Case 1:22-cv-00304-JLH Document 147 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8270
`
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III
`Director
`302-651-7509
`Cottrell@rlf.com
`
`March 28, 2024
`
`VIA CM/ECF
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Re:
`
`Robocast, Inc. v. YouTube, LLC et al., C.A. No. 22-304-JLH (“Robocast v. Google”)
`Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., C.A. No. 22-305-JLH (“Robocast v. Netflix”)
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`Defendants YouTube, LLC and Google LLC (“Google”) submit this letter for the conference
`on April 5, 2025 (see C.A. No. 22-304, D.I. 145), which Google understands to be a scheduling
`conference with respect to Robocast v. Google, and a scheduling and discovery conference with
`respect to Robocast v. Netflix. Google responds to the letters filed by Plaintiff Robocast, Inc.
`(“Robocast”) in both cases because both discuss Google. See Ltr., Robocast v. Google, D.I. 146;
`Ltr., Robocast v. Netflix, D.I. 218.
`
`Regarding the letter filed in this action, Robocast is correct that Google has agreed to a
`
`negotiated 3.5-month extension. See Ltr., Robocast v. Google, D.I. 146. Google does not agree with
`Robocast’s characterization that they “believe this extension will allow [the parties] to work through
`many of the discovery disputes they have been navigating through.” Id. Rather, the following
`occurred. The Scheduling Order (D.I. 53) provided for a joint Markman Hearing in both this and the
`Netflix action on Jan. 17, 2024. On January 2, 2024, Judge Andrews canceled the scheduled
`Markman Hearing; D. I. 126 (“The Markman hearing scheduled for 1/17/2024, is CANCELED and
`will be rescheduled for a date to be determined.”). The case was then re-assigned to Your Honor on
`January 9, 2024.
`
`
`In February (after the original date for the Markman hearing) Robocast asked Google to agree
`to an extension of 6 months to accommodate additional time to complete discovery as well as in view
`of the currently unscheduled Markman hearing. After protracted negotiations, Google agreed to a
`3.5-month extension as part of a compromise that included resolving certain discovery issues as
`between Google and Robocast. In addition, Google is mindful that Your Honor has been reassigned
`hundreds of cases, creating not only a very full docket for the Court but possible scheduling conflicts
`as well. Accordingly, Google did not agree to the extension to “allow [the parties] to work through
`many of the discovery disputes they have been navigating through” but rather agreed to a
`compromise to avoid discovery disputes and in view of the lack of a Markman date. In that sense,
`Google and Robocast have already worked through several discovery disputes in order to arrive at a
`negotiated agreement to extend the case schedule by 3.5 months.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-JLH Document 147 Filed 03/28/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8271
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`March 28, 2024
`Page 2
`
`
`An extension will further give the Court additional time to decide Google’s renewed motion
`to dismiss (D.I. 109). If granted, the motion would shorten the alleged damages window from
`around four-and-a-half years to only one-and-a-half years and eliminate at least two claim terms
`requiring construction by the Court. D.I. 122 (Joint Claim Construction Brief in Google case,
`identifying “displaying” and “performing an on-line search” as only disputed for the ‘451 patent,
`which is the patent subject to Google’s renewed motion to dismiss).
`
`Second, Google is compelled to correct the record as to certain statements in the letter
`
`Robocast filed in Robocast v. Netflix. Google does not agree with Robocast’s reading of the
`Scheduling Order. That Order, in relevant part, requires only that “Defendants shall coordinate with
`each other to ensure depositions of Plaintiff and third parties are conducted in an efficient manner
`such that, for example, depositions of the same witness are scheduled on the same day or on
`consecutive days or on mutually agreeable days to the parties and the witness.” JSO §3.e.i. The JSO
`is aimed at “conduct[ing]” “depositions … in an efficient manner,” but it does not purport to require
`that depositions always occur at the same time, or forbid the same witness from being deposed twice
`if the two cases are at different stages of development. Id. Robocast’s position is that the JSO
`entitles it to withhold properly noticed depositions in the Netflix action simply because they have not
`yet been noticed in the Google action. See Ltr., Robocast v. Netflix at 2. That position is Robocast’s
`alone, not a position of Google. Contrary to Robocast’s arguments, Netflix and Google continue to
`coordinate as appropriate under the Scheduling Order.
`
`
`In terms of coordination between the two cases and their schedules, Google contends at least
`the Markman date needs to remain on the same schedule since Netflix and Google shared joint briefing.
`See D.I. 122 (Joint Claim Construction Brief in Google case). Google is also not opposed to the same
`coordination as required in the current scheduling order but takes no position otherwise on the various
`disputes between Netflix and Robocast. However, Google opposes any situation where Google does
`not get discovery it is otherwise entitled to because of discovery occurring without its involvement in
`the Netflix action. For example, if Netflix hypothetically deposed the inventor of the asserted patents
`without Google present or involved, Google should not be limited in its time or questioning of the
`inventor in its case. It was Robocast’s choice to sue two unrelated defendants at the same time, and it
`must provide discovery in both cases as a result.
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Frederick L. Cottrell, III
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`
`cc:
`
`All Counsel of Record (via email)
`
`
`
`
`
`