Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 504 Filed 04/28/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 51699
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-JLH
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`)))))))))
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`JOINT LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL FROM
`DAVID E. MOORE REGARDING DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Andrew L. Brown (#6766)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`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
`
`Public Version Dated: April 28, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 504 Filed 04/28/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 51700
`
`
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`April 21, 2023
`
`The parties jointly request the Court’s assistance in resolving objections relating to the
`
`Anind Dey and James Miller deposition designations, counter-designations, proposed exhibits,
`and related objections. These are the only two sets of deposition designations that either party
`intends to introduce at trial. The parties are presenting them early given the length of the
`deposition designations to ensure the Court is given adequate time to address these issues.
`
`Accordingly, please find attached the Anind Dey and James Miller deposition transcripts,
`indicating Google’s designations, Arendi’s counter-designations, and the parties’ objections and
`positions (Exhibits 1-2); for each witness, a spreadsheet listing the parties’ deposition
`designations, counter-designations, objections, and positions (Exhibits 3-4); and a spreadsheet
`listing Google’s proposed exhibits, Arendi’s objections, and the parties’ positions (Exhibit 5).
`Google also includes a key for its various objections (Appendix A).
`
`Notably, many of the parties’ objections are common across various deposition
`designations and exhibits. To avoid burdening the Court with repetitive objections, the parties
`provide the following positions referenced in the exhibits as indicated:
`
`Google
`
`
`
`IPR Estoppel and associated 401, 402, 403, and Relevance objections: IPR
`estoppel does not apply to CyberDesk or Apple Data Detectors – this is no basis
`to exclude the designated testimony or related exhibits, especially as Arendi has
`not asserted IPR estoppel as to Apple Data Detectors and thus has waived any
`basis to object on that ground. Moreover, this issue has already (again) been
`presented by Arendi to the Court as to CyberDesk.
` Untimeliness objections: Many of Arendi’s counter-designations were never
`before disclosed, including in Arendi’s objections filed with the parties’ joint
`pretrial order. Arendi may not insert brand-new objections at this late stage, well
`after its deadlines to disclose objections.
`
`Arendi
`
`
`
`IPR Estoppel and associated 401, 402, 403, and Relevance objections: Arendi
`objects to Anind Dey’s designated testimony as estopped under 35 U.S.C. §
`315(e) because Google’s designations cover testimony cumulative of printed
`publications about CyberDesk that Google knew about when it filed its IPR
`petition. Dr. Dey’s testimony was specifically about those publications—not a
`“system” that he actually presented at his deposition or that the jury will see at
`trial. No such system exists. To any extent Dr. Dey’s testimony expands upon the
`printed publications, it is improper as uncorroborated and more prejudicial than
`probative under Rule 403.
`
` Untimeliness objections: Google’s untimeliness objections relate to counter-
`designations Arendi timely disclosed and that were included in the March 27,
`2023, proposed pre-trial order at Exhibit 5D. D.I. 424. They were likewise
`included in the Court’s final pre-trial order at Exhibit 5D. D.I. 460. What is new
`are Google’s untimeliness objections, which it never before asserted.
`
`
`
`Public Version Dated: April 28, 2023
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 504 Filed 04/28/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 51701
`
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`April 21, 2023
`Page 2
`
`
`
`DEM:nmt/10767896/12599.00040
`
`Enclosures
`cc:
`Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
`Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ David E. Moore
`
`David E. Moore
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 504 Filed 04/28/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 51702
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Objection Key
`
`Objection
`
`Compound
`
`Calls for speculation
`
`Improper counter
`
`Incomplete question or answer
`
`Leading
`
`Not Testimony
`
`Vague
`
`Relevance
`
`Prejudice, confusion, misleading,
`cumulative, waste of time
`
`Objection Code
`
`COMP
`
`CS
`
`IMP C
`
`INQA
`
`L
`
`NT
`
`V
`
`R, 402
`
`403
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`