Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Filing 259

Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, with accompanying Certificate of Conference and Text of Proposed Order by Nintendo of America, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Blank, James)

Anascape, Ltd v. Microsoft Corp. et al

Doc. 259

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ANASCAPE, LTD. Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Hon. Ron Clark Civil Action No. 9:06-CV-00158-RC

DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS IN THEIR REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,906,700 TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW, Defendants Nintendo of America Inc. ("Nintendo") and Microsoft Corp. ("Microsoft"), and file this Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed the Page Limits in their Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,700, and in support thereof would show the Court the following: I. Defendants respectfully move the Court to allow Defendants up to eight (8) pages for their Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement, and to allow Plaintiff Anascape Ltd. ("Anascape") up to eight (8) pages for its Sur-Reply to Defendants' Reply. II.

Dockets.Justia.com

Defendants' counsel have conferred with Anthony Garza, counsel for Plaintiff Anascape, and he does not oppose Defendants' request. WHEREFORE, Defendants Nintendo and Microsoft respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion to Exceed the Page Limits in their Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement. Dated: April 10, 2008 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ James S. Blank James S. Blank [e-mail] LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone] Robert J. Gunther, Jr. [e-mail] WILMER HALE 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Robert W. Faris [e-mail] Joseph S. Presta [e-mail] NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. 1100 North Glebe Road 8th Floor Arlington, VA 22201 Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lawrence L. Germer [e-mail] Texas Bar No. 07824000 2

Charles W. Goehringer, Jr. [e-mail] GERMER GERTZ L.L.P. 550 Fannin, Suite 400 P.O. Box 4915 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Tel.: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Nintendo of America Inc. By: /s/ John D. Vandenberg J. Christopher Carraway (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Joseph T. Jakubek (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Stephen J. Joncus (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Richard D. Mc Leod (Bar No. 24026836) [e-mail] Derrick W. Toddy (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] John D. Vandenberg (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: [phone] J. Thad Heartfield (Bar No. 09346800) [e-mail] Law Offices of J. Thad Heartfield 2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, Texas 77706 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 409-866-5789 Clayton E Dark Jr. (Bar No. 05384500) [e-mail] Clayton E Dark Jr., Law Office 207 E Frank Ave # 100 Lufkin, TX 75901 Telephone: [phone]

3

Stephen McGrath, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) MICROSOFT CORPORATION One Microsoft Way, Building 8 Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 425-706-7329 Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation

4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on the 10th day of April, 2008, I spoke with Mr. Anthony Garza, counsel for Anascape, Ltd. and was informed that Anascape does not oppose the relief requested in this motion. /s/ James S. Blank James S. Blank

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ANASCAPE, LTD. Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, and NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § Hon. Ron Clark Civil Action No. 9:06-CV-00158-RC ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

ORDER ON THIS DAY came on to be heard Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limits for their Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,906,700, and the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants are allowed up to ten (10) pages for their Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willful Infringement. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is allowed up to ten (10) pages for its SurReply to Defendants' Reply. So ORDERED and SIGNED this __ day of _______, 2008.

Ron Clark, United States District Judge