Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 129

MOTION in Limine Nos. 1-9 and Brief in Support Thereof by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit, #2 Exhibit A to Affidavit in Support, #3 Exhibit B to Affidavit in Support, #4 Exhibit C to Affidavit in Support, #5 Exhibit D to Affidavit in Support, #6 Exhibit E to Affidavit in Support, #7 Exhibit F to Affidavit in Support, #8 Exhibit G to Affidavit in Support, #9 Exhibit H to Affidavit in Support, #10 Exhibit I to Affidavit in Support, #11 Exhibit J to Affidavit in Support, #12 Exhibit K to Affidavit in Support, #13 Exhibit L to Affidavit in Support, #14 Exhibit M to Affidavit in Support)(Mullins, Edward)

E
X
H
I
B
I
T
A

Schwentker, R. Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Pepe, Steven
Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:50 AM
Florida (Motorola/Microsoft)
FW: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Steven Pepe
ROPES & GRAY LLP
T [phone] | M [phone] | F [phone]
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-8704
[e-mail]

www.ropesgray.com

From: Pepe, Steven
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:25 AM
To: 'Tripodi, Paul D.'
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M.; Jenner, Jesse J.; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
Pepe, Steven
Subject: RE: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Paul 

Thank you for your detailed email.  We disagree, however, with your understanding of the scope of the parties’ 
agreement.  Our understanding is consistent with Tung’s email ‐‐ neither party will use experts for claim construction. As
I have repeatedly stated, Tung’s email is clear and unambiguous. Other than statements you believe were made during
the May 4, 2011 telecon, I note that you do not cite anything to sufficiently corroborate your belief that the agreement was
limited only to submitting expert declarations in support of claim construction briefing.

We also disagree that is appropriate or necessary for some – but not all  ‐‐ of Microsoft’s experts  to opine on claim 
construction to establish “foundation” for their opinions.  Regardless, we believe such opinions violate the parties’ 
agreement.   

Steve 

Steven Pepe

ROPES & GRAY LLP
T [phone] | M [phone] | F [phone]
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-8704
[e-mail]

www.ropesgray.com

From: Tripodi, Paul D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:38 PM
To: Pepe, Steven
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M.; Jenner, Jesse J.; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Steve,

1

Your email includes unnecessary and inflammatory statements. Perhaps your misunderstanding results from the fact that
you were not substantively involved in discussions relating to the schedule for claim construction or the role of experts in
claim construction. In any event, I encourage you to avoid counterproductive, personal attacks and engage in a
constructive dialogue based on a discussion of the facts. Since it does not appear that you are fully aware of the facts
relating to this particular issue, I have summarized them below.


The case schedule was originally set by the parties so that claim construction briefing would occur beginning on
May 20 and conclude May 27, with a Hearing during the week of May 30, 2011.
o

Under the parties’ agreed schedule, the claim construction Hearing was set to take place well in advance
of expert discovery in an effort to give the Court an opportunity to issue a claim construction order prior to
the exchange of expert reports on June 24, 2011.



On April 10, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Include Pretrial Dates on Claim Construction and Expert
Discovery (Dkt. 49) submitting the proposed schedule for claim construction and expert reports for approval by
the Court.



In early May, the parties were preparing for the exchange of Proposed Constructions and Supporting Evidence,
which was due on May 6, 2011.
o

o



In a telephone call on the evening of May 4, 2011, your colleague Leslie Spencer suggested to Tung
Nguyen that that neither party submit “expert declarations with their claim construction briefing.”
As Tung indicated in his email on May 6, 2011, “Microsoft agrees with Motorola that neither party will use
experts for claim construction.”

On May 17, 2011, shortly after the exchange of Proposed Constructions, Judge Moreno issued an Order denying
the parties’ requested schedule for claim construction briefing and an early claim construction Hearing (Dkt. 53).
As a result, claim construction briefing will commence on July 21, 2011.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that the parties agreement was, as your colleague Leslie Spencer suggested, not to use
expert testimony in connection with claim construction briefing. At your request, I confirmed over the weekend that “the
parties have indeed agreed not to rely on expert testimony in connection with claim construction briefing.” In my email, I
also invited you to let me know if Motorola would like to discuss the matter further. Rather than accept my invitation, you
engaged in an unnecessary attack, accusing Microsoft of “blatant reneging of the agreement” and impugning our integrity
by stating that there was “considerable doubt that Microsoft can be considered trustworthy in connection with future issues
and requests.” Under the circumstances and in light of the facts, I believe that we are entitled an apology.
Turning now to your apparent concern about statements relating to claim construction in Microsoft’s expert reports. As I
also indicated in my email, certain Microsoft experts included varying amounts of discussion of claim construction issues
as foundation for the opinions expressed in their reports. (I had also previously given an example of similar material in a
Motorola expert report.) In other words, in light of the Court’s Order denying the parties’ proposed schedule for early
claim construction proceedings, the experts have drafted there reports without the benefit of the parties’ arguments in
connection with claim construction briefing or the benefit of a ruling from the Court. Accordingly, certain Microsoft experts
set forth a limited discussion of the basis for their understanding and application of the parties’ proposed claim
constructions as part of the foundation for their opinions.
It appears from your email that you are concerned that Motorola’s experts chose not to provide any foundation for claim
construction in their reports, and you are now attempting to create a dispute in an effort to give Motorola’s experts the
opportunity to provide this information as part of their rebuttal reports. If that is Motorola’s concern, please let us know so
that we can discuss ways to address it. If Motorola’s intent is instead to renege on the parties agreement not to rely on
expert testimony in connection with claim construction briefing, please let us know immediately so that we can take
appropriate steps to address this issue in advance of the exchange of claim construction briefs on July 21, 2001.
I hope that this clarifies these matters for you. We look forward to hearing back from Motorola promptly.
Paul D. Tripodi II
Sidley Austin LLP
[phone]
2

From: Pepe, Steven [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 4:15 AM
To: Tripodi, Paul D.; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M.; Jenner, Jesse J.; Pepe, Steven
Subject: RE: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Paul 

Your attempt to limit the parties’ agreement to just claim construction briefing is irreconcilable with the 
agreement as set forth in Tung’s email.  As his email makes clear, the agreement was not limited to just claim 
construction briefing.  If Microsoft does not withdraw these portions of the reports, Motorola reserve the right 
to address claim construction in our rebuttal reports and/or move to strike all portions of Microsoft’s reports 
that address claim construction.   Please let me know Microsoft’s intentions. 

Microsoft’s blatant reneging of the agreement is disappointing and creates considerable doubt as to whether 
Microsoft can be considered trustworthy in connection with future issues and requests. 

Steve 

Steven Pepe
ROPES & GRAY LLP
T [phone] | M [phone] | F [phone]
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-8704
[e-mail]

www.ropesgray.com

From: Tripodi, Paul D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 2:41 PM
To: Pepe, Steven; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M.; Jenner, Jesse J.
Subject: Re: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Steve, 

I can confirm that the parties have indeed agreed not to rely on expert testimony in connection with claim 
construction briefing. Since we do not yet have any ruling or the benefit of the Court's reasoning for a 
construction, the portions of the reports cited in your email are foundational in order to explain the basis for the 
experts conclusions. Please let me know if Motorola would like to discuss the matter further. 

Paul D. Tripodi II  
Sidley Austin LLP
From: Pepe, Steven [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 08:09 AM
To: Tripodi, Paul D.; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M. <[e-mail]>; Jenner, Jesse J. <[e-mail]>;
Pepe, Steven <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Paul 
You indicated you would respond on Saturday or Sunday.  You have not.  We await Microsoft’s position.   
3

I would appreciate the courtesy of a response given that rebuttal reports are due on 7/7. 
Steve  

Steven Pepe
ROPES & GRAY LLP
T [phone] | M [phone] | F [phone]
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-8704
[e-mail]

www.ropesgray.com

From: Tripodi, Paul D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 6:57 PM
To: Pepe, Steven; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M.; Jenner, Jesse J.
Subject: Re: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Steve, 

I was traveling Friday and should have a chance to get back to you later today or tomorrow.  

Paul D. Tripodi II  
Sidley Austin LLP
From: Pepe, Steven [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 08:11 AM
To: Pepe, Steven <[e-mail]>; Tripodi, Paul D.; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M. <[e-mail]>; Jenner, Jesse J. <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Paul 
When can I expect a response? 
Steve 

Steven Pepe

ROPES & GRAY LLP
T [phone] | M [phone] | F [phone]
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-8704
[e-mail]

www.ropesgray.com

From: Pepe, Steven
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 9:21 AM
To: 'Tripodi, Paul D.'; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M.; Jenner, Jesse J.; Pepe, Steven
Subject: RE: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Paul 

Please provide you understanding of the agreement between the parties as reflected in Tung’s email.  His email 
is clear and unequivocal – the parties will not use experts for claim construction.  I would appreciate your 
position by close of business. 

In response to your question, here are the portions of Microsoft’s expert reports at issue: 
4










Stubblebine ‘899 report, pages 28‐35 
Stubblebine ‘001 report, pages 34‐52 (paragraphs 64‐105) 
Stevenson '536 report, pgs.16‐17 (paragraphs 62‐63) 
Stevenson '853 report,  pgs. 19‐20 (paragraphs 64‐67) 
Fagan ‘460 report , pages 35‐36 (paragraphs 144‐148) 
Zeidman ‘839 report, pages 45‐50 
Terveen ‘904 report, Page 13, (paragraph 35) 
Geier ‘333 report,  pages 31‐50 (paragraphs 107‐169) 
Knoblock ‘544 report, pages 22‐26 

By way of example, the Geier report includes a section titled “Claim Interpretation” and discusses why, in the 
expert’s opinion, a person of ordinary skill would agree with Microsoft’s proposed constructions.   The other 
reports include a similar discussion.   

Our experts did not include such sections in their reports, including in Motorola’s ‘839 expert report at notes 9,
13, and 18. In these notes, the expert did not opine on how a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret 
the claim language.  Rather, the expert merely explained that he did not understand what was meant by 
Microsoft’s construction.  In order to opine on infringement issues, he had to explain his understanding of 
Microsoft’s construction.  

I am available to discuss 

Steve 

Steven Pepe

ROPES & GRAY LLP
T [phone] | M [phone] | F [phone]
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-8704
[e-mail]

www.ropesgray.com

From: Tripodi, Paul D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 3:37 PM
To: Pepe, Steven; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Cc: Spencer, Leslie M.; Jenner, Jesse J.
Subject: RE: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Steve,
We are still looking into this issue. To the extent that Motorola has an objection to any discussion of claim
construction in Microsoft’s expert reports, it would be helpful to know exactly what sections of the reports are at
issue. Moreover, to the extent that Motorola is concerned about discussions that implicate or discuss claim
construction, we ask that Motorola scrutinize its own expert reports. (By way of example, notes 9, 13, and 18 of
Motorola’s ‘839 report, among others.) We are happy to consider the issue further and look forward to hearing
back from you.
Paul D. Tripodi II
Sidley Austin LLP
[phone]
From: Pepe, Steven [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:18 PM
5

To: Tripodi, Paul D.; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Cc: Pepe, Steven; Spencer, Leslie M.; Jenner, Jesse J.
Subject: RE: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Paul 
Any word on whether Microsoft will withdraw those portions of the reports that relate to claim 
construction?  As I noted in my email,  Tung’s May 6 email to Leslie makes it clear that neither party will 
rely on experts for claim construction. 
Thanks 
Steve 

Steven Pepe
ROPES & GRAY LLP
T [phone] | M [phone] | F [phone]
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-8704
[e-mail]

www.ropesgray.com

From: Pepe, Steven [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Project - SidleyITC706
Cc: Pepe, Steven; Spencer, Leslie M.; Rowland, Mark D.; Jenner, Jesse J.; Post, Kevin
Subject: FW: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft
Corporation

Paul 

Despite the parties’ agreement not to use experts for claim construction (See Tung’s 
email below), a number of Microsoft’s experts opined on issues of claim construction in 
their expert reports.  Please confirm that Microsoft will withdraw those portions of the 
reports and will not rely on those portions for any purpose.   

Steve 

Steven Pepe

ROPES & GRAY LLP
T [phone] | M [phone] | F [phone]
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-8704
[e-mail]

www.ropesgray.com

Circular 230 Disclosure (R&G): To ensure compliance with Treasury Department
regulations, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used,
for the purpose of avoiding U.S. tax-related penalties or promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
This message (including attachments) is privileged and confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete it without further distribution and reply to the sender that
you have received the message in error.
From: Nguyen, Tung T. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:39 PM
To: Spencer, Leslie M.; Edward Mullins; Hal Lucas; Pepe, Steven; Beamer, Norman H.;
6

Rowland, Mark D.; Higgins, Gabrielle E.; Jenner, Jesse J.; Post, Kevin; Raymond, Megan;
Evelyn C. Davila; Douglas Giuliano; Hoang, Khue V.
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Project-MS/Moto_SDFL_24063
Subject: Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM (SDFL) Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft
Corporation

Leslie,  

Microsoft agrees with Motorola that neither party will use experts for claim 
construction.   
Regards, 
Tung 

Tung T. Nguyen  
Sidley Austin LLP 
717 N. Harwood, Suite 3400 
Dallas, Texas 75201 
tel: 214‐981‐3478 
fax: 214‐981‐3400 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: To comply with certain U.S. Treasury regulations, we
inform you
that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this
communication, including attachments, was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be
used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on
such
taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, if any such tax advice is used or
referred
to by other parties in promoting, marketing or recommending any partnership or other
entity,
investment plan or arrangement, then (i) the advice should be construed as written in
connection
with the promotion or marketing by others of the transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in
this
communication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circumstances from an independent tax advisor.
************************************************************************
****************************
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and
notify us
immediately.
7

***********************************************************************
*****************************

8