Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al
MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Facts regarding 133 Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply with PR 3-1 and to Extend the Time to Serve Invalidity Contentions by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Jones, Michael)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CITIWARE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, GOOGLE INC., YAHOO! INC., MYSPACE INC., AMAZON.COM INC., PAYPAL INC., MATCH.COM, LLC., AOL LLC, and CME GROUP INC., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO. 6:09-CV-00269 Hon. Leonard E. Davis
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
GOOGLE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH PATENT RULE 3-1 AND TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
On February 19, 2010, a month after Bedrock filed its Surreply (Dkt. No. 162) in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Comply with Patent Rule 3-1 (Dkt. No. 133), Bedrock served a response to Google's Interrogatory No. 7. In response to Google's Interrogatory No. 7, Bedrock provided new infringement contentions for Google (but not the other Defendants), identifying lines of source code it contends infringe the asserted claims for many (but not all) of the claim limitations. Bedrock's response to Google's interrogatory seriously undermines its arguments in opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel. Google, therefore, seeks leave of the Court to submit a brief, four-page Supplemental Notice along with supporting exhibits, filed concurrently herewith, so that the Court may consider this new development when ruling on Defendants' Motion to Compel. Good cause exists to submit the Supplemental Notice since Bedrock only served the response to Google's interrogatory a month after it served its Surreply in which it denied that it could or should provide more detailed infringement contentions. Accordingly the Court should grant Google's Motion for Leave to File a Notice of Supplemental Facts.
Dated: March 4, 2010 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Michael E. Jones Michael E. Jones State Bar No. 10929400 POTTER MINTON 110 N. College Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Facsimile: (903) 593-0846 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Claude M. Stern Todd M. Briggs QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: 650-801-5000 Facsimile: 650-801-5100 Email: email@example.com Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Defendants Google, Inc. and Match.com LLC
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that counsel for Google Inc. have satisfied the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h). The personal conference requirement of Local Rule CV-7(h) has been met. On March 3, 2010, Todd Briggs, counsel for Google, met and conferred by telephone with Austin Curry of McKool Smith, PC, counsel for Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC regarding the relief requested in the foregoing motion. In that conference, we discussed our clients' positions. Bedrock disagreed with Google that its interrogatory response was the proper subject of a supplemental notice. These discussions conclusively ended in an impasse regarding the issues in the motion.
/s/ Michael E. Jones Michael E. Jones
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL FACTS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH PATENT RULE 3-1 AND TO EXTEND THE TIME TO SERVE INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS, via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) and electronic mail on March 4, 2010. Any other counsel of record was served via First Class Mail. /s/ Michael E. Jones Michael E. Jones
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?