Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 117

MOTION to Strike Defendant Google Inc.'s Deficient Obviousness Disclosure Under Patent Rule 3-3(B) by NetStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of John Lahad, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Lahad, John)

Download PDF
Exhibit 6 John Lahad From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: John Lahad Monday, July 21, 2014 6:02 PM 'Lance Yang'; Andrea P Roberts; David Perlson Amanda Bonn; Justin A. Nelson; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; Shawn Blackburn; QE-Google-Rockstar; James Mark Mann; Andy Tindel; Gregory Blake Thompson; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio; Max L. Tribble RE: Rockstar v. Google Lance, Thank you for your email. Google's proposal does not remedy its deficient disclosures or provide the required notice. Google has still chosen not to sufficiently identify any combinations, and the possible combinations remain unreasonably high. Accordingly, Rockstar does not agree to your proposal, and this issue is best resolved by the Court. If Google's position changes, let me know. Thanks, John John P. Lahad Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 713-653-7859 (office) 713-725-3557 (mobile) 713-654-6666 (fax) From: Lance Yang [mailto:lanceyang@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 6:28 PM To: John Lahad; Andrea P Roberts; David Perlson Cc: Amanda Bonn; Justin A. Nelson; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; Shawn Blackburn; QE-Google-Rockstar; James Mark Mann; Andy Tindel; Gregory Blake Thompson; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio; Max L. Tribble Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google John, Google understands that Rockstar is complaining about the number of combinations disclosed in Google’s invalidity contentions, and not that Google has failed to identify and chart, on a element by element basis, each asserted combination. The basis for your allegation that the number of combinations is impermissible remains unclear. As Rockstar acknowledged during the July 10 in person conference, the local rules place no limit on the number of combinations. Google maintains the position that its invalidity contentions fully comply with the Court’s Patent Rules. 1

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?