Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 278

***FILED IN ERROR, PER ATTY, PLEASE IGNORE.***Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #226 SEALED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING MIRROR WORLDS' ALLEGATIONS OF WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT, #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, #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, #229 MOTION for Summary Judgment OF INVALIDITY OF US PATENT NO. 6,613,101, #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, #228 SEALED MOTION Mirror Worlds, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct, #243 SEALED MOTION Mirror Worlds, LLC's Motion in Limine to Exclude Certain Settlement Agreements and Evidence of Certain Prior Litigations, #223 SEALED MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT REGARDING INVENTORSHIP OF THE '227 PATENT by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Randall, Jeffrey) Modified on 8/2/2010 (sm, ).

Download PDF
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc. Doc. 278 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. APPLE INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff, v. MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Counterclaim Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Civil Action No. 6:08-cv-88 LED JOINT MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME FOR REPLIES TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS AND FOR APPLE INC. TO RESPOND TO MIRROR WORLDS LLC'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN PRIOR LITIGATIONS Mirror Worlds, LLC ("Mirror Worlds"), Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc., and Apple Inc. ("Apple") (collectively, "the parties") respectfully submit this Joint Motion for Additional Time for Replies to Summary Judgment Motions and for Apple Inc. To Respond to Mirror Worlds, LLC's Motion in Limine To Exclude Certain Settlement Agreements and Evidence of Certain Prior Litigations. The parties request a three-day extension until Thursday, August 5, 2010 to file their respective reply briefs in support of the following motions for summary judgment: Dockets.Justia.com 1) Apple's 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 (Docket No. 221); 2) Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Inequitable Conduct Regarding Inventorship of the '227 Patent. (Docket No. 223); 3) Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment To Establish Non-Infringement of Apple's Foreign Products and Exclude Foreign Sales from Any Potential Damages Award (Docket No. 224); 4) Apple's Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,006,227; 6,638,313; 6,725,427; and 6,768,999 (Docket No. 225); 5) Apple's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Dismissing Mirror Worlds' Allegations of Willful Infringement (Docket No. 226). 6) Mirror Worlds, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of No Inequitable Conduct (Docket No. 228); and 7) Mirror Worlds Technologies Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,613,101 (Docket No. 229). In addition, the parties respectfully request that Apple be granted additional time, until August 25, 2010, to respond to Mirror Worlds, LLC's Motion In Limine To Exclude Certain Settlement Agreements and Evidence of Certain Prior Litigations (Docket No. 243). Mirror Worlds filed this Motion in advance of the August 23, 2010 deadline for motions in limine. (See Docket No. 32.) However, the parties agree that the issues raised in Mirror Worlds' Motion should be addressed in a global discussion involving all of the parties' potential motions in -2- limine. The additional time is sought to facilitate this discussion and potentially narrow or resolve the issues raised in Mirror Worlds' Motion. A proposed order is attached. Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 30, 2010 /s/ Alexander Solo Joseph Diamante Kenneth Stein Ian G. DiBernardo Alexander Solo STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 1280 Maiden Lane New York NY 10038 Telephone: 212-806-5400 Facsimile: 212-581-1071 asolo@stroock.com Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (fedserv@icklaw.com) Deborah J. Race (drace@icklaw.com) IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75730 Telephone: 903-561-1600 Facsimile: 903-581-1071 Fedserv@icklaw.com Attorneys for MIRROR WORLDS, LLC and MIRROR WORLDS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Dated: July 30, 2010 /s/ Jeffrey G. Randall Jeffrey G. Randall Lead Attorney PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY, AND WALKER LLP 1117 S. California Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304-1106 Telephone: (650) 320-1850 Facsimile: (650) 320-1950 jeffrandall@paulhastings.com Allan M. Soobert PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY, AND WALKER LLP 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 551-1822 Facsimile: (202) 551-0222 allansoobert@paulhastings.com S. Christian Platt PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY, AND WALKER LLP 4747 Executive Dr., 12th Floor San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 458-3034 Facsimile: (858) 458-3005 christianplatt@paulhastings.com -3- Eric M. Albritton Texas State Bar No. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: (903) 757-8449 Facsimile: (903) 758-7397 ema@emafirm.com Counsel for APPLE INC. -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on this 30th day of July, 2010. As of this date, all counsel of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this document through the Court's CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). /s/ Jeffrey G. Randall Jeffrey G. Randall -5-

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?