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

Filing 897

Declaration re 896 Response in Support of Motion for a New Trial on the Dollar Amount of Past Damages by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION __________________________________________ ) I/P ENGINE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) AOL, INC. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512 DECLARATION OF KENNETH W. BROTHERS IN SUPPORT OF I/P ENGINE INC.’S REPLY REGARDING ITS MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF PAST DAMAGES I, Kenneth W. Brothers, declare as follows: 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street N.W., Washington, DC 20006 and am counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) in the abovecaptioned litigation. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of PDX-083, which was shown at trial. 3. Counsel for both I/P Engine and the Defendants exchanged demonstrative exhibits prior to closing arguments. Exhibit B, attached hereto, is a true and correct copy of one of the demonstratives provided by Defendants’ counsel. Defendants counsel indicated his intent to use Exhibit B at closing during the un-transcribed instruction conference. 4. shown at trial. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of PDX-077, which was 5. Defendants submitted a declaration from Mr. Nelson, which they rely on in their opposition brief, in which Mr. Nelson states, “As soon as Defendants’ counsel located [Odetics], we immediately presented it (by hand) to both the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel.” (D.I. 865, ¶ 4.) This statement is false. I am now aware that, during the recess following I/P Engine’s initial closing statement, Defendants’ counsel (Mr. Noona and Mr. Bilsker) provided a copy of the Odetics case to the Court. Neither Mr. Noona, Mr Bilsker, nor any other counsel for Defendants, disclosed that fact to me or any other attorney for I/P Engine. During that recess, the Court considered the case, and decided to change its laches ruling. After the Court announced its decision, I noted that I had not received a copy of the case (Trial Tr. at 2018:3-6) nor was I aware that Defendants had provided it to the Court. The Court inquired about why I was not provided a copy, and Mr. Nelson responded, “I didn’t have a copy of the case. I had a citation.” (Trial Tr. at 2018:7-10.) At that point Mr. Nelson’s co-counsel, Mr. Bilsker, stood up and handed me a copy of the Odetics case. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: February 15, 2013 By: ___/s/ Kenneth W. Brothers______ Kenneth W. Brothers 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 15th day of February, 2013, the foregoing DECLARATION OF KENNETH W. BROTHERS IN SUPPORT OF I/P ENGINE INC.’S REPLY REGARDING ITS 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?