`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE, LLC
`
`Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`U.S. District Judge Alan Albright
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`OPPOSED MOTION TO ENTER FINAL
`JUDGMENT
`
`On July 21, 2023, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc. (“Touchstream”) and against Google, LLC (“Google”) (ECF No. 247). Pursuant to Rule 58 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on August 23, 2023, the Court entered judgment on the jury
`
`verdict that Google infringed all Asserted Claims, and awarding Touchstream $338,760,000 for
`
`Google’s infringement of the Asserted Claims (ECF No. 256).
`
`
`
`The parties filed the below post-trial motions, which were argued at the January 3, 2024 Post
`
`Trial Motions Hearing. (ECF Nos. 298, 302):
`
`
`
`Docket No.
`
`274
`
`275
`
`276
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion
`
`Touchstream’s Opposed Rule 59(E) Motion to Amend the Judgment to
`Include Supplemental Damages, Ongoing Royalties, and Interest
`
`Google’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law – Renewed 50(b)
`
`Google’s Rule 59 Motion for a New Trial
`
`At that hearing, the Court ruled from the bench that Google’s motion for judgment as a matter
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 310 Filed 10/28/24 Page 2 of 3
`
`of law and Google’s motion for a new trial (ECF Nos. 275 and 276) are denied. (ECF No. 302, pp.
`
`43-44).
`
`Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court enter the
`
`attached proposed final judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58.
`
`The parties met and conferred on October 24, 2024 but were unable to reach agreement.
`
`Defendant Google, LLC’s position is as follows: “Google does not agree with Touchstream’s motion
`
`or its proposed final judgment. Touchstream’s motion is unnecessary, and its proposed final
`
`judgment is purely speculative as it assumes rulings and relief that the Court has not decided or
`
`awarded. As the Court has stated, a written order on post-trial issues is forthcoming. See Dkt.
`
`298. Google thus does not join in Touchstream’s request or its proposed final judgment.”
`
`
`
` Dated: October 28, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Anita Liu
`
`
`
`Anita Liu (TX State Bar No. 24134054)
`Ryan D. Dykal
`Jordan T. Bergsten
`Mark D. Schafer
`Phil Eckert
`Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP
`1401 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`202-274-1109
`rdykal@bsfllp.com
`jbergsten@bsfllp.com
`mschafer@bsfllp.com
`aliu@bsfllp.com
`peckert@bsfllp.com
`
`Counsel for
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 310 Filed 10/28/24 Page 3 of 3
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served with a true and correct copy of this document on October 28, 2024, via the
`
`Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV 5.
`
`/s/ Anita Liu
`Anita Liu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel has complied with the meet and confer
`
`requirement in Local Rule CV-7(i) on October 24, 2024 and that this is an opposed motion. Counsel
`
`for the parties discussed their positions at the meet and confer regarding the proposed motions but
`
`reached an impasse, leaving an open issue for the Court to resolve.
`
`
`
`/s/ Anita Liu
`Anita Liu
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
