Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 220 Filed 08/07/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`12424
`Wilshire Boulevard
`
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles
`California
`90025
`
`
`Tel 310.826.7474
`Fax 310.826.6991
`www.raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amy E. Hayden
`ahayden@raklaw.com
`
`
`August 7, 2020
`
`Via ECF
`
`Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`40 Foley Square, Room 2204
`New York, New York 10007
`
`Re: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al., Nos. 1:14-cv-2396-
`PGG-SN & 1:14-cv-9558-PGG-SN
`
`
`Dear Judge Gardephe:
`
`In response to the Court’s Order of June 29, 2020 (Dkt. No. 219), Plaintiff Network-1
`
`Technologies, Inc. and Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC hereby submit their agreed-
`upon briefing schedule for summary judgment.1
`
`Pursuant to Rule IV.B of the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice, Defendants respectfully
`
`request that the Court expand the page limits available to the parties as reflected in the chart below.
`To the extent that any party intends to bring multiple summary judgment motions, subject to the
`Court’s approval of these page limits, that party will complete briefing on all such motions in a
`single brief within the page limits set forth below. Defendants believe that additional pages are
`necessary in light of the number and complexity of issues presented in these two cases involving
`three asserted patents. Plaintiff does not oppose this request for additional pages, provided that it
`applies to both parties.
`
`Date
`
`Event
`
`Total Page Limit
`Per Side
`
`September 11, 2020 Opening summary judgment briefs
`
`October 16, 2020
`
`Opposition briefs concerning summary judgment
`
`November 6, 2020
`
`Reply briefs in support of summary judgment
`motions
`
`40
`
`40
`
`20
`
`
`1 All citations to the docket refer to docket entries in Case No. 1:14-cv-2396-PGG-SN. The parties
`interpret the Court’s Order of June 29, 2020 as obviating the need to file pre-motion letters and
`request a pre-motion conference pursuant to Rule IV.A of the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice.
`If the Court wishes to set a pre-motion conference before the briefing and submission of motions
`for summary judgment, the parties can be available at the Court’s convenience.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 220 Filed 08/07/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
`August 7, 2020
`Page 2
`
`The parties understand that motions to exclude or strike expert opinions, testimony, or
`
`portions thereof, including Daubert motions, will be submitted 30 days after the issuance of the
`summary judgment order in conjunction with the parties’ motions in limine pursuant to Rule X.D.1
`of the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice. If the Court wishes that these motions be submitted
`on a different timeframe, the parties welcome guidance on this issue.
`
`Finally, for purposes of the above briefing schedule and page limits, Defendants have
`
`assumed that there will be no further briefing regarding the alleged indefiniteness of the claim
`terms “non-exhaustive search” and “correlation information.” Although Defendants will formally
`move for summary judgment on the ground that claims containing either of these terms are invalid
`for indefiniteness for the reasons stated in their claim construction papers, Defendants do not
`intend to re-brief this issue or address it in their Rule 56.1 Statement absent further instruction
`from the Court, and will instead devote their summary judgment briefs to matters that have not
`previously been submitted. See Dkt. No. 218 (describing the parties’ agreement that the matter
`may be submitted on the current record, including the briefs at Dkt. Nos. 148, 151, 152, 153, 158,
`163, and 164; the claim construction hearing; the demonstrative slides presented at the hearing;
`and the post-hearing letter briefs at Dkt. Nos. 201 and 202). If the Court would prefer a different
`approach, Defendants respectfully request that the Court inform the parties of its preferred
`approach so that the parties can consider revising the proposed schedule for and length of summary
`judgment briefs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 220 Filed 08/07/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
`August 7, 2020
`Page 3
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`BY: /s/ Amy E. Hayden
`
`Marc A. Fenster (pro hac vice)
`Brian D. Ledahl (pro hac vice)
`Adam S. Hoffman (pro hac vice)
`Paul A. Kroeger (pro hac vice)
`Amy E. Hayden (pro hac vice)
`Jacob R. Buczko (pro hac vice)
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`ahoffman@raklaw.com
`pkroeger@raklaw.com
`ahayden@raklaw.com
`jbuczko@raklaw.com
`
`Charles R. Macedo
`AMSTER, ROTHSTEIN &
`EBENSTEIN LLP
`90 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10016
`Phone: (212) 336-8074
`Fax: (212) 336-8001
`cmacedo@arelaw.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Network-1
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`
`BY: /s/ Samuel Bryant Davidoff
`
`Thomas H. L. Selby (pro hac vice)
`Samuel Bryant Davidoff
`Andrew V. Trask
`Melissa Collins (pro hac vice)
`Graham W. Safty (pro hac vice)
`Sumeet P. Dang (pro hac vice)
`725 Twelfth Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 434-5000
`Fax: (202) 434-5029
`tselby@wc.com
`sdavidoff@wc.com
`atrask@wc.com
`mcollins@wc.com
`gsafty@wc.com
`sdang@wc.com
`
`For Matters in New York:
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1500
`New York, NY 10022
`
`Kevin Hardy (pro hac vice)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Phone: (202) 538-8000
`Fax: (202) 538-8100
`kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Attorneys for Google LLC and
`YouTube, LLC
`
`
`
`