Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 124

JOINT STATUS REPORT signed by all parties estimated Trial Days: 7-10.. (Nelson, Justin)

Interval Licensing LLC v. eBay, Inc. et al

Doc. 124

I
2
3

Hon. Marsha J. Pechman

4
5

6

8

LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTzuCT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

INTERVAL LICENSING LLC.
Case

No.

2: 1 0-cv-01 385-MJP

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

JOINT STATUS REPORT
AOL, INC.; APPLE, INC.; eBAY,INC.; FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE INC.; NETFLIX, INC.; OFFICE DEPOT, INC.; OFFICEMAX INC.; STAPLES, INC.; YAHOO! INC.; AND YOUTUBE,LLC,
Defendants.

T4
15

16

t7
18

r9
20

Pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure26(f), Local Rule CR 16, and this Court's

September 27,2010 Order (Doc. # 25), fhe parties hereto submit the following Report of Parties'

zl ^1
Planning Meeting:
22
ZJ

1.

Nature and Complexity of Case: Interval Licensing LLC ("Interval" or "Plaintiff')

24
25 26 27 28

has asserted four patents
6,757,682

-

United States Patent Nos. 6,263,507; 6,034,652; 6,788,314; and

-

against eleven defendants: Each defendant is alleged to have infringed at least one of

the patents, and Interval alleges that each patent is infringed by multiple defendants. Defendants

JOINT STATUS REPORT Case No. 2: I 0-cv-01385-MJP

1

Susman Godfrey, LLP l20l Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

Dockets.Justia.com

I
2
a J

have filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for improper joinder. The motions
are noted for November 12.2010.

Plaintiff s Contention: This case is a patent infringement action of moderate complexity
that involves four patents. Although the case involves eleven defendants, that by itself

4
5

6

does not increase the complexity of the case for any particular Defendant. Moreover,

Interval believes that many of the accused products operate in similar fashion
8

across

Defendants. In addition, it is premature for Defendants to speculate about the number

of

9 10
11

asserted claims given that the schedule under this Court's Standing Order for Patent Cases

requires Interval to serve its disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions

within 10 days of entry of the scheduling order. Se¿ Doc. # 26. Interval informed
Defendants at the Rule 26(Ð conference that

12

I3
14
15

it would

provide detailed infringement

contentions by claim and patent pursuant to this Court's Standing Order for Patent Cases,

Docket Number 26. Furtherrnore, Interval informed Defendants that it would be prepared

T6

to

serve these infringement contentions

by November 18, the earliest date the

t7
18
T9

infringement contentions would be due under this Court's Standing Order entered in this
case.

Defendants' Contention: This is not an average patent case, nor is

it of "moderate

20
21

complexity." Plaintiff has asserted that eleven separate defendants infringe up to four
patents each. There are cuffently 197 separate claims at issue. Adding to the complexity,
as set forth

22
¿3

in the pending motions to dismiss, Plaintiff has not yet identified how many

24
25

different products and/or services of each defendant

it is accusing

and what the basis for

the accusations are. While Defendants asked Plaintiff at the Rule 26(f) conference to
provide this information to help create the discovery plan and proposed schedule, Plaintiff

26

27

refused.
28

If

discovery proceeds in view of Plaintiffls complaint, the discovery burden on
Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle V/A 98101-3000

JOINT STATUS REPORT.2
Case No. 2: 1 0-cv-0 1 385-MJP

1

Defendants

will be significant

because Plaintiffls complaint places

no

reasonable

2 J
a

limitations on the scope of its infringement allegations. In addition, particularly

if

the

Court does not sever the action, Interval's inclusion of eleven unique defendants greatly
increases the complexity of the case for each Defendant because, in order to streamline the

4
5

6

case for the Court. as much as possible, Defendants

will be under the significant

added

burden of having to coordinate responses for 1 1 separate entities for matters such as claim
8 9

construction.

2. 3.

ADR Method: The parties believe that a party appointed mediator as described in

l0
11

Local Rule 39.1(bX3) should be the initial method of alternative dispute resolution.

ADR Scheduling: Plaintiff believes that non-binding mediation should take place

t2

within 30 days after the Marlcrnan hearing. Defendants believe that non-binding mediation
13

14
15

should take place within 30 days after this Court issues its claim construction order, at which point the Court's adopted claim construction should facilitate settlement discussions.

16

4. 5.

Deadline to Join Additional Parties: The parties propose March 4,2017.
Proposed Discovery Plan:

I7
18 19

(A)

FRCP 26(f) and Local Rule CR 16 Conference: a telephonic meeting was
held on October 25,2010, and was attended by:

20
21

22
¿J

PARTY Interval Interval
eBay, Staples, Off,rce Depot eBay, Staples, Office Depot

NAME Max Tribble

FIRM
Susman Godfrey, LLP Susman Godfrey, LLP Klarquist Sparkman,

Netflix, Netflix,

Justin Nelson Chris Carraway

24
25 26

Kristin Cleveland
David Almeling Brian Berliner
Warren Heit

Apple Apple
Google,

27
28
JOINT STATUS REPORT 3

YouTube

LLP Klarquist Sparkman, LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP O'Melveny & Myers LLP White & Case LLP
Susman Godfrey, LLP

Case No. 2: 10-cv-0 1385-MJP

l20l Third Avenue, Suite 3800
seanle

wA

98101-3000

I 2
J
a

4
5

Google, YouTube John Handy Google, YouTube, AOL Shannon Jost Facebook Mark Weinstein Facebook Christen Dubois Facebook Liz Stameshkin OfficeMax Kevin Baumgardner

OfficeMax

John S. Letchinger Cortney Alexander Elliot Cook Mark Walters

'White & Case LLP Stokes Lawrence, PS Cooley LLP Cooley LLP Cooley LLP Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece Wildman, Harrold,

6

AOL AOL
Yahoo!

Allen & Dixon LLP Finnegan LLP Finnegan LLP
Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP Morrison & Foerster

8

Yahoo!
9 10

Matthew Kreeger

LLP

.

,*,.11 t2
13

FRCP 26(a)(I) Initial Disclosures: As required by the Court's orders, the
parties served Initial Disclosures on November 1, 2010.

(B)

Plaintiffs Contention: Discovery will be required on issues related to
infringement, enforceability, validity, and damages. Interval believes that discovery should not be conducted in phases, and believes that delaying

t4

l5
t6 t7
r9
19

discovery concerning damages until after the Markman hearing would
discourage early settlement and simply lead to delay of the trial.

Defendants' Contention: Given the complexity

of the case

created by

20

Plaintiff, including eleven defendants, four patents, and almost 200 claims,
Defendants request that the Court phase discovery with the initial focus being on claim construction and liability discovery. Specifically, discovery

2I
22
¿J

solely related
24
25 26 27 28
JOINT STATUS REPORT - 4 Case No. 2: 10-cv-01385-MJP

to

damages issues should be postponed

until after the

Markman hearing. In order to facilitate settlement, Defendants would be

willing to provide summary sales information, but all other discovery
related solely to damages should be postponed to allow the parties to focus
Susman Godfrey, LLP Third Avenue. Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

l20l

I
2

on claim construction and liability discovery before the Markman heaing.

As for subjects of discovery, Defendants generally are likely to
discovery related

need

J

to claim construction, invalidity, inequitable conduct,

4

patent ownership, development of the alleged inventions, potential prior
5

6
7 8 9 10

art, Plaintiff s and inventors' knowledge of prior art, Plaintiff s awareness

of

Defendants' activities (laches/estoppel), pre-filing investigations,

licensing, and alleged notices of infringement. The actual scope of liability

discovery

is

somewhat uncertain because

the insufficiency of

the

Complaint discussed

in the pending motions to dismiss has prevented

ll
12

Defendants from knowing the scope of accused products and services.

(c)
13

The parties agree to meet and confer in good faith conceming any changes

14 15

to be made in the limitations on discovery imposed under the Federal and

Local Civil Rules within one week after Interval serves infringement
contentions or an amended complaint. Until then, the parties agree that the

I6
17 18 19

limitations on discovery imposed under the Federal and Local Civil Rules
apply, and also agree that they

will not initiate discovery until two weeks

after the earlier of service of the infrinsement contentions or an amended
20

complaint.
21

22
¿J ^a

(D)

The parties agree to meet and confer in good faith regarding any limitations on discovery pursuant to the timeframe discussed in 5.C, above.

24
25

(E)

The parties request that the Court enter a protective order, to be negotiated
between the parties before the beginning of discovery.

26 27

6.

Date by Which Remainder of Discovery Can Be Completed: The parties did not

reach agreement on the date by which the remainder of discovery can be completed. 28
JOINT STATUS REPORT 5

Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800

Case No. 2: I 0-cv-013 85-MJP

seanle

wA

98101-3000

I
2
J
A I

(A)

Plaintiff s Contention: Interval respectfully requests that the Court adhere

to the "Standing Order for Patent Cases," Docket Number 26. Interval
believes that

a

(i) fact discovery can be completed by October 17,2017,

assuming that the Court holds a claim construction hearing in or around
5

6

May 2011 ; (ii)

a

Markman hearing should be held the week of May 9,

20Il

(approximately six months from the estimated date of the issuance of the
8 9 10
11

scheduling order)

(iii) opening expert reports should be due 30 days after

the Court issues an order construing the claims; (iv) rebuttal expert reports
should be due 30 days after service of opening expert reports; and (v) close

ofexpert discovery 30 days after rebuttal expert repofts are served, but not
later than December 16, 2011. In addition, Interval respectfully suggests

t2
13

I4
15

that the Court clarify whether non-infringement contentions are due with the Defendants' invalidity contentions, pursuant to LR 121. Defendants'
proposed schedule incorporates needless delay into the discovery process.

t6

l7
18

For example, Defendants have criticized Interval for not

providing

information on asserted claims, and yet they propose that infringement
contentions not be due until two months from

t9
20

now. Interval is fully

2t
22 z5 24 25

prepared to meet the deadlines in the Court's Standing Patent Order, which

requires that infringement contentions be served within 10 days
issuance of the scheduling order. See Doc. #

of

the

26. In addition,

Defendants'

proposed schedule gives them three months to serve preliminary invalidity
and non-infringement contentions (which is significantly longer

thanthe2I

26 27

day difference in this Court's Standing Order). The Defendants' proposed

schedule also significantly protracts
28
JOINT STATUS REPORT - 6
Case No. 2: 10-cv-0 I 385-MJP

the claim construction
Susman Godfrey, LLP

process.

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800

Seanle

wA

98101-3000

I
2
a

Contrary to Defendants' suggestion, the Local Patent Rules are not limited

to

cases where a single patent

is asserted. Instead, "[t]hese rules apply to

J

all civil

actions filed

in or transferred to this Court which allege

4

infringement of a utility patent or which seek a declaratory judgment that a
5

6

utility patent is not infringed, is invalid or is unenforceable." (LPR 101).
Defendants' proposed schedule would eviscerate the purpose of the Local Patent Rules, which "are designed to streamline the pre-trial and claim construction process, and generally to reduce the cost of patent litigation."

l
8

9 10
11

Id.

Although this Court has discretion to modify the deadlines, Interval

respectfully submits that a case involving sophisticated parties, experienced

t2
counsel, and four patents does not warrant departure from the standard
13

t4
15

rules. For example, the

case

in this district Amazon.com, Inc. v. Discovery

Communications, Inc.,2:09-cv-681-RSL also involved four patents and yet the court entered a scheduling order with deadlines comparable to those in

t6
17

the Local Patent Rules. See Doc.

# 1 (Complaint identifying the four

l8
t9
20

patents); Doc. # 24 (scheduling order).

(B)

Defendants' Contention: This case is complex. Plaintiff

sued eleven separate defendants and has not identified the accused products
21

22
¿J
1A A L

or which of the nearly 200 claims it is asserting. As such, this case cannot be force-fit into the standard default schedule that Plaintiff proposes. For example, Defendants' burden in developing their invalidity contentions is

25

significantly greater than the ordinary case due to the number of asserted patents and the lack

26 27

of

information regarding Plaintiffs allegations.

Similarly, the file histories of the four asserted patents are particularly
28 JOINT STATUS REPORT - 7 Case No. 2: 1 0-cv-0 I 385-MJP
Susman Godfrey, LLP

l20l Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seanle

wA

98101-3000

I
2 J

lengthy and complex. And, discovery will almost certainly take more time
given that there are nineteen named inventors, almost all of them outside of

this District. Defendants also note that the Amazon.com, Inc. v. Discovery
Communications, Inc.,2:09-cv-681-RSL case cited by Plaintiff involved a

4
5

6

single defendant, a single accused product, and closely related patents - and thus cannot be viewed as comparable to this case. See Doc. #
1.

8 9 10
11

Defendants propose the following schedule, which is necessary to

allow the Defendants to conduct a sufficient investigation and
Defendants' proposed schedule sets deadlines

defense.

for the

Disclosure of

Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Disclosure of

t2

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, and Marlcrnan-related dates that
13

l4
15

provide the Court the opportunity to address Defendants' pending motions without prejudicing Defendants' ability to prepare their case.

t6
1n

tt

18

19

Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminarv Infrinsement Contentions Disclosure of Preliminarv Invaliditv Contentions

tzl10lt0 3/lI/11
(three months

20

2l
22
ô1 ¿J

24
25 26

27
28

Terms for Construction Preliminary Claim Chart Claim Construction-related Expert Report Deadline (if necessarv) Claim Construction Rebuttal Expert Report Deadline (if necessarv) Joint Claim Chart and Prehearins Statement Opening Briefs Response Briefs Markrnan Hearins Deadline for early Mediation
JOINT STATUS REPORT. 8 TCase No. 2: I 0-cv-01385-MJ P MJ

after Plaintiff s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions) 5/25/11 7l14/11

7/21/tl

8/4trr
811st11
9/7

/tt

10l5ltt Week of 10/24/11
30 days after Markman

Susman Godfrey, LLP l20l Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle

WA

98101-3000

I
2
a

Order Close of Fact Discoverv Opening Expert Reports (Burden of Proofl Rebuttal Expert Reports Completion of Discovery Deadline for Filine Dispositive Motions Case Ready for Trial

tzlt9/tl
U20n2
2/24t12

J
I

4/27/t2

6lUt2
8t30t12

5

6

7. 8.

'ate Magistrate Judge: Interval consents that a full-time Magistrate Judge may conduct

all proceedings. At leastt rone Defendant does not consent. m
8 9 10
11

Bifurcatior : tion

(A): Plaintiffs Contentionn: Interval opposes bifurcation and phasing, and believes that Contentio
any bifurcation and phasing wouk needlessly increase the cost and length rasing would

of discovery and the

trial
12
13

(B) Defendants'' Contention As set forth above, Defendants propose that discovery ls Contention:
phased, with discovery related so :ry solely

be

l4
15

to damages being

postponed until after the Markman

hearing. Defendants also believe ithat liability and damages should be bifurcated for discovery also
and

t6
17 18

trial. Given the complexity of the case as discussed :omplexity
c

above, Defendants

will

have the burden

to invalidate a large number of claims in multiple number
unknown number

patents, and defend against a presently

of :

prc accused products. Therefore, bifurcation

will make the case more

19

20

preserving party resources and the resources of this Court absent a manageable and efficient by presen ient

2t
22
¿J
'\ /l
-a

finding of liability.

9.

Pre-Triall Statements and Orders: The parties were not able to agree on ways to ia Statements

shorten or simplify the Pre-Trial Sta e Statements or Pre-Trial Order at this time. The parties agree that

Pre-Trial Statements and Orders ca and called for by Local Rules CR l6(e), (h), (i), and (l), and
should not be dispensed with in who or in part. ed whole

16.1

25

26 27
28
JOINT STATUS REPORT -9 TCase No. 2: I 0-cv-0 I 385-MJ P MJ

Susman Godfrey, LLP l20l Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

I
2
a J T
A

10.

Suggestions for Shorlening or Simplifying the Case: The parties agreed to discuss

at a future date limitations on assefted claims and on the number of prior art references in the
interest of efficiency.

Plaintiffs Contention: Interval believes that
5

it is premature to limit the number of

6
7
8

asserted claims before infringement contentions and invalidity contentions are served, and also

believes that any narrowing of claims is without prejudice.

Defendants' Contention: Defendants believe that the most reasonable way to simpliSr this
case is for Plaintiff to

9 10
11

limit the number of asserted claims for litigation to a manageable number

before the claim construction process begins. Thus, Defendants believe that Plaintiff should be required to select, at least 4 months before the Markman hearing, no more fhan 20 claims to

I2 l3 t4
15 T6

litigate going forward. Plaintiff should be prohibited from changing the selection without leave of Court upon a showing of good cause. Defendants also believe that with bifurcation of liability

and damages, the case can be simplified by reasonably limiting the types
discoverable in the liability phase.
1

of

information

17
18

1.

Trial Date: The parties were not able to agree on the date by which the case will be

ready for trial.

t9
20

Plaintiffs Contention: Interval believes that the case will be ready for trial by no later
than February 13,2012.

21

22
¿J

Defendants' Contention: As set forth in paragraph 6(8) above, Defendants believe that, given the complexity of the case, including the number of defendants and patents, this is not the typical patent case and will require more time to litigate to trial. Defendants propose that the case

24
25

will be ready for trial by August 30,2012.

26 27
28

12. 13.

Jury Trial: Plaintiff has requested

a

jury trial on all non-equitable

issues.

Trial Days: The parties were not able to agree on the number of trial days.
IO

JOINT STATUS REPORT -

Susman Godfrey, LLP

Case No. 2: I 0-cv-0 I 385-MJP

l20l Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

I
2 J
a

(A) Plaintiffs Contention: Interval believes that between l0-15 trial days are needed to
complete the trial.

(B) Defendants' Contention: Defendants believe that

if

separate trials were undertaken

4

for each defendant, each trial might require 7-10 trial days, although this number could be higher
5

6

depending on the number of accused products.
combined trial could require 20-30 trial days.

If all defendants

are included in one trial, the

8

14.

The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all trial counsel:

9

PARTY
10
11

COUNSEL
Justin A. Nelson Edgar Sargent Matthew R. Beny SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1201 Third Ave., Ste. 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: [phone]

INTERVAL LICENSING

12
11

IJ

14
15

16

Max L. Tribble, Jr. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana Street, Ste. 5100
Houston, TX 77002 Phone: [phone]

t7
18

t9
20

2l
22
ZJ ^a

Michael F. Heim Leslie V. Payne Nathan J. Davis Eric Enger HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH 600 Travis, Suite 6710 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: [phone]

24
25

AOL INC.

Shannon M. Jost Scott A. W. Johnson

26
27 28
JOINT STATUS REPORT - 1I
Case No. 2: I 0-cv-01 385-MJP

Aneelah Afzali STOKES LAV/RENCE, P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98104-3179 Phone: [phone]
Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seanle wA 98101-3000

I
2
J
a

4
5

Gerald F. Ivey - [phone] FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 -4413 Robert L. Burns - [phone] Elliot C. Cook - [phone] FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,

6

8 9 10
11

GARRETT & DIINNER, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, Virginia 20190-567 5
Cortney S. Alexander - [phone] FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3263

t2 i3 I4
15

t6
T7 18 19

EBAY, INC., NETFLIX, INC., OFFICE DEPOT, INC., STAPLES, INC.

Chris Canaway John Vandenberg KLARQUIST SPARKMAN One World Trade Center 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204 Phone: [phone]
'Wion Christopher Arthur Harrigan, Jr.

20

DANIELSON HARRIGAN LEYH & TOLLEFSON LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400
98104 Phone: [phone] Seattle,

2l
22
ZJ

WA

APPLE, INC.

Scott Wilsdon Jeremy Roller

24
25

YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO PLLC
818 Stewart Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 5i6-3800 George Riley - (4i5) 984-8741 David Almeling - [phone] O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
JOINT STATUS REPORT - I2
Case No. 2: I 0-cv-0 I 385-MJP

26
27
28

Susman Godfrey, LLP

l20l Third Avenue. Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

1

2
3

Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, Ca 94lll-3823 Brian Berliner - [phone]

4
5

Neil Yang - [phone] O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071

6

GOOGLE INC.

YOUTUBE,LLC
8

9

l0
11

Shannon M. Jost Scott A. W. Johnson Aneelah Afzali STOKES LAWRENCE, P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 Seattle, V/A 98 1 04 -3 17 9 Phone: [phone]

12

l3 t4
15 16

Kevin X. McGann - [phone] Dimitrios T. Drivas - [phone] John Handy - [phone] Aaron Chase - [phone] WHITE & CASE LLP 1155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY i0036-2787
Warren S. Heit - [phone] Wendi Schepler - [phone] WHITE & CASE LLP 3000 El Camino Real Building 5,9th Floor Palo Alto, CA94306

t7

l8
19

20

OFFICEMAX

2l
22

Kevin Baumgardner Steven W. Fogg CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER &
PREECE 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900 Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: [phone] John S. Letchinger - [phone] Douglas S. Rupert - [phone]

¿)
24 25 26 27 28
JOINT STATUS REPORT - I3
Case No. 2: I 0-cv-01 385-MJP

WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP 225 West Wacker Drive. Suite 2800
Chicago,

IL

60606

Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue. Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

I
2
3

4
5

Jeffrey D. Neumeyer OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED I I I 1 West Jefferson Street, Suite 510 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: [phone]

YAHOO!

INC.

6

Mark p. Walters - [phone] Dario A. Machleidr - [phone] FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG LLP I l9l Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle,

I
9 10

WA

98101

ll
I2
13

Francis Ho Richard S.J. Huns Michael Jacobs Matthew Kreeger Eric W. Ow MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone: [phone]

I4
t5
16

FACEBOOK,INC. ChristopherB.Durbin
COOLEY LLP Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104-1732 Phone: [phone]

7i9

t7
18

t9
20

Michael G. Rhodes COOLEY LLP l0l California St., 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Phone: [phone]

2t
22

¿)
24
25

Heidi L. Keefe Mark R. Weinstein Christen M.R. Dubois Elizab eth L. Stam eshkin COOLEY LLP
3175 Hanover St. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Phone: [phone]

26
27 28
JOINT STATUS REPORT Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue. Suite 3800

14

Case No. 2: l0-cv-01 385-MJP

Seanle

wA

98101-3000

1

15. 16.

Service: Defendants have been duly served with the complaint, and proofs of

service have been filed.
a

SchedulingConference:

+ ^

Plaintiffls Contention: Defendants have changed their minds twice on whether they
5

6

would request a scheduling conference, including most recently two business days before this
report was due. Plaintiff does not believe a scheduling conference is necessary, but has tried to

8 9 10

work with Defendants on a date. At the Rule 26(f) conference

-

when all of the issues in this

repoft were discussed -Defendants stated that they would request a scheduling conference.

Plaintiff asked Defendants if they would join in a call to the Court to determine if there was
availability the week of November 8. Defendants then changed their mind, and told Plaintiff that

1t
12

it was not requesting a scheduling conference. On Thursday, November 4, however, Defendants
13

14

changed their mind once again, and indicated that they would request a scheduling conference.

l5
16

Plaintiff informed Defendants that due to an impending fact discovery cutoff of December l0 in
another case with international depositions, late November and early December were especially

t7
18

bad. Plaintiff is available at any point before Thanksgiving, although November 17 and 18 are
not preferable. Plaintiff has no objection to the Defendants' preferred date of November 23,but
does not believe

t9
20

it is necessary to wait until the motions to dismiss and sever are fully briefed.

If

2l
22 z3
.A LA

the Court is not available on November 23. Plaintiff believes that the schedulins conference
should be held sooner rather than later.

Defendants' Contention: Given the significant disputes identified above, Defendants
believe that a scheduling conference may be helpful. While Defendants earlier thought that a scheduling conference might not be necessary, the need for one became evident after receiving

25

26 27

Plaintiffs draft Joint Status Report, which showed more significant disputes on scheduling and
other issues than previously thought. Plaintiff s counsel has indicated that they will be traveling

28

JOINT STATUS REPORT - I5
Case No. 2: I 0-cv-0 I 385-MJP

Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800

Seattle

WA

98101-3000

1

for some of November and the first half of December due to an impending fact discovery cutoff in another case, and are available for a scheduling conference on November 8-12, 15,16, 19,22,
and

2
J

23.

Defendants are available on November 23, December 2-3, 14 and

16. Defendants

4 request that the conference occur after the pending motions to dismiss and sever are fully briefed
5

6

Q',lovember

I2), as those motions will likely significantly impact the issues in the scheduling

order. Thus, Defendants request that the Court hold a scheduling conference on November 23, if
8 9 10
11

possible.

17. 18.

Tutorial: The parties agree to consider whether a tutorial may be helpful, and the

format of any such tutorial.

Neutral Experl: At this point, the parties do not believe that a neutral expert is

T2

necessary in this case.

IJ

t4
15

Dated: November 8, 2010

16 17

t8
19

20

/s/Justin A. Nelson Justin A. Nelson WA Bar No. 31864 E-Mail : [e-mail] Matthew R. Berry WA Bar No. 37364 E-Mail: [e-mail] SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave, Suite 3800 Seattle. WA 98i01 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (206) 51 6-3 883

2I
22
¿a ^J

Max L. Tribble, Jr.

E-Mail: [e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (7 13) 654-6666

24 25

26
27 28
JOINT STATUS REPORT -

Michael F. Heim E-mail: [e-mail] Eric J. Enger
16

Case No. 2: 1 0-cv-01 385-MJP

Susman Godfrey, LLP I20l Third Avenue. Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

I
2
J
a

E-mail: [e-mail]
Nathan J. Davis E-mail: [e-mail] HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P. 600 Travis, Suite 6710 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone : [phone] Facsimile: (7 13) 221 -2021

+ ^
5

6

Attorneys for INTERVAL LICENSING LLC
/s/ Shannon M. Jost (with oermission) Shannon M. Jost (WSBA #32511) Scott A.W. Johnson (WSBA #15543)

l
8

9 10

Aneelah Ãfzali (WSBA #34552) Srorss LewReNcp, P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000
Seattle,

1l

WA

98104

t2
13

Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Admitted Pro Hac Vice Gerald F. Ivey Ft¡lNgcRN, HENDERSON, FARABow, cARRETT &
DLINNER, LLP

I4
15 16

901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 -4413 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

t7
18 19

Robert L. Burns Elliot C. Cook FtxuecAN, HENDERSoN, FARABOw, GARRETT &
DLTNNER, LLP

20
21

901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 -4413 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

22
-1 LJ

Cortney S. Alexander FIwNEGAN, HENDERSoN, FARABOW, GARRETT &
DLINNER, LLP

24 25 26

3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30308-3263 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attorneys

for AOL INC.

27
28
JOINT STATUS REPORT Case No. 2: I 0-cv-0 1385-MJP
17

Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800

Seattle

WA

98101-3000

/s/ Heidi L. Ke-ffe (with permission\ Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice) COOLEY LLP Christopher B. Durbin (WSBA #41159) 719 Second Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email : [e-mail] Admitted Pro Hac Vice Michael G. Rhodes 101 Califomia St., 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 941 I 1-5800 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Heidi L. Keefe Mark R. Weinstein Christen M.R. Dubois Elizabeth L. Stame shkin
3175 Hanover St. Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attorneys

for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

/s/ Shannon M. Jost (with permission) Shannon M. Jost (WSBA #32511) Scott A.W. Johnson (WSBA #15543)

Aneelah Afzali (WSBA #34552) Srorces LawReNce, P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Kevin X. McGann - [phone] Dimitrios T. Drivas - [phone] John Handy - [phone] Aaron Chase - [phone] WHITE & CASE LLP I 155 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-2787 Warren S. Heit - [phone] Wendi Schepler - [phone] WHITE & CASE LLP
JOINT STATUS REPORT - I8
Case No. 2: I 0-cv-0 I 385-MJP

Susman Godfrey, LLP l20l Third Avenue. Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000

1

2
a J

3000 El Camino Real Building 5, 9th Floor Palo Alto, CA94306
Attorneys for Defendants GOOGLE INC. AND YOUTUBE, LLC

4
5

6

/s/ Mark P. Walters (with nermÌssion) Mark P. Walters (WSBA #30819) Dario A. Machleidt (V/SBA #41860)

8

FROMMER LAV/RENCE & HAUG LLP
1191 Second Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, V/A 98101 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

9 10
11

[e-mail] [e-mail]
and

t2
13

l4 l5
16 17

l8
t9
20

Admitted Pro Hac Vice Michael A. Jacobs Matthew I. Kreeger Richard S.J. Hung Francis Ho Eric W. Ow MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, Califomia 9 4105 -2482 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Attorneys

for Defendant YAHOO! INC.

O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
By: /s/ Brian M. Berliner (with permission) Brian M. Berliner, CA Bar No. 156732 (pro hac vice) Neil L. Yang, CA Bar No.262719 @ro hac vice) 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90011 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 213.430.6407 Email : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
George A. Riley, CA Bar No. I18304 @ro hac vice) David S. Almeling, CA Bar No. 235449 (pro hac vice Two Embarcadero Center,2Sth Floor San Francisco.
JOINT STATUS REPORT - I9
Case No. 2: 1 0-cv-01385-MJP

2t
22
¿J
1A A L

25

26

27
28

CA

94111-3823
Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800

Seattle

WA 98101-3000

1

t

Telephone: [phone]

1

Facsimile: 415.984.8701 Email : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO PLLC

J

a

4
5

6

By: /s/ Jerem)t E. Roller (with permission): Scott T. Wilsdon, WSBA No. 20608 Jeremy E. Roller, WSBA No. 32021 818 Stewart Street, Suite 1400
Seattle,

8

Facsimile:
Email

Telephone: [phone]

V/A
I

98101

: wi

9

206.516.3888 sdon@yarmuth. com ; jr oller @yarmuth.

Attorneys
10

for Defendant Apple Inc.

1l

l2
13

t4
15

I6

By: /s/ J. Christopher Carcawav (with permission) J. Christopher Carraway, WSBA NO. 37944 John D. Vandenberg, WSBA NO. 38445 121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600 Poftland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] E-mail : [e-mail] j ohn.vandenbere@kl arquist. com

I7
18 19

Attorneysfor Defendants eBay Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., and Staples, Inc.
CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE LLP

20

2t
22
¿3

24
25

26 27 28
JOINT STATUS REPORT - 20
Case No. 2: I 0-cv-01 385-MJP

/s/ Kevin C. Baumgardner (with permissionl Kevin C. Baumgardner, V/SBA No. 14263 Steven V/. Fogg, WSBA No. 23528 Jeffrey D. Neumeyer, WSBA No. 35183 OfficeMax Incorporated 1 I 1 1 West Jefferson Street, Suite 510 Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email : j effneumeyer@offi cemax.com
John S. Letchinger (pro hac vice) Douglas S. Rupert (pro hac vice)
Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800

Seattle

WA 98101-3000

2

Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email : [e-mail] Attorneys for
D

efendant

O

ffi ceMax Incorp orated

l0
11

12

l3
T4

l5
16

t7
18

l9

21

22

¿)
24
25

26 27
JOINT STATUS REPORT - 2I
Case No. 2: I 0-cv-01 385-MJP

Susman Godfrey, LLP

l20l Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle

wA

98101-3000

I
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.3
+
5

I hereby certify that on November 8,2010,I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following counsel of record:
Attorneys for AOL Inc. Aneelah Afzali
Scott Johnson Shannon Jost Gerald F. Ivey Robert L. Burns Cortney S. Alexander Elliot C. Cook
ane elah. afzal i @ stoke s I aw. c o m scott j ohnson@stokeslaw. com shannon j ost@ stokeslaw. com gerald. ivey@finne gan. com robert. burns@finne gan. com

6

8

cortney. alexander@finnegan. com el I i ot. cook@finne gan. com

9 10

t1

t2
13

Attornevs for Apple. Inc. David Almeling Brian Berliner George Riley Jeremy Roller Scott Wilsdon Neil Yang

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

14 15 16

Attorneys for eBay. Inc., Netflix, Inc.. and Staples,Inc. Chris Carraway chri s. c arraw ay @klar
John Vandenberg
j ohn.

m vandenberg@klarquist. com
qui st.
co

Attornevs for Facebook. Inc.

I7
18 19

20
21

Christen Dubois Heidi Keefe Michael Rhodes Elizabeth Stameshkin Mark V/einstein Chris Durbin

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] lstameshkin@cooley. com mweinstein@cooley. com [e-mail]

22
ZJ

Attorneys for Google,Inc. and YouTube. LLC Aneelah Afzali aneel ah. afzal i @ sto ke s I aw. co m Aaron Chase [e-mail] Dimitrios Drivas ddrivas@whitecase. com
John Handy Warren Heit

24
25

Kevin McGann Scott Johnson
Shannon Jost

26
27 28

[e-mail] [e-mail] kmc gann@wh i tec ase. c o m scott j ohnson@stokeslaw. com shannon j o st@stokeslaw. com

JOINT STATUS REPORT - 22
Case No. 2: I 0-cv-0 I 385-MJP

Susman Godfrey, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seanle wA 98101-3000

Attorneys for Office Depot.Inc. Chris Carraway
Johh Vandenberg

chri

s. c

arraw ay @klaryui

st.

com

j ohn.vandenberg@klarqui st. com

Attorneys for OffTceMax, Inc. Kevin Baumgardner
5

6

Steven Fogg John Letchinger Douglas Rupert

kbaumgardner@corrcronin. com [e-mail] letchinger@wildman. com [e-mail]

8 9 10

t1
12

Attornevs for Yahoo! Inc. Francis Ho Richard S.J. Hung Michael Jacobs Matthew Kreeger Dario Machleidt Eric Ow Mark Walters

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

l3
t4

By:

/s/ Justin A. Nelson Justin A. Nelson

l5
t6
17 18

t9
20

2I
22
aa ZJ

1/l LA

25

26 27 28
JOINT STATUS REPORT - 23
Case No. 2: 1 0-cv-01 385-MJP

Susman Godfrey, LLP l20l Third Avenue. Suite 3800 Seattle WA 98101-3000