`The MEMOENDORSED,-
`2 Oo, 4 wapareof tbe popnhiingmqTongard %
`
`ontlagts Ee
`Ayes ant
`pierb
`
`
`
`CALIFORNIA
`Hon. Paul G. Gardephe Hay, Atl Wut He (gut £»
`United States District Court agoWi CALL AN well
`tO ALneg
`Mosenay4
`for the Southern District ofNew Yor
`"
`
`
`a 40 Foley Square, Room 2204ORaDiem (ne Wakla, a
`New York, New York 10007 Agen aa peda, . zho
`FACSIMILE
`310.826.6991
`,
`TWN
`o
`‘ ia A
`Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-¢
`02396-PGG; Network-1 T.echnologies, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No.
`°
`1:14-cv-09558-PGG
`ne
`AB ID AMI
`
`12424
`WILSHIRE
`BOULEVARD
`
`SUITE
`1200
`Los ANGELES
`
`CSE LAAGYOLWEPEE-SN DEGUMENZHD FileddMd23 Page larZz
`
`te
`
`a
`
`hs
`
`;
`:
`
`“7
`
`Re:
`
`‘
`
`vec
`
`
`
`
`Wewrite on behalf of Plaintiff, Network-1 Technolggies,'Inc. (“Network-
`1”) in these two related actions further to our March 14,2003diierdopihe, HE.D.8,
`pendency of the parties’ motions for summary judgment,formore than twenty- )iy if 22
`seven monthsat that time (now more than thirty-three months). On-Apritt 352023;
`the Court requested that the parties provide word documentversionsof the parties’
`Rule 56.1 statements relating to the motions, which were provided on April 14,
`2023.
`
`Network-1 understands that the Court has recently assumed seniorstatus.
`Wefurther note that in the Civil Justice Reform Act reports relating to these
`matters, the Court has noted its heavy caseload as a factor in its delay in ruling on
`outstanding motions and advancingits cases to resolution.
`In light of these facts
`and the long-pending status of the numerous pending pre-trial matters, Network-1
`respectfully requests that the Court either consider transferring these actions to
`another Judge,or to the extent that these matters will remain on the Court’s docket,
`Network-1 renews its request for a scheduling conference in this matter. The
`parties have discussed settlement but remain at an impasse without further input
`from the Court on the pending motions. Asset forth in Network-1’s letter of March
`14, 2023, the claims in this case are significant and the continued delay proceeding
`to trial is prejudicial to Network-1. Network-1 is a publicly-traded company and
`a number of its shareholders have directly raised with company managementtheir
`concerns with the delay in resolution of these matters.
`
`

`

`CASE LAAGOPSEPEEN BOUMEZS> FIRNIOMES Page2af2
`
`
`
`Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
`September 15, 2023
`Page 2
`
`Network-1 would appreciate any guidance the Court can provide as to how
`to movethese cases forward.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Russ, August & Kabat
`
`s/ Marc A. Fenster
`
`Marc A. Fenster
`
`