Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al

Filing 266

Motion for Extension of Time to Respond and Reply to Summary Judgment Papers by Defendants Motorola Mobility, Inc., Motorola, Inc.. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. Response due 11/23/2011. (Stathas, Lynn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
APPLE INC. and NeXT SOFTWARE,
INC. (f/k/a NeXT COMPUTER, INC.),
Plaintiffs,

v.
MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA
MOBILITY, INC.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-CV-662-BBC

MOTOROLA'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND AND REPLY TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT PAPERS
Defendants Motorola Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Motorola, Inc.) and Motorola Mobility,
Inc. (collectively "Motorola"), by their undersigned attorneys, respectfully request that this
Court modify the upcoming deadlines for responding and replying to the summary judgment
motion papers filed on November 4, 2011. Currently, the deadline for responding to briefs
and proposed findings of fact is November 28, 2011, and the deadline for replying to briefs
and proposed findings of fact is December 8, 2011. Motorola respectfully requests that the
deadline for responses be moved to December 2, 2011, and the deadline for replies be
moved to December 20, 2011. Plaintiffs Apple, Inc. and Next Software, Inc. (collectively
"Apple") oppose this motion.
Motorola seeks an extension in the briefing schedule for the summary judgment
motions for the following reasons:
1.

On November 4, 2011, the parties served their cross motions for summary

judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 208-48.) Apple's supporting summary judgment memorandum

exceeds 200 pages and includes more than 100 supporting exhibits. (Id.) Motorola's
supporting memorandum exceeds 160 pages and also includes a similar number of exhibits.
(Id.) As this Court is aware, Apple is asserting thirteen patents and Motorola is asserting
five patents, concerning complex and distinct subject matter. Given the complexity of the
subject matter and the breadth of the arguments presented, Motorola believes additional time
would assist the parties in preparing proper responsive and reply briefs to best assist the
Court in resolving these motions.
2.

The summary judgment motions provide the best opportunity to pare the case,

to the extent appropriate, before trial. Given the number of patents at issue and the
voluminous summary judgment filings, the parties and the Court should have ample time to
dedicate to these filings.
3.

Additional time is also necessary to allow for depositions of two third-party

witnesses who provided declarations in support of Apple’s motion for summary judgment
(and whose declarations were not provided before Apple’s motion) and to incorporate
testimony from those depositions into Motorola's response and reply briefs.1
4.

Motorola is sensitive to the fact that extending these dates will reduce the

time the Court will have to analyze the summary judgment motions before trial. Motorola
would be amenable to an extension of the trial date as necessary to provide sufficient time to
resolve these motions and thereby pare down the case for the jury. As Apple itself has

1

Motorola is currently scheduled to depose George Kondylis of Broadcom Corp. and Ken
Ho of Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. on November 17 and 22, respectively. Messrs.
Kondylis's and Ho's testimony is relevant to Motorola's response to Apple's arguments
regarding Motorola patent nos. 5,311,516, 5,219, 712, and 5,572,193.

recently moved to stay this case (Dkt. Nos. 154-156 ), Apple could suffer no cognizable
prejudice to such an extension.
Accordingly, Motorola respectfully requests that this Court grant the extension to the
summary judgment briefing schedule set forth above, and, to the extent necessary, hold a
scheduling conference to discuss extending the trial date in this case.

Dated: November 16, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
By:

s/ Lynn M. Stathas
Lynn M. Stathas

Edward J. DeFranco
Alexander Rudis
Richard W. Erwine
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
David A. Nelson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
500 West Madison St., Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Email: [e-mail]
Robert W. Stone
Brian Cannon
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Charles K. Verhoeven
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Email: [e-mail]

Scott W. Hansen
Lynn M. Stathas
Lisa Nester Kass
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.
22 East Mifflin Street
P.O. Box 2018
Madison, WI 53701-2018
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Motorola
Solutions, Inc. and Motorola Mobility,
Inc.