Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 142 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 5345

Transcription

1 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 142 Filed 06/09/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 5345 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION PARKERVISION, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:14-cv PGB-KRS QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants. PARKERVISION S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM ParkerVision opposes Samsung s motion (Doc. No. 140 for leave to file a third memorandum in support of Samsung s Motion to Strike (Doc. No Rule 7(b(1(B, Fed.R.Civ.P., requires that motions and supporting memoranda (and certainly any reply memoranda include all argument, with particularity. The Court therefore disfavors a reply, and especially a third memorandum in support of a motion. See M.D. Fla. Local Rule 3.01(c ( No party shall file any reply or further memorandum directed to the motion or response... unless the Court grants leave.. Replies are only allowed when necessary to address new argument. See, Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2012 ( The purpose of a reply brief is to rebut any new law or facts contained in the opposition's response to a request for relief before the Court; emphasis added. Because ParkerVision did not present any new argument in its sur reply in opposition to Samsung s motion to strike, Samsung s motion to file a third memorandum in support of its motion to strike should be denied.

2 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 142 Filed 06/09/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID 5346 Samsung contends that a third memorandum is necessary because ParkerVision argued for the first time as the central factual premise of its Sur reply that there were no publicly available Samsung phones or tablets containing Samsung RF transceivers (one type of accused processor before ParkerVision served its Infringement Contentions. Doc. No. 140, page 1 Samsung s emphasis. But in support of Samsung s motion to file a second memorandum in support of its motion to strike, Samsung argued that ParkerVision suggests that Samsung s first non-qualcomm based phone was released only recently, and that no Samsung phone using a Samsung processor was publicly available before ParkerVision filed its Complaint and prepared its infringement contentions (Doc. No. 125, page 1. Samsung added, ParkerVision incorrectly suggests that Samsung phones using Samsung processors were not publicly available early enough to allow ParkerVision to perform a technical investigation of those processors (such as the investigations it performed regarding Qualcomm processors and include the results of that investigation in its infringement contentions. Id. at1-2. ParkerVision s first memorandum in opposition to Samsung s motion to strike argued that the Galaxy S6 was released in April 2015, and neither the Galaxy S6 nor the Samsung chips in certain models thereof were available to ParkerVision during the preparation of its ICs (Doc. No. 122, page 3. ParkerVision also argued that in early April 2015, well after ParkerVision completed and served its ICs on the Defendants, Samsung released its Galaxy S6 product. In some models of this newly-released S6, Samsung has substituted its own homegrown Samsung chips that perform the receiver, transmitter, and baseband functionality, in place of the Qualcomm chips that perform the same functions. Id., page 9. ParkerVision added that [s]chematics or other information describing the operation of the Samsung chips are not available in any publicly-accessible form (and none were identified by Samsung. Id.,page3. 2

3 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 142 Filed 06/09/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID 5347 Samsung, therefore, had knowledge of ParkerVision s argument related to the nonavailability of Samsung chips at least since the time ParkerVision filed its first memorandum in opposition to Samsung s motion to strike. Samsung therefore should have fully addressed that argument in Samsung s second memorandum in support of its motion to strike. And Samsung has explicitly addressed ParkerVision s argument in its second memorandum in support of its motion to strike [citation]. But Samsung chose to address ParkerVision s argument without identifying any Samsung products that have non-qualcomm processors. Now, in its motion to file a third memorandum in support of its motion to strike, Samsung for the first time argues that [t]he accused Samsung Galaxy S4 zoom and the accused Galaxy Light products each has a Samsung Shannon888 RF chip (Doc. No. 140, page 1. ParkerVision argued in its initial memorandum in opposition to Samsung s motion to strike that there were no publicly available Samsung products with non-qualcomm processors when ParkerVision served its infringement contentions. Samsung argued that it needed to address that ParkerVision argument in a second memorandum in support of its motion to strike and Samsung addressed ParkerVision s argument in Samsung s second memorandum. Because there is nothing new to address, Samsung s motion to file a third memorandum in support of its motion to strike should be denied. 3

4 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 142 Filed 06/09/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID 5348 McKOOL SMITH, P.C. SMITH HULSEY & BUSEY /s/ Josh W. Budwin Douglas A. Cawley, Lead Attorney Texas State Bar No dcawley@mckoolsmith.com John Austin Curry Texas State Bar No acurry@mckoolsmith.com 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas Telephone: ( Telecopier: ( By /s/ James A. Bolling. Stephen D. Busey James A. Bolling Florida Bar Number Water Street, Suite 1800 Jacksonville, Florida ( ( (facsimile jbolling@smithhulsey.com T. Gordon White Texas State Bar No gwhite@mckoolsmith.com KevinL.Burgess Texas State Bar No kburgess@mckoolsmith.com Josh W. Budwin Texas State Bar No jbudwin@mckoolsmith.com Leah Buratti Texas State Bar No lburatti@mckoolsmith.com McKool Smith P.C. 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas Telephone: ( Telecopier: ( Attorneys for ParkerVision, Inc. 4

5 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 142 Filed 06/09/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID 5349 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 9, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to the following non-cm/ecf participants: none /s/ James A. Bolling Attorney 5