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

Filing 99

Joint Motion for Regarding the Need for Technical Tutorial by Plaintiff Apple, Inc.. Response due 6/30/2011. (Haskett, Christine)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN APPLE INC., and NEXT SOFTWARE, INC. (f/k/a NeXT COMPUTER, INC.), Plaintiffs and CounterclaimDefendants, Case No. 10-CV-662 (BBC) v. MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. Defendants and CounterclaimPlaintiffs JOINT MOTION REGARDING THE NEED FOR TECHNICAL TUTORIAL Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. (collectively, “Apple”) and Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Motorola Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a Motorola, Inc.) and Motorola Mobility, Inc. (collectively, “Motorola”) submit this joint motion regarding the Court's interest in a technical tutorial in connection with the claim construction proceedings that are ongoing in this matter. The parties’ respective positions on this issue are set forth below. Despite the differences in their positions, the parties make this joint motion so that the Court can provide guidance without further submissions from the parties. If the Court would like to do so, the parties propose a short teleconference at a time suitable to the Court to discuss this issue. I. Apple’s Position On June 17, 2011, the parties submitted opening claim construction briefs regarding fifteen claim terms from the patents in suit. These fifteen terms are from thirteen different Apple and Motorola patents, each involving somewhat different technology. Although some of the patents and claim construction issues involve technology issues that are relatively straightforward, at least some of the claim construction disputes between the parties involve complex and specialized technical concepts. Accordingly, Apple hereby requests that the Court allow Apple to submit with its responsive claim construction brief a technical tutorial that will provide further explanation regarding some of the more complicated technologies that are implicated by the claim construction disputes. The proposed tutorial would be in the form of a presentation on DVD that would focus on the more complex technologies at issue and that would be no more than one hour long. 1 II. Motorola’s Position The parties addressed the relevant background technology for the disputed terms and phrases in the parties' extensive opening claim construction briefs, and Motorola does not wish to burden the Court with more pre-hearing materials. Instead, Motorola suggests that the parties make brief presentations to the Court during the course of the hearing on the relevant technology as the patents and disputed claim terms are addressed. III. Request In light of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court inform the parties how it would like to proceed with additional technical tutorials in addition to the parties' responsive claim construction briefs. Dated: June 23, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Christine Saunders Haskett________ Robert D. Fram (CA Bar No. 126750) rfram@cov.com Christine Saunders Haskett (CA Bar No. 188053) chaskett@cov.com Samuel F. Ernst (CA Bar No. 223963) sernst@cov.com Winslow B. Taub (CA Bar No. 233456) wtaub@cov.com COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 Robert T. Haslam (CA Bar No. 71134) rhaslam@cov.com COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 2 Matthew D. Powers matthew.powers@weil.com Steven S. Cherensky Jill J. Ho jill.ho@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Mark G. Davis mark.davis@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 Facsimile: (202) 857-0940 James Donald Peterson (# 1022819) One East Main Street, Suite 500 P.O. Box 2719 Madison, WI 53701-2719 Telephone: (608) 257-3911 Facsimile: (608) 257-0609 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc. Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Facsimile: (212) 310-8007 James Donald Peterson (# 1022819) One East Main Street, Suite 500 P.O. Box 2719 Madison, WI 53701-2719 Telephone: (608) 257-3911 Facsimile: (608) 257-0609 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Apple Inc. and NeXT Software, Inc 3 Dated: June 23, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Scott W. Hansen________ 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: (608) 229-2200 Facsimile: (608) 229-2100 1000 North Water Street, Suite 1700 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 298-1000 Facsimile: (414) 298-8097 Email: shansen@reinhartlaw.com lstathas@reinhartlaw.com lkass@reinhartlaw.com Edward J. DeFranco Alexander Rudis Richard W. Erwine Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 Email: eddefranco@quinnemanuel.com alexanderrudis@quinnemanuel.com richarderwine@quinnemanuel.com David A. Nelson 500 West Madison St., Suite 2450 Chicago, IL 60661 Email: davenelson@quinnemanuel.com Robert W. Stone Brian Cannon 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Email: robertstone@quinnemanuel.com briancannon@quinnemanuel.com 4 Charles K. Verhoeven 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Email: charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Defendants Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 23, 2011, I caused the foregoing document to be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the ECF system, which will make this document available to all counsel of record for viewing and downloading from the ECF system. /s/ Christine Saunders Haskett 6

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?