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).

Download PDF
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: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Email: Edward M. Mullins (863920) Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: (305) 372-8282 Fax: (305) 372-8202 Email: Edward J. DeFranco Raymond Nimrod Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 Phone: (212) 849-7000 Fax: (212) 849-7100 Email: David A. Nelson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 West Madison St., Ste. 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 705-7400 Facsimile: (312) 705-7401 Email: Marshall Searcy QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Email: 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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel.: (305) 577-3100 / Fax: (305) 374-7159 Attorneys for Apple, Inc. Electronically served via e-mail Of Counsel: Matthew D. Powers Steven S. Cherensky WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Mark G. Davis WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 4 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 Facsimile: (202) 857-0940 Robert T. Haslam COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Robert D. Fram Christine Saunders Haskett COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 Attorneys for Apple, Inc. Electronically served via e-mail 5

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?