Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 154 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 7845
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`ROBOCAST, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`
`C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
`Ronald P. Golden III (#6254)
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`Fax: (302) 658-6395
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`rgolden@bayardlaw.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Steven Rizzi (pro hac vice)
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`395 9th Avenue, 50th Floor
`New York, NY 10001-8603
`(212) 402-9400
`srizzi@McKoolSmith.com
`
`Ramy E. Hanna (DE Bar Id #: 5494)
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`600 Travis St., Suite 7000
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 485-7312
`rhanna@McKoolSmith.com
`
`Ari Rafilson (pro hac vice)
`William D. Ellerman (pro hac vice)
`Casey L. Shomaker (pro hac vice)
`Samuel L. Moore (pro hac vice)
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 978-4000
`arafilson@mckoolsmith.com
`wellerman@mckoolsmith.com
`cshomaker@mckoolsmith.com
`smoore@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`ROBOCAST, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant,
`
`
`C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH
`
`v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
`Ronald P. Golden III (#6254)
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`Fax: (302) 658-6395
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`rgolden@bayardlaw.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Steven Rizzi (pro hac vice)
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`395 9th Avenue, 50th Floor
`New York, NY 10001-8603
`(212) 402-9400
`srizzi@McKoolSmith.com
`
`Ramy E. Hanna (DE Bar Id #: 5494)
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`600 Travis St., Suite 7000
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 485-7312
`rhanna@McKoolSmith.com
`
`Ari Rafilson (pro hac vice)
`William D. Ellerman (pro hac vice)
`Casey L. Shomaker (pro hac vice)
`Samuel L. Moore (pro hac vice)
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 978-4000
`arafilson@mckoolsmith.com
`wellerman@mckoolsmith.com
`cshomaker@mckoolsmith.com
`smoore@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 154 Filed 12/21/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 7846
`
`Marc N. Henschke (pro hac vice)
`Steven M. Coyle (pro hac vice)
`Andrew C. Ryan (pro hac vice)
`Nicholas A. Geiger (pro hac vice)
`Sara T. Colburn (pro hac vice)
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel. (860) 286-2929
`mhenschke@cantorcolburn.com
`scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`aryan@cantorcolburn.com
`ngeiger@cantorcolburn.com
`scolburn@cantorcolburn.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`ROBOCAST, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 154 Filed 12/21/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 7847
`
`Plaintiff Robocast, Inc. (“Robocast”) files this Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendant
`
`Netflix, Inc.’s (“Netflix”) Motion for Leave to Amend Its Answer and Counterclaims (“Motion
`
`for Leave”) to correct Netflix’s factual misstatements in the motion and provide the Court a
`
`complete record.
`
`On the afternoon of Wednesday, December 6, just one day before filing its Motion for
`
`Leave, Netflix provided notice by email of its intent to seek leave to file an amended answer and
`
`counterclaim. See Ex. A. Netflix offered two, 30-minute windows during which it could meet and
`
`confer the following day, one ending only an hour prior to the District of Delaware filing deadline.
`
`Id. Netflix’s email did not attach a copy of its proposed amended pleading.
`
`The following day, Robocast requested to review the proposed amendments, noting it was
`
`essential for Robocast do so before taking a position on Netflix’s forthcoming Motion for Leave
`
`and its counsel’s unavailability within Netflix’s narrow windows. Id.
`
`At 4:11 PM on December 7, Netflix provided its proposed amended pleading, which
`
`comprises 38 pages plus an additional 819 pages of newly cited exhibits, and informed Robocast
`
`it would proceed with filing its Motion for Leave at 4:30 PM, only 19 minutes later. Id. Given the
`
`nature and length of Netflix’s proposed amendments, Robocast was unable to provide its position
`
`within Netflix’s unreasonably short time frame.
`
`Had Netflix provided Robocast timely notice and a reasonable opportunity to consider its
`
`proposed amended pleading, Robocast could have confirmed it did not oppose Netflix’s Motion
`
`for Leave as a procedural matter, and that there was thus no need to now burden the Court with
`
`motion practice.
`
`To be clear, however, Robocast’s non-opposition is not an acquiescence in the merits or
`
`strength of Netflix’s new allegations, or any of its defenses. To the contrary, Netflix’s kitchen sink
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 154 Filed 12/21/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 7848
`
`approach to defending this case serves only to highlight the weakness of its defenses, which now
`
`number nearly 20 (counting multiple defenses listed under a single “affirmative defense”). In this
`
`regard, consistent with the Court’s scheduling order requiring the narrowing of asserted claims
`
`and prior art, Robocast respectfully submits that fairness and judicial economy warrant a process
`
`for reducing the number of non-prior art defenses in advance of trial, and intends to propose such
`
`a process to the Court at the appropriate time. See, e.g., Natera, Inc. v. Archerdx, Inc., No. 20-cv-
`
`125-GBW, D.I. 573 (D. Del. Apr. 21, 2023) (defendant “shall narrow its defenses as follows: . . .
`
`(3) inventorship, prosecution laches, and one indefiniteness defense.”); Boston Sci. Corp., et al. v.
`
`Nevro Corp., No. 16-cv-01163-CFC-CJB, (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2021) (defendant to identify “no more
`
`than two other defenses per claim”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 154 Filed 12/21/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 7849
`
`Dated: December 21, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ronald P. Golden III
`Bayard, P.A.
`Stephen B. Brauerman
`Ronald P. Golden III
`600 N. King Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`Fax: (302) 658-6395
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`rgolden@bayardlaw.com
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`Steven Rizzi (pro hac vice)
`395 9th Avenue, 50th Floor
`New York, NY 10001-8603
`(212) 402-9400
`srizzi@McKoolSmith.com
`
`Ramy E. Hanna (DE Bar Id #: 5494)
`600 Travis St., Suite 7000
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 485-7312
`rhanna@mckoolsmith.com
`
`Ari Rafilson (pro hac vice)
`William D. Ellerman (pro hac vice)
`Casey L. Shomaker (pro hac vice)
`Samuel L. Moore (pro hac vice)
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`(214) 978-4000
`arafilson@mckoolsmith.com
`wellerman@mckoolsmith.com
`cshomaker@mckoolsmith.com
`smoore@mckoolsmith.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-00305-RGA-JLH Document 154 Filed 12/21/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 7850
`
`CANTOR COLBURN LLP
`Marc N. Henschke (pro hac vice)
`Steven M. Coyle (pro hac vice)
`Andrew C. Ryan (pro hac vice)
`Nicholas A. Geiger (pro hac vice)
`Sara T. Colburn (pro hac vice)
`20 Church Street, 22nd Floor
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Tel. (860) 286-2929
`mhenschke@cantorcolburn.com
`scoyle@cantorcolburn.com
`aryan@cantorcolburn.com
`ngeiger@cantorcolburn.com
`scolburn@cantorcolburn.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`ROBOCAST, INC.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
