Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 290

Opposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Opposed Motion for Adjustment and Clarification of Schedule by Google Inc., AOL LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(O'Brien, Emily)

Download PDF
Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 290 Att. 1 Exhibit 1 Capital Reporting Company Pre-Trial Conference 12-29-2009 1 IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MARSHALL DIVISION -------------------------x PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff, vs. GOGGLE, INC., and AOL, LLC, Defendant. -------------------------x Washington, D.C. Tuesday, December 29, 2009 The above-entitled matter came on for Pretrial Conference, pursuant to Notice, at 2:01 p.m. BEFORE: HONORABLE RANDALL R. RADER, Judge : : Civil Action No. 2:07CV-432-RRR (866) 448 - DEPO 2009 Capital Reporting Company Pre-Trial Conference 12-29-2009 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 back. JUDGE RADER: MR. PERLSON: The answer's yes. -- Your Honor, the Plaintiff is doing that, frankly, because they're interpreting it in a way that -JUDGE RADER: Of course, of course. I understand that you'd like to shift that, but that's what's going on. Okay. Are these -- what stage are we in with your motions, Mr. Dovel? MR. DOVEL: The Defendant's oppositions are due now -- is it tomorrow, David? MR. PERLSON: MR. DOVEL: Tomorrow, yes. And if they're filed tomorrow, then our replies would be due on January 20th and the surreplies would be due on January 28th. JUDGE RADER: Now, we're cutting that all It's all going to come in on the 19th. How would you gentlemen like to redo the deadlines so that I have everything on both sets of motions on the 19th? I'll let you propose your cutoff dates, but understand I want everything in on the 19th. MR. PERLSON: Your Honor, this is Dave (866) 448 - REPO 2009 Capital Reporting Company Pre-Trial Conference 12-29-2009 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 the 20th. Perlson. One thing we could do is just -- you know, I don't know that there's really any need for a certify at this point. That certainly is one way to cut things short. JUDGE RADER: That would get everything in on So we'll just cut one day off of -- of your deadline and we'll have everything on the 19th, is that correct? MR. DOVEL: JUDGE RADER: Sounds fine, Your Honor. All right. January 19th, I'll have complete briefing on all of Plaintiff's motions, as well. There is one other motion here, Mr. Dovel. Could you comment on your need to depose Ms. Lee? MR. DOVEL: employee of Google. Yes, Your Honor. She is an We -She used to be the head of JUDGE RADER: Patent Strategy, right? She's now the Deputy General Counsel? MR. DOVEL: JUDGE RADER: Sorry? She used to be the Patent Strategy head, she's now Deputy General Counsel, is (866) 448 - DEPO 2009 Capital Reporting Company Pre-Trial Conference 12-29-2009 65 1 2 3 that correct? MR. DOVEL: That's my understanding, yes. That's what I've been told. JUDGE RADER: Okay. Why do you need to talk MR. DOVEL: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 We need to find out information about Google's patent procedures and policies and particularly their procedures that they use when they -- when they have pre-clearance activities when they introduce new product, whether they attempt to see if there's any patents that might infringe and also then what their approach is when they respond to the assertion of patents by a potential licensee. We're trying to find out what happened when Mr. Lin made his -- put Google on notice. A motion that hasn't been filed yet that we're meeting and conferring on is that Google did provide a 30(b)(6) witness. That witness did not provide -- essentially provided no information and if that meet and confer process does not result in obtaining the information, then we'll have to bring a motion on that, as well, Your Honor. (866) 448 - DEPO 2009 Capital Reporting Company Pre-Trial Conference 12-29-2009 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Yeah. JUDGE RADER: All right. I'm going to hold that in abeyance until after I've dealt with my motions. MR. DOVEL: Your Honor, I want to alert you to the other potential motions that may be filed. One is Plaintiff has a motion for leave to amend to add -- to -- to add the allegation of willful infringement, to plead it, and we're waiting to hear from Google on whether they're going to stipulate to that. If they don't, we'll be filing that motion. Another potential motion -- well, let's see. Then there's the 30(b)(6) witness, the information about Google's response to Mr. Lin and their patent procedures. If that's not resolved, that could result in a motion, as well, Your Honor. JUDGE RADER: giving me that heads-up. I've had a chance to discuss the matters with you pretty extensively. What I anticipate is that I All right. Fine. Thank you for will look at my motions on the 19th and you'll hear from me probably the week after that as to whether I need to discuss them further with you. (866) 448 - DEPO (92009 Capital Reporting Company Pre-Trial Conference 12-29-2009 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 There's a chance we could have another one of these sessions to examine the implications of the motions and at that time, I would also set a trial which would occur in April, if it's necessary. It would occur sometime between April 12th and April 30th. So you need to keep that available, if necessary. MR. DOVEL: JUDGE RADER: business for today. Do you have anything you'd like to ask, gentlemen, or Ms. O'Brien, as well? MR. DOVEL: Nothing from the Plaintiff, Your Yes, Your Honor. I think I've finished my MR. PERLSON: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 anything. David Perlson. I don't have The one note I have, I know that there is conflict, that we have a pre-trial conference at the end of April, but we could address that later, if there's a conflict later on. JUDGE RADER: That's correct. We'd probably set our pre-trial somewhere in March if we're going to trial in April. Okay. I will probably not talk to you again (866) 448 - DEPO 2009

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?