Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 278 Filed 09/21/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT AND TO WAIVE
`BOND REQUIREMENT
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby files this
`
`Unopposed Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment and to Waive Bond Requirement. Counsel
`
`for Google has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Touchstream”) on the relief requested herein, and counsel for Touchstream has stated that
`
`Touchstream does not oppose the motion and its requests.
`
`Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism by which “a
`
`party may obtain a stay” of execution of judgment “by providing a bond or other security.” In
`
`addition, the Court may waive the bond requirement upon a demonstration of “a present financial
`
`ability to facilely respond to a money judgment” and “a financially secure plan for maintaining
`
`that same degree of solvency during the period of an appeal.” Poplar Grove Planting & Refining
`
`Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979). Here, in view of Google
`
`being a large, well-established, financially strong company, Google maintains a “financial ability
`
`to facilely respond to a money judgment.” See id. In addition, Google has “a financially secure
`
`plan for maintaining that same degree of solvency” during the post-trial proceedings before this
`
`Court and, as relevant, during the period of an appeal. See id. Thus, Google meets the criteria for
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT AND TO WAIVE
`BOND REQUIREMENT
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby files this
`
`Unopposed Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment and to Waive Bond Requirement. Counsel
`
`for Google has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Touchstream”) on the relief requested herein, and counsel for Touchstream has stated that
`
`Touchstream does not oppose the motion and its requests.
`
`Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism by which “a
`
`party may obtain a stay” of execution of judgment “by providing a bond or other security.” In
`
`addition, the Court may waive the bond requirement upon a demonstration of “a present financial
`
`ability to facilely respond to a money judgment” and “a financially secure plan for maintaining
`
`that same degree of solvency during the period of an appeal.” Poplar Grove Planting & Refining
`
`Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979). Here, in view of Google
`
`being a large, well-established, financially strong company, Google maintains a “financial ability
`
`to facilely respond to a money judgment.” See id. In addition, Google has “a financially secure
`
`plan for maintaining that same degree of solvency” during the post-trial proceedings before this
`
`Court and, as relevant, during the period of an appeal. See id. Thus, Google meets the criteria for
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 278 Filed 09/21/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`waiving the requirement of a bond and for staying execution of judgment without a bond, and this
`
`motion is unopposed.
`
`Google submits as follows:
`
`1.
`
`On August 23, 2023, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Touchstream and
`
`against Google in the amount of $338,760,000 for infringement of claims 1 and 2
`
`of Patent No. 8,904,289 (the “’289 patent”), claims 1 and 14 of Patent No.
`
`8,782,528 (the “’528 patents”), and claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,356,251
`
`(the “’251 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”). Dkt. 256.
`
`2.
`
`The Judgment started the time for filing of any post-trial motions or, if no post-trial
`
`motions subject to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) are filed, started the
`
`time for appeal. Dkt. 256, ¶ 4.
`
`3.
`
`Post-trial motions are due within 28 days of entry of the Judgment, to the extent not
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`expressly provided otherwise by the rules. Dkt. 256, ¶ 4.
`
`Google maintains assets in excess of the approximately $339 million Judgment.
`
`Google is capable of satisfying the Judgment.
`
`In view of Google’s “present financial ability to facilely respond to a money
`
`judgment” and Google’s ability to maintain “the same degree of solvency during
`
`the period of an appeal,” Google qualifies for an exception to the bond requirement.
`
`See Poplar Grove, 600 F.2d at 1191.
`
`7.
`
`Google has the ability to satisfy the Judgment after resolution of all post-trial
`
`motions and appeals.
`
`8.
`
`Requiring Google to post a bond to secure a stay would impose immediate,
`
`unnecessary expense on Google in the form of the cost of securing the bond and
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 278 Filed 09/21/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`paying bond-related fees (typically fees are a percentage of the amount of the
`
`judgment), and such costs and fees can be shifted to Touchstream if Google appeals
`
`and prevails on appeal.
`
`9.
`
`Requiring Google to incur the expense of procuring a bond, or exposing
`
`Touchstream to later bearing the expense, is unnecessary.
`
`10. Waiving the bond requirement will not “unduly endanger [Touchstream’s] interest
`
`in ultimate recovery.” Fed. Prescription Svc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass’n,
`
`636 F.2d 755, 761 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
`
`Google therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant this Unopposed Motion and stay
`
`execution of the Judgment (Dkt. 256) and waive the bond requirement.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 278 Filed 09/21/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`
`
` Dated: September 21, 2023
`
`By: /s/ Shaun W. Hassett
`
`JONES DAY
`Tharan Gregory Lanier (Admitted pro hac vice)
`CA State Bar No. 138784
`E-mail: tglanier@jonesday.com
`Michael C. Hendershot (Admitted pro hac vice)
`CA State Bar No. 211830
`E-mail: mhendershot@jonesday.com
`Evan M. McLean (Admitted pro hac vice)
`CA State Bar No. 280660
`E-mail: emclean@jonesday.com
`1755 Embarcadero Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Telephone: (650) 739-3939
`Facsimile:
`(650) 739-3900
`
`Tracy A. Stitt (Admitted pro hac vice)
`Jennifer L. Swize (Admitted pro hac vice)
`Edwin O. Garcia, (Admitted pro hac vice)
`John R. Boulé III (Admitted pro hac vice)
`E-mail: edwingarcia@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington DC 20001
`(202) 879-3695/Fax: (202) 626-1700
`
`POTTER MINTON PC
`Michael E. Jones
`TX State Bar No. 10929400
`E-mail: mikejones@potterminton.com
`Shaun W. Hassett
`TX State Bar No. 24074372
`E-mail: shaunhassett@potterminton.com
`102 N. College Ave., Suite 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Telephone:
` (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile:
` (903) 593-0846
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
