`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Civil Action NO. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS COMPLIANT
`WITH PATENT RULE 3-1(G) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO PRECLUDE
`MAXELL’S RELIANCE ON SOURCE CODE FOR INFRINGEMENT
`
`Apple respectfully submits this unopposed motion for leave to reply to Maxell’s
`
`Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Compel Infringement Contentions Compliant with Patent Rule
`
`3-1(g) or, in the Alternative, to Preclude Maxell’s Reliance on Source Code for Infringement.
`
`(D.I. 145).
`
`Apple requests the opportunity to respond to Maxell’s submission of its full
`
`Supplemental Infringement Contentions (“SIC”) with its Opposition. (D.I. 143, 152). Apple
`
`excerpted relevant portions of the SIC in its Motion (D.I. 123-01) to comply with Local Civil
`
`Rule 47(c) (“[o]nly relevant, cited-to excerpts of attached materials should be attached”) and the
`
`page limits of the Court’s 2016 Standing Order. As the Court knows, Maxell obtained leave to
`
`include its entire SIC with its Opposition. Apple respectfully requests an opportunity to file a
`
`short reply to address Maxell’s arguments concerning the full SIC, including Maxell’s allegation
`
`that “[e]ven a cursory review will establish how detailed . . . they are.” (D.I. 145 at 7 n.5).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 153 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 6167
`
`
`Apple’s proposed reply is being filed concurrently with this Motion for Leave, and Apple
`
`respectfully requests that the Court consider the reply in ruling on Apple’s Motion to Compel.
`
`Apple has meet and conferred with Maxell regarding this motion for leave, and Maxell
`
`has stated that it does not oppose the motion.
`
`Dated: December 4, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Luann L. Simmons
`
`
`
`Luann L. Simmons (Pro Hac Vice)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-984-8700
`Facsimile: 415-984-8701
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou (Pro Hac Vice)
`vzhou@omm.com
`Anthony G. Beasley (TX #24093882)
`tbeasley@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`Laura Bayne Gore (Pro Hac Vice)
`lbayne@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-326-2000
`Facsimile: 212-326-2061
`
`Melissa R. Smith (TX #24001351)
`melissa@gilliamsmithlaw.com
`GILLIAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 153 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 6168
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on December 4, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
