IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 37

MOTION to Amend/Correct Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion For Leave To Amend Their Initial Disclosures Pursuant To Patent Rules 3-1 And 3-2 by IP Innovation LLC, Technology Licensing Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Hall, Douglas) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/17/2008: # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (mpv, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION IP INNOVATION L.L.C. AND TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO. 2:07cv503-LED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO PATENT RULES 3-1 AND 3-2 Plaintiffs hereby move this Court for leave to amend their initial disclosures pursuant to Local Patent Rules 3-1 and 3-2, and in support thereof state as follows: 1. On June 9, 2008, Plaintiffs served the information required by the Court's Docket

Control Order and Local Patent Rules 3-1 and 3-2. 2. On June 27, 2008, Plaintiffs received a letter from Defendant's counsel requesting

additional information in Plaintiffs' initial disclosures pursuant to Local Patent Rules 3-1 and 32. (See Attached Exhibit A, letter from Defendant's counsel). 3. On July 2, 2008, counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant had a telephone conference

to discuss the issues raised by Defendant. 4. Plaintiffs, without conceding any deficiencies in their initial disclosures, agreed to

amend their initial disclosures to address the issues raised by Defendant. (See Attached Exhibit B, e-mail from Defendant's counsel).

5.

Plaintiffs' amended initial disclosures do not allege infringement of any additional

claims or products. In fact, Plaintiffs' amended initial disclosures actually remove an allegation of infringement of claim 39 of U.S. Patent No. 5,675,819. 6. 7. Plaintiffs served a copy of the amended initial disclosures on July 17, 2008. Defendant does not oppose this motion, and the parties do not seek to change any

due dates under the Court's schedule for this case. 8. Therefore, for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court

grant them leave to amend their initial disclosures pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3-1 and 3-2. Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Douglas M. Hall Raymond P. Niro Joseph N. Hosteny Arthur A. Gasey Paul C. Gibbons Douglas M. Hall David J. Mahalek NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO 181 West Madison, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] T. John Ward Ward & Smith 111 W. Tyler St. Longview, Texas 75601 Telephone: [phone] Toll Free [phone] Facsimile: [phone] ATTORNEYS FOR IP INNOVATION L.L.C. and TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO PATENT RULES 3-1 AND 3-2 was served electronically on the below listed on July 17, 2008.

David J. Beck Texas Bar No. 00000070 [e-mail] Michael E. Richardson Texas Bar No. 24002838 [e-mail] BECK, REDDEN & SECREST, L.L.P. One Houston Center 1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010 [phone] [phone] (Fax) John H. Hintz Victor F. Souto Ross E. Firsenbaum WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 [phone] [phone] (Fax)

Mark G. Matuschak Richard A. Goldenberg WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 [phone] [phone] (Fax)

Elizabeth I. Rogers Anna T. Lee WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1117 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 [phone] [phone] (Fax)

/s/ Douglas M. Hall