`
`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 SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`BRIEFING REGARDING VIRNETX’S REQUEST FOR ENHANCED DAMAGES
`
`On June 13, 2016, after VirnetX’s motion for enhanced damages (D.I. 462 at 1) was briefed
`
`and argued, the Supreme Court decided Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. In
`
`that opinion, the Supreme Court overturned the two-part test for enhanced damages adopted by the
`
`Federal Circuit in In re Seagate Technology. Apple respectfully requests leave to file supplemental
`
`briefing on the issue of enhanced damages under the new standard articulated by the Supreme Court
`
`in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, and VirnetX has agreed not to oppose Apple’s request to
`
`minimize the disputes before the Court and subject to the following briefing schedule:
`
`
`
`VirnetX’s Opening Brief
`
`Apple’s Response Brief
`
`Date
`
`June 17, 2016
`
`June 29, 2016
`
`Page Limit
`
`8 pages
`
`8 pages
`
`
`
`Apple also requests a hearing on the issue of enhanced damages under the new Halo
`
`framework at the Court’s convenience following completion of supplemental briefing, as Apple
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 495 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 36510
`
`believes that a hearing would further assist the Court in addressing enhanced damages under the new
`
`standard. VirnetX does not believe a hearing is necessary and opposes Apple’s request for a hearing
`
`as VirnetX believes it would add further, unnecessary delay in this case.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 495 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 36511
`
`Dated: 6/15/2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Joseph A. Loy
`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
`Leslie M. Schmidt
`leslie.schmidt@kirkland.com
`David N. Draper
`david.draper@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`Telephone: (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
`
`Akshay S. Deoras
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 439-1400
`Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Texas Bar No. 10969400
`mikejones@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.
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00855-RWS Document 495 Filed 06/15/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 36512
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on June 15, 2016.
`
`/s/ Robert Leonard
`Robert Leonard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
