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

Filing 295

RESPONSE in Opposition re 288 MOTION to Strike 277 MOTION for Leave to File Two Letter Briefs Requesting Permission to File Certain Motions and Request to Strike Defendants Letter Briefs filed under Dkt. 280 and 287 MOTION to Strike 277 MOTION for Leave to File Two Letter Briefs Requesting Permission to File Certain Motions and Request to Strike Defendants Letter Briefs filed under Dkt. 280 and 287 filed by Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Ericsson Inc., Exedea INC., HTC America, Inc., HTC Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Findlay, Eric)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION WI-LAN, INC. Plaintiff, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.; TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON; ERICSSON INC.; SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB; SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INS.; HTC CORPORATION; HTC AMERICA, INC.; EXEDEA INC.; Defendants. ______________________________________ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-521 -LED JURY TRIAL REQUESTED DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF WI-LAN’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ LETTER BRIEFS (DKT. NO. 288) NOW COME, Defendants Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Exedea, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) and hereby file this Response in Opposition to Plaintiff Wi-LAN’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Letter Briefs (Dkt. No. 288) and would hereby show the Court as follows:1 1 In order to try and bring resolution to these issues as soon as possible and to inconvience the Court as little as possible, Defendants file this response early under Local Rule CV-7(e) and do not believe that any further briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. No. 288) is warranted. 1 First, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike was wholly uncessary and improper. Contrary to Plaintiff’s representation, Plaintiff never conferred with Defendants on the Motion, in violation of L.R. CV-7(h). Had Plaintiff done so, its sole purported basis for the Motion, i.e., the concern that it not be compelled to respond to Defendants’ Letter Briefs (Dkt. Nos. 280 & 287) until such time as the Court ruled upon Defendants’ Motion For Leave to File Two Letter Briefs Requesting Permission to File Certain Motions (Dkt. No. 277), would have been allayed. Defendants did not and do not expect Plaintiff to respond to the Letter Briefs until the Court’s ruling on their Motion (Dkt. No. 277). Second, Plaintiff’s protest (Dtk. No. 288 at p. 1, ¶ 1) that the Letter Briefs were filed in violation of L.R. CV-7(k) is without merit. Defendants’ Motion for Leave sought leave to extend the deadline for summary judgment and to file the Letter Briefs by their respective certain dates due to the ongoing discovery and depositions that impacted the subject matter of the briefing. Plaintiff admits in its Motion to Strike that it received the Briefs via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system at Dkt. Nos. 280, 287 (Dkt. No. 288 at 1). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Defendants’ Motion for Leave, the responsive briefing associated with it, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and this Response, could have been entirely avoided had Plaintiff simply worked in good faith with Defendants to come to an agreement on a reasonable timeline, with leave of Court, to allow for the filing of the Defendants’ two Letter Briefs, as well as any possible letter briefs that Plaintiff sought to file. Instead, Plaintiff wholly refused to cooperate with Defendants in favor of its litigation -by- “gotcha” tactic. In the light of Defendants’ previously-filed Motion for Leave (Dkt. No. 277), Reply in support thereof (Dkt. No. 289), as well as this Response in Opposition, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. 2 Dated: January 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ (with permission) Gregory S. Arovas (pro hac vice) Robert A. Appleby (pro hac vice) Akshay S. Deoras (pro hac vice) Jeanne M. Heffernan (pro hac vice) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 446-4800 Fax: (212) 446-4900 Alcatel-Lucent-Wi-LANDefense@kirkland.com By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay Stephen S. Korniczky (pro hac vice) Martin R. Bader (pro hac vice) Daniel N. Yannuzzi (pro hac vice) Lee Hsu (pro hac vice) Graham M. Buccigross (pro hac vice) SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Tel: (858) 720-8924 Fax: (858) 847-4892 LegalTm-WiLAN-Alcatel@sheppardmullin.com Local Counsel Michael E. Jones (TX Bar No. 10929400) Allen F. Gardner (TX Bar No. 24043679) John F. Bufe (TX Bar No. 03316930) POTTER MINTON PC 110 N. College, Suite 500 P.O. Box 359 Tyler, TX 75710-0359 Tel: (903) 597-8311 Fax: (903) 593-0846 mikejones@potterminton.com allengardner@potterminton.com johnbufe@potterminton.com Local Counsel Eric Hugh Findlay (TX Bar No. 00789886) Brian Craft (TX Bar No. 04972020) FINDLAY CRAFT 6760 Old Jacksonville Hwy, Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75703 Tel: (903) 534-1100 Fax: (903) 534-1137 efindlay@findlaycraft.com bcraft@findlaycraft.com Attorneys for Defendant Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corporation, HTC America Inc., and Exeda Inc. /s/ (with permission) Bruce S. Sostek (TX Bar 18855700) Lead Attorney Richard L. Wynne, Jr. (TX Bar 24003214) THOMPSON KNIGHT LLP 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 969-1700 Fax: (214) 969-1751 Bruce.Sostek@tklaw.com Richard.Wynne@tklaw.com Ericsson-WI-LAN-Defense@tklaw.com Local Counsel 3 Jennifer Ainsworth (TX Bar 00784720) Wilson Robertson & Cornelius PC 909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400 P.O. Box 7339 Tyler, TX 75711-7339 Tel: (903) 509-5000 Fax: (903) 509-5092 jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendants Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., and Sony Mobile Communications AB CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on January 15, 2013, the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). As such, this document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. /s/ Eric H. Findlay Eric H. Findlay       4

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?