VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
-
Upload
dan-ravicher -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
1/20
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
)
I/P ENGINE, INC., ))Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512)
AOL, INC. et al., ))
Defendants. ))
PLAINTIFF I /P ENGINES OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING
Defendants request to expedite the briefing on Defendants Renewed Motion to Compel
Deposition of Dr. Becker and for Enlargement of Time to Oppose Plaintiffs Motion for Post-
Judgment Royalties should be denied. Plaintiffs Motion for Post Judgment Damages was filed
almost four months ago. Any timing issues relating to the current motion schedule are of
Defendants own making at all times, I/P Engine acted diligently and in good faith regarding
Defendants request for an extension.
I/P Engine filed its Motion for Post Judgment Damages on December 18, 2012. On April
3, 2013, the Court reset the briefing schedule for Defendants opposition to April 18, and I/P
Engines reply to April 25. After the close of business on April 8, Defendants demanded that Dr.
Becker be provided for deposition at least 5 days before [their] opposition is due in other
words, in the next three days.1 Defendants did not request an extension of the briefing schedule
at that time. At a meet and confer on April 9, Defendants did not pursue their request to depose
1 (SeeEx. 1) I/P Engine has consistently opposed since January the further deposition of Dr.Becker.
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 23036
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
2/20
2
Dr. Becker. Instead, during that meet and confer, Defendants were preoccupied with their
suggestion that because Google might attempt to implement an alleged design around at some
future date, all briefing should be postponed. Defendants made no proposal at that time, but said
that they would send a proposed schedule sometime later. (Ex. 2)
It was not until late Friday afternoon, that Defendants sent their proposal. (Ex. 3) Upon
receipt, I/P Engine immediately asked for clarification regarding the proposal. (Ex. 4) The
parties then discussed the issue by phone the morning of Monday, April 15, 2012 (approximately
11:51 AM (ET)/8:51 AM (PT)). It was not until this conversation that Defendants clarified their
request. I/P Engine did not respond to, much less accept, Defendants request during that
conversation. After considering Defendants request, I/P Engine advised Defendants at 2:40 PM
(ET)/11:40 AM (PT) that I/P Engine would not agree to a further delay of the briefing schedule.
(Ex. 5)
Dated: April 16, 2013 By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC150 West Main StreetNorfolk, VA 23510Telephone: (757) 623-3000Facsimile: (757) 623-5735
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)Frank C. Cimino, Jr.Kenneth W. BrothersCharles J. Monterio, Jr.DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP1825 Eye Street, NWWashington, DC 20006Telephone: (202) 420-2200Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 23037
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
3/20
3
Dawn Rudenko AlbertDICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP1633 BroadwayNew York, NY 10019Telephone: (212) 277-6715
Facsimile: (212) 277-6501
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927 Filed 04/16/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 23038
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
4/20
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 16, 2013, the foregoingPLAINTIFF I /P ENGINES
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING, was served via
the Courts CM/ECF system on the following:
Stephen Edward NoonaKaufman & Canoles, P.C.150 W Main StSuite 2100Norfolk, VA [email protected]
David BilskerDavid PerlsonQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP50 California Street, 22nd FloorSan Francisco, CA [email protected]@quinnemanuel.com
Robert L. BurnsFinnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPTwo Freedom Square11955 Freedom DriveReston, VA [email protected]
Cortney S. AlexanderFinnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP3500 SunTrust Plaza303 Peachtree Street, NEAtlanta, GA [email protected]
/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927 Filed 04/16/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 23039
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
5/20
Exhibit 1
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 23040
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
6/20
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 23041
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
7/20
2
applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are notthe intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying ordisclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication inerror, please notify Kaufman & Canoles at (757) 624-3000 or by return e-mail [email protected], and purge the communication immediately without making any copy ordistribution.
Disclosure Required by Internal Revenue Service Circular 230: This communication is not a tax
opinion. To the extent it contains tax advice, it is not intended or written by the practitioner to be used,and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposedon the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-1 Filed 04/16/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 23042
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
8/20
2
Exhibit 2
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-2 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 23043
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
9/20
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-2 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 23044
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
10/20
3
Exhibit 3
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-3 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 23045
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
11/20
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-3 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 23046
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
12/20
2
50 California Street, 22nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111415-875-6316Direct415.875.6600 Main Office Number415.875.6700 [email protected]: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This messagemay be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that anyreview, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediatelyby e-mail, and delete the original message.
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-3 Filed 04/16/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 23047
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
13/20
4
Exhibit 4
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-4 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 23048
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
14/20
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-4 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 23049
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
15/20
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
16/20
5
Exhibit 5
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-5 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 23051
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
17/20
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-5 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 23052
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
18/20
2
David PerlsonPartner,Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111415-875-6344 Direct415.875.6600 Main Office Number415.875.6700 [email protected]
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This messagemay be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that anyreview, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediatelyby e-mail, and delete the original message.
From: Monterio, Charles [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:30 PM
To: Margaret P. Kammerud; zz-IPEngineCc: QE-IP Engine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; 'W. Ryan Snow ([email protected])'; 'Donald C. Schultz ([email protected])'Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. Google -- Proposed Schedule for Post-Judgment Damages
Meg,
Itseemsthatthereisadisconnectinwhatwediscussedduringourcallearlierthisweek. Weneveragreedthat
extendingthebriefingscheduleconcerningI/PEnginesongoingroyaltiesmotionwasappropriate. Duringthemeetand
confer,weagreedtoconsiderasubsequentproposalfromDefendantstoaddresstheallegedissuesthatDefendants
believeexistbasedonGooglesfutureimplementationofanallegedly,noninfringingAdWordssystem. WhileI/P
EnginedoesnotunderstandfullywhyDefendantsbelievethisfutureAdWordssystemimpactstheongoingroyalties
briefingotherthanpotentiallyestablishingasunsetdate,wewerewillingtoconsideryourproposalandexplanationfor
it.
Basedonyouremailbelow,itisunclearastowhattypeofextensionanddiscoveryrelatingtoboththecurrentbriefing
scheduleanddiscoveryrelatingtoGooglesclaimeddesignaroundyouareproposing.
Pleaseclarifysothatwecanconsiderandrespond.
Charles(202)4205167
Confidentiality StatementThis email message, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain privileged
and/or confidential material. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, printing, copying, or otherdissemination of this email message is strictly prohbited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message ornotify our email administrator at [email protected] and permanently delete and destroy the original message and any and all copies, includingprintouts and electronic copies on any computer system.Dickstein Shapiro LLPwww.DicksteinShapiro.comFrom: Margaret P. Kammerud [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 4:56 PMTo: Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; 'W. Ryan Snow ([email protected])'; 'Donald C. Schultz (dschultz@cwm-
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-5 Filed 04/16/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 23053
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
19/20
3
law.com)'Subject: I/P Engine v. Google -- Proposed Schedule for Post-Judgment Damages
Charles,
Asdiscussedonourcallthisweek,thepartiesareinagreementthatsomeextensiontothepresentbriefingschedule
concerningPlaintiffsmotionforpostjudgmentdamagesisappropriate.
In
order
to
allow
Plaintiff
ample
time
for
discovery
concerning
the
launch
of
a
change
in
the
operation
of
AdWords
and
toallowDefendantsamplediscoveryconcerningPlaintiffspostjudgmentdamagetheories,weproposethefollowing
schedule. BartholomewFurrowwillbetravelingoutsidethecountryinMayandearlyJune,soatthispoint,June7isthe
earliestdepositiondatewecanofferforhim
Pleaseletusknowifyouareamenabletothisschedule,andwewillprepareamotionseekingthisextension.
Ininterim,whileyouareconsideringthisproposal,canyouconfirmthatPlaintiffwillagreetoanadditionaltwoweeks
fortheDefendantsoppositionbrief? Wewillobviouslyreciprocatewithyourreply.
Best,
Meg
ProposedSchedule:
May17 Sourcecodeavailableforreview
OnorbeforeJune7 ProvideBartholomewFurrowfordeposition
June21 Plaintifftoserveanyadditionalexpertdeclarationorrevisedmotion.
July2 Dr.Becker(oranyotherexpertonwhomPlaintiffmayrely)willbemadeavailablefordeposition
bythisdate.
Defendantswillhavetwoweeksfromfinalexpert(s)depositiontofileopposition.
Plaintiffwillhavetwoweeksfromfilingofoppositiontofilereply.
Margaret P. KammerudAssociate,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111415-875-6316Direct415.875.6600 Main Office Number415.875.6700 [email protected]
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-5 Filed 04/16/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 23054
-
7/28/2019 VRNG v GOOG - 20130416 - D Renewed Motion Becker Opp
20/20
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This messagemay be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that anyreview, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediatelyby e-mail, and delete the original message.
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 927-5 Filed 04/16/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 23055