`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`VIRNETX INC. AND
`
`
`
`SCIENCE APPLICATIONS
`INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-855
`LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`APPLE’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO ITS
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INDEFINITENESS
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(f), Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby moves for leave to file a
`
`supplemental brief to its Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness (Dkt. 148). In its
`
`Motion, Apple sought summary judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181
`
`were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2014 WL 2440536 (2014) (Ex. A). In
`
`Nautilus, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous”
`
`standard for demonstrating indefiniteness.
`
`Apple was unable to address the Supreme Court’s opinion in Nautilus previously as the
`
`opinion issued after the summary-judgment briefing and Markman hearing in this action. Thus,
`
`Apple respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental brief to address issues raised by the
`
`decision in Nautilus. Good cause exists to grant this motion for leave, as Apple could not have
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 172 Filed 06/10/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 7137
`
`addressed the Nautilus decision in its original briefing and Apple has not delayed in seeking
`
`leave to file a supplemental brief. Plaintiffs’ counsel does not oppose the requested relief.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 172 Filed 06/10/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 7138
`
`Dated: June 10, 2014
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Robert A. Appleby_____________
`Gregory S. Arovas
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`Robert A. Appleby
`robert.appleby@kirkland.com
`Jeanne M. Heffernan
`jeanne.heffernan@kirkland.com
`Joseph A. Loy
`joseph.loy@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Danny L. Williams
`State Bar No. 21518050
`danny@wmalaw.com
`Drew Kim
`Texas Bar No. 24007482
`dkim@wmalaw.com
`WILLIAMS MORGAN P.C.
`10333 Richmond, Suite 1100
`Houston, Texas 77042
`Telephone: (713) 934-7000
`Facsimile: (713) 934-7011
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Texas Bar No. 10969400
`mikejones@potterminton.com
`Allen F. Gardner
`Texas Bar No. 24043679
`allengardner@potterminton.com
`POTTER MINTON
`A Professional Corporation
`110 N. College Avenue, Suite 500
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Telephone: (903) 597-8311
`Facsimile: (903) 593-0846
`
`Attorneys for Apple Inc.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 172 Filed 06/10/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 7139
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned certifies that counsel of record for both parties conferred and counsel for
`
`plaintiffs stated that they did not oppose Apple’s motion to file a supplemental brief.
`
`
`
` /s/ Robert A. Appleby______ ____________
` Robert A. Appleby
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic
`service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail on this the 10th day of
`June 2014.
`
` /s/ Robert A. Appleby______ ____________
` Robert A. Appleby
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
