I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 825

MOTION for New Trial on the Dollar Amount of Past Damages by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION __________________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) AOL, INC. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) I/P ENGINE, INC., Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512 PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S RULE 59 MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF PAST DAMAGES Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to vacate the jury’s responses to question III.C of the verdict form and order a new trial to determine the dollar amount of past damages. As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, this Court should order a new trial on the dollar amount of past damages for five reasons. First, the timing and Court implementation of its laches ruling after the close of the parties’ respective cases, and the Court’s forbidding I/P Engine to identify a specific damages amount to the jury, was fundamentally unfair and highly prejudicial to I/P Engine. I/P Engine was precluded from explaining how the evidence supported $118 million of damages accrued since September 15, 2011. Second, this Court wrongly prevented I/P Engine from introducing evidence of Defendants’ accused revenues, which formed the total revenue base. This evidence also would have enabled I/P Engine to explain the damages amounts from September 15, 2011. Third, the jury’s damages award is internally inconsistent; the jury awarded 35% of I/P Engine’s initial claimed damages 1 against four defendants, but only 3.5% of I/P Engine’s initial claimed damages against Google. Fourth, as set forth in detail in I/P Engine’s post-trial motion regarding laches, this Court’s exclusion of damages from September 15, 2005 to September 15, 2011 was error. Fifth, applying laches to AOL and Gannett was error, because there was no record evidence that either had indemnification agreements with Google. Dated: December 18, 2012 By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531) W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423) CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC 150 West Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 623-3000 Facsimile: (757) 623-5735 Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222) Frank C. Cimino, Jr. Kenneth W. Brothers Dawn Rudenko Albert Charles J. Monterio, Jr. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 420-2200 Facsimile: (202) 420-2201 Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 18th day of December, 2012, the foregoing PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S RULE 59 MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF PAST DAMAGES, was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system on the following: Stephen Edward Noona Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. 150 W Main St Suite 2100 Norfolk, VA 23510 senoona@kaufcan.com David Bilsker David Perlson Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com Robert L. Burns Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 robert.burns@finnegan.com Cortney S. Alexander Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111 cortney.alexander@finnegan.com /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood 3

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?