Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 212

NOTICE by Google Inc re 198 Sealed Patent Response to Non-Motion,, Google's Objections to Plaintiffs Evidence Submitted with its Reply Claim Construction Brief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Anderson, Carl)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF GOOGLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH ITS REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF (DKT. 198) 01980.00010/6290763.1 Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) hereby objects to untimely extrinsic evidence disclosed for the first time with the Reply Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 198) of Plaintiffs Rockstar Consortium US LP and Netstar Technologies LLC (“Rockstar”). Exhibits 25 through 31 of Rockstar’s reply brief consist of a series of webpages and other documents that purportedly support Rockstar’s construction of “data processing device.” (Dkt. 198 at 8.) None of these exhibits were mentioned in Rockstar’s P.R. 4-2 disclosures or its P.R. 4-3 chart. (Dkt. 121-1 at 4-5.) P.R. 4-3(b) requires “an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction of the claim or to oppose any other party’s proposed construction of the claim.” Before the parties’ filed their P.R. 4-3(b) submission, Google carefully explained its position on the construction of “data processing device” during the parties’ meet and confer, and offered Federal Circuit authority supporting its position. (Ex. A at 1.) Indeed, when Google recently communicated its objections to Rockstar’s untimely evidence, Rockstar conceded that it was aware of Google’s position, but only began to “investigate[]” after the receipt of Google’s responsive brief and then “discovered” Exhibits 25-31. (Ex. B at 1.) Rockstar’s untimely delay is contrary to P.R. 4-3(b). The Court should disregard these exhibits. Even if the Court excuses Rockstar’s untimely disclosure, Exhibits 25-31 are not relevant to the dispute between the parties. As explained in Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief, Google contends that “tablets and smartphones [] would not be considered conventional hardware/software by a person of skill in 1997.” (Dkt. 183 at 21.) Exhibits 25-31 provide no evidence that tablets and smartphones were considered conventional at that time, and are therefore irrelevant. If the Court considers them, they should be given no weight. 01980.00010/6290763.1 1 DATED: October 20, 2014 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By /s/ David A. Perlson J. Mark Mann State Bar No. 12926150 G. Blake Thompson State Bar No. 24042033 MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON 300 West Main Street Henderson, Texas 75652 (903) 657-8540 (903) 657-6003 (fax) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven David A. Perlson 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4788 Telephone: (415) 875 6600 Facsimile: (415) 875 6700 Attorneys for Google Inc. 01980.00010/6290763.1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on October 20, 2014. /s/ Carl G. Anderson Carl G. Anderson 01980.00010/6290763.1 3

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?