WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

Filing 285

RESPONSE in Opposition re 277 MOTION for Leave to File Two Letter Briefs Requesting Permission to File Certain Motions filed by WI-LAN Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Syed Fareed, # 2 Exhibit A - Docket Control Order, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Fareed, Syed)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

WI-LAN INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.; et al.
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-521-LED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF SYED K. FAREED IN SUPPORT OF
WI-LAN’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE LETTER BRIEFS
I, Syed Fareed, declare as follows:
1. I am over the age of 21 and am competent to give the testimony contained in this
Declaration.

Except where stated upon information and belief, the facts set forth in this

Declaration are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.
2. I am an attorney at the law firm of Vinson & Elkins LLP, counsel for Plaintiff WiLAN Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) in this action. I am admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas.
3. On September 21, 2012, Wi-LAN served its opening expert report regarding
infringement, and Defendants served their opening expert report regarding invalidity. On
October 3, 2012, Wi-LAN served its opening expert report regarding damages. On October 5,
2012, Wi-LAN served a supplemental expert report regarding infringement.
4. On November 20, 2012, counsel for Wi-LAN and Defendants conferred by telephone
regarding expert depositions. At the end of the meet-and-confer, Defendants for the first time

1

informed Wi-LAN that they intended to file letter briefs regarding summary judgment and
Daubert motions.
5. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a proposed revised Docket Control
Order Defendants sent Wi-LAN on November 26, 2012.
6. On November 30, 2012, counsel for Wi-LAN and Defendants conferred by telephone.
Wi-LAN explained that it was unable to accept Defendants’ proposal because (among other
reasons) it would unduly compress the pre-trial schedule and because Wi-LAN had relied upon
the dispositive motion dates contained in the Court’s Docket Control Order.
7. On November 30, 2012, counsel for Wi-LAN and Defendants conferred by telephone.
Wi-LAN asked Defendants whether the rebuttal report of Dr. Jonathan Wells regarding the
validity of the asserted patents, served on November 2, 2012, was the basis for their contention
that their untimely letter briefs should be permitted, and offered to discuss that matter
specifically if so. Defendants did not engage the issue.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed on this 27th day of December, 2012.

/s/ Syed K. Fareed
Syed K. Fareed

2