`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL FROM DAVID E. MOORE
`IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER LETTER ON PRIOR ART ESTOPPEL
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`abrown@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert W. Unikel
`John Cotiguala
`Matt Lind
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 449-6000
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi
`Chad J. Peterman
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Tel: (212) 318-6000
`
`Ginger D. Anders
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 500E
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Tel: (202) 220-1100
`
`Vincent Y. Ling
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 S. Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (213) 683-9100
`
`Dated: April 17, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 464 Filed 04/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 49309
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`Arendi’s last-minute request for a hearing on its letter motion regarding IPR estoppel is a
`further unnecessary distraction on the eve of trial and was entirely avoidable. Such a hearing is not
`needed or warranted.
`
`It was incumbent on Arendi, as the party with the burden of invoking and demonstrating
`estoppel, to raise the issue in a timely fashion if it was going to attempt to make an estoppel case
`in the wake of Judge Stark’s summary judgment denial. Arendi knew months ago, through the
`parties’ pretrial exchanges—as its proposed final jury instructions show, see D.I. 452 at 38—that
`Google would pursue at least anticipation by the prior art CyberDesk system at trial. Arendi could
`have raised the purported estoppel of CyberDesk and any related combinations through a timely
`motion in limine weeks ago, but it chose not to. Its suggestion that it needed to wait for Google’s
`disclosure of narrowed prior art grounds to seek an estoppel ruling from the Court is plainly false.
`Arendi should not be permitted to tactically disregard the Court’s pretrial scheduling orders and
`procedures.
`
`As explained in Google’s April 13, 2023 response letter (D.I. 462), the case history,
`existing rulings, law, and available record make it clear that Arendi has forfeited its arguments as
`untimely and improper (despite its assertion that it is not merely seeking reargument) and that, on
`the merits, estoppel cannot apply to CyberDesk. The Court should so hold, rather than rewarding
`Arendi’s delay and pretrial tactics by providing it with a further, inappropriate opportunity to
`rehash estoppel through oral argument and to frustrate Google’s trial preparation efforts.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`
`David E. Moore
`
`DEM:nmt/10760196
`
`cc:
`
`Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
`Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
`
`
`
`
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
