Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 177

RESPONSE/REPLY Microsoft Corporation's Responsive Claim Construction Brief and Exhibits by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 802, # 3 Exhibit 906, # 4 Exhibit 907, # 5 Exhibit 908, # 6 Exhibit 909, # 7 Exhibit 910, # 8 Exhibit 1005, # 9 Exhibit 1006, # 10 Exhibit 1117, # 11 Exhibit 1118, # 12 Exhibit 1119, # 13 Exhibit 1120, # 14 Exhibit 1121, # 15 Exhibit 1122, # 16 Exhibit 1411)(Miner, Curtis)

Download PDF
Exhibit 1117 Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 1:10-cv-24063-MORENO MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff. / JOINT MOTION TO INCLUDE PRETRIAL DATES ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND EXPERT DISCOVERY Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola Mobility”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly move the Court to include pretrial dates on claim construction and expert discovery. It support of their Motion, the Parties state that: 1. This action involves claims by both Motorola Mobility and Microsoft for patent infringement with respect to various patents. 2. This Court is required to construe the meaning of disputed terms in a patent claim prior to the submission to the jury, called claim construction. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The scope and meaning of patent claims are questions of law. When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, the Court is required to resolve the dispute by determining the meaning of that claim term. Early resolution of such disputes will typically narrow the issues for expert reports, summary judgment and trial. 3. On January 20, 2011, the Court entered an Order Continuing Trial and Certain Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2011 Page 2 of 6 Pretrial Dates (DE 36) (“Scheduling Order”). 4. The Scheduling Order does not specifically address deadlines for claim construction briefings. In addition, the Scheduling Order does not specifically address expert discovery. 5. In order to facilitate this Court’s claim construction ruling, the parties have agreed to a schedule that is intended to narrow the issues as much as possible to ensure an efficient claim construction process. 6. The parties also desire to facilitate expert discovery as much as possible. 7. The parties also desire to agree to a schedule to have the claim construction process completed in a timely manner such that the parties can meet the deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order, including the deadlines for summary judgment and trial. 8. The parties’ proposed schedule does not alter any of the deadlines of the Court’s Scheduling Order with the following minor exception: The Scheduling Order provides a deadline of July 7, 2011, for the Parties to complete discovery. The proposed Scheduling Order adds an expert discovery deadline of July 21, 2011, but maintains July 7, 2011 as the Parties’ last day to complete all fact discovery. 9. The Parties have agreed to the following deadlines with respect to claim construction and expert discovery: a. April 15, 2011: Infringement Contentions - Parties to make simultaneous exchange of infringement contentions for all patent claims they will be asserting including independent and dependent claims. b. April 22, 2011: Invalidity Contentions – Parties to make simultaneous exchange of invalidity contentions for all patent claims asserted by the 2 Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2011 Page 3 of 6 opposing party, including all grounds of invalidity. c. April 29, 2011: Claim Construction – List of claim limitations: Parties to make simultaneous exchange of limitations, not to exceed twenty-five (25) per party, exclusive of means plus function claim limitations, that they contend require construction from the Court. d. May 6, 2011: Claim Construction – Proposed constructions/evidence: Parties to make simultaneous exchange of proposed constructions and supporting evidence for all claim limitations exchanged. e. May 13, 2011: Claim Construction – Meet and Confer - Last date for the Parties to meet and confer on claim construction issues. f. May 20, 2011: Opening Claim Construction Briefs – Parties to make simultaneous exchange of opening briefs on claim construction for all claim limitations in dispute; g. May 27, 2011: Responsive Claim Construction Briefs – Parties to make simultaneous exchange of responsive claim construction briefs for all claim limitations in dispute. h. Week of May 30, 2011: Claim Construction Hearing – If the Court deems a hearing necessary, parties request that the Court hold a claim construction hearing be held during the week of May 30, 2011, or as soon thereafter as the Court can accommodate. i. June 24, 2011: Opening Expert Reports – Parties to make simultaneous exchange of expert report information required by the Local Rules of this Court and Orders of this Court on issues on which the Party bears the 3 Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2011 Page 4 of 6 burden of proof. j. July 7, 2011: Rebuttal Expert Reports – Parties to make simultaneous exchange of expert report information required by the Local Rules of this Court and Orders of this Court on rebuttal issues; and k. July 21, 2011: Expert Discovery Completed – Parties to complete expert discovery. 10. Lead counsel for the Parties are experienced patent counsel and have utilized similar claim construction procedures in the past. They have found such procedures to facilitate the claim construction process for the Court. 11. Accordingly, the Parties request that the Court enter the proposed Scheduling Order Including Pretrial Dates on Claim Construction and Expert Discovery (“Revised Scheduling Order”), attached as Exhibit “A” hereto. 12. As noted above, the proposed Revised Scheduling Order does not alter any of the dates and deadlines set forth in the Court’s Order Continuing Trial and Certain Pretrial Dates other than a minor extension of the expert discovery deadline. The Revised Scheduling Order maintains all of those dates and deadlines and adds the dates and deadlines set forth in Paragraph 3 of this Motion. 4 Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2011 Page 5 of 6 WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter the Revised Scheduling Order attached as Exhibit A to this Motion. Dated: April 10, 2011 Dated: April 10, 2011 By: ___/s Edward M. Mullins __________ By___/s/ Curtis Miner___________ Edward M. Mullins Hal M. Lucas Douglas J. Giuliano Astigarraga Davis Mullins & Grossman, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-8282 Attorneys for Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. Roberto Martinez Curtis Miner COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Attorneys for Defendant / Counterclaim Plaintiff MICROSOFT CORPORATION Jesse J. Jenner Steven Pepe Khue V. Hoang Leslie M. Spencer Ropes & Gray LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 596-9000 Norman H. Beamer Mark D. Rowland Gabrielle E. Higgins Ropes & Gray LLP 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 617-4000 David T. Pritikin Richard A. Cederoth Douglas I. Lewis John W. McBride SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Brian R. Nester Kevin C. Wheeler SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Kevin J. Post Megan F. Raymond Ropes & Gray LLP One Metro Center 700 12th Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 508-4600 5 Case 1:10-cv-24063-FAM Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2011 Page 6 of 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 10, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system, and that the foregoing document is being served this date on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by the CM/ECF system. /s/ Douglas J. Giuliano Douglas J. Giuliano 6

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?