Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Fish & Richardson, et al,
Filing
182
RESPONSE by Fish & Richardson P.C.in Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Illinois Computer Research, LLC, Counter Claimant Illinois Computer Research, LLC, Counter Defendants Illinois Computer Research, LLC, Illinois Computer Research, LLC to strike memorandum in support of motion #174 To Dismiss, AndMOTION by Plaintiff Illinois Computer Research, LLC, Counter Claimant Illinois Computer Research, LLC, Counter Defendants Illinois Computer Research, LLC, Illinois Computer Research, LLC to strike memorandum in support of motion #174 To Dismiss, And #180 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Bradford, David)
Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Google Inc.
Doc. 182
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION ILLINOIS COMPUTER RESEARCH, LLC, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. FISH & RICHARDSON P.C., Defendant, Counterclaimant, ThirdParty Plaintiff, and Counterclaim Defendant, v. SCOTT C. HARRIS, et al., Third-Party Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. 07 C 5081 Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez
FISH & RICHARDSON'S OPPOSITION TO ICR'S MOTION TO STRIKE ICR's motion to strike should be denied for three reasons. First, the motion to strike was made without any "meet and confer" and does not otherwise comport with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Counsel for Mr. Harris was in Court following Fish & Richardson's filing of the motion to dismiss which contains the references to "shell entities" and did not complain then or at any time until 2:00 p.m. on Friday May 30 about the use of the term in Fish & Richardson's motion to dismiss. At approximately 2:00 p.m. on Friday, May 30, 2008, without prior warning or phone call, Mr. Niro sent an email to Mr. Bradford, stating that the Niro firm would file a motion on this topic, unless counsel for Fish & Richardson agreed to his demands by 4:00 p.m. that same afternoon. (See 05/30/08 R. Niro email, attached as Ex. A.) Mr. Bradford was traveling that day and unable to respond to this ultimatum before the motion was filed. That type of unilateral conduct does not satisfy "meet and confer" standards.
Dockets.Justia.com
Second, this Court has previously determined that it would be inappropriate to parse and strike pleadings in this case, when it denied Fish & Richardson's request to strike the unconscionable assertions, made in briefs by the Niro firm, that the law firm of Fish & Richardson was connected to death threats on Mr. Niro which allegedly appeared on a third party blog. (See Scott Harris's and ICR's Mot. to Proceed with Disc. at 2-3, Dkt. No. 103; Fish & Richardson's Resp. to Mr. Harris's and ICR's Mot. to Proceed with Disc. at 2-3, Dkt. No. 110.) If the Court grants this motion, it should also strike the numerous pejorative and factually unfounded assertions in the Niro firm's briefs and pleadings. These include outrageous
allegations of death threats linked to Fish & Richardson and witness intimidation linked to Jenner & Block, which they know, from discovery and otherwise, have no factual basis and are truly scandalous and inflammatory. Third, the term "shell entity" is both accurate and appropriate in this case. Most of the referenced entities have demonstrated that they are mere "shells" by producing virtually no corporate documentation; most appear to have no business other than to serve as a transparent basis for Mr. Harris to contend that he is not suing firm clients directly. Virtually all of the economic value of the "Harris patents" allegedly held by these entities belongs to Mr. Harris and the Niro firm and not to the entity itself. Additionally, the Motion to Strike asserts that the term "shell entity" is synonymous, in this context, with the term "patent troll." (Mot. to Strike at 2, Dkt. No. 180.) Significantly, Mr. Harris, even while at Fish & Richardson, sponsored a website, imapatenttroll.com, in which he proudly and openly referred to himself as a "patent troll." Truth is an absolute defense. This motion to strike, served without benefit of a meet and confer, promotes neither civility nor professionalism. Due regard for truth and dialogue would promote those goals. This motion to strike should be denied. 2
Dated: June 2, 2008
Respectfully submitted, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: s/ David J. Bradford One of its Attorneys
David J. Bradford Terrence J. Truax Eric A. Sacks Daniel J. Weiss JENNER & BLOCK LLP 330 N. Wabash Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: 312 222-9350
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing was filed with the Court by means of the Court's CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following counsel at their email address on file with the Court: Raymond P. Niro Paul K. Vickrey Richard B. Megley, Jr. Laura A. Kenneally David J. Sheikh Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro 181 W. Madison, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 L. Steven Platt Arnold and Kadjan 19 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 236-0415
June 2, 2008. s/David J. Bradford JENNER & BLOCK LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone No: 312 222-9350 Facsimile No: 312 527-0484
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?