Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. PARKERVISION, INC., a Florida corporation,

Transcription

1 Case: Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 10/03/2014 Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PARKERVISION, INC., a Florida corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Cross-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in No. 3:11-cv RBD-JRK, Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. DEFENDANT-CROSS-APPELLANT QUALCOMM INCORPORATED S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A FOURTEEN-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS PRINCIPAL AND RESPONSIVE BRIEF MOLOLAMKEN LLP JEFFREY A. LAMKEN MARTIN V. TOTARO 600 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE., NW WASHINGTON, DC (202) (telephone) (202) (facsimile) JOHN M. WHEALAN, ATTORNEY 4613 MERIVALE ROAD CHEVY CHASE, MD (202) (telephone) (202) (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Appellant COOLEY LLP STEPHEN C. NEAL TIMOTHY S. TETER JEFFREY S. KARR BENJAMIN G. DAMSTEDT LORI R. MASON 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA (650) (telephone) (650) (facsimile)

2 Case: Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 10/03/2014 As provided for by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) and Federal Circuit Rule 26(b), Defendant-Cross-Appellant Qualcomm Incorporated ( Qualcomm ) respectfully moves for a fourteen-day extension of time within which to file its principal and responsive brief. As reflected by the Court s docket, Qualcomm s principal and responsive brief is currently due on October 23, If this motion is granted, Defendant-Cross- Appellant s brief would be due on November 6, Qualcomm has not previously requested or received an extension of time for filing its brief. Counsel for Qualcomm has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff- Appellant ParkerVision, Inc. ( ParkerVision ) regarding the requested extension. ParkerVision does not oppose Qualcomm s request for an extension of time. Good cause supports this extension request. The outside attorneys primarily responsible for preparing Qualcomm s principal and responsive brief in this appeal have conflicting commitments in other litigation matters that overlap the time needed to prepare Qualcomm s brief, including dispositive hearings and motions in other patent cases and preparation for a jury trial in another civil matter. Furthermore, the in-house attorneys primarily responsible for working on the appeal have overseas business travel

3 Case: Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 10/03/2014 commitments that overlap the time needed to review drafts of Qualcomm s brief and confer with Qualcomm s outside counsel. The requested extension will allow counsel for Qualcomm to complete a thorough review of the lengthy trial record and provide the most helpful briefing possible to aid the Court s decision. For these reasons, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the Court grant its request for a fourteen-day extension and order that Qualcomm s principal and responsive brief be due on November 6, Dated: October 3, 2014 Respectfully submitted, By:/s/Timothy S. Teter COOLEY LLP STEPHEN C. NEAL (nealsc@cooley.com) TIMOTHY S. TETER (teterts@cooley.com) JEFFREY S. KARR (jkarr@cooley.com) BENJAMIN G. DAMSTEDT (bdamstedt@cooley.com) LORI R. MASON (lmason@cooley.com) 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA (650) (telephone) (650) (facsimile) 2.

4 Case: Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 10/03/2014 MOLOLAMKEN LLP JEFFREY A. LAMKEN (jlamken@mololamken.com) MARTIN V. TOTARO (mtotaro@mololamken.com) 600 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE. NW WASHINGTON, DC (202) (telephone) (202) (facsimile) JOHN M. WHEALAN, ATTORNEY (jwhealan@law.gwu.edu) 4613 MERIVALE ROAD CHEVY CHASE, MD (202) (telephone) (202) (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Appellant 3.

5 Case: Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 10/03/2014 Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PARKERVISION, INC., a Florida corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Cross-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in No. 3:11-cv RBD-JRK, Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY S. TETER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-CROSS-APPELLANT QUALCOMM S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A FOURTEEN-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS PRINCIPAL AND RESPONSIVE BRIEF MOLOLAMKEN LLP JEFFREY A. LAMKEN MARTIN V. TOTARO 600 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE., NW WASHINGTON, DC (202) (telephone) (202) (facsimile) JOHN M. WHEALAN, ATTORNEY 4613 MERIVALE ROAD CHEVY CHASE, MD (202) (telephone) (202) (facsimile) COOLEY LLP STEPHEN C. NEAL TIMOTHY S. TETER JEFFREY S. KARR BENJAMIN G. DAMSTEDT LORI R. MASON 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA (650) (telephone) (650) (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Appellant

6 Case: Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 10/03/2014 I, Timothy S. Teter, declare as follows: 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Cooley LLP, and am counsel for Defendant-Cross-Appellant ( Qualcomm ) in the above-captioned appeal. I provide this declaration upon personal knowledge and, if called upon as a witness, would testify competently as to the matters recited herein. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Qualcomm s motion for a fourteen-day extension of the deadline for filing its principal and responsive brief. 3. This is Qualcomm s first request for an extension of time in this appeal. 4. Qualcomm s principal and responsive brief is currently due October 23, I have conferred with counsel for ParkerVision, Inc. ( ParkerVision ) regarding the requested fourteen-day extension, from October 23, 2014 to November 6, 2014, to file Qualcomm s principal and responsive brief. Counsel for ParkerVision stated that ParkerVision does not oppose the requested extension.

7 Case: Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 10/03/ I was Qualcomm s trial counsel in this case and will be heavily involved in the appeal of this action. 7. The outside attorneys primarily responsible for preparing Qualcomm s principal and responsive brief in this appeal have conflicting commitments in other litigation matters that overlap the time needed to prepare Qualcomm s brief, including dispositive hearings and motions in other patent cases and preparation for a jury trial in another civil matter. 8. The Qualcomm in-house attorneys primarily responsible for working on the appeal have overseas business travel commitments that overlap the time needed to review drafts of Qualcomm s brief and confer with Qualcomm s outside counsel. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: October 3, 2014 /s/timothy S. Teter COOLEY LLP Timothy S. Teter (teterts@cooley.com) 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA (650) (telephone) (650) (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Appellant 2.

8 Case: Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 10/03/2014 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for Defendant-Cross-Appellant certifies the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:. 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by me: None. 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are: None. No publicly traded company owns 10% or more of s stock, and it has no parent companies. 4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are: Cooley LLP: Stephen C. Neal, Timothy S. Teter, Jeffrey S. Karr, Benjamin G. Damstedt, Lori R. Mason Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP: Keith R. Hummel, David Greenwald, James E. Canning, Peter A. Emmi, Andrei Harasymiak, Aaron I. Karp, Joseph E. Lasher (formerly of the firm) MoloLamken LLP: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Martin V. Totaro John M. Whealan Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe, PA: John A. DeVault, III, Courtney K. Grimm Law Office of James T. Bailey: James T. Bailey (formerly of the Cadwalader firm)

9 Case: Document: 45 Page: 9 Filed: 10/03/2014 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP: Christopher A. Hughes, John Moehringer, Robert Pollaro, Howard Wizenfeld Goodwin Procter, LLP: Nicole S. Cunningham (formerly of the firm), Kurt M. Kjelland (formerly of the firm), Steven Arthur Moore (formerly of the firm), Richard William Thill (formerly of the firm) Dated: October 3, 2014 /s/ Timothy S. Teter Counsel for Defendant-Cross-Appellant 2.

10 Case: Document: 45 Page: 10 Filed: 10/03/2014 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 3, 2014, I filed or caused to be filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via the CM/ECF system and served or caused to be served a copy on all counsel of record, with the exception of Mr. Daniel B. Ravicher, by the CM/ECF system. Mr. Ravicher will be served via U.S. Mail at the following address: Daniel B. Ravicher Ravicher Law Firm 2000 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Suite 600 Coral Gables, Florida (786) dan@ravicher.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae Dated: October 3, 2014 /s/timothy S. Teter COOLEY LLP TIMOTHY S. TETER (teterts@cooley.com) 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA (650) (telephone) (650) (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant-Cross-Appellant