Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 308

RESPONSE/REPLY to 276 Notice (Other),, in Opposition to Apple's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Cathleen Garrigan, # 2 Exhibit A- Filed Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit B)(Herrera, Sujey)

EXHIBIT B

Cathleen Garrigan
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Schmidt, Jill [[e-mail]]
Monday, March 19, 2012 3:45 PM
Cathleen Garrigan; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; '[e-mail]'
RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): motion for leave to file amended answer

Hi Cathleen,
We do not agree that the situations are analogous. First, Apple's infringement theories under 271(f) and other
subsections of § 271 were adequately pled by Apple's allegations that the set-top box patents were infringed "directly
and indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 through its use, importation,
offer for sale and/or sale of set-top and DVR boxes that provide or operate in conjunction with an interactive Guide (for
TV or DVR functions)." See Amended Answer at ¶¶ 185, 191, 197. Our proposed amendments merely add clarifying
language to confirm that Apple is asserting infringement under § 271 (a), (b), (c), and/or (f), based on recently
discovered information (e.g., spreadsheets produced by Motorola and deposition testimony from Mr. Groat and Mr.
Rementilla). We do not accept your proposal below and plan to file a motion to amend our pleading, noting Motorola's
opposition.
Best regards,
Jill
From: Cathleen Garrigan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 1:44 PM
To: Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; '[e-mail]'
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): motion for leave to file amended answer

Jill,
We’ve reviewed Apple’s proposed amended pleading. Apple appears to be raising a brand new section 271(f) theory,
not just additional details regarding disclosed theories as you suggested previously. This appears to us as inconsistent
with Apple's successful motion to strike our supplemental infringement contentions. That said, Motorola will agree not
to oppose Apple’s motion to amend its answer provided that Apple agrees not to oppose a motion by Motorola to
supplement its infringement contentions to add the products that Apple successfully precluded in its motion to strike
Motorola’s supplemental infringement contentions (and promptly provide the discovery it has been previously
withholding and/or has refused to provide as to these products).
Best,
Cathleen

From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:37 PM
To: Cathleen Garrigan; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): motion for leave to file amended answer

Hi Cathleen,
Please let us know whether Motorola intends to oppose Apple's motion to file an amended pleading.
1

Thanks,
Jill
From: Schmidt, Jill
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 8:44 PM
To: 'Cathleen Garrigan'; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): motion for leave to file amended answer

Counsel,
Please see the attached redline.
Best regards,
Jill
From: Cathleen Garrigan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 5:50 PM
To: Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): motion for leave to file amended answer

Jill,
It is not clear to us what you are referring to. Please send us a redline.
Best,
Cathleen

From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 1:53 PM
To: Cathleen Garrigan; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): motion for leave to file amended answer

Hi Cathleen,
The language we intend to use for our amended answer will be identical to the language used in our answer to
Motorola's complaint in the second FL action, which was filed earlier today.
Best regards,
Jill
From: Cathleen Garrigan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 12:15 PM
To: Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): motion for leave to file amended answer

Jill,
2

In order to evaluate Apple’s request, we will need to see Apple’s proposed amended answer. Additionally, our team is
traveling today so it will not be possible for us to review the proposed amended answer by the close of business today.
Best,
Cathleen
From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 9:53 AM
To: Cathleen Garrigan; Moto-Apple-SDFL
Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External; [e-mail]
Subject: Apple/Motorola (FL): motion for leave to file amended answer

Hi Cathleen,
As we discussed the other day, Apple is contemplating amending its answer to provide more specific details regarding its
indirect infringement theories. Please let me know by COB today whether Motorola will oppose our motion for leave to
file an amended pleading.
Best regards,
Jill

Jill Schmidt (née Ho)
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax

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.

3