Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monec Holding Ag v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

September 5, 2014

MONEC HOLDING AG, Plaintiffs,
v.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, INC., HTC CORP., HTC AMERICA, INC. and EXEDA, INC., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SHERRY R. FALLON, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before the court in this patent infringement action is a motion to strike plaintiff Monee Holding AG's ("Monee") opening summary judgment and Daubert papers, filed by defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. ("HTC") on August 15, 2014.[1] (D.I. 387) For the following reasons, the motion to strike is granted. Monee may file its amended briefs and exhibits within fourteen (14) days of the date of this ruling.

II. BACKGROUND

Monee initiated the instant action on September 9, 2011, asserting infringement of United States Patent No. 6, 335, 678 ("the '678 patent"), entitled "Electronic Device, Preferably an Electronic Book." (D.I. 1) Monee filed its first amended complaint on December 19, 2011, alleging that a number of accused products infringe the reexamined '678 patent. (D.I. 34 ¶¶ 22-100) On July 30, 2014, Monee filed several Daubert motions and motions for summary judgment, including: (1) a motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of HTC's damages expert, (2) a motion for partial summary judgment and to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Akl, and (3) a motion for partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, to exclude the testimony of Dr. Timothy Williams. (D.I. 348; D.I. 351; D.I. 354) Case dispositive motions are to be fully briefed by October 3, 2014. (D.I. 392) On August 15, 2014, HTC filed the instant letter motion to strike Monee's opening briefs in support of its motions for summary judgment and to exclude the testimony of Dr. Robert Akl. (D.I. 387)

III. DISCUSSION

In support of its motion, HTC contends that Monee improperly exceeded the page limits for its summary judgment briefing by including factual material, citations, and legal analysis in the attached exhibits. (D.I. 387 at 2) In response, Monee alleges that the disputed exhibit simply summarizes the other exhibits contained in the record and contains no legal analysis. (D.I. 389 at 1-2). Even if the court were to credit HTC's allegations, Monee contends that striking all of its motion papers is unnecessary, and proposes that the court strike only the disputed exhibit and permit Monee to amend its opening brief and declaration. ( Id. at 4)

This court has recognized the impropriety of including legal analyses in charts attached as exhibits to the briefing, as opposed to including them in the briefing itself, for purposes of circumventing page limitations. See British Telecommc'ns v. Google, C.A. No. 11-1249-LPS, D.I. 302 (D. Del. Dec. 4, 2013); Medicines Co. Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. No. 09-750-RGA, D.I. 814 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2013); Mosel Vitelic Corp. v. Micron Tech., Inc., C.A. No. 98-449-GMS, Order (D. Del. Dec. 9, 1999). Although Monee alleges that Exhibit 1 to the Moore Declaration contains only facts and citations, as opposed to legal argument, the chart is comparable to the exhibits that were found to contain legal argument and improperly exceed the page limitations in British Telecommc'ns v. Google and Medicines Co. Inc. v. Hospira, Inc. (C.A. No. 11-1249-LPS, D.I. 270; C.A. No. 09-750-RGA, D.I. 810 at Ex. 3) The infringement portion of Monec's opening brief contains no legal analysis, and HTC must refer to Exhibit 1 of the Moore Declaration to respond to Monec's submissions. (D.I. 352 at 7-14)

HTC is prejudiced by Monec's improper reliance on Exhibit 1 of the Moore Declaration to convey its legal arguments because HTC must respond to the 272-page exhibit within the briefing page limitations established by the court. For these reasons, the court will grant the motion to strike and offer Monee an opportunity to file amended opening briefs and supporting documents.[2] See Medicines Co. Inc. v. Hospira, Inc., C.A. No. 09-750-RGA, D.I. 814 at n.2 (D. Del. Nov. 13, 2013) ("The Hospira materials are not parts of the record.' They are Hospira's analysis of the record offered in support of their arguments."). Monee may file its amended submissions within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. At this time, the court will not entertain requests for extensions of the page limitations[3] absent compelling reasons jointly presented by the parties. (6/24/14 Tr. at 40:10-41:9) (parties noted that they were agreeable to the page limitations established by the court).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, HTC's motion to strike (D.I. 387) is granted. Monee may amend its opening summary judgment and Daubert papers within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Memorandum Opinion. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue.

This Memorandum Opinion is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), and D. Del. LR 72.1(a)(2). The parties may serve and file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Memorandum Opinion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). The objections and responses to the objections are limited to ten (10) pages each.

The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order For Objections Filed Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the court's website, http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.