Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 327

ORDER Granting 279 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer Jury Trial Demanded by Apple Inc. Apple shall file its Amended Answer in this case forthwith. The Court also vacates Judge Ungaro's Order Striking Motorola's Supplemental Infringement Contentions [ECF No. 198]. Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 4/19/2012. (See Order for full details) (nc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-RNS
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

APPLE INC.,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC. and
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Counterclaim Defendants.

ORDER ALLOWING APPLE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER;
VACATING ORDER STRIKING MOTOROLA’S SUPPLEMENTAL
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS; AND DIRECTING THE PARTIES
TO MEET-AND-CONFER REGARDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer
[ECF No. 279], submitted by Apple, Inc. The Court held a hearing concerning this Motion and
related matters on April 19, 2012. Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions and
argument from the hearing, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Apple’s Motion [ECF No. 279] is GRANTED. Apple shall file its Amended

Answer in this case forthwith.
2.

The Court also vacates Judge Ungaro’s Order Striking Motorola’s Supplemental

Infringement Contentions [ECF No. 198]. The Court finds that Motorola should, in fairness, be
permitted to supplement its infringement contentions in this case. Motorola shall submit them
forthwith.

3.

Within twenty days, the parties are directed to meet-and-confer regarding an

appropriate amended procedural schedule for this case, in light of this Order. After meeting-andconferring, the parties shall notify the Court as to their agreement on a proposed amended
procedural schedule for this 2010 case. If there is full agreement on such a proposal, the Court
will adopt it. If the parties are unable to fully agree, they are directed to notify the Court as to
what they do and do not agree upon and the Court will thereafter schedule a brief hearing to rule
upon any disputed matters.
4.

The parties shall separately discuss whether or not this case and the 2012 case

should be consolidated in whole or in part, for discovery purposes only, or for any other limited
purpose. Upon such discussions, the parties shall notify the Court of whether they have come to
an agreement, which the Court may adopt, or whether they disagree and why. To the extent
there is disagreement, the Court can take up the matter at a future hearing, as necessary.

DONE and ORDERED in chambers at Miami, Florida on April 19, 2012.

________________________________
ROBERT N. SCOLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of record
U.S. Mag. Judge Bandstra