Specht et al v. Google Inc et al

Filing 106

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS held on 6-30-09 before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber. COURT REPORTER CONTACT INFORMATION: Krista Burgeson, [e-mail], 312-435-5567. IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter, Krista Burgeson, before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings. Redaction Request due 8/7/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/17/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/15/2009. (Burgeson, Krista)

Spechtetalv.GoogleIncetal

Doc.106

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

ERICH SPECHT, et al., Plaintiffs,

GOOGLE, INC., et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 09 C 2572 Chicago, Illinois June 30, 2009 9:30 o'clock a.m.

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - MOTION BEFORE THE HONORABLE HARRY D. LEINENWEBER APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiffs:

LAW OFFICE OF MARTIN J. MURPHY MR. MARTIN J. MURPHY 2811 RFD Long Grove, Illinois 60047 847-540-8899

For the Defendant, Google, Inc.:

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP MR. HERBERT H. FINN MR. RICHARD D. HARRIS 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 312-456-8400

For the Defendant, T-Mobile:

LOEB & LOEB MR. ROBERT M. ANDALMAN MS. EMILY R. HAUS 321 North Clark Street Chicago, Illinois 60610 312-464-3100

Dockets.Justia.com

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Court Reporter:

FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER MS. KRISTA BURGESON 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 312-435-5567 [e-mail]

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE CLERK: 09 C 2572, Specht versus Google. MR. MURPHY: Good morning, your Honor. Martin Murphy on behalf of the plaintiffs. MR. FINN: Good morning, your Honor. Herbert Finn and Jeffrey Dunning on behalf of defendants Google, Android Inc., Andrew Rubin, Nicholas Sears, Richard Miner, Christopher White, HTC Corporation, Samsung Electronics America, Synaptics, Inc., Qualcomm Corporation, AKM Semiconductor, Intel Corporation, Marvell Semiconductor, Garmin International, Audience, Inc., Broadcom Corporation, Wind River Systems Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., and Atheros Communications. MR. DUNNING: Good morning. MR. CYRLUK: Good morning, Judge. John Cyrluk on behalf of Motorola, Inc., and Nvidia Corporation. I have also been contacted to represent Sprint Nextel Corporation and SiRF Technology, Inc., but I haven't entered an appearance yet on behalf of those latter two entities. THE COURT: Is that everybody now, just about? MR. FINN: Well, your Honor, no. There are a number of defendants that I am also talking to on behalf of potential representation, as well as a number of defendants that just haven't been served yet. THE COURT: Okay. There is a motion to dismiss, and there is a motion

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

to -MR. FINN: (Continuing) -- to stay responsive pleading dates for the other defendants. THE COURT: Until that is ruled on. MR. FINN: Correct. MR. MURPHY: With regard to the motion to dismiss, I would ask for 14 days to respond to that, unless they are going to be filing additional motions with respect to the other defendants. THE COURT: I think they want to see what happens to them. MR. FINN: We are trying to make it as efficient as possible, your Honor. THE COURT: Any problem with that? MR. MURPHY: Your Honor, they filed 2 documents, one entitled a stipulated motion and one entitled an unobjected motion. I believe the unobjected motion was noticed up. The stipulated motion wasn't. I don't know if it was a mistake or if it was entered incorrectly, but it was a docket 72 and a docket 74. 72 listed the Android defendants as the movants and then -THE COURT: Okay, yes. There is wind River's motion, which is not indicated as stipulated, and HTC's motion, etc., is unopposed.

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. FINN: That is correct, your Honor. The stipulated motion was a docketing error filed on behalf of incorrect parties in the electronic filing system that -THE COURT: Is there any objection to staying the deadlines for responsive pleadings by these defendants? MR. MURPHY: Not if it is going to be responsive pleadings, but they did state in their motion that they had the same objection to the complaint. If they are going to file a motion to dismiss, I would rather they join in, if that is what they are planning on doing. If they are planning on filing a responsive pleading, I don't object, because I have given other defendants additional time to file their responses. MR. FINN: Well, your Honor, a motion to dismiss is a responsive pleading. That said, some of these defendants who are looking to stay have additional defenses that haven't been brought. We are just trying to avoid having 46 different motions in front of this Court while the Court determines whether the main motions to dismiss are appropriate or not. THE COURT: All right. I will grant the motions then staying the responsive pleadings by all defendants other than Google's, Android's, Rubin's, Sears' -- Nicholas Sears', Miner's, and White's

6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

motion, which will be briefed. Plaintiff given 14 days to respond. 7 days to reply. THE CLERK: July 14th, and then July 21st for the reply. THE COURT: And I will give you a ruling date in late August, it probably will be by mail, but I will give you a date. THE CLERK: August 27th at 9:00. THE COURT: Okay. MR. MURPHY: One other item, your Honor. At the last hearing on June 4th, the Court granted Google's request for some limited discovery after they filed a responsive pleading. I don't believe that this is a responsive pleading. It is a motion to dismiss. They have, however, sent me some interrogatories and requests to produce. I don't believe it is proper at this time. I think that that was the Court's intent, that once they filed their answer, then at that point we would get into discovery issues. MR. FINN: No, your Honor. The Court was very clear that after a responsive pleading was filed we would be able to conduct some limited written discovery on whether the plaintiffs had abandoned the mark or not. In fact, the Court questioned whether we would be

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

answering or filing on otherwise motion to dismiss or other pleading, and we confirmed with the Court that we intended most likely to file a motion to dismiss or some other responsive pleading. THE COURT: Well, this is a 12(b)6 motion? MR. FINN: That is -- well, amongst other bases. There is a 12(b)6, 12(b)2, 12(b)3, and 12(b)1, failure to state a claim, personal jurisdiction, venue, and standing as to two of the plaintiffs. THE COURT: Well, you would be entitled to discovery on 12(b)1, but 12(b)6 is strictly on the pleadings. I will allow the limited discovery to go forward. MR. MURPHY: For both sides, your Honor, then? THE COURT: Yes. MR. MURPHY: Okay. MR. CYRLUK: And your Honor, the stay of the responsive pleading, that applies to my clients as well? THE COURT: Right. MR. CYRLUK: Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: All defendants other than the moving defendants. MR. CYRLUK: Okay. THE COURT: Thank you. (Proceedings concluded.)

8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/s/Krista Burgeson, CSR, RMR, CRR Federal Official Court Reporter

June 30, 2009 Date