I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
797
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 792 MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST, AND SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES FOR DEFENDANTS POST-DISCOVERY/PRE-VERDICT INFRINGEMENT, 791 NOTICE OF CALCULATION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Noona, Stephen)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:11cv512 (RAJ-FBS)
AOL INC., GOOGLE INC.,
IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC.,
GANNETT CO., INC. and
TARGET CORPORATION
Defendants.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF CALCULATION OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, POST-JUDGMENT
INTEREST, AND SUPPLEMENTAL DAMAGES FOR DEFENDANTS’ POSTDISCOVERY/PRE-VERDICT INFRINGEMENT
The Defendants AOL Inc. (“AOL”), IAC Search & Media, Inc. (“IAC Search & Media”),
Gannett Co., Inc. (“Gannett”), Target Corporation (“Target”), and Google Inc. (“Google”)
(collectively “Defendants”), by counsel, pursuant to Rule 7 of the Local Rules of Practice for the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, move this Court for entry of an
order granting the Defendants an extension of time through and including November 29, 2012, in
which to file their Response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Calculation of Prejudgment Interest (Dkt.
No. 791) (“Notice of Calculation”) and Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Prejudgment Interest,
Post-Judgment Interest, and Supplemental Damages for Defendants’ Post-Discovery/Pre-Verdict
Infringement (Dkt. No. 792) (“Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest”), and in support
thereof state as follows:
1.
Plaintiff filed its Notice of Calculation on November 7, 2012. Under Local Rule
7 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, Defendants’ response is due on November 21, 2012.
2.
Plaintiff filed its Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest on November 9,
2012. Under Local Rule 7 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, Defendants’ response is due on November 23,
2012.
3.
The Defendants have requested, and the Plaintiff has agreed to, an extension
through and including November 29, 2012, to file their response to the Plaintiff’s Motion for an
Award of Prejudgment Interest, Post-Judgment Interest, and Supplemental Damages for
Defendants’ Post-Discovery/Pre-Verdict Infringement.
4.
Defendants will not oppose an extension until December 7, 2012, for Plaintiff to
file its replies in support of its Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of Prejudgment
Interest.
5.
Granting Defendants an extension through and including November 29, 2012, to
file their responses to the Plaintiff’s Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of Prejudgment
Interest, and Plaintiff an extension through and including December 7, 2012 to file their replies
in support of its Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest will not
prejudice the parties.
6.
Attached as Exhibit 1 is a proposed agreed order granting the Defendants through
and including November 29, 2012 to file their response to the Plaintiff’s Notice of Calculation
and Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest, and granting Plaintiff through and including
December 7, 2012 to file its replies in support of its Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award
of Prejudgment Interest. The parties are circulating a copy of this agreed order and will deliver it
to the Court for entry once endorsed.
2
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, by counsel, request that this Court enter the proposed
agreed order attached as Exhibit 1 granting the Defendants through and including November 29,
2012 to file their response to Plaintiff’s Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of
Prejudgment Interest, and granting Plaintiff through and including December 7, 2012, to file its
replies in support of its Notice of Calculation and Motion for Award of Prejudgment Interest.
Dated: November 19, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen E. Noona
Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624-3000
Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
Counsel for AOL Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search &
Media, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc. and Target
Corporation
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone: (571) 203-2700
Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
3
Cortney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
Telephone: (404) 653-6400
Facsimile: (415) 653-6444
Counsel for Defendant AOL Inc.
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 19, 2012, I will electronically file the foregoing with
the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF)
to the following:
Donald C. Schultz
W. Ryan Snow
Steven Stancliff
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 1500
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 623-3000
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
dschultz@cwm-law.cm
wrsnow@cwm-law.com
sstancliff@cwm-law.com
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Kenneth W. Brothers
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
sherwoodj@dicksteinshapiro.com
brothersk@dicksteinshapiro.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, I/P Engine, Inc.
/s/ Stephen E. Noona
Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624-3000
Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
12058508v2
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?