Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 291 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`!
`
`
`
`12424
`Wilshire Boulevard
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles
`California
`90025
`
`Tel 310.826.7474
`Fax 310.826.6991
`www.raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`Brian Ledahl
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`
`
`November 22, 2022
`
`
`Via ECF
`
`Hon. Sarah Netburn
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`Thurgood Marshall Courthouse
`40 Foley Square, Room 430
`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 Netburn:
`
`Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”) writes to respond to the
`letter motion submitted by Defendants (collectively “Google”) requesting a settlement
`conference.
`During the October 6, 2022 discovery hearing with the Court, the parties
`discussed possible settlement processes with the Court. The Court requested that
`Network-1 provide Google with a demand, and that Google provide a response, and that
`the parties have a meaningful discussion (e.g. “a telephone call that lasted more than 10
`minutes so that the parties could have a meaningful settlement discussion”). The Court
`further indicated that “if at that point you think either a private mediation or settlement
`conference with me would make sense, I’m happy to facilitate in whatever way
`I can . . . .”
`Network-1 provided Google with a demand on October 26. Google has never
`responded to that demand. Accordingly, the parties have not had any meaningful
`discussion as the Court directed.
`Network-1 has been open to mediation for some time, but Google has consistently
`failed to engage. Network-1 suggested its view that mediation was appropriate
`repeatedly over a very long time. In August, 2021, Network-1 proposed specific
`mediators with extensive expertise in resolving complex patent disputes. One is a retired
`U.S. Magistrate (Jay Gandhi), the other a mediator with more than forty years of
`mediation experience (Jonathan Marks). Google never responded to the proposal of
`private mediation or these mediators until November 18, when it simply indicated that
`Google does not believe that private mediation is appropriate at this time. Now, Google
`requests a lengthy settlement conference with the Court without having done any of what
`the Court asked of Google in the first instance.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 291 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`!
`
`Honorable Sarah Netburn
`November 22, 2022
`Page 2
`
`Network-1 remains open to mediation, whether with an experienced private
`mediator, or with a judicial officer. Network-1 indicated to Google (in connection with
`the parties’ October 28 letter to the Court) that Network-1 did not believe that a
`mediation with a judge also presiding over issues in the underlying case was likely to be
`the most productive process for settlement in this case. Only after learning that did
`Google suddenly indicate that the only process it was interested in was the one process
`Network-1 had suggested might be less likely to be productive.
`Despite lobbying for Network-1 to provide a demand, Google has failed to
`reciprocate with any response despite the Court’s direction that it should do so. Often,
`defendants in high-value cases like this one are reluctant to engage in serious settlement
`discussions until the Court has resolved issues pending on summary judgment. Google's
`conduct to date suggests that it falls into this category. If that is Google’s position,
`Network-1 does not want to waste the Court’s time or the parties’ time with a counter-
`productive mediation.
`To that end, Network-1 suggests that the more productive course would be for 1)
`Google to provide a substantive response to Network-1’s demand in this case (as per the
`Court’s request), and 2) that the parties conduct a conference with the Court to discuss
`possible appropriate resolution procedures and whether assignment to a particular
`settlement procedure (including private mediation, mediation with a judicial officer not
`presiding over substantive issues in this case, or some other procedure) at this time would
`be productive.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Russ, August & Kabat
`
`/s/ Brian D. Ledahl
`
`Brian D. Ledahl
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies,
`Inc.
`
`