Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 57

AFFIDAVIT in Support re 56 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Declaration of Nicholas A. Brown) filed by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Mehta, Sonal)

Download PDF
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple, Inc. Doc. 57 Att. 2 ..JENNER&BLOCK December 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 J e n n e r & Block LLP 919 T h i r d A v e n u e 37th Floor N e w York, N Y 1 0 0 2 2 Tel 2 1 2 - 8 9 1 - 1 6 0 0 www.jenner.com Chicago Dallas New York Washington, DC BY E - M a i l Kenneth L. Stein Direct Dial: (212) 891-1615 kstein@jenner.com Nicholas A. Brown, Esq. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway R e d w o o d Shores, C A 9 4 0 6 5 Re: D e a r Nick: I am writing regarding y o u r request that we consent to A p p l e ' s motion for leave to file its First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims ("Amended Answer"), which seeks to (a) add Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. as a party, and (b) assert a new counterclaim for infringement o f A p p l e ' s U.S. Patent No. 6,613,101. After due consideration, we have decided to oppose that motion. T h e deadline for joining additional parties and asserting counterclaims was October 20, 2008. See Docket Control Order (Dkt. 32). Accordingly, under well-settled law, Apple is required to demonstrate "good cause" for the amendment. See Fahim v. Mariott Hotel Servs., Inc., -- F.3d - , 2 0 0 8 W L 5136134, at *3 (5th Cir. Dec. 8 , 2 0 0 8 ) ("[O]nce a scheduling order has been entered, it m a y b e modified only for g o o d c a u s e and w i t h t h e j u d g e ' s c o n s e n t . " ) (internal q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d c i t a t i o n omitted). G o o d cause "requires a party to show that the deadlines cannot reasonably b e m e t despite the diligence o f the party needing the extension." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Factors relevant to good cause include: " ( 1 ) the explanation for the failure to timely move for leave to amend; (2) the importance o f the amendment; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the amendment; and (4) the availability o f a continuance to cure such prejudice." Id. (internal q u o t a t i o n m a r k s and c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . W e do not believe that Apple has good cause for filing its untimely Amended Answer. Certainly, Apple cannot claim that it did not know before the October 20, 2008 deadline o f its o w n p a t e n t ( w h i c h i s s u e d i n 2 0 0 3 ) o r o f Mirror Worlds T e c h n o l o g i e s , I n c . ' s allegedly infringing products (which were sold at least as early as 2002). There is no question that Apple could have m e t t h e O c t o b e r 2 0 t h d e a d l i n e w i t h diligence. Apple has offered no explanation for its failure to timely assert its new counterclaim and add Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. as a party, and, for the reasons j u s t explained, we do not believe it can offer one that satisfies the "good cause" requirement. In addition, A p p l e ' s new M i r r o r Worlds, L L C v. Apple, Inc., Civil A c t i o n No. 6:08 c v 8 8 L E D Dockets.Justia.com Nicholas A. B r o w n , Esq. D e c e m b e r 16, 2008 Page 2 c o u n t e r c l a i m is not i m p o r t a n t to t h e adjudication o f the p e n d i n g case. It i s b a s i c a l l y a completely new and unrelated p a t e n t i n f r i n g e m e n t action, w h i c h does n o t relate to a n y claims o r defenses in the p e n d i n g action. I t also a p p e a r s to us t h a t A p p l e is s e e k i n g to i n j e c t its new c o u n t e r c l a i m into this case s i m p l y for strategic reasons, rather than to address supposed d a m a g e s c a u s e d b y the alleged i n f r i n g e m e n t . I n d e e d , t h e p o t e n t i a l d a m a g e s t h a t A p p l e c a n r e c o v e r , e v e n i f s u c c e s s f u l , are negligible. I Further, M i r r o r W o r l d s w o u l d b e p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e a d d i t i o n o f A p p l e ' s n e w counterclaim. G i v e n that A p p l e seeks to a d d an entirely n e w p a r t y a n d a n entirely n e w patent after the parties h a v e filed t h e i r i n f r i n g e m e n t and i n v a l i d i t y c o n t e n t i o n s , i f the c o u n t e r c l a i m went forward i n this case, t h e current case s c h e d u l e w o u l d have to b e m o d i f i e d and extended to allow for new, additional, i n f r i n g e m e n t and invalidity contentions, as well as for additional discovery, t h e p o s s i b l e j o i n d e r o f o t h e r p a r t i e s , a n d t h e p o s s i b l e a s s e r t i o n o f o t h e r c l a i m s . T h i s too m i l i t a t e s against A p p l e ' s amendment. See Phil. Indem. Ins. Co., 2008 W L 5191910, at *12 (N.D. Tex. Dec, 10, 2008) ( d e n y i n g l e a v e to amend w h e r e a m e n d m e n t would d i s r u p t trial schedule and o t h e r dates: " N o t o n l y w o u l d g r a n t i n g l e a v e h a v e an a d v e r s e i m p a c t o n t h e t i m e l y r e s o l u t i o n o f this case, i t w o u l d also a f f e c t o t h e r s e t t i n g s o n t h e c o u r t ' s d o c k e t . " ) . Moreover, this is already an e x t r e m e l y c o m p l i c a t e d case, i n v o l v i n g m a n y o f A p p l e ' s products. W e do n o t b e l i e v e that it is appropriate to further c o m p l i c a t e it b y injecting additional, unrelated i s s u e s - e s p e c i a l l y given that t h e (minimal) sales o f t h e a l l e g e d l y infringing products o c c u r r e d y e a r s ago b y a c o m p a n y t h a t h a s l o n g c e a s e d b u s i n e s s o p e r a t i o n s . F o r at least t h e foregoing reasons, w e o p p o s e A p p l e ' s r e q u e s t for leave to file its p r o p o s e d A m e n d e d A n s w e r . I f y o u wish to discuss this m a t t e r further, p l e a s e do not hesitate to c o n t a c t me. Sincerely, K e n n e t h L. S t e i n 7~tf --- I A s I a m s u r e y o u k n o w , u n d e r 35 U.S.C. 286, A p p l e c a n n o t r e c o v e r d a m a g e s for infringements o c c u r r i n g m o r e than six years p r i o r to the filing o f its counterclaim. However, during the p a s t six y e a r s - o r m o r e p r e c i s e l y from January 2003 until the fall o f 2004, when Mirror W o r l d s T e c h n o l o g i e s , Inc. ceased d o i n g b u s i n e s s - M i r r o r W o r l d s Technologies, I n c . ' s total s a l e s r e v e n u e w a s o n l y a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 ( w h i c h i n c l u d e s s a l e s t h a t a r e n o t implicated b y A p p l e ' s counterclaim). G i v e n s u c h small revenue, even i f successful with its counterclaim, A p p l e ' s m o n e t a r y r e c o v e r y would b e de minimis. In addition, as w e discussed, i f Apple did n o t m a r k its products, as required u n d e r 35 U . S . c . 287, t h e r e w o u l d b e no potential damages. Nicholas A. Brown, Esq. December 16, 2008 Page 3 cc: Joseph Diamante, Esq. Richard H. An, Esq. Otis W. Carroll, Esq. Sona} N. Mehta, Esq. Stefani Smith, Esq.

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?