Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 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 Transfer Motion by Google Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Perlson, David)

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-RG
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON
PLAINTIFFS’ 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
TRANSFER MOTION

01980.00010/6083040.3

Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) moves for an expedited briefing schedule for Plaintiffs
Rockstar Consortium US LP and Netstar Technologies LLC’s (collectively “Rockstar’s”) Motion
for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Response to Google’s Motion to Transfer (“Motion for
Leave”) (Dkt. No. 92.)

Rockstar filed its Motion for Leave on June 20, 2014.

Contemporaneously with this Motion, Google has filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Response to Google’s Motion to Transfer, and, in the
Alternative, Cross-Motion to Stay Case Pending Resolution of Google’s Transfer Motion
(“Opposition”).

Google proposes that the following expedited schedule be entered for the

remaining briefing on Rockstar’s Motion for Leave and Google’s requested relief, in the
alternative, for a stay:


Rockstar’s Reply shall be due on Monday, June 30, 2014



Google’s Sur-reply shall be due on Wednesday, July 2, 2014

An expedited briefing schedule is warranted here because Google’s Motion to Change
Venue (“Transfer Motion”) has been fully briefed since March 27, 2014 (Dkt. No. 41) and the
parties have imminent claim construction deadlines, including yesterday’s deadline to comply
with P.R. 4-1. (Dkt. No. 68.) Google is concerned that, after Rockstar’s Motion for Leave is
fully briefed, it will take time for the Court to resolve the Motion for Leave, and if Rockstar’s
Motion for Leave is granted, Google should be entitled to an opportunity to respond. This will
further delay resolution of the Transfer Motion, which should be given “top priority in the
handling of th[e] case.” In re Fusion-IO, Inc., No. 12-139, 489 Fed. Appx. 465, 466 (Fed. Cir.
Dec. 21, 2012) (citing In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003). Granting an
expedited briefing schedule on Rockstar’s Motion for Leave helps to reduce the delay.
Moreover, there is no prejudice to Rockstar in setting an expedited briefing schedule on its own
motion. A quicker resolution of the Motion for Leave and the Transfer Motion will benefit both

01980.00010/6083040.3

1

parties given the upcoming deadlines in the case. (Dkt. No. 68.)
Google proposed the above schedule to Rockstar, but Rockstar refused to agree to an
expedited briefing schedule even as to its own motion. Rockstar contends that expedited briefing
is inappropriate because Google’s Opposition seeks alternative relief of a stay pending resolution
of the Transfer Motion. Google’s arguments regarding a stay, however, fit squarely within the
factors the Court should consider in determining whether Rockstar’s requested supplemental
briefing should be permitted. Intel Corp. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Indus. Research
Organisation, 2009 WL 8590766, *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2009) (identifying “the availability of a
continuance to cure such prejudice” as a relevant factor to the “good cause” determination under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should enter an order granting Google’s proposed
expedited briefing schedule on Rockstar’s Motion for Leave and Google’s requested relief, in the
alternative, for a stay.

01980.00010/6083040.3

2

DATED: June 25, 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
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven
[e-mail]
David A. Perlson
[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4788
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Google Inc.

01980.00010/6083040.3

3

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 June 24, 2014.
/s/ Andrea Pallios Roberts
Andrea Pallios Roberts
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that the parties have met and conferred telephonically pursuant to Local
Rule CV-7(h) on June 25, 2014, and counsel for Rockstar opposed Google’s request for an
expedited briefing schedule on Rockstar’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief
Regarding Transfer and Google’s requested relief.

Participants in the conference included

Amanda K. Bonn and Jeff Rambin, counsel for Rockstar, and David A. Perlson, Andrea Pallios
Roberts, and Mark Mann, on behalf of Google. No agreement could be reached.

/s/ Andrea Pallios Roberts
Andrea Pallios Roberts

01980.00010/6083040.3

4