I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
880
Memorandum in Support re 879 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages as to Docket Items 871, 872 and 876 filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Snow, W. Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ALLOW FILING OF
DOCKET ITEMS 871, 872 AND 876 WITH EXCESS PAGES
Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”), by counsel, for its Memorandum in Support of
its Unopposed Motion to Allow Filing of Docket Items 871, 872 and 876 with Excess Pages,
states as follows:
Background and Argument
On January 25, 2013, I/P Engine timely filed the following docket items in this action:
D.I. 871
Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law on Damages or a New Trial (30 pages of body text;
34 pages with Table of Contents, signature block and certificate of
service)
D.I. 872
Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law on Invalidity or a New Trial (30 pages of body text;
33 pages with Table of Contents, signature block and certificate of
service)
D.I. 876
Opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law on Non-Infringement or a New Trial (30 pages of
body text; 35 pages with Table of Contents, signature block and
certificate of service)
I/P Engine intended the Opposition Briefs that it filed on January 25, 2013 to comport
with Local Rule 7(F)(3). The body text of each brief is no more than 30 pages as specified in
Local Rule 7(F)(3). On January 28, 2013, however, the Clerk of this Court issued a Notice of
Correction as to each of the Opposition Briefs with a notation that the document contains excess
pages. I/P Engine has been informed that the Clerk is including the Table of Contents and the
caption page in the page count for purposes of the 30-page limit in Local Rule 7(F)(3). When
the Table of Contents and caption pages are included in the page count, each of the briefs
exceeds 30 pages. I/P Engine added a Table of Contents to each brief to assist the Court.
The defendants in this action do not oppose I/P Engine’s motion.
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, I/P Engine respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order allowing
Docket Items 871, 872 and 876 to exceed the page limit specified in Local Rule 7(F)(3) as filed
on January 25, 2013.
Dated: January 28, 2013
I/P ENGINE, INC.
By:
Donald C. Schultz, VSB No. 30531
W. Ryan Snow, VSB No. 47423
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 1500
Norfolk, Virginia 23510
Telephone: (757) 623-3000
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
dschultz@cwm-law.com
wrsnow@cwm-law.com
Jeffrey K. Sherwood, VSB No. 19222
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
2
/s/ W. Ryan Snow
Of Counsel
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 I/P Engine, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 28th day of January 2013 I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to 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/ W. Ryan Snow
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?