PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 398

Opposed MOTION Request for Hearing on Motions for Summary Judgment by PA Advisors, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hoffman, Adam)

PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 398

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-480-RRR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

REQUEST FOR HEARING ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff nXn Tech, LLC (f/k/a PA Advisors, LLC) ("nXn") requests oral argument on: (1) Defendants Google, Inc. ("Google") and Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo")'s pending Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement (Docket Nos. 386 and 390); (2) Google and Yahoo's Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Based on Divided Infringement (Docket Nos. 355 and 356); and, (3) should the Court grant nXn leave to file it, nXn's Motions for Summary Judgment of Validity Based on 35 U.S.C. § 102 (attachment to Docket No. 395).1 Oral argument would be helpful to the Court in deciding the Motions for Summary Judgment, which involve important and complex issues of law and fact. Briefing on the Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Based on Divided Infringement has been completed, and briefing on the Motions for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement will be completed February 16, 2010. If leave is granted to file it, briefing on nXn's Motion for Summary Judgment of Validity Based on 35 U.S.C. § 102 could be completed before the March 1, 2010 Pre-Trial

1

It is nXn's understanding that defendants oppose this Request at least in part, but defendants have not responded to nXn's request that they specify their opposition. See the attached Certificate of Conference.

Dockets.Justia.com

Conference. Therefore, if the Court believes argument would be helpful to the pending motions for summary judgment, nXn suggests that it not be delayed beyond March 1, 2010. Dated: February 10, 2010 Andrew W. Spangler LEAD COUNSEL SPANGLER LAW P.C. 208 N. Green Street, Suite 300 Longview, Texas 75601 [phone] [phone] (fax) [e-mail] David M. Pridham LAW OFFICE OF DAVID PRIDHAM 25 Linden Road Barrington, Rhode Island 02806 [phone] [phone] (fax) [e-mail] John M. Bustamante Texas Bar No. 24040618 BUSTAMANTE, P.C. 54 Rainey Street, No. 721 Austin, Texas 78701 Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone] Email:[e-mail] Kip Glasscock Texas State Bar No. 08011000 KIP GLASSCOCK P.C. 550 Fannin, Suite 1350 Beaumont, TX 77701 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Adam Hoffman Marc A. Fenster, CA Bar No. 181067 CA Bar No. 181067 [e-mail] Andrew Weiss CA Bar No. 232974 [e-mail] Adam Hoffman CA Bar No. 218740 [e-mail] RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 [phone] [phone] (fax) Patrick R. Anderson PATRICK R. ANDERSON PLLC 4225 Miller Rd, Bldg. B-9, Suite 358 Flint, MI 48507 [phone] [phone] (fax) [e-mail] Debera W. Hepburn, Texas Bar No. 24049568 HEPBURN LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 118218 Carrollton, TX 75011 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 888/205-8791 Email: [e-mail] Elizabeth A. Wiley Texas State Bar No. 00788666 THE WILEY FIRM PC P.O. Box. 303280 Austin, Texas 78703-3280

2

Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served today with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date. \s\ Adam Hoffman Adam Hoffman CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE It is nXn's understanding that this Request is at least partially opposed. On February 8, 2010, counsel for nXn informed counsel for defendants that nXn would request a hearing on the pending motions for summary judgment, and asked whether defendants would join or oppose. On February 9, 2010, Counsel for Google replied that defendants would not join but would not oppose the request if it included the statement: "If the Court believes argument would be helpful to the pending motions for summary judgment, the parties suggest that it not be delayed beyond March 1." nXn included this statement in a draft request sent to defendants (and includes the requested language in the current draft), but counsel for Google then stated that defendants could not "agree" to the request as drafted, and would provide further comments on February 10, 2010. I requested that defendants state whether they opposed the request in whole or in part, but received no reply as of 6:45 pm CST on February 10, 2010. /s/ Adam Hoffman Adam Hoffman

4