Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 197

MOTION in Limine No. Nine: Motion to Preclude Argument that Google Hindered Function Media or its Expert from Testing or Analyzing the Accused Products by Google, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Google's Motion in Limine No. Nine: Motion to Preclude Argument that Google Hindered Function Media or its Expert from Testing or Analyzing the Accused Products)(Salinas, Billie)

Download PDF
Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al Doc. 197 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FUNCTION MEDIA, L.L.C., v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO!, INC. Civil Case No. 2:07­CV­279 (CE) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GOOGLE'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. NINE: MOTION TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT THAT GOOGLE HINDERED FUNCTION MEDIA OR ITS EXPERT FROM TESTING OR ANALYZING THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS Dockets.Justia.com Argument In late August 2009, Plaintiff Function Media, LLC asked Google for permission for its experts to place dummy advertisements using the AdWords product, and to have those dummy advertisements display on a fake website by using the AdSense product. Google initially denied Plaintiff's request because the use of AdWords proposed by Plaintiff would have violated Google's Terms of Service. After some back and forth between counsel, Google and Plaintiff eventually came to an agreement which was amenable to both parties. (See Ex. A.) Under the agreement, Function Media's expert could place dummy ads so long as (1) Function Media agreed to pay if its dummy ads were clicked through by other users, and (2) Function Media also agreed to host advertisements using the AdSense product on a real website, rather than a dummy website. Google agreed not to assert that this agreed-upon use violated its Terms of Service, and Plaintiff agreed that this arrangement was sufficient for its expert to carry out his or her testing. Because Function Media agreed to this arrangement without objection, Google hereby moves the Court for an order, in limine, precluding Plaintiff from arguing during trial that Google in any way hindered Function Media or its expert from performing tests on or analysis of Google's accused products. Dated: October 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP By: /s/ Amy H. Candido Charles K. Verhoeven (admitted pro hac) Lead Attorney charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com Amy H. Candido (admitted pro hac) amycandido@quinnemanuel.com Billie D. Salinas (admitted pro hac) billiesalinas@quinnemanuel.com Carl G. Anderson (admitted pro hac) carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART -2- 01980.51542/3130782.1 OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Stan Karas (admitted pro hac) stankaras@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Edward J. DeFranco (admitted pro hac) eddefranco@quinnemanuel.com James M. Glass (admitted pro hac) jimglass@quinnemanuel.com Patrick Curran (admitted pro hac) patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 Harry L. Gillam, Jr., Bar No. 07921800 gil@gillamsmithlaw.com Melissa R. Smith, Bar No. 24001351 melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P. 303 South Washington Avenue Marshall, TX 75670 Telephone: (903) 934-8450 Facsimile: (903) 934-9257 Counsel for Defendant and Counter-Claimant GOOGLE INC. 01980.51542/3130782.1 -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been served on October 2, 2009 to counsel of record via ECF/PACER. /s/ Billie D. Salinas Billie D. Salinas 01980.51542/3130782.1 -1-

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?