Case 2:15-cv-00037-RWS Document 87-2 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1997
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD. and
`ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`BLACK ELK ENERGY OFFSHORE
`OPERATIONS, LLC, BLUETIDE
`COMMUNICATIONS, and COUNTRY
`HOME INVESTMENTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 2:15-cv-00037-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KURT G. CALIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD. and
`ELBIT SYSTEMS OF AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`BLACK ELK ENERGY OFFSHORE
`OPERATIONS, LLC, BLUETIDE
`COMMUNICATIONS, and COUNTRY
`HOME INVESTMENTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 2:15-cv-00037-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KURT G. CALIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
`MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-00037-RWS Document 87-2 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1998
`
`I, Kurt G. Calia, declare and state as follow:
`
`1.
`
`I am over the age of eighteen years, of sound mind, and competent to make this
`
`declaration. The facts stated in this declaration are of my personal knowledge, and I know them
`
`to be true and correct.
`
`2.
`
`I am an attorney at the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP that represents
`
`Plaintiffs in the above-captioned case.
`
`3.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’
`
`Invalidity Contentions.
`
`4.
`
`On January 15, 2016, Defendants served their Local Patent Rule 3-3 Joint
`
`Invalidity Contentions (Defendants’ Contentions”). A true and correct copy of Defendants’
`
`Contentions (not including appendices) is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`5.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an exemplary claim chart from
`
`Defendants’ Contentions (claim chart A35).
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of exemplary claim chart B4.
`
`On January 26, 2016, my colleague, Patrick Flynn, wrote to Defendants to notify
`
`them of the deficiencies in Defendants’ Contentions and demand that they be remedied by
`
`February 1, 2016 (more than two weeks after they came due). Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true
`
`and correct copy of that January 26, 2016 letter.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants responded by email on January 29, 2016, but they promised only to
`
`“investigate” the concerns raised by Plaintiffs by February 8. Attached as Exhibit 5 is a true and
`
`correct copy of the January 29 email from Ali Dhanani, counsel for Defendants.
`
`9.
`
`I responded to Mr. Dhanani’s email on February 1, 2016, again setting forth
`
`Plaintiffs’ position as to the deficiencies of their invalidity contentions, and asking Defendants to
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-00037-RWS Document 87-2 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1999
`
`remedy them by February 3. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of my February 1,
`
`2016 email to Mr. Dhanani.
`
`10.
`
`Counsel for Defendants responded later that day by email. In that response (a true
`
`and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 7), Defendants merely reiterated that they
`
`would “investigate” Plaintiffs’ complaints and respond by February 8, 2016.
`
`11.
`
`On February 4, 2016, I called counsel for Defendants, Mr. Dhanani, to see
`
`whether this issue might be resolved. I explained Plaintiffs’ position—namely, that Defendants’
`
`Contentions were deficient, that three weeks had passed since the Court-ordered deadline to
`
`served them, and that we had received no more commitment from Defendants than that they
`
`would “investigate” our concerns. I also indicated that while I understood he had been busy with
`
`depositions in another matter, at least three other lawyers from his firm are identified in the
`
`pleadings, and that depositions in another matter coming weeks after the due date for
`
`Defendants’ Contentions could not fairly excuse their deficiencies. When Mr. Dhanani asked
`
`what supplementation would satisfactorily address Plaintiffs concerns, I replied that Local Patent
`
`Rule 3-3 is clear in terms of the required disclosures, and that Plaintiffs expected full and
`
`immediate compliance. I also asked Mr. Dhanani to concede that the originally-served
`
`contentions were deficient since he appeared to be amenable to some form of supplementation.
`
`Mr. Dhanani disagreed (although he did not explain the basis for his disagreement). Although
`
`Mr. Dhanani indicated that some form of supplementation would be provided on February 8, it
`
`was not clear (to me, at least) what it would be.
`
`12.
`
`That evening, clarification arrived in the form of an email Mr. Dhanani, a true and
`
`correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 8. Counsel’s February 4 email commits only to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-00037-RWS Document 87-2 Filed 02/05/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2000
`
`providing a “specific listing of the combinations identified in the invalidity contentions by
`
`Monday, February 8.” Exhibit 8.
`
`13.
`
`To date, Defendants have not committed to recitation of specific prior art
`
`combinations on an element-by-element basis (i.e., which elements would be combined from
`
`which references), nor have they committed to providing any explanation for the motivation to
`
`combine any of their combinations. And to date, Plaintiffs are unaware that Defendants have
`
`filed a motion for leave to amend their invalidity contentions to comport with Local Patent Rule
`
`3-3.
`
`
`
`Executed on February 5, 2016 at Redwood Shores, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kurt G. Calia
`Kurt G. Calia
`
`
`
`3
`
`
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
