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)

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 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: (757) 623-3000 Facsimile: (757) 623-5735 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: (202) 420-2200 Facsimile: (202) 420-2201 Dawn Rudenko Albert DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1633 Broadway New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212) 277-6500 Facsimile: (212) 277-6501 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 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?