Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Filing
218
AFFIDAVIT signed by : Jill Ho. re 217 Response in Opposition to Motion Declaration of Jill Ho in Support of Apple's Opposition (D.E. 217) by Apple, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Pace, Christopher)
Exhibit C
Ho, Jill
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cathleen Garrigan
Thursday, December 08, 2011 10:30 AM
Ho, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; AppleCov@cov.com; emullins@astidavis.com
RE: Motorola v. Apple (SDFL): Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
Jill,
Motorola will be seeking leave to amend the scheduling order permit service of its supplemental invalidity
contentions. As you know, Apple failed to produce prior art responsive to Motorola’s discovery requests until
after the deadline for invalidity contentions. In particular, Apple was aware that it was asserting the European
counterpart to the ‘849 patent against Samsung, yet failed to produce the prior art from this litigation until
Motorola demanded its production by letter. Additionally, at the technical tutorial, counsel for Apple
represented to the Court that the ‘646 and ‘116 patents claim “Plug and Play.” This was the first time Apple
asserted that the ‘646 and ‘116 patents claim Plug and Play. Lastly, in the Western District of Wisconsin case,
Apple supplemented its invalidity contentions in August 2011 under similar circumstances. Given that Apple’s
late production of documents and new assertions at the technical tutorial provide good cause to amend the
scheduling order, please let us know if Apple will oppose such a motion.
Additionally, Apple’s reply in support of its motion to strike (Docket No. 197) seeks to distinguish the
Wisconsin “infringement contentions” as not requiring claim-by-claim infringement analyses. But Apple
admits that the March 4, 2011 deadline in the Wisconsin case was the deadline by which the parties had to
disclose accused products. Apple’s March 4 contentions did not include Droid 3, Droid X2, Milestone, Photon,
Spice, Titanium, Triumph, and XPRT. Yet, Apple seeks to pursue these same products as indicated by the
addition of XPRT and Titanium in its May 24 infringement contentions and the addition of Droid 3, Droid X2,
Milestone, Photon, Spice and Triumph in its September 15 expert reports (incorporated by reference into its
Third Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 6). By Apple’s own admission the addition of these newly
accused products violates the Court’s March 4, 2011 deadline. Please confirm that Apple will strike the newlyaccused products from its interrogatory responses, expert reports and infringement contentions.
Best,
Cathleen
From: Ho, Jill [mailto:jill.ho@weil.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 9:17 AM
To: Cathleen Garrigan; John Duchemin; emullins@astidavis.com; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; AppleCov@cov.com
Subject: RE: Motorola v. Apple (SDFL): Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
Hi Cathleen,
Please let me know if Motorola will withdraw its supplemental invalidity contentions, particularly in light of the Court's
order granting Apple's motion to strike that just issued.
Best regards,
Jill
1
From: Cathleen Garrigan [mailto:cathleengarrigan@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:44 PM
To: Ho, Jill; John Duchemin; AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL; emullins@astidavis.com
Subject: RE: Motorola v. Apple (SDFL): Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
Jill,
We would like to meet and confer regarding Apple’s position on this issue. Please let us know if you are available to
meet and confer tomorrow at 2pm pacific.
Best,
Cathleen
From: Ho, Jill [mailto:jill.ho@weil.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:45 PM
To: John Duchemin; AppleCov; Apple Moto Weil
Cc: Moto-Apple-SDFL
Subject: RE: Motorola v. Apple (SDFL): Supplemental Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
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.
2
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
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.
3
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?