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)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE 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.

DECLARATION OF CATHLEEN GARRIGAN IN SUPPORT OF
MOTOROLA'S MOTION TO AMEND THE PROCEDURAL
SCHEDULE TO SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
I, Cathleen G. Garrigan, declare:
I am a member of the bar of the State of California, admitted pro hac vice in this
action and an associate with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, attorneys for Motorola
Mobility, Inc. and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Motorola, Inc.) (collectively "Motorola"). I

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
make this declaration of personal, firsthand knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I
could and would testify competently to the matters contained in this declaration.
1.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Apple, Inc.

v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Judgment in summary proceeding of 24 August 2011 in
the case with case number/roll number 396957 / KG ZA 11-730 and in the case with case
number/roll number 396959 / KG ZA 11-731 in the Court of the Hague, Civil Law Section.
2.

Attached hereto as B is a true and correct copy of Apple's Invalidity

Contentions served on June 20, 2011.
3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is an excerpt of a true and correct copy

Motorola's Invalidity Contentions served on June 20, 2011.
4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is an excerpt of a true and correct copy of

Motorola's First Set of Requests for the Production of Documents served on December 29, 2010.
5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a September 1,

2011 letter from Matthew Korhonen to Jill Ho and Christine Haskett requesting the production of
prior art and other documents from the Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics. Co., Ltd., et al.
litigation taking place in the Netherlands.
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a September 13,

2011 e-mail from Brian Chang to Matt Korhonen regarding the production of documents from
the Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics. Co., Ltd., et al. litigation taking place in the Netherlands.
The username and password contained within the e-mail have been redacted.
7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit G is an excerpt of a true and correct copy of the

October 6, 2011 technical tutorial hearing transcript.

2

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit H is an excerpt of a true and correct copy of the

Microsoft® Windows® 95 Resource Kit, copyrighted 1995 by Microsoft Corporation.
9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of a November 30,

2011 e-mail from Jill Ho to John Duchemin requesting Motorola withdraw its Supplemental
Invalidity Contentions.
10.

Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of U.S. Patent No.

11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the

7,100,185.

prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 7,100,185.
12.

Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of an excerpt of the

Northern District of California Patent Local Rules.
13.

Attached hereto as Exhibit M is an excerpt of a true and correct copy of

the Eastern District of Texas Patent Local Rules.
14.

Attached hereto as Exhibit N is an excerpt of a true and correct copy of the

Hardware Design Guide for Microsoft Windows 95, copyrighted 1994 by Microsoft Corporation.
15.

The documents produced by Apple on September 13, 2011, from the

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics. Co., Ltd., et al. litigation taking place in the Netherlands,
contained prior art not previously produced by Apple in this litigation.
16.

On December 2, 2011, Cathleen Garrigan and Marshall Searcy, counsel

for Motorola, met and conferred with Jill Ho, counsel for Apple, regarding Motorola's
supplemental invalidity contentions. At the meet and confer Motorola stated its position that
good cause existed for Motorola to supplement its invalidity contentions in light of Apple's late
production of prior art and recent assertion that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,282,646 B1 abd 7,380,116 B2

3

Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
claim Plug and Play.

Apple stated that the Court's scheduling order did not permit

supplementation, but did not provide a substantive response to Motorola's statement that good
cause existed for supplementation.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of December, 2011 at San Francisco,
California.

/s/ Cathleen G. Garrigan
Cathleen G. Garrigan

4