Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 361

MOTION to Amend/Correct (84 in 1:12-cv-20271-RNS) Scheduling Order,,, MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND MOTION TO AMEND THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE by Apple Inc.. Responses due by 10/29/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11)Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-20271-RNS, 1:10-cv-23580-RNS(Pace, Christopher)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 6 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Vlasis, Robert Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:12 PM Marshall Searcy Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External Re: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer Marshall,    As we explained during the meet-and-confer, the deadline for exchanging contentions should be coordinated with the deadline for adding new products to the case to avoid continual supplementation of contentions for new products through the 2014 trial, which would otherwise make trial preparations impractical, unreasonably enlarge the ongoing litigation between the parties, and unduly burden the parties' witnesses. While Apple agrees to provide discovery on future products, this agreement must have some reasonable boundary. Indeed, we cannot continue to have Apple's engineers re-deposed for each new product and software release, nor is it reasonable for this litigation to continue broadening up through trial.   For this reason, we suggest pushing the contentions deadline by at least two months so that Motorola can add the next generation iPhone and Apple can add new Motorola products released between now and the extended deadline. Thus, we suggest making the infringement contentions due on November 7 and invalidity contentions due on December 5. With these dates, we suggest October 8 as the deadline for adding new products to the case, with documents pertaining to such new products produced by October 15.    Please let us know if we can agree to these dates.     Best regards,  Robert    On Aug 14, 2012, at 7:52 PM, "Marshall Searcy" <> wrote:  Jill and Mark,     Just to follow up on our conversation from last Thursday, because both Apple and Motorola have  products scheduled for release after the September 7 date for infringement contentions, Apple  proposed that the parties could potentially agree to extend that date (and possibly others).  Motorola is  willing to consider such an extension; however, we do not agree that it is proper to lock in the parties to  only those products identified in infringement contentions, to the exclusion of all products released later  in the case.  Accordingly, while Motorola is willing to discuss an extension to the contention date, it will  do so only on the condition that Apple will not argue that any agreement the parties might reach is a  basis for preventing Motorola from supplementing its infringement contentions in the future.       To the extent that Apple has any proposal for extending the contention dates, please forward it to me so  that we may continue our discussions.     Best regards,   Marshall  1       From: Schmidt, Jill [] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:36 AM To: Marshall Searcy; Moto-Apple-SDFL Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External Subject: Re: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer     Hi Marshall,    11am PT tomorrow is fine. Please circulate a dial‐in.     Thanks,  Jill   From: Marshall Searcy [] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 06:33 PM To: Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL <> Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer   Hi Jill,  I’m available on Thursday at 11 a.m. In connection with this subject, it has been widely reported that Apple will be announcing the iPhone 5 on September 12, 2012. Infringement contentions are presently due September 7. Please confirm that Apple will promptly provide documents concerning the iPhone 5 including technical specifications, design documents and instruction manuals, well in advance of September 7.     In addition, please let me know when we can expect Apple’s document production this week.    Best regards,  Marshall        From: Schmidt, Jill [] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 2:22 PM To: Marshall Searcy; Moto-Apple-SDFL Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External Subject: RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer     Hi Marshall,     Further to my email below, this is the language we propose for our agreement regarding unreleased  products:     Plaintiff/Counterclaim‐Defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) and Defendant/Counterclaim‐ Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) hereby stipulate that discovery regarding unreleased products in the  above‐captioned litigation shall be limited to products that will be announced prior to XXX.     Let’s schedule a call for later this week to discuss a mutually agreeable cutoff date.     Best regards,  Jill     2    From: Schmidt, Jill Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:01 PM To: 'Marshall Searcy'; Moto-Apple-SDFL ( Cc: Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External Subject: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer     Hi Marshall,     I write to memorialize our meet and confer from earlier today.  With respect to document production,  we agreed that Apple will produce its documents as OCR’ed pdfs and Motorola will produce its  documents as single‐page TIFFs, but both sides will simply keep their copies of documents produced in  the FL‐1 action rather than re‐producing everything again.  Since Motorola did not previously specify  which documents it produced for the FL‐1 action with a different prefix, please identify those  documents by Bates range.  As for metadata fields, Apple would prefer to stick with the same fields as  the other Apple/Motorola cases if HTC is no longer involved.  With respect to documents produced in  other Apple/Motorola cases, Apple is amenable to extending our cross‐use agreement.  You are double‐ checking with your team and will get back to me with any objections.     With regard to discovery limits, we agreed that the following limits would apply to the consolidated FL  cases, with the understanding that either party may serve discovery (within these limits) that pertain to  patents asserted in the FL‐1 action as well as the FL‐2 action:   30 Interrogatories   125 RFPs   100 RFAs   90 hours of deposition for fact/30(b)(6) witnesses (experts or third‐party witnesses do not  count towards this limit)     As for our agreement regarding unreleased products, we agreed that we likely need to craft a new  agreement for the consolidated FL cases since my recollection was that our previously agreed cutoff  date was the 745 trial and both Apple and Motorola have already accused products released since that  date.      Finally, on financial data, we agreed in principle that an exchange of representative or summary data  would be more efficient for both sides.  We agreed to check with our respective teams to see what  exchange was made in the NDIL case, so we can use that as a starting point for further discussions.     Please let me know if scheduling another call for early next week would be useful.     Best regards,  Jill  <image001.jpg>    Jill Schmidt (née Ho)   Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134 +1 650 802 3163 Direct +1 650 802 3100 Fax     3 From: Marshall Searcy [] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:21 AM To: Schmidt, Jill Subject: conference call number     Hi Jill,   Here’s the number for today    866-939-8416  Passcode: 518165        Speak to you at 11.    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,, and destroy the original message. Thank you.  4

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?