter to Apple demanding the production of prior
art cited by Samsung in the Netherlands litigation along with litigation documents concerning EP
022. Ex. E. In its letter, Motorola noted that the requested prior art and other documents were
responsive to Motorola's discovery requests served nearly nine months earlier and should have
been produced in accordance with Apple's ongoing discovery obligations. Apple produced the
documents from the Netherlands litigation on September 13, 2011. Ex. F.
Upon reviewing the documents, Motorola discovered that they contained prior art that
never had been produced by Apple. Garrigan Decl. at ¶ 15. Accordingly, Motorola began

4

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
supplementing its invalidity contentions and pursuing third-party discovery related to the
recently-produced prior art.
C.

Apple's Change in Position Regarding the Scope of the '646 and '116 Patents

On October 6, 2011, the Court held a technical tutorial hearing. (See D.E. 135.) At that
hearing, Apple made a presentation with respect to the technology allegedly embodied in its
patents. With respect to the '646 and '116 patents, Apple represented to the Court:
Now, the invention is – a colloquial expression that's often used is
"plug and play," which just means exactly what it sounds like.
You don't have to wait for it to be rebooted. The system will
recognize it automatically without being rebooted or restarted.
Ex. G (Oct. 6, 2011, Hrg. Tr. 108:20-24 (emphasis added)). The technical tutorial was the first
time in this litigation that Apple contended that the '646 or '116 patent claimed "Plug and Play."
Apple made this assertion months after the “deadline” for invalidity contentions.
However, "Plug and Play" was well-known in the art years before the May 8, 1998
priority date of the '646 and '116 patents. See e.g. Ex. H at 593 ("The Plug and Play capabilities
in Windows 95 have been widely described as key benefits to moving to Windows 95, because
of the related reduction in hardware and software support costs."). Thus, if the inventions
embodied in the '646 and '116 patents are “Plug and Play,” the patents are invalid.
D.

Motorola's Supplemental Invalidity Contentions

Motorola served its supplemental invalidity contentions on Apple on November 30, 2011.
The amendments to the invalidity contentions fall into three main categories: (1) the lateproduced prior art from Netherlands litigation; (2) supplementation of previously-disclosed
references in response to Apple's representation that the '646 and '116 patents claim "Plug and
Play"; and (3) new references asserted in response to Apple's representation that the '646 and
'116 patents claim "Plug and Play."

5

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
On November 30, 2011, Apple stated its position that the deadline for preliminary
invalidity contentions was the deadline for final invalidity contentions and demanded that
Motorola withdraw its supplemental invalidity contentions despite that Motorola’s supplemental
invalidity contentions arose from events that occurred after the “deadline” for final invalidity
contentions. Ex. I. On December 2, 2011, the parties met and conferred regarding Motorola's
supplemental invalidity contentions, but no agreement was reached. Garrigan Decl. at ¶ 16.
Motorola stated that good cause existed for its supplemental contentions in light of Apple's late
production and change in positions. Id. Apple stated that the Court's scheduling order did not
permit supplementation, but did not provide any substantive response to Motorola's statement
that good cause existed for supplementation due to the fact that information had been revealed
after the deadline. Id.
On December 6, 2011, the Court granted Apple's motion to strike Motorola's
supplemental infringement contentions, holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 applied
and good cause must be shown. (D.E. 198.) In light of the Court's order, Motorola withdrew its
supplemental invalidity contentions and is now seeking leave of court to serve supplemental
invalidity contentions after the June 20 deadline.3
E.

Motorola's Recent Discovery of Prior Art Patent 7,100,185

Motorola recently learned that U.S. Patent No. 7,100,185 ("the '185 patent") is prior art to
three of Apple's asserted patents:

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,583,560; 5,621,456 and 5,594,509

(collectively "the Florin patents"). 4 The priority date of the face of the '560, '456 and '509
3

On December 9, 2011, Apple stated that it will oppose Motorola's motion for leave to
serve its supplemental invalidity contentions.
4

The '185 patent was not contained in the supplemental invalidity contentions that
Motorola served on Apple and later withdrew. However, if the Court grants leave, Motorola will
include the '185 patent in its supplemental invalidity contentions.

6

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
patents is June 22, 1993. (See D.E. 17 at Exs. F-H.) The priority date on the face of the '185
patent is September 9, 1993. Ex. J. However, during its investigation of this case, Motorola
learned that the prosecution history of the '185 patent contains a reference to an inventor
declaration swearing that the priority date of the '185 patent is earlier than the priority date of
Apple's '560 patent. Ex. K. Accordingly, the '185 patent and any system embodying the '185
patent are prior art to the '560, '456 and '509 patents. Despite its diligence investigating these
multi-patent facts, Motorola did not uncover the true priority date of the '185 patent until after
the "deadline" for invalidity contentions.
II.

ARGUMENT
The district court has broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters. Klay v. All

Defendants, 425 F.3d 977, 982 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Perez v. Miami-Dade Cty, 297 F.3d 1255,
1263 (11th Cir. 2002)). Although this Court has not adopted patent local rules, it has found other
courts' rules instructive for purposes of discovery. See Suncast Techs., LLC v. Patrician Prods.,
Inc., 2008 WL 179648 *13-14 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2008) (considering the local patent rules of
other courts in determining the sequence of discovery).5 Many patent local rules permit the
amendment of invalidity contentions for good cause. See e.g. Ex. L (Northern District of
California Local Patent Rule 3-6); Ex. M (Eastern District of Texas Local Patent Rule 3-6(b)).
In particular, Northern District of California Patent Local Rule 3-6(b) provides that good cause
for amending invalidity contentions includes "Recent discovery of material, prior art despite
earlier diligent search."
Good cause exists to permit Motorola to serve supplemental invalidity contentions
because, despite its diligence, Motorola only learned of the prior art and Apple's Plug and Play
5

For its part, Apple too relied on other courts' patent local rules in its successful motion
to strike Motorola's supplemental infringement contentions. (D.E. 178 at 7.)

7

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
theory after the deadline for contentions. Additionally, Apple will not be prejudiced because it
was aware of the prior art in the Netherlands litigation, aware of the art disclosed but not charted
in Motorola's invalidity contentions, and no-doubt aware of its improper Plug and Play
interpretation of the '646 and '116 patents.
A.

Apple's Production of Prior Art After the Deadline for Invalidity
Contentions Provides Good Cause for Motorola to Supplement its Invalidity
Contentions

Good cause exists to allow Motorola to serve its supplemental invalidity contentions
because only through Motorola's diligent discovery did Apple belatedly produce highly relevant
prior art. Nearly a year ago, Motorola served document requests on Apple. Ex. D at 7, Request
for Production No. 18. In accordance with its ongoing discovery obligations, Apple should have
produced documents from the Netherlands litigation. Nonetheless, when Motorola became
aware of the Netherlands court's decision, it requested production of documents from that
litigation. Motorola's request proved prudent, as Apple's production revealed prior art that had
never previously been produced or disclosed by Apple despite its ongoing discovery obligations.
Motorola's diligent discovery is further evidenced by the detailed invalidity contentions
served on the June 20, 2011 deadline. Despite its diligence in pursuing discovery, Motorola only
learned of the potentially-invalidating prior art from the Netherlands litigation when the Court
issued an order on August 24, 2011. Thereafter, Motorola promptly requested discovery relating
to the order, received the discovery and supplemented its '849 invalidity contentions.
Because the evidence supporting Motorola's '849 supplemental invalidity contentions was
not produced until after the June 20, 2011 deadline, good cause exists to permit Motorola to
serve its supplemental invalidity contentions. See Poole v. City of Plantation, Fla., 2010 WL
1791905 at *33 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ("Good cause exists when evidence supporting the proposed

8

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
amendment would not have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence until after the
amendment deadline had passed."). Here, the court order in the Netherlands litigation did not
issue until August 2011, after the "deadline" for invalidity contentions. Motorola requested the
production of documents from that litigation just one week later. After Apple's September 13
production, Motorola began analyzing the prior art and supplementing its invalidity contentions.
Despite Motorola's diligent conduct, it could not have supplemented its invalidity contentions
with respect to the '849 patent before the June 20 deadline especially since the Netherlands
decision was not even in existence on June 20. Moreover, if Motorola is not permitted to
supplement its invalidity contentions in light of Apple's late production, Apple will benefit from
its own lack of diligence.
B.

Apple's New Position That the '646 and '116 Patents Claim "Plug and Play"
Provides Good Cause for Motorola to Supplement its Invalidity Contentions

On October 6, 2011, for the first time in this litigation and months after the deadline for
invalidity contentions, Apple represented to the Court at the technical tutorial that the '646 and
'116 patents claim "Plug and Play." Ex. G. ”Plug and Play” is a concept that refers to computer
devices that can be configured with no user intervention, see Ex. H at 592, and was a concept
well known by at least by 1995. For example, "Plug and Play [was] one of the key ways in
which Windows 95 enhanced[d] ease of use." Ex. N at 6. Additionally, the concept of a “Plug
and Play” monitor was known in 1995. See e.g. Ex. H at 593 ("Add a new monitor by plugging
it in and turning it on."). Because the concept of Plug and Play was ubiquitous years before the
May 8, 1998, priority date of the '646 and '116 patents, Apple's assertion at the technical tutorial

9

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
came as a surprise. Apple never before had claimed that the alleged invention of the '646 and
'116 patents was so broad that it included “Plug and Play.”6
Apple's new assertion seeks to vastly expand the scope of the purported invention of the
'646 and '116 patents and provides good cause to allow Motorola to serve its supplemental
invalidity contentions. In response to this expanded scope, Motorola has supplemented its '646
and '116 invalidity contentions in two ways. First, Motorola supplemented references that were
previously disclosed as providing background information. Second, Motorola added references
specifically directed at “Plug and Play”.7
Because Apple only disclosed its new, expansive interpretation of the '646 and '116
patents on October 6, 2011, good cause exists to permit Motorola's supplemental invalidity
contentions.
C.

Motorola Only Learned Through Diligent Discovery that the '185 Patent is
Prior Art to the Florin Patents

Motorola has been diligent with respect to its invalidity contentions.

Despite its

diligence, Motorola only recently learned that the '185 patent is prior art to the Florin patents and
could not have disclosed this reference earlier. Because the face of the '185 patent indicates that
6

For its part, Apple expressly reserved the right to supplement its own invalidity
contentions in precisely this situation. See Ex. B at 5 ("Apple is currently unaware of the extent,
if any, to which Motorola will contend that limitations of the asserted claims are not disclosed in
the prior art identified by Apple. To the extent that such an issue arises, Apple reserves the right
to identify additional teachings in the same references or in other references that anticipate or
would have made the addition of the allegedly missing limitation to the disclosed device or
method obvious.").)
7

The Court's claim construction order further demonstrates that Apple's "Plug and Play"
assertion is wrong. For example, the Court construed "modifying the allocation of the display
space" as "changing the allotment of the global coordinate space available for use by display
devices." (D.E. 194 at 48-51.) The Court's construction for the '116 patent similarly construed
display space as global coordinate space. (Id. at 51-52.) Accordingly, the claims are directed to
one global coordinate space that is modified, not a “Plug and Play” monitor. (Id. at 51.)
Nonetheless, Apple continues to pursue its baseless infringement claims against Motorola.

10

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
the earliest date to which it can claim priority is September 9, 1993, it was not apparent that this
patent was prior art to the Florin patents, which were filed in June 1993. However, further
investigation revealed a sworn declaration that the invention claimed in the '185 patent was
invented before the alleged inventions claimed in the Florin patents. Because Motorola only
recently learned of the '185 patent's status as prior art, it could not have disclosed this reference
earlier.
D.

Apple will not be Prejudiced by Allowing Service of Motorola's
Supplemental Invalidity Contentions

Allowing Motorola to supplement its invalidity contentions will not prejudice Apple.
Not only has Apple long been aware of the prior art from the Netherlands litigation, but it has
already been defending against it. Accordingly, Apple cannot credibly claim prejudice from the
assertion of the Netherlands prior art in this litigation. Moreover, not allowing Motorola to
supplement its invalidity contentions would reward Apple for its dilatory discovery. Although
fact discovery does not close until January 17, 2011, 8 Apple was aware of the deadline for
invalidity contentions and the relevance of prior art to those contentions. Prohibiting Motorola
from supplementing its invalidity contentions would reward Apple for failing to produce its
documents in a timely manner and would encourage patent litigants to withhold relevant, vital
discovery until after the deadline for contentions passed.
Additionally, prohibiting Motorola from supplementing its invalidity contentions will
unfairly prejudice Motorola's ability to defend itself and exclude highly relevant information
from this litigation. See Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc. v. C.W. Zumbiel Co., 2011 WL 5357833
at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2011) (allowing prior art disclosed for first time in expert report
8

On December 16, 2011, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the scheduling order.
Under the proposed amended scheduling order, all fact discovery except interrogatories and
requests for admission would remain open until February 10, 2012. (D.E. 203 at 2.)

11

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
because "exclusion of evidence is an extreme sanction, and that all cases, but especially patent
cases, are best decided on their merits."). The exclusion of evidence is generally an extreme
sanction for failing to obey a court order. See e.g. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 37(b)(2)(ii). In this case,
prohibiting Motorola's supplemental invalidity contentions will punish Motorola for Apple's
discovery deficiencies. Motorola has not violated any court order.
Nor, can Apple claim prejudice from the '646 and '116 supplemental invalidity
contentions. Many of these references were disclosed in the initial invalidity contentions and
merely expanded upon in the supplemental contentions.
continued discovery is appropriate.

Such supplementation in light of

Indeed, Apple itself previously asserted that

supplementation under these circumstances is proper. (D.E. 197 at 2 n.2 ("[T]he parties may use
discovery obtained at any point during the discovery period to support the infringement theories
included in their infringement contentions exchanged prior to the June 1 deadline.").) Moreover,
when Apple claimed for the first time at the technical tutorial that it invented "Plug and Play," it
should reasonably have expected Motorola to respond by asserting "Plug and Play" references as
potential prior art to these patents. If Apple is permitted to assert its new and expansive
interpretation of the '646 and '116 patents after the deadline for invalidity contentions, Motorola
will be prejudiced unless it is able to assert concomitant prior art.
Finally, Apple will not be prejudiced by the supplemental invalidity contentions related
to the '185 patent. Apple has ample time to take any additional discovery it might claim it now
requires as fact discovery does not close until January 17, 2012. Moreover, it is Motorola, not
Apple, that bears the burden of establishing these references as prior art, and Apple will have

12

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
more than two months to respond in any invalidity rebuttal expert report that Apple wishes to
serve, which is due under the current schedule on February 24, 2012.9
III.

CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons and good cause shown, Motorola respectfully requests the

court grant Motorola leave to serve its supplemental invalidity contentions.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 19, 2011

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. (f/k/a
MOTOROLA, INC.) AND MOTOROLA
MOBILITY, INC.
By:/s/ Edward M. Mullins ________________
Edward M. Mullins
Edward M. Mullins (Fla. Bar No. 863920)
[e-mail]
Douglas J. Giuliano (Fla. Bar No. 15282)
[e-mail]
ASTIGARRAGA DAVIS MULLINS
& GROSSMAN, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:: [phone]
Charles K. Verhoeven
David Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

9

Under the parties proposed amended scheduling order, rebuttal expert reports would be
due March 16, 2012. (D.E. 203 at 2.)

13

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
Edward J. DeFranco
Raymond Nimrod
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
David A. Nelson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Marshall Searcy
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant Motorola Solutions, Inc. and
Motorola Mobility, Inc.

14

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 19, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document via electronic mail on all counsel of record identified on the attached
Service List below.
/s/ Edward M. Mullins_____________________
Edward M. Mullins (Fla. Bar No. 863920)

SERVICE LIST
Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Counsel for Defendant
Served via CM/ECF
Christopher R.J. Pace
[e-mail]
Edward Soto
[e-mail]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

Mark G. Davis*
[e-mail]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
1300 Eye Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

Nathan A. Greenblatt*
[e-mail]
Jill J. Ho*
[e-mail]
Jacqueline T. Harlow*
[e-mail]
Anne M. Cappella*
[e-mail]
Brian C. Chang*
[e-mail]
Arjun Mehra*
[e-mail]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, California 94065-1134
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

Samuel F. Ernst*
[e-mail]
Christine Saunders Haskett*
[e-mail]
Robert D. Fram*
[e-mail]
Chris Martiniak*
[e-mail]
Winslow B. Taub*
[e-mail]
Covington & Burling LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, California 94111-5356
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

15

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS

Jenny C. Wu*
[e-mail]
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10153
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

Robert T. Haslam*
[e-mail]
Covington & Burling LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

Matthew D. Powers*
[e-mail]
Steven S. Cherensky*
[e-mail]
Tensegrity Law Group LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401
Redwood Shores, California
Tel.: [phone] / Fax: [phone]

*Admitted pro hac vice

16