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

Filing 903

RESPONSE in Support re 900 MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Sherwood, Jeffrey)

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

PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE ITS NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Defendants oppose I/P Engine’s motion for leave, arguing that VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco
Systems, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-417, D.I. 732 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2013) is not relevant because I/P
Engine did not present evidence of a royalty base.
In this and the VirnetX case, the defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to present a
proper royalty base under the entire market value rule. (Op. at 23-24; D.I. 844 at 14-17.) In both
cases, the defendants failed to present a credible alternative royalty base. (Op. at 25.) Indeed,
Defendants did not present any alternative royalty base. (See D.I. 871 at 26, 28.) And like the
VirnetX case, Defendants’ attack on the sufficiency of I/P Engine’s royalty base is undermined
by their failure to identify a credible alternative. (Op. at 25; D.I. 871 at 26, 28.) The VirnetX
court identified this failure when it found that VirnetX did not invoke the entire market value
rule in its damages theory. (Op. at 25.)
Defendants do not identify any differences between the apportioned royalty base in
VirnetX, which was found to be sufficient, and the apportioned royalty base in this case. The

1

VirnetX decision is therefore relevant to whether I/P Engine’s apportioned royalty base is legally
sufficient. VirnetX further supports I/P Engine’s Opposition to Defendants’ JMOL on Damages
(D.I. 871 at 22-28), which shows that I/P Engine’s apportioned royalty base is legally sufficient.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 18, 2013

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:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Dawn Rudenko Albert
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1633 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 18, 2013, the foregoing, 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
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
[e-mail]
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
[e-mail]

/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood

3