Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 101

RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 Opposed MOTION to Expedite Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Response to Google's Motion to Transfer, and, Google's Request, in the Alternative, to Stay Pending Resolution of Google's Transf er Motion filed by NetStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Amanda K. Bonn in Support of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Google Inc.'s Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Bonn, Amanda)

Download PDF
Exhibit 1 Amanda Bonn From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Andrea P Roberts <andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com> Tuesday, June 24, 2014 2:37 PM Justin A. Nelson; Amanda Bonn John Lahad; Shawn Blackburn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; QE-Google-Rockstar; Mark Mann; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com RE: Rockstar v. Google Justin, As you know, Google opposes Rockstar’s motion for leave, in part, due to concerns that it will delay resolution of Google’s transfer motion. We explained this during the parties’ meet and confer last week. Once fully briefed, the Court will need to decide whether or not to grant Rockstar’s motion. This needs to be resolved quickly because if leave is granted, Google will want to provide a response. All of this ultimately risks further delay of resolution of the motion to transfer, which is of heightened concern given the imminent claim construction deadlines. Thus, we believe our request for expedited briefing is reasonable and appropriate. To answer your second question, assuming Rockstar does not agree to the proposed expedited briefing schedule, we would plan to file a separate opposed motion for an expedited briefing schedule. The stay request would be filed in the same brief as our opposition to the motion for leave. Thanks, Andrea Andrea Pallios Roberts Of Counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5023 Direct 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. From: Justin A. Nelson [mailto:jnelson@SusmanGodfrey.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:46 PM To: Amanda Bonn; Andrea P Roberts Cc: John Lahad; Shawn Blackburn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; QE-Google-Rockstar; Mark Mann; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google 1 What is the rationale for an expedited schedule? And are you filing a new motion or is your plan to still include this as part of your response? Justin A. Nelson Susman Godfrey 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 206-516-3867 This message is intended only for the people to whom it is addressed and is intended to be a confidential attorney-client communication. If this message is not addressed to you, please delete it and notify me. From: Amanda Bonn Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:44 PM To: Andrea P Roberts Cc: Justin A. Nelson; John Lahad; Shawn Blackburn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; QE-Google-Rockstar; Mark Mann; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google Please use the below dial-in: Toll-Free: 1-888-887-4221 Participant Passcode: 3100000 Amanda Bonn | Susman Godfrey LLP 1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 950 | Los Angeles, CA 90067 (T) 310-789-3131 | (M) 408-832-5193 abonn@susmangodfrey.com From: Andrea P Roberts [mailto:andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:23 PM To: Amanda Bonn Cc: Justin A. Nelson; John Lahad; Shawn Blackburn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; QE-Google-Rockstar; Mark Mann; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google Amanda, although we don’t think it should be necessary to further delay this until tomorrow, we are available to meet and confer at your proposed time of noon Pacific tomorrow. We also intend to meet and confer at that time regarding the proposed expedited briefing schedule below as we intend to file an opposed motion seeking this schedule if Rockstar maintains its opposition thereto. Thanks, Andrea 2 Andrea Pallios Roberts Of Counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5023 Direct 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. -----Original Message----From: Amanda Bonn [mailto:abonn@SusmanGodfrey.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 12:33 PM To: Andrea P Roberts Cc: Justin A. Nelson; John Lahad; Shawn Blackburn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; QEGoogle-Rockstar; Mark Mann; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: Re: Rockstar v. Google Andrea, I disagree with your summary of the meet and confer on our motion to leave, but note you don't dispute this is the first time Google indicated it intended to seek a stay from the Court. I'm available to meet and confer regarding Google's intended motion for stay tomorrow between 12 and 1 pm Pacific<x-apple-data-detectors://7> or after 2 pm Pacific<x-apple-datadetectors://8>. Please advise what time works for you. Regards, Amanda Amanda Bonn | Susman Godfrey LLP 1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 950 | Los Angeles<x-apple-data-detectors://9/0>, CA 90067 (T) 310-789-3131<tel:310-789-3131> | (M) 408-832-5193<tel:408-832-5193> abonn@susmangodfrey.com<mailto:abonn@susmangodfrey.com> On Jun 24, 2014, at 12:05 PM, "Andrea P Roberts" <andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com<mailto:andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com>> wrote: Amanda, we indicated that we viewed the only remedy to the prejudice from Rockstar's motion was to stay the case pending resolution of the Transfer Motion. And we proposed that Rockstar agree to a stay. Rockstar refused and said it would not agree to any stay but would proceed with its motion. We are asking the Court to do just what we proposed, and what you already said you would not agree to, as reiterated again in your email today. Thus, your assertions of a lack of good faith on our part are not well taken. 3 In any event, if you feel an additional meet and confer is needed, I am available to discuss now. Thanks, Andrea -----Original Message----From: Amanda Bonn [mailto:abonn@SusmanGodfrey.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:52 AM To: Andrea P Roberts Cc: Justin A. Nelson; John Lahad; Shawn Blackburn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com<mailto:jrambin@capshawlaw.com>; ederieux@capshawlaw.com<mailto:ederieux@capshawlaw.com>; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com<mailto:ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com>; jw@wsfirm.com<mailto:jw@wsfirm.com>; claire@wsfirm.com<mailto:claire@wsfirm.com>; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; QE-Google-Rockstar; Mark Mann; atindel@andytindel.com<mailto:atindel@andytindel.com>; blake@themannfirm.com<mailto:blake@themannfirm.com> Subject: Re: Rockstar v. Google Andrea, This is the first time we have heard about Google's intent to seek a stay from the Court. The only mention of it came in a meet and confer on our motion for leave, when Google's counsel stated they would stipulate to our motion for leave if we would stipulate to a stay. There was no mention by Google that it intended to move for a stay, nor any good faith discussion from Google on the factors it believes would favor a stay. This does not comply with the Court's meet and confer rules. Moreover, how exactly is this an "alternate request for relief" in opposition to our motion for leave to file a supplemental brief on the transfer motion? We are the ones asking for relief on that motion, and Google is opposing it. Google is not asking for any relief, so we fail to understand how this could be a request for "alternate" relief. If Google wants to seek a stay from the Court, it needs to file a motion under the regular briefing schedule after it has complied with its meet and confer obligations. We will not stipulate to Google folding a completely separate motion into its opposition to our straightforward request to file a 3-page supplemental brief to deal with facts that arose after the filing of our surreply. 4 Amanda Bonn | Susman Godfrey LLP 1901 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 950 | Los Angeles, CA 90067 (T) 310-789-3131 | (M) 408-832-5193 abonn@susmangodfrey.com<mailto:abonn@susmangodfrey.com<mailto:abonn@susmangodfrey.com%3cmailt o:abonn@susmangodfrey.com>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:44 AM, "Andrea P Roberts" <andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com<mailto:andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com<mailto:andreaproberts @quinnemanuel.com%3cmailto:andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com>>> wrote: Counsel, Google plans to file its response to Rockstar’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Response to Google’s Motion to Transfer today, which includes an alternative request for relief of staying the litigation pending resolution of the transfer motion, which we understand Rockstar opposes based on our meet and confer. We propose an expedited briefing schedule for the remaining briefing on the issue. We propose that Rockstar file its reply by Monday, June 30, and Google will file its sur-reply by Wednesday, July 2. Please let us know today if you agree and we will prepare a stipulation. Thanks, Andrea Andrea Pallios Roberts Of Counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 650-801-5023 Direct 5 650.801.5000 Main Office Number 650.801.5100 FAX andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com<mailto:andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com<mailto:andreaproberts@ quinnemanuel.com%3cmailto:andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com>> www.quinnemanuel.com<http://www.quinnemanuel.com<http://www.quinnemanuel.com%3chttp:/www.quin nemanuel.com>> NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 6

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?