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

Filing 460

RESPONSE in Opposition re 455 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Defendants' Equitable and Other Defenses DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON DEFENDANTS' EQUITABLE AND OTHER DEFENSES filed by Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A)(Deoras, Akshay)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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 Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-252-LED CONSOLIDATED CASES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO WI-LAN’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON DEFENDANTS’ EQUITABLE AND OTHER DEFENSES Throughout this case, from the filing of the Complaint until the eve of trial, Wi-LAN asserted that it was entitled to recover damages from the time of first alleged infringement (June 2005 for Alcatel-Lucent and March 2008 for HTC). Defendants Alcatel-Lucent and HTC asserted the defense of laches in response to Wi-LAN’s claims. Although Alcatel-Lucent and HTC openly marketed HSDPA-compliant products for years before this suit was filed, Wi-LAN unreasonably delayed until October 2010 to bring suit. As a result of Wi-LAN’s delay, AlcatelLucent and HTC suffered both economic and evidentiary prejudice. Laches therefore barred WiLAN’s right to recover pre-suit damages. A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1040–41 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). On July 7th at 5:36 PM, counsel for Wi-LAN informed Defendants that Wi-LAN was dropping its claims for pre-suit damages. (Ex. A, 7/7/2013 Email from A. Pai to Defendants.) This email, coming just one day before opening statements, confirmed Alcatel-Lucent’s and HTC’s position that Wi-LAN was not entitled to collect damages from prior to when Wi-LAN 1 filed suit. Given that Wi-LAN dropped it claims for pre-suit damages and has acquiesced to the relief Defendants requested in its laches defense, this Court should deny Wi-LAN’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Defendants’ equitable and other defenses (D.I. 455) as moot. Wi-LAN admits that it is not entitled to damages from prior to the date of the Complaint. (D.I. 455 at 3.) Defendants’ equitable and other defenses are therefore moot in light of Wi-LAN dropping its claims for pre-suit damages.1 Dated: July 14, 2013 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Akshay S. Deoras____________ Gregory S. Arovas (pro hac vice) Robert A. Appleby (pro hac vice) Jeanne M. Heffernan (pro hac vice) Akshay S. Deoras (pro hac vice) Ryan P. Kane (pro hac vice) KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 446-4800 Fax: (212) 446-4900 Alcatel-Lucent-Wi-LAN-Defense@kirkland.com Michael E. Jones (TX Bar 10929400) Allen F. Gardner (TX Bar 24043679) POTTER MINTON PC 110 N. College, Suite 500 (75702) P.O. Box 359 Tyler, Texas 75710 (903) 597 8311 (903) 593 0846 (Facsimile) mikejones@potterminton.com allengardner@potterminton.com 1 Although Wi-LAN addresses equitable estoppel, acquiescence, and ratification in its motion, as Wi-LAN notes Defendants did not pursue these defenses in the pre-trial order. (D.I. 311.) Thus, this portion of Wi-LAN’s motion is also moot. 2 Attorneys for Defendant Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. /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 Eric H. 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 Defendants HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Exedea Inc. /s/ Richard L. Wynne, Jr. (with permission) Bruce S. Sostek (TX Bar 18855700) Richard L. Wynne, Jr. (TX Bar 24003214) Adrienne E. Dominguez (TX Bar 00793630) J. Michael Heinlen (TX Bar 24032287) Timothy E. Hudson (TX Bar 24046120) Justin S. Cohen (TX Bar 24078356) THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 1722 Routh Street Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201-2533 Tel: (214) 969-1700 Fax: (214) 969-1751 bruce.sostek@tklaw.com richard.wynne@tklaw.com adrienne.dominguez@tklaw.com michael.heinlen@tklaw.com 3 tim.hudson@tklaw.com justin.cohen@tklaw.com William J. Cornelius (TX Bar 04834700) 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 wc@wilsonlawfirm.com jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendants Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., and Sony Mobile Communications AB 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) on this 14th day of July, 2013. As such, this document was served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. /s/ Akshay S. Deoras______ ____________ Akshay S. Deoras 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?