I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
955
Memorandum in Support re 954 MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Evidence filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Noona, Stephen)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
I/P ENGINE, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
AOL, INC., et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
Good cause supports Defendants’ motion pursuant to Local Rule 7(f)(1) for an order
granting leave to file “Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Evidence.” The Notice identifies
new evidence that was not available when Defendants filed their opposition to I/P Engine’s
motion for post-judgment royalties on May 13, 2013. As described in the Notice of
Supplemental Evidence, that evidence is a May 30, 2013 SEC filing by I/P Engine’s parent
corporation, Vringo, describing a recent license agreement entered into for the patents-in-suit,
settling a case I/P Engine filed on January 31, 2013, in the Southern District of New York,
asserting infringement of the same patents at issue in this case against Microsoft. This license
agreement is relevant to I/P Engine’s pending motion for post-judgment royalties. See
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340,
1357-59 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (patentee’s licensing practices are relevant to determining form of
agreement that would result from hypothetical negotiation). Because this evidence is relevant
and was not available when Defendants filed their opposition to I/P Engine’s motion for postjudgment royalties, there is good cause for this Motion for Leave.
DATED: June 4, 2013
01980.51928/5345594.1
/s/ Stephen E. Noona
Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
1
150 West Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624-3000
Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
Counsel for Google Inc., Target Corporation,
IAC Search & Media, Inc., and Gannett Co., Inc.
/s/ Stephen E. Noona
Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624-3000
Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone: (571) 203-2700
Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
Cortney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT &
DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
Telephone: (404) 653-6400
01980.51928/5345594.1
2
Facsimile: (415) 653-6444
Counsel for Defendant AOL Inc.
01980.51928/5345594.1
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 4, 2013, I will electronically file the foregoing with the Clerk
of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the
following:
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Kenneth W. Brothers
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
sherwoodj@dicksteinshapiro.com
brothersk@dicksteinshapiro.com
Donald C. Schultz
W. Ryan Snow
Steven Stancliff
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN, P.L.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 1500
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 623-3000
Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
dschultz@cwm-law.cm
wrsnow@cwm-law.com
sstancliff@cwm-law.com
Counsel for Plaintiff, I/P Engine, Inc.
/s/ Stephen E. Noona
Stephen E. Noona
Virginia State Bar No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 624-3000
Facsimile: (757) 624-3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
01980.51928/5345594.1
4
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?