Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
ORDER granting 248 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 221 MOTION for Summary Judgment THAT THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 AND 6,768,999 ARE INVALID AS ANTICIPATED AND OBVIOUS, 220 SEALED MOTION UNDER DAUBERT AND RULE 26 TO LIMIT THE TESTIMONY AND EXPERT REPORTS OF JOHN LEVY, 224 SEALED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ESTABLISH NON-INFRINGEMENT OF APPLE'S FOREIGN PRODUCTS AND EXCLUDE FOREIGN SALES FROM ANY POTENTIAL DAMAGES AWARD, 228 SEALED MOTION Mirror Worlds, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct, 229 MOTION for Summary Judgment OF INVALIDITY OF US PATENT NO. 6,613,101, 227 SEALED MOTION UNDER DAUBERT TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF KEITH R. UGONE, PH.D. AND TO EXCLUDE UGONES TESTIMONY REGARDING APPLES SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND MARKETING RESEARCH, 223 SEALED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT REGARDING INVENTORSHIP OF THE '227 PATENT, 225 SEALED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,006,227; 6,638,313; 6,725,427; AND 6,768,999, 226 SEALED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING MIRROR WORLDS' ALLEGATIONS OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT; Responses due by 7/22/2010. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 07/22/10. cc:attys 7-22-10 (mll, )
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MIRROR WORLDS, LLC Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. APPLE, INC. Defendant. APPLE, INC. Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, MIRROR WORLDS, TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Counterclaim Defendants. ORDER GRANTING MIRROR WORLDS UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO DOCKET NOS. 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, AND 226 AND CORRESPONDING EXTENSION FOR APPLE INC TO RESPOND TO DOCKET NOS. 227, 228, AND 229 BEFORE THE COURT is Mirror Worlds, LLC ("Mirror Worlds") and Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. ("MWT) Unopposed Motion for Additional Time to Respond to Docket Nos. 220, 221, 223, 224, 225, and 226 and Corresponding Extension for Apple Inc. to Respond to Docket Nos. 227, 228, AND 229. Having reviewed this Motion, the Court finds it is well taken and should be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the following deadlines for Mirror Worlds and MWT to respond to are hereby extended to Thursday, July 22, 2010: Civil Action No. 6:08-CV-88 LED
1) To Sealed Motion Under Daubert And Rule 26 To Limit The Testimony And Expert Reports Of John Levy. (D.I. 220). 2) To Motion For Summary Judgment That The Asserted Claims Of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227, 6,638,313, 6,725,427 And 6,768,999 Are Invalid As Anticipated And Obvious. (D.I. 221). 3) To Sealed Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Of Inequitable Conduct Regarding Inventorship Of The '227 Patent. (D.I. 223). 4) To Sealed Motion For Partial Summary Judgment To Establish Non-Infringement Of Apple's Foreign Products And Exclude Foreign Sales From Any Potential Damages Award. (D.I. 224). 5) To Sealed Motion For Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement Of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227; 6,638,313; 6,725,427; And 6,768,999. (D.I. 225). 6) To Sealed Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Mirror Worlds'
Allegations Of Willful Infringement. (D.I. 226) Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the following deadlines for Apple Inc. to respond to are hereby extended to Thursday, July 22, 2010: 7) To Sealed Motion Under Daubert To Strike Portions Of The Rebuttal Expert Report Of Keith R. Ugone, Ph.D. And To Exclude Ugone's Testimony (D.I. 227). 8) To Sealed Motion Mirror Worlds, LLC's Motion For Summary Judgment Of No Inequitable Conduct By Mirror Worlds, LLC. (D.I. 228). 9) To Motion For Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Of US Patent No. 6,613,101. (D.I. 229).
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day of July, 2010.
__________________________________ LEONARD DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?