Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 212

Request for Hearingby Motorola Mobility, Inc. re 211 MOTION to Amend/Correct the Procedural Schedule to Serve Supplemental Invalidity Contentions and Accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of Request for Oral Argument (Giuliano, Douglas) Modified converted to motion on 1/3/2012 (tp).

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 REQUEST FOR HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO AMEND THE
PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE TO SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL INVALIDITY
CONTENTIONS
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(b)(1), Plaintiff and Counterclaim defendants Motorola
Mobility, Inc. and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Motorola, Inc.) (collectively “Motorola”)
request oral argument on its Motion for Leave to Amend the Procedural Schedule to Serve
supplemental Invalidity Contentions (D.E. 211).
The factual background necessitating Motorola's supplemental invalidity contentions is
complicated, as it arises from several different sets of facts. A hearing is important to explain
1

Apple's late production of the prior art that potentially invalidates its patents, the prior art's
relevance and Apple's attempts to exclude that prior art. Additionally, a hearing would permit
Motorola to explain the consequences of Apple's improper attempt to expand the scope of its
patents at the technical tutorial.
Moreover, the issues raised in Motorola's motion are significant in that the outcome of
the motion will determine whether Motorola is permitted to supplement its invalidity contentions
to include evidence produced by Apple after the date for invalidity contentions had passed,
evidence to address Apple's recent assertion that two of its asserted patents claim "Plug and
Play," and a prior art reference that Motorola recently learned claims a priority date earlier than
three of Apple's asserted patents. In other words, the outcome of the motion will have the effect
of permitting evidence critical to Motorola's invalidity defense against Apple's counterclaims of
infringement.
Given that this motion relates to the admissibility of evidence with respect to a key issue
in the case, Motorola respectfully requests oral argument on the issues presented in its Motion
for Leave to Amend the Procedural Schedule to Serve supplemental Invalidity Contentions (D.E.
211).

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 30, 2011

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. (f/k/a
MOTOROLA, INC.) AND MOTOROLA
MOBILITY, INC.
By:

/s/ David Perlson
David Perlson

Charles K. Verhoeven
David Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
2

San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [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]
[e-mail]
David A. Nelson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison St., Ste. 2450
Chicago, IL 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 CounterclaimDefendants Motorola Solutions, Inc. and
Motorola Mobility, Inc.

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on December 30, 2011, I served the foregoing document via
electronic mail on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List.

/s/ Douglas J. Giuliano
Douglas J. Giuliano

SERVICE LIST
Motorola Mobility, Inc. versus Apple Inc.
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
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
4

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

5