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)

Cathleen Garrigan
Ho, Jill [[e-mail]]
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
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax 

From: John Duchemin [mailto:[e-mail]]
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
[e-mail]
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, [e-mail],
and destroy the original message. Thank you.

2