`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`ALMONDNET’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-SUR-REPLY
`IN SUPPORT OF ALMONDNET’S MOTION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`Plaintiff AlmondNet, Inc. (“AlmondNet”) respectfully moves for leave to file a sur-sur-
`
`reply in support of its opposed Motion to Enter Final Judgment (the “Motion”). AlmondNet’s
`
`proposed sur-sur-reply is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Good cause exists for AlmondNet’s request for leave. Amazon filed its sur-reply to the
`
`Motion on August 26, 2024. Sur-Reply, Dkt. No. 307. Having failed to provide any evidence that
`
`AlmondNet knew of Amazon’s infringement prior to AlmondNet’s 2019 notice, Amazon’s sur-
`
`reply pivots and argues for the first time that AlmondNet “reasonably should have known of the
`
`defendant’s alleged infringing activities to the date of the suit.” See Sur-Reply at 2. However,
`
`Amazon failed to raise this argument in opposition (see generally Opp. (Dkt. No. 301)),
`
`depriving AlmondNet of a fair opportunity to reply. See generally Reply (Dkt. No. 306).
`
`Furthermore, Amazon exceeded the scope of its sur-reply. Sur-replies should be limited
`
`to the issues raised on reply, and nothing in AlmondNet’s reply raised a “should have known”
`
`argument. Indeed, Amazon indicated to AlmondNet that its sur-reply would be limited to the
`
`issues of MR Techs. GMBH v. Western Digit. Techs., Inc., C.A. No. 8:22-cv-1599, Dkt. 589
`
`(C.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2024), however this new argument has nothing to do with that case. MR
`
`Techs. did not speak to the “should have known” standard at all and was never cited for that
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 309 Filed 08/28/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`purpose in AlmondNet’s reply. See generally Reply.
`
`AlmondNet respectfully submits that the Court would benefit from reviewing both
`
`parties’ contentions on this new development. Amazon would not suffer any prejudice from the
`
`proposed sur-sur-reply, especially given that they have opened to the door to this issue.
`
`Additionally, AlmondNet’s sur-sur-reply is no more than one and a half pages and is limited to
`
`responding to Amazon’s new argument. Prior to the filing of this motion, AlmondNet conferred
`
`with Amazon on August 28, 2024. Amazon confirmed that it does not oppose.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AlmondNet respectfully requests that the Court grant
`
`AlmondNet’s motion for leave to file a sur-sur-reply.
`
`
`Date: August 28, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Reza Mirzaie
`Marc A. Fenster
`Benjamin T. Wang
`Adam Hoffman
`James A. Milkey
`Amy E. Hayden
`James S. Tsuei
`Jonathan Ma
`Daniel B. Kolko
`Jason M. Wietholter
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Tel: 310-826-7474
`Fax: 310-826-6991
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`bwang@raklaw.com
`ahoffman@raklaw.com
`jmilkey@raklaw.com
`ahayden@raklaw.com
`jtsuei@raklaw.com
`jma@raklaw.com
`dkolko@raklaw.com
`jwietholter@raklaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff AlmondNet, Inc.
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 309 Filed 08/28/24 Page 3 of 4
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document309 Filed 08/28/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 309 Filed 08/28/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on August 28, 2024 counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served with
`
`a copy of the foregoing via email.
`
` /s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Reza Mirzaie
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`