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<t Baiicy. Lon<k¡n E(.l.ltf ?E(ì. l.lnited Kingdom

i'4.\(-112);163-296?

iî:it.

r

44(rJ) 20 7(;53 2000 Ë,(x i44(0) ?0 765:i 2100

T(.r61'¡¡;Akâsakal.vinTowcfllaint}kIg.,6i'hFì.,l7'22Akasrka2.(lh()nrg'l\l¡üto'ku,Tokyoìtl7.(}052'Japôl)|Tljl'+8l

Accordingly, your referenced motion to strike would be untimely and without merit. Further, we disagree that Google's pleadings do not satisfu the requirements of Rule 9(b).

In any event, although Google believes its initial response to your interrogatory conceming inequitable is sufficient, we will provide a supplemental response that further details Google's position in the next few days. If Plaintiff still believes that Google carurot present an inequitable conduct defense, then Plaintiff may move for summary judgment, although Google would obviously view any such motion to be meritless. Please contact us with any questions.
Very truly yours,

lsl Amy H. Candido