Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 614 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 62508
`
`
`
`January 26, 2024
`
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
`844 N. King Street
`Unit 17, Room 6312
`Wilmington, DE 19801-3555
`
`Re: Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC (13-919-JLH)
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. submits this letter to reply to two issues raised in Google’s letter (D.I. 611)
`regarding the amendment of the existing judgment (D.I. 545).
`
`First, Google’s assertion that the Court lacks jurisdiction to modify its judgment is based on a
`misreading of law from the wrong circuit. Google cites only one case: Sun-Tek Industries, Inc. v.
`Kennedy Sky Lites, Inc., 929 F.2d 676 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (discussing Sun-Tek Indus, 848 F.2d 179,
`181 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Because the timeliness of a Rule 59 motion is not unique to patent law, Sun-
`Tek turned on the application of regional circuit law from the Eleventh Circuit. 848 F.3d at 181.
`And the Federal Circuit there interpreted the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in Hidle v. Geneva County
`Board of Education, 792 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1986), to confine disposition of a Rule 59(e) motion
`to grounds raised in the original motion. 848 F.3d at 182-83.
`
`In the Third Circuit, however, a district court disposing of a Rule 59(e) motion “is not limited to
`the grounds set forth in the motion itself.” Bullock v. Buck, 611 F. App’x 744, 746 n.2 (3d Cir.
`2015) (holding court was “within its authority” in amending judgment on grounds not raised in
`Rule 59(e) motion); see also Fed. Ins. Co. v. Susquehanna Broad. Co., 738 F. Supp. 896, 897 n.1
`(M.D. Pa. 1990) (holding court could amend judgment under Rule 59(e) on grounds advanced by
`nonmoving party). Other circuits follow the same approach. E.g., Veolia Water N. Am. Operating
`Servs., LLC v. City of Atlanta, 546 F. App’x 820, 827 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting “many of our sister
`circuits have held that, once a Rule 59(e) motion is filed, a district court has the power to make
`appropriate corrections even with respect to issues not raised in the motion” and collecting cases).
`In fact, even the Eleventh Circuit has departed from the strict reading of Hidle adopted in Sun-Tek.
`Id. (reversing denial of prejudgment interest on defendants’ counterclaim when only plaintiff had
`filed Rule 59(e) motion regarding prejudgment interest). Because Arendi filed a timely Rule 59(e)
`motion, the Court has jurisdiction to amend the judgment on the additional ground the Court has
`identified: Google’s failure to plead a counterclaim of invalidity.
`
`Second, Google lodges misplaced accusations of gamesmanship. Google, not Arendi, made a
`strategic choice to omit a counterclaim of invalidity. Google stuck with that decision through
`eleven years of litigation. Yet now that Google knows how the jury found, Google regrets that
`decision and seeks the benefit of a counterclaim it never raised. The only gameplaying emanates
`from Google.
`
`Arendi respectfully requests that the Court amend the judgment to limit it to noninfringement.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-JLH Document 614 Filed 01/26/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 62509
`
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`January 26, 2024
`Page 2
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`Neal C. Belgam
`
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`
`cc:
`
`
`
`
`Clerk of Court (via CM/ECF)
`All Counsel of Record (via CM/ECF)
`
`
`
`