Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,
Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Motion to Exceed Page Limit for MSJ Responses by Jarg Corporation, Northeastern University. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shek, Bernard)
Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY and JARG CORPORATION Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:07-CV-486-CE v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GOOGLE INC. Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED THE PAGE LIMIT
Plaintiffs Northeastern University and Jarg Corporation ("Plaintiffs") file this Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit respectfully requesting leave to exceed the page limit set forth in Local Rule CV-7(a)(3)(B) for Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Google Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Lack of Written Description and Failure to Disclose the Best Mode ("Response to Google's Invalidity MSJ") and Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Google Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment that any Alleged Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,694,593 Was Not Willful ("Response to Google's Willfulness MSJ"). Plaintiffs' Response to Google's Invalidity MSJ (Dkt. 179) is 16 pages in length, excluding exhibits. Plaintiffs' Response to Google's Willfulness MSJ (Dkt. 178) is 21 pages in length, excluding exhibits. On December 21, 2010, Plaintiffs also filed a response to Google Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement ("Noninfringement MSJ"), which was 29 pages in length. (Dkt. 107.) Thus, Plaintiffs' Responses to Google's Invalidity and
Willfulness MSJs (Dkt. 178 and Dkt. 179) collectively exceed the page limit set forth in Local Rule CV-7(a)(3)(B) by 6 pages, excluding exhibits. The additional pages are necessary because of the number of summary judgment motions
that Google has filed in this case, as well as the number of issues raised in each of Google's three motions. The additional pages are also necessitated by the complexity of some of the issues presented in Google's motions, and the severity of the relief sought. Plaintiffs have conferred with Google, and Google does not oppose this motion. Dated: March 27, 2011 Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Tx Bar No. 03895700) Collin Maloney (Tx Bar No. 00794219) IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Tel: (903) 561-1600 Fax: (903) 581-1071 Fedserv@icklaw.com Constance S. Huttner VINSON & ELKINS LLP 666 Fifth Avenue, 26th Floor New York, New York 10103 Tel: (212) 234-0040 Fax: (212) 237-0100 email@example.com William B. Dawson (Tx Bar No. 05603600) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER 2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75201-6912 Tel: (214) 698-3132 Fax: (214) 571-2900 firstname.lastname@example.org Respectfully submitted, /s/ Bernard C. Shek David B. Weaver (Tx Bar No. 00798576) Christopher V. Ryan (Tx Bar No. 24037412) Michael Valek (Tx Bar No. 24044028) Stephen C. Stout (Tx Bar No. 24060672) James D. Shead (Tx Bar No. 24070609) Nicole E. Glauser (Tx Bar No. 24050694) Zeke DeRose, III (Tx Bar No. 24057421) VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746 Tel: (512) 542-8400 Fax: (512) 236-3338 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Bernard C. Shek (CA Bar No. 191365) VINSON & ELKINS LLP 525 University Avenue, Suite 410 Palo Alto, California 94301-1918 Tel: (650) 687-8200 Fax: (650) 618-1970 firstname.lastname@example.org ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY AND JARG CORPORATION
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiffs has complied with the meet and confer requirements under Local Rule CV-7(h). Counsel for the parties conducted a meet and confer via email on March 27, 2011, and the present motion is unopposed. /s/ Bernard C. Shek Bernard C. Shek CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). All other counsel of record not deemed to have consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email and/or fax, on this the 27th day of March 2011.
/s/ Bernard C. Shek Bernard C. Shek
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?