Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 211

MOTION to Amend/Correct the Procedural Schedule to Serve Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and Accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. Responses due by 1/17/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Cathleen Garrigan, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N)(Mullins, Edward)

Download PDF
Cathleen Garrigan Ho, Jill [jill.ho@weil.com] Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:45 PM John Duchemin; AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil Moto-Apple-SDFL RE: Motorola v. Apple (SDFL): Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi John,    Our position, as we've stated repeatedly, is that unless and until the Court rules otherwise, the current deadlines concerning contentions govern. Please withdraw your supplemental invalidity contentions.    Best regards,  Jill       Jill Ho   Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134 jill.ho@weil.com +1 650 802 3163 Direct +1 650 802 3100 Fax  From: John Duchemin [mailto:johnduchemin@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:48 AM To: AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL Subject: Motorola v. Apple (SDFL): Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions     Counsel,     Attached are Motorola’s Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions including Supplemental Exhibits D, E and F.   The supplemental invalidity contentions are served in response to ongoing discovery, including but not limited to  Apple’s late production of prior art from its litigation against Samsung in the Netherlands and positions that Apple first  revealed at the technical tutorial and Markman hearings regarding the alleged inventions disclosed in the ‘116 and ‘646  patents.      Given Apple’s position regarding infringement contentions, please let us know by close of business tomorrow if Apple  contends that, despite the fact that its own June 20 invalidity contentions served after the Court’s June 1 Order reserved  Apple’s right to supplement its invalidity contentions in light of the continuing discovery process, the June 20 were  intended to be “final  contentions,” or if it intends to seek to strike these supplemental contentions.         Regards,  John     John Duchemin Associate, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5096 Direct 1 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX johnduchemin@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com  NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.      The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email, postmaster@weil.com, and destroy the original message. Thank you. 2

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?