Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Filing 49

Joint MOTION to Include Pretrial Dates on Claim Construction and Expert Discovery #36 Order, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,, by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Giuliano, Douglas) Modified text on 4/11/2011 (asl).

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

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

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

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

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: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff /
Counterclaim Defendant
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.

Roberto Martinez
Curtis Miner
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: [phone]
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: [phone]

Norman H. Beamer
Mark D. Rowland
Gabrielle E. Higgins
Ropes & Gray LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone: [phone]

David T. Pritikin
Richard A. Cederoth
Douglas I. Lewis
John W. McBride
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]

Brian R. Nester
Kevin C. Wheeler
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
1501 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]

Kevin J. Post
Megan F. Raymond
Ropes & Gray LLP
One Metro Center
700 12th Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]

5

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