Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 244

Plaintiff's MOTION to Bring Electronic Equipment Into Courtroom for Use During March 8, 2012 Tutorial Hearing by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Order)(Mullins, Edward)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-23580-RNS ______________________________________ ) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) APPLE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________________ ) ) APPLE, INC., ) ) Counterclaim-Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MOTOROLA, INC. and ) MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., ) ) Counterclaim-Defendants. ) ) ______________________________________ ) MOTION TO BRING EQUIPMENT INTO COURTROOM FOR USE DURING THE MARCH 8, 2012 TUTORIAL HEARING Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) respectfully moves this Court for entry of an order permitting counsel to bring into Court certain computer and technological devices for use during the Technology Tutorial Hearing scheduled for March 8, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. per this Court’s February 9, 2012 Order [DE234] (“Hearing”). In support of the instant motion, Motorola states: 1. Motorola intends to conduct presentations at the March 8, 2012 Hearing that rely on the use of computer technology and other technological equipment. To accomplish these CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-23580-RNS objectives, Motorola will require several laptop computers and their external drives, 6 flash drives, and additional audio/video presentation equipment, consisting of: cables, power strips, extension cords, presentation clickers and laser pointers. Motorola’s presentations may also include certain demonstrative devices, including: a Neonode N1 and/or N2 mobile phone, an exemplary Motorola set top box, and a number of exemplary Motorola and Apple cell phones and tablet computers. 2. Motorola understands that the aforementioned items will be subject to examination for security purposes as are all other materials brought into the courthouse. 3. Motorola also requests that it be allowed two (2) hours on March 7, 2012 between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. (or any other time convenient for the Court) to check and set this equipment up in the courtroom for use during the Hearing. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE Motorola respectfully requests that this Court enter an order granting this motion for leave to bring the aforementioned equipmetn into the courtroom for use during the March 8, 2012 Hearing and for leave to set up its equipment on March 7, 2012 between 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. (or any other time convenient for the Court). A proposed order is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Dated: February 24, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Edward M. Mullins Edward M. Mullins (Fla. Bar No. 863920) ASTIGARRAGA DAVIS MULLINS & GROSSMAN, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-8282 Facsimile: (305) 372-8202 2 CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-23580-RNS Charles K. Verhoeven* David A. Perlson* Cathleen G. Garrigan* QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tel.: (415) 875-6600 / Fax: (415) 875-6700 Edward J. DeFranco* Raymond N. Nimrod* QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 Tel.: (212) 849-7000 / Fax: (212) 849-7100 David A. Nelson* QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Tel.: (312) 705-7400 / Fax: (312) 705-7401 Marshall S. Searcy, III* QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Tel.: (213) 443-3000 *Admitted pro hac vice Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Motorola Solutions, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. 3 CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-23580-RNS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 24, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this date on all counsel of record or pro se parties on the Service List below in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by the CM/ECF system or; in some other authorized manner for those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing. /s/ Edward M. Mullins___________________ Edward M. Mullins (Fla. Bar No. 863920) SERVICE LIST Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Case No.: 1:10-CV-23580-RNS United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Samuel F. Ernst* Christine Saunders Haskett* Robert D. Fram* Chris Martiniak* Winslow B. Taub* R. Anthony Lopez* Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, California 94111-5356 Tel.: (415) 591-6000 / Fax: (415) 591-6091 Christopher R.J. Pace Edward Soto Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel.: (305) 577-3100 / Fax: (305) 374-7159 Nathan A. Greenblatt* Jill J. Ho* Jacqueline T. Harlow* Anne M. Cappella* Brian C. Chang* Arjun Mehra* Jeremy Jason Lang* Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, California 94065-1134 Tel.: (650) 802-3000 / Fax: (650) 802-3100 Robert T. Haslam* Anupam Sharma* Covington & Burling LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, California 94065 Tel.: (650) 632-4700 / Fax: (650) 632-4800 4 CASE NO.: 1:10-CV-23580-RNS Matthew D. Powers* Steven S. Cherensky* Azra Hadzimehmedovic Tensegrity Law Group LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401 Redwood Shores, California Tel.: (650) 802-6000 / Fax: (650) 802-6001 Jenny C. Wu* Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10153 Tel.: (212) 310-8000 / Fax: (212) 310-8007 Mark G. Davis* Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Tel.: (202) 682-7000 / Fax: (202) 857-0940 *Admitted pro hac vice Counsel for Defendant Electronically served via CM/ECF 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?