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)
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?