Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc.

Filing 14

Declaration of Mark Selwyn filed by Defendant Apple Inc. re: 12 Motionto Transfer to District of Delaware filed by Apple Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - 2007-06-25 Nokia Reply Memo in Support of Motion to Transfer 07-c-187, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Nokia Fights Back Guardian 2009, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 - 2009-10-22 Complaint 09-cv-791 and Exhibits A, B, F, G and H, # 4 Exhibit 4 - 2010-02-19 Apple's 1st Amended Answer Defenses Counterclaims 09-cv-791, # 5 Exhibit 5 - 2009-12-29 Complaint & attached exhibits 09-cv-1002, # 6 Exhibit 6 - 2009-12-29 Apple ITC Complaint 337-TA-701, # 7 Exhibit 7 - 2010-02-24 Apple's Answer Defenses Counterclaims 09-cv-1002, # 8 Exhibit 8 - 2010-01-15 Complaint of Apple 337-TA-704, # 9 Exhibit 9 - 2010-05-03 Scheduling Order - entire docket 09-cv-791, # 10 Exhibit 10 - 2010-05-24 Motion to Consolidate 09-cv-791, # 11 Exhibit 11- 2010-05-24 Motin for Consolidation 09-cv-1002, # 12 Exhibit 12 - 2010-05-24 Motion to Consolidate 10-cv-166, # 13 Exhibit 13 - 2010-05-24 Motion to Consolidate 10-cv-167, # 14 Exhibit 14 - 2007-05-24 Nokia Memo in Support of Motion to Transfer 07-cv-0187) (Peterson, James)

Download PDF
Nokia Corporation v. Apple Inc. Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN NOKIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 10-CV-249 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DECLARATION OF MARK SELWYN IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) I, Mark Selwyn, declare as follows: 1. I am a member of the Bar of State of California, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the State of New York, and will apply to practice pro hac vice before this Court. I am a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, counsel for Defendant Apple Inc. ("Apple") in this matter. I am also one of the attorneys representing Apple in its litigation against Nokia in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 2. Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Nokia's Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer in Qualcomm Inc. v. Nokia Corp. et al., No. 3:07-CV-0187 (W.D. Wis.), filed June 25, 2007. 3. Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of Abhinav Ramnarayan, "Nokia Fights Back for Share Of Smartphone Market," published in The Guardian (London) on September 2, 2009. -1US1DOCS 7585352v1 Dockets.Justia.com 4. Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Nokia's Complaint in Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 09-CV-791 (D. Del.), filed October 22, 2009. 5. Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Apple's First Amended Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 09-CV-791 (D. Del.), filed February 19, 2010. 6. Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Nokia's Complaint in Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 09-CV-1002 (D. Del.), filed December 29, 2009. 7. Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Nokia's Complaint in International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-701, In re Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof, filed December 29, 2009. 8. Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of Apple's Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims in Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 09-CV-1002 (D. Del.), filed February 24, 2010. 9. Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Apple's Complaint in International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-704, In re Certain Mobile Communications and Computer Devices and Components Thereof, filed January 15, 2010. 10. Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the docket entries for Nokia Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 09-CV-791, (D. Del.), which contains a Scheduling Order entered by the Court on May 3, 2010. 11. Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Apple Inc. and Next Software, Inc's Motion for Consolidation in Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 09-CV-791 (D. Del.), filed May 24, 2010. -2US1DOCS 7585352v1

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?