Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 362

REPLY to Response to Motion re (361 in 1:10-cv-23580-RNS) MOTION to Amend/Correct (84 in 1:12-cv-20271-RNS) Scheduling Order,,, MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND MOTION TO AMEND THE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Current iPhone Models, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Current Motorola Phones for Sale, # 3 Exhibit 3 - 8/21/12 Email from Searcy to Davis, # 4 Exhibit 4 - 8/15/12 Email from Vlasis to Searcy, # 5 Exhibit 5 - 9/17/12 Email from Searcy to Vlasis, # 6 Exhibit 6 - 9/14/12 Email from Searcy to Vlasis, # 7 Exhibit 7 - 9/24/12 Email from Vlasis to Searcy, # 8 Exhibit 8 - 10/1/12 Email from Vlasis to Searcy, # 9 Exhibit 9 - 10/5/12 Email from Vlasis to Searcy, # 10 Exhibit 10 - 10/8/12 Email from Vlasis to Searcy, # 11 Exhibit 11 - 10/9/12 Email from Davis to Vlasis, # 12 Exhibit 12 - 10/11/12 Email from Vlasis to Davis, # 13 Exhibit 13 - 10/11/12 Email from Davis to Vlasis, # 14 Exhibit 14 - 10/16/12 Letter from Bonifield to Vlasis)Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-20271-RNS, 1:10-cv-23580-RNS(Pace, Christopher)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 3 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Marshall Searcy <marshallsearcy@quinnemanuel.com> Tuesday, August 21, 2012 4:39 PM Davis, Mark Vlasis, Robert; Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External RE: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer Dear Mark,    Our position is simply that there is no need to set a firm date for parties to accuse products released before trial in this  matter at this time.  As we discussed last week, both Apple and Motorola have new products coming out this fall, and  we agree that both sides will be producing documents related to those products.  Both sides will want to include  information adduced during discovery about these products in their infringement contentions.  Further, it is likely that  either Apple or Motorola (or both) will release new products after the close of discovery but before the commencement  of trial.    Considering that discovery will be continuing through July 2013, we don’t think it makes sense for either side to  freeze their infringement contentions in place before discovery closes.  Nor is there any reason to restrict appropriate  and reasonable supplementation of infringement contentions after the parties’ exchange initial contentions and before  the beginning of trial in April 2014.  Motorola continues to believe that it’s most efficient for the parties to avoid a  multiplicity of suits between them.       From: Davis, Mark [mailto:mark.davis@weil.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:24 AM To: Marshall Searcy Cc: Vlasis, Robert; Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External Subject: Re: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer   Marshall,    What is your proposal?    Mark    On Aug 17, 2012, at 1:13 PM, "Marshall Searcy" <marshallsearcy@quinnemanuel.com> wrote:  Robert,     Motorola does not agree to these dates.  We don’t think it makes sense to limit discovery of products  released after October 8, 2012, when the trial period in this matter is not set until April 21, 2014.  Such a  limitation is contrary to an efficient resolution of the disputes between the parties, and will likely result  in additional suits being filed.     Best regards,   Marshall     From: Vlasis, Robert [mailto:robert.vlasis@weil.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 3:12 PM To: Marshall Searcy Cc: Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL; Weil_TLG Apple Moto FL External Subject: Re: Apple/Motorola (FL): meet and confer  1    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" <marshallsearcy@quinnemanuel.com> 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        2 From: Schmidt, Jill [mailto:jill.schmidt@weil.com] 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 [mailto:marshallsearcy@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 06:33 PM To: Schmidt, Jill; Moto-Apple-SDFL <Moto-Apple-SDFL@quinnemanuel.com> 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 [mailto:jill.schmidt@weil.com] 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  3       From: Schmidt, Jill Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 8:01 PM To: 'Marshall Searcy'; Moto-Apple-SDFL (Moto-Apple-SDFL@quinnemanuel.com) 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 4 Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134 jill.schmidt@weil.com +1 650 802 3163 Direct +1 650 802 3100 Fax     From: Marshall Searcy [mailto:marshallsearcy@quinnemanuel.com] 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, postmaster@weil.com, and destroy the original message. Thank you.  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?