Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al
Filing
146
MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Regarding Google's Inequitable Conduct Allegations by Function Media, L.L.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Grinstein, Joseph)
EXHIBIT
D
üHitln elË¡a¡¡uel
ff¡üs *frw6Ës l$el¡ $r8rÉetseô
50(.ialif.brniaStreer,22ndFloor, San.Francisco,Calif'ornia
94ll I
t1'l:1.:(4 1.5)875-6d)0 l'Âx: (41.5)8?5-l¡700
August 13,2009 Vr¿ Er-ncrnoxrc
Man
Justin A. Nelson Susman Godfrey LLP 1201 Third Avenue Suire 3800 Seattle. WA 98101
Joseph S. Grinstein, Esq. Susman Godfrey LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
Houston, TX77002
Re:
Function Media. L.L.C. v. Goosle. Inc.. Civ. A. No. 2007-CV-279
Dear Joe:
I write in response to your email of August 6 regarding Google's allegations of inequitable
conduct.
In your email you contend that Google's pleading does not satisff Rule 9(b). However, the time for challenging pleadings in this case has long since passed. Function Media waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the inequitable conduct allegations by not moving to dismiss and/or to strike these allegations along with or before its responsive pleading. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel Lam v. Tenet Healthcare Corp.,481 F. Supp. 2d 689 (W.D. Tex. 2007) (quoting United Nat. Records, Inc. v MCA, hnc.,609 F Supp 33, 38-39 (N.D. Ill. 1984) (",{ parly who fails to raise a Rule 9(b) objection normally waives the requirement."); Davsko v. Golden Harvest Prods, Inc., 965 F. Supp. 1467, 1474 (D.Kan.1997) ("[A] rule 9(b) objection is waived unless made as a separate motion prior to or concuffent with the filing of a responsive pleading. Here, defendants answered plaintiffs complaint without raising any objection under rule 9(b). Defendants cannot argue almostayear later that plaintiff failed to plead fraud with particularity."); Huffv Nationwide Ins. Co.,167 B.R. 53, 58 n. 3 (W.D.Pa. 1992) ("Nationwide never brought a motion to dismiss the complaint nor filed a motion for a more definite statement. Accordingly, it waived its right to object to the complaint as failing to satisff the specificity requirements of Rule 9.").
qu¡nn emanücl urquftsn 0¡¡uGr & ftsltr$Ë$ l¡P
L.()S ANGIII.l:S | 8ó5 Sourh L'i¡usroi: Streer, l01h lrlûor, l..os Anltcles, C¿:lifì}nia 9001 ;r-:!5+-ì | rEr. (?.13) 443--10Ú0 r{X (2 ì 3) 4-+-ì-l ì {}0 NËw Yol{K | 5 ì ì!'l3d:scn .qvcÍuo- :2nd lr;oür. N-ev York' Nerv York 10010- I (iri I IÊL (2ll) 849-7000 lÌ3x i2 l2) 819-7 i00
I
S1t',ICC)NV,At'.l',[jYl555''ltjnl')lrIphinI)rlve,Sufe5ólJ.l(edwoodShoIeç.f.¡1ifollÌrÍ)4íJ6-i-2! litinois ótìó06.6.10i;rü|(3t2)463-29óL cfûCtÀc():2.5(ìSaHhWêckcrl)nrc.Suite230,Chicrgo.
.[.ON¡DON: l6 Oì
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?