`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL FROM NEAL BELGAM
`REGARDING PRIOR ART ESTOPPEL
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Daniel A. Taylor (No. 6934)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`dtaylor@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`Seth Ard (pro hac vice)
`Max Straus (pro hac vice)
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`sard@susmangodfrey.com
`mstraus@susmangodfrey.com
`
`John Lahad (pro hac vice)
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`jlahad@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kalpana Srinivasan (pro hac vice)
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kemper Diehl (pro hac vice)
`401 Union Street, Suite 3000
`Seattle, WA 98101-3000
`kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Dated: April 17, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 463 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 49307
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`Last week, Arendi raised the issue that the CyberDesk prior art ground Google intends to
`assert at trial is subject to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2) and requested that the Court
`address the issue before trial. D.I. 456. Google responded to Arendi’s letter stating that “[i]f the
`Court were to revisit the issue of estoppel, Google agrees with Arendi that the Court, not the jury
`should decide it.” D.I. 457.
`
`Google argues that Judge Stark resolved this estoppel issue in its favor, but that is incorrect.
`To the contrary, Judge Stark held there is a disputed question as to whether the CyberDesk
`evidence is “cumulative,” and that this issue was not amenable to resolution on a motion for
`summary judgment. D.I. 391 at 14. Similarly, Judge Stark did not resolve whether any testimony
`about CyberDesk that allegedly goes beyond the written record is uncorroborated. Because Judge
`Stark did not resolve this estoppel issue at the dispositive motion stage—presumably in part
`because it involved Google identifying which art it would present at trial—it is an issue for the
`Court to resolve as a threshold matter before the presentation of prior art to the jury.
`
`Given that both parties now agree that the Court, not the jury, must resolve any remaining
`factual issues pertaining to estoppel, Arendi proposes the Court hold a conference on Wednesday
`or Thursday this week to resolve the disputes before jury selection and openings. While Arendi
`does not believe an evidentiary hearing is required, the evidentiary record submitted on summary
`judgment, including the CyberDesk exhibits and related testimony, may be relevant to the
`discussion. D.I. 282 at 9-13.
`
`Google’s view is that no conference or hearing is warranted or appropriate and it thus
`
`opposed Arendi’s request.
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Neal C. Belgam
`
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`
`cc:
`
`
`Clerk of Court (via CM/ECF)
`All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF)
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
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
