Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
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)
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.
DATED: October 20, 2014
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
/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) 657-6003 (fax)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
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.
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
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?