decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Google et al respond to Paul Allen with Motions to Dismiss, Sever - A Whole Lot of Shakin' Goin' On
Sunday, October 24 2010 @ 11:57 PM EDT

All month there has been a flurry of activity on the part of the defendants in Paul Allen's patent infringement litigation, Interval Licensing v. AOL, et al, against Google, Apple, Yahoo! and pretty much everyone else you can think of -- mostly all the companies have been busy getting lawyered up. I see Yahoo! has added Morrison & Foerster's Michael A. Jacobs to its legal team, so I am getting quite excited about what we may get to watch.

But maybe not. Google/YouTube have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to dismiss or sever. And others are joining Google in complaining to the court that Interval's complaint fails to state a claim. These patents are so broadly drawn, so generic, Google tells the court, they could be read to cover Google's entire business. I'd say they cover everybody on the Internet, actually, personally. Does Paul Allen think he invented the Internet now?

At the same time, the patents are so vague, Google says, it's impossible to know what product or service is allegedly infringing. And that doesn't meet the legal requirements for a viable complaint.

Worse, Interval has lumped 11 defendants together. What does Google have in common with Office Depot? Clearly there is no commonality of action, no plot, no plan, no nothing. How can they all have infringed the same vague patents, when their businesses are so different, and they do nothing together? What precisely do these patents do, and what precisely do the defendants do that infringes these patents?

Todd Bishop of TechFlash provides an overview, and then this comical statement by Allen's PR people:

Responding to previous criticism, Allen's spokesman called Interval Research “an early, ground-breaking contributor to the development of the internet economy," saying it "worked hard to bring its technologies to market through spinning off new companies, technology transfer arrangements, and sales of its patented technology.”
I see. It contributed to the "internet economy" by selling off its patents? Please give us a list of technologies it itself brought to market. Thanks.

I have the docket for you, and all the motions. I'll put each motion number in parentheses as I discuss them, and you can drop down to the docket to get the PDF, if you want to read them for yourself. Sound like a plan?

Google's Motion On Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (#64):

Google/YouTube's first motion (#62, renoted as #64 to add the date to respond) says Interval's complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim:

Interval’s Complaint fails to identify with any particularity: (a) how Google has allegedly infringed the patents-in-suit; (b) the underlying technology at issue; or (c) products or services offered by Google that are alleged to infringe. Instead, Interval’s Complaint makes identical conclusory allegations with respect to all eleven named Defendants, despite the disparate and unrelated nature of their respective businesses. These uninformative and non-specific allegations are repeated verbatim from one Defendant to the next, without alleging any facts that are specific to any Defendant’s business or products.
Google goes on to tell the court that the patents are so broadly written as to be not only generic, but universal, readable as essentially covering Google's entire business. For example, Google writes that for its ’507 patent, Interval alleges infringement liability “by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.”

Huh? Did Interval patent the entire Internet? Who doesn't this apply to?

And as for the '682 patent, Interval claims infringement “by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.” Worse, Interval makes no distinction between the disparate defendants, who are alleged identically to have infringed, but who have varied services and products. So what exactly is the infringing product or service in each entity's case?

Citing both Twombly and Iqbal, Google says there's no way to identify what exactly the allegation is:

Interval’s Complaint fails to state a claim for infringement under the Supreme Court’s threshold requirements because its allegations are so bereft of factual content that the Court cannot draw any inferences, let alone a reasonable one, that Google infringes the patents-in-suit. By failing to identify with specificity the products or services that allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit and how they do so, the Complaint offers no more than “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me” allegations that fall far short of the Iqbal standard....

Further, in order to shortcut its Complaint against all Defendants by relying on only three basic allegations, Interval necessarily fails to specify products unique to Google. Interval accuses the following of infringement:

  • “websites, hardware, and software” (D.I. 1, at ¶¶ 24, 30);

  • “websites and associated hardware and software” (Id. at ¶¶ 49, 55); or

  • “products that display information” (Id. at ¶¶ 35, 41.)
Such generalizations of a wide universe of alleged infringement evince only mere speculation on the part of Interval as to what category of products or services might somehow infringe, and provide no notice of the products at issue....

Accusing both hardware and software of infringement fails to identify even in the broadest terms what specific Google products and/or services are alleged to infringe....

In addition, Interval must specify not only the products or services that allegedly infringe, but also how those products or services meet the claim limitations of the patents-in-suit.

Hey, forget Iqbal for a minute, Google goes on. Interval doesn't even meet the requirements of Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the lower standard that used to prevail before Iqbal raised the bar. Even Form 18 requires some specific product listed as allegedly infringing. That link takes you to the forms, and if you click on 18, choosing either WP or rtf format, you'll find a template form, and you are supposed to follow its wording, filling in the blanks and substituting your own information for the red text parts. For example, here are the two sentences Google is talking about:
2. On Date, United States Letters Patent No. __________________ were issued to the plaintiff for an invention in an electric motor. The plaintiff owned the patent throughout the period of the defendant's infringing acts and still owns the patent.

3. The defendant has infringed and is still infringing the Letters Patent by making, selling, and using electric motors that embody the patented invention, and the defendant will continue to do so unless enjoined by this court.

Google quotes a 2010 case, Sharafabadi v. Pacific Northwest Farmers Co-op, which says that nowadays, post-Iqbal, to state a "plausible" claim, you must provide more than Form 18's requirements, at least “a brief description of what the patent at issue does” and “an allegation that certain named and specially identified products or product components also do what the patent does.”

Interval also fails to plead indirect infringement, Google says, because you can't, not unless there's first a sufficient claim of direct infringement. AOL adds (#90) in its motion that direct infringement is a predicate to any claim of indirect infringement, plus a claim of indirect infringement requires that the infringer know about the patent at the time of its alleged infringement, and these defendants still don't know what Interval is talking about. That can't be fixed, later, Google says, by telling them now. They had to have known *then*:

Moreover, to the extent Interval attempts to allege that Google induces or contributes to another’s infringement by way of an unspecified encouragement to customers, Interval also fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A claim for indirect infringement requires, at a minimum, knowledge of the patent-in-suit at the time of the allegedly infringing activities. Mallinckrodt Inc. v. E-Z-Em Inc., 670 F. Supp. 2d 349, 354-55 (D. Del. 2009). Further, “knowledge after filing of the present action is not sufficient for pleading the requisite knowledge for indirect infringement.” Xpoint Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 09-cv-628, 2010 WL 3187025, at *6 (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2010) (citing Mallinckrodt, 670 F. Supp. 2d at 354 n.1). The Complaint contains no such allegations of knowledge; therefore, it cannot support a claim for indirect infringement.
OfficeMax filed a misjoinder motion too (#74), relying on Google/YouTube's motion, on its own behalf. That means it relies on the same authorities cited by Google, the same arguments, plus any of its own. Ditto Apple (#80), which puts it this way:
In short, Interval has sued eleven major corporations and made the same bald assertions that each defendant infringes 197 claims in four patents. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Twombly, it is in this type of situation in which courts should use their “power to insist upon some specificity in pleading before allowing a potentially massive factual controversy to proceed.” 550 U.S. at 558 (quotation omitted).

In the interest of expeditiously disposing of this case, Apple hereby joins in Google’s motion and incorporates by reference the authority and arguments presented therein. Accordingly, based on that authority and those arguments as well as the analysis in this motion, Apple requests that the Court dismiss Interval’s Complaint against Apple.

Apple expressly reserves the right to file its own brief in reply to any opposition filed by Interval.

There is a joint motion (#82) by eBay, NetFlix, Office Depot, and Staples also claiming that Interval fails to state a claim against them, also relying on Google's motion, one sentence long:
Defendants eBay Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., and Staples, Inc. hereby join Defendants Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss or Sever for Misjoinder (Docket No. 65) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21, and the arguments and authorities found therein.
Sharing a lawyer and brief filings means one of two things, generally. Either they hope to save money, or they are so confident that Google has said it all, there's no need to repeat it.

Yahoo! has filed its own motion (#84) on failure to state a claim:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant Yahoo! Inc. joins in defendants Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Docket Entry No. 64), for all the reasons therein.

Additionally, Yahoo! notes that Interval Licensing’s infringement allegations are so vague that Yahoo! cannot implement an appropriate document hold notice. Based on Interval’s complaint, Yahoo! cannot identify which of its products and services may be relevant to the lawsuit. (Declaration of Kevin Kramer in Support of Yahoo!’s Notice of Joinder in Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (“Kramer Decl.”) ¶ 2-3.)) Yahoo! has hundreds of products and services, the vast majority of which involve websites, hardware, and/or software. (Kramer Decl. ¶ 4.) The complaint’s lack of specificity leaves Yahoo! in the dark as to what activity allegedly infringes, and thus which documents need to be preserved. (Id.)

Counsel for Yahoo! wrote a letter to counsel for Interval Licensing on October 6, 2010, asking for additional information as to which Yahoo! products and services are alleged to infringe the asserted patents, but has not yet received a response. (Kramer Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Thus, Yahoo! has been unable to issue an adequate litigation hold notice to ensure that its employees preserve the appropriate documents.

That last really tweaks Interval's nose. It has to realize that this failure to respond to Yahoo's request for info, sent early in October, can impact discovery, because Yahoo will just say, Sorry, we didn't know you'd want that. Too late now. It's gone. So either Interval stands up and tells what it's alleging, or it's likely to run a hobbled race against Yahoo. In addition to local counsel and Michael Jacobs, Morrison & Foerster have assigned four other attorneys to this case. I gather they intend to prevail.

The Kramer declaration (#85) states the details about the letter, which is attached as an exhibit. Kramer is VP and Associate General Counsel at Yahoo! in charge of patent litigation. He tells about sending the letter and getting no reply.

Facebook has also filed a motion (#92) to dismiss for failure to state a claim against it, also relying on Google's motion. It adds its own material, however. The claims are so vague, Facebook writes, that it can show the court the entire claim against it in one footnote:

1 The full text of the allegations against Facebook in the Interval complaint are as follows: “Defendant Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’682 patent. Facebook is liable for infringing the ‘682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.” (Id. at ¶ 48.)
One or more. OK. When will we know?

Apple has additionally filed a motion (#81) asking the court to sever claims against it, or to dismiss them, as has Google (#63, renoted as #65), as has Yahoo (#86), as has AOL (#90) as has Facebook (#91), as has the eBay group (#83).

Google's Motion to Dismiss or Sever (#65):

This Google motion says Interval Licensing shouldn't be allowed to sue so many unrelated entities, 11 of them, when there's no evidence that there is any connection between them or any coordinated action by them or "any right to relief from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences":

Interval Licensing LLC (“Interval”) has ignored the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit law by attempting to improperly join eleven disparate and unrelated entities in a single action for patent infringement without alleging any coordinated action between them or any right to relief that arises out of “the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A). Google should be dropped from the instant action, or the claims against it should be severed, because there is no allegation of, or any factual basis for alleging, a connection between Google and the other defendants with respect to Interval’s claims of patent infringement.
One header states that "Plaintiff’s Attempted Joinder of Google with Unrelated Defendants Ignores the Law," and that section cites Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which says there has to be some commonality between the defendants, and here there just isn't any:
Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines who may be permissively joined as defendants. Joinder is appropriate only if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and

(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action. ...

The defendants named in the Complaint either compete with each other, as in the case of, for example, Google and Yahoo!, or have entirely different businesses, as in the case of, for example, Google and Office Depot, Inc. The eleven named defendants offer a wide and unrelated array of products, technologies, and services, from notepads and office furniture to Internet search capabilities. There is no logical relationship between the defendants, and the Complaint contains no allegation that any two defendants (let alone all eleven defendants) conspired to injure Interval, or acted in concert in any way whatsoever. Interval has inappropriately sued all defendants at once apparently to serve its own interests.
You think?

Google means, I believe, that it is cheaper for Interval to sue the eleven defendants all at once as a group than to have to sue them individually and separately all over the place and have to pay for discovery and everything else that goes into a patent infringement lawsuit for each and every one of them serially:

In order to prove infringement, Interval must show that each and every limitation of the asserted claims is present in each asserted product or service. Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 821 (Fed. Cir. 1992). While it is impossible to tell from the Complaint which products or services Interval contends infringe its patents, both infringement and remedies analyses are intensely fact-specific processes. Joinder is improper here because each (as yet unknown) product or service accused of infringement will be subjected to its own, independent infringement analysis and damages evaluation, involving different evidence and witnesses. Spread Spectrum, 2010 WL 3516106 at *2 (in a patent infringement action, finding improper joinder under Rule 20 and severing claims pursuant to Rule 21 where “[t]he accused infringing software, other evidence and witnesses are all different and unique” as to defendants).
Imagine the prejudice from asking the jury to parse all the claims out, if they are all presented at once.

"Where a party has been misjoined," Google writes, "Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 provides that '[on] motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party'.” Hence, Google's motion. It wants to be dropped or its case, and YouTube's, severed from the others, preferably the former:

Google should be dismissed from this case, or the claims against it should be severed, because a jury would become confused by a proceeding involving a multitude of unrelated products, infringement theories, and defenses. This likelihood of confusion and prejudice is precisely the reason why Rule 20 requires “transactional relatedness” for joinder of unrelated defendants.
Again, Apple has also filed a similar motion (#81), but with one exception in a footnote:
Further, there will be no substantial right that will be prejudiced by severance. To the contrary, severance will avoid prejudicing Apple and other defendants from having to litigate disparate allegations, evidence, accused products, arguments, and theories.

In the interest of expeditiously disposing of or managing this case, Apple hereby joins in Google’s motion and incorporates by reference the authority and arguments presented therein.2 Accordingly, based on that authority and those arguments as well as the analysis in this motion, Apple requests that the Court dismiss or sever Apple from this case. Notwithstanding any decision on this motion, Apple expressly reserves its right under Rule 20(b), Rule 42(b), the Court’s inherent authority, and/or any other source of law to move for a separate trial.

Apple expressly reserves the right to file its own brief in reply to any opposition filed by Interval.

______________
2 Apple does not join the first sentence of footnote 2 in Google’s motion. (Docket No. 63 at 6:26.)

Here's Google's footnote 2 Apple is standing off from:
2 Google would not object to any re-filed cases being heard in this Court in order to realize certain judicial efficiencies. Further, other tools, such as coordination or consolidation of discovery, particularly, for example as it relates to claim construction and/or validity of the patents-in-suit, may be employed to preserve judicial efficiency and party resources.
Apple doesn't intend to agree to that first sentence, meaning it *does* object, but whether it objects to "this court" or "refiled cases" is not yet clear to me. Maybe both.

What puzzles me is this: surely Interval thought of all this. Everyone knows about Iqbal. Yet they filed this complaint the way they did. Why? They have to have some plan or some strategy, I would think, unless I overestimate them. We'll see when they reply, and they surely will have to.

Here's the the docket so far, to give you the overview, and relevant documents link to the PDFs, the new ones starting with #62:

DOC # DATE DESCRIPTION
1 Filed & Entered: 08/27/2010 COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against defendant(s) All Defendants, filed by Interval Licensing LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Exhibit 3, # (4) Exhibit 4, # (5) Exhibit 5, # (6) Civil Cover Sheet, # (7) Summons AOL Inc., # (8) Summons eBay, Inc., # (9) Summons Netflix, Inc., # (10) Summons Staples, Inc., # (11) Summons Youtube, LLC, # (12) Summons Facebook, Inc., # (13) Summons Office Depot, Inc., # (14) Summons Google, Inc., # (15) Summons Officemax, Inc., # (16) Summons Yahoo! Inc., # (17) Summons Apple, Inc.)(Nelson, Justin) (Receipt #: SEA036208).
2 Filed & Entered: 08/27/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by Interval Licensing LLC Filed by Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC.(Nelson, Justin)
- Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010 Add and Terminate Judges
Docket Text: Judge Marsha J. Pechman added. (MKB)
- Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010 Notice of Deficiency
Docket Text: NOTICE to Filer: In the future please order the parties on the docket as they appear on the Complaint. In addition to creating a docket that is a true reflection of the Complaint caption it also helps eliminate dropping parties as happened here with defendant Google, Inc. The docket has now been properly ordered and defendant Google, Inc. has been added.(MKB)
- Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010 Notice of Deficiency
Docket Text: NOTICE to Filer of Deficiency: Pursuant to our local rules, Civil Rule 3(a), all civil action complaints in which jurisdiction is invoked in whole or in part under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (regarding patents, trademarks and copyrights) shall be accompanied by the required notice to the Patent and Trademark Office (Form AO120) or the required notice to the Register of Copyrights (Form AO121). Please complete the appropriate form and email it back to the new cases box at newcases.seattle@wawd.uscourts.gov. Please include in the subject line the name and number of the case and the name of the document attached. This form will then be posted to the case docket and a copy sent to the appropriate entity. (MKB)
3 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010 Notice-Other
Docket Text: Notice to counsel Max Tribble, Jr., Michael Heim, Eric Enger and Nathan Davis advising of pro hac vice and ECF registration requirements. (MKB)
4 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010 Summons Issued
Docket Text: Summons Issued as to all Defendants. (Attachments: # (1) Summons, # (2) Summons, # (3) Summons, # (4) Summons, # (5) Summons, # (6) Summons, # (7) Summons, # (8) Summons, # (9) Summons, # (10) Summons)(MKB)
5 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010
Terminated: 08/30/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Nate Davis FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2170677. (Nelson, Justin)
6 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010
Terminated: 08/31/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Eric Enger FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2170707. (Nelson, Justin)
7 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010
Terminated: 08/31/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Michael F. Heim FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2170720. (Nelson, Justin)
8 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010
Terminated: 08/31/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Max L. Tribble, Jr. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2170744. (Nelson, Justin)
9 Filed & Entered: 08/30/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [5] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Nathan J. Davis for Interval Licensing LLC, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
12 Filed: 08/30/2010
Entered: 08/31/2010
Report Regarding Patent & Trademark
Docket Text: REPORT on the filing or determination of an action. E-mailed to the US Patent Office. (Attachments: # (1) Report on Patents and Trademarks (AO Form120)) (RE)
10 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [6] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Eric J. Enger for Interval Licensing LLC, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
11 Filed & Entered: 08/31/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [7] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Michael F. Heim for Interval Licensing LLC, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
13 Filed & Entered: 08/31/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [8] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Attorney Max L. Tribble for Interval Licensing LLC, by Bruce Rifkin. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
14 Filed & Entered: 09/10/2010
Terminated: 09/10/2010
Stipulated Motion
Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION and [Proposed] Order Extending Defendants' Time to Respond to Complaint by Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC. Noting Date 9/10/2010, (Berry, Matthew)
15 Filed: 09/10/2010
Entered: 09/13/2010
Order on Stipulated Motion
Docket Text: ORDER granting [14] Stipulated Motion extending time to respond to complaint by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD)
16 Filed: 09/14/2010
Entered: 09/15/2010
Summons Returned Executed
Docket Text: SERVICE OF SUMMONS and Complaint returned executed upon defendant AOL Inc on 8/30/2010; Apple Inc on 8/30/2010; Facebook Inc on 8/30/2010; Google Inc on 8/30/2010; Netflix Inc on 8/30/2010; Office Depot Inc on 8/30/2010; OfficeMax Inc on 8/30/2010; Staples Inc on 8/30/2010; Yahoo! Inc on 8/30/2010; eBay Inc on 8/30/2010 (MD)
17 Filed & Entered: 09/15/2010 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Michael D Hunsinger on behalf of Defendant Office Depot Inc. (Hunsinger, Michael)
18 Filed & Entered: 09/16/2010 Stipulation
Docket Text: STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Complaint for Defendant Office Depot by parties. (Hunsinger, Michael)
19 Filed & Entered: 09/17/2010
Terminated: 09/17/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Edward J. Bennett FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Office Depot Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2187853. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration Form)(Hunsinger, Michael)
20 Filed & Entered: 09/17/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [19] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Edward J. Bennett for Office Depot Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
21 Filed & Entered: 09/17/2010 Stipulation and Order
Docket Text: STIPULATION AND ORDER re [18] Stipulation filed by Office Depot Inc ; Defendant Office Depot must respond to Plaintiff's complaint by October 22, 2010 by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (IM)
22 Filed & Entered: 09/20/2010 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Steven W Fogg on behalf of Defendant OfficeMax Inc. (Fogg, Steven)
23 Filed & Entered: 09/20/2010
Terminated: 09/23/2010
Stipulated Motion
Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION and Proposed Order Extending OfficeMax's Time to Respond to Complaint by Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC. Noting Date 9/20/2010, (Berry, Matthew)
24 Filed & Entered: 09/23/2010 Order on Stipulated Motion
Docket Text: ORDER granting [23] Stipulated Motion to extend time to respond to complaint to October 22, 2010 by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(MD)
25 Filed & Entered: 09/27/2010 Joint Status Report Order
Docket Text: ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT Joint Status Report due by 11/8/2010, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 10/25/2010, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 11/1/2010, by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM)
26 Filed & Entered: 09/27/2010 Standing Order re Patent Case
Docket Text: STANDING ORDER FOR PATENT CASES by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (RM)
27 Filed & Entered: 09/27/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by OfficeMax Inc identifying Other Affiliate Fidelity Management & Research Company, Other Affiliate Fidelity Value Fund, Other Affiliate FIL Limited, Other Affiliate Evercore Trust Company, N.A., Other Affiliate FMR LLC, Other Affiliate Edward C. Johnson for OfficeMax Inc. Filed by Defendants OfficeMax Inc, Fidelity Management & Research Company, Fidelity Value Fund, FIL Limited, Evercore Trust Company, N.A., FMR LLC, Edward C. Johnson.(Baumgardner, Kevin)
28 Filed & Entered: 09/30/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by Office Depot Inc Filed by Defendant Office Depot Inc.(Hunsinger, Michael)
29 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Shannon M Jost on behalf of Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC. (Jost, Shannon)
30 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010
Terminated: 10/04/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Kevin X. McGann FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2204432. (Jost, Shannon)
31 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010
Terminated: 10/04/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Warren S. Heit FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2204497. (Jost, Shannon)
32 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010
Terminated: 10/04/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY John Handy FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2204504. (Jost, Shannon)
33 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010
Terminated: 10/04/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Dimitrios T. Drivas FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2204511. (Jost, Shannon)
34 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [30] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Kevin X. McGann for Google Inc, and for YouTube LLC, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
35 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [31] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Warren S. Heit for Google Inc, and for YouTube LLC, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
36 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [32] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney John Handy for Google Inc, and for YouTube LLC, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
37 Filed & Entered: 10/04/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [33] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Dimitrios T. Drivas for Google Inc, and for YouTube LLC, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
- Filed & Entered: 10/05/2010 Add and Terminate Attorneys
Docket Text: Attorney Scott A.W. Johnson,Aneelah Afzali for Google Inc,Scott A.W. Johnson,Aneelah Afzali for YouTube LLC added per [29] Notice of Appearance. (KN)
38 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1.. (Jost, Shannon)
39 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1.. (Jost, Shannon)
40 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010
Terminated: 10/12/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Aaron Chase FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2209342. (Jost, Shannon)
41 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Mark P Walters on behalf of Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (Walters, Mark)
42 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010
Terminated: 10/12/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Francis Ho FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Yahoo! Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2209615. (Walters, Mark)
43 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010
Terminated: 10/12/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Richard S.J. Hung FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Yahoo! Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2209622. (Walters, Mark)
44 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010
Terminated: 10/12/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Michael Jacobs FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Yahoo! Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2209631. (Walters, Mark)
45 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010
Terminated: 10/12/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Matthew I. Keeger FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Yahoo! Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2209637. (Walters, Mark)
46 Filed & Entered: 10/07/2010
Terminated: 10/12/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Eric W. Ow FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Yahoo! Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2209642. (Walters, Mark)
47 Filed & Entered: 10/12/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [40] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Aaron Chase for Google Inc, and for YouTube LLC, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
48 Filed & Entered: 10/12/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [42] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Francis Ho for Yahoo! Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
49 Filed & Entered: 10/12/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [43] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Richard S.J. Hung for Yahoo! Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
50 Filed & Entered: 10/12/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [44] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Michael A Jacobs for Yahoo! Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
51 Filed & Entered: 10/12/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [45] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Matthew I Kreeger for Yahoo! Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
52 Filed & Entered: 10/12/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [46] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Eric W. Ow for Yahoo! Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
53 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney J Christopher Carraway on behalf of Defendants Netflix Inc, Office Depot Inc, Staples Inc, eBay Inc. (Carraway, J)
54 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Scott T Wilsdon on behalf of Defendant Apple Inc. (Wilsdon, Scott)
55 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by Netflix Inc Filed by Defendant Netflix Inc.(Carraway, J)
56 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by Staples Inc Filed by Defendant Staples Inc.(Carraway, J)
57 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010
Terminated: 10/19/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY David S. Almeling FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Apple Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2218969. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration Form)(Roller, Jeremy)
58 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010
Terminated: 10/19/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Brian M. Berliner FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Apple Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2218978. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration Form)(Roller, Jeremy)
59 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010
Terminated: 10/19/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY George A. Riley FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Apple Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2218986. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration Form)(Roller, Jeremy)
60 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010
Terminated: 10/19/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Neil L. Yang FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Apple Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2218993. (Attachments: # (1) ECF Registration Form)(Roller, Jeremy)
61 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney John D Vandenberg on behalf of Defendants Netflix Inc, Office Depot Inc, Staples Inc, eBay Inc. (Vandenberg, John)
62 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010 Motion to Dismiss
Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) by Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/5/2010, (Jost, Shannon)
63 Filed & Entered: 10/18/2010 Motion to Dismiss Party
Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss Party or Sever for Misjoinder Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21 by Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/5/2010, (Jost, Shannon)
64 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Notice of Motion Re-Noted
Docket Text: NOTICE that the following is RE-NOTED: [62] MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6). Filed by Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC. Noting Date 11/12/2010, (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Jost, Shannon)
65 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Notice of Motion Re-Noted
Docket Text: NOTICE that the following is RE-NOTED: [63] MOTION to Dismiss Party or Sever for Misjoinder Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21. Filed by Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC. Noting Date 11/12/2010, (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Jost, Shannon)
66 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [57] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney David S. Almeling for Apple Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
67 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [58] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Brian M. Berliner for Apple Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
68 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [59] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney George A Riley for Apple Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
69 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [60] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Neil L. Yang for Apple Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
70 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Notice of Attorney Association
Docket Text: NOTICE of Association of Attorney by Kevin C Baumgardner on behalf of Defendant OfficeMax Inc. (Baumgardner, Kevin)
71 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by eBay Inc Filed by Defendant eBay Inc.(Carraway, J)
72 Filed & Entered: 10/19/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by Apple Inc Filed by Defendant Apple Inc.(Roller, Jeremy)
73 Filed & Entered: 10/20/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by Office Depot Inc identifying Other Affiliate Alliance Bernstein, L.P. for Office Depot Inc. Filed by Defendants Office Depot Inc, Alliance Bernstein, L.P..(Carraway, J)
74 Filed & Entered: 10/20/2010 Notice of Joinder
Docket Text: NOTICE of Joinder JOINING [62] MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), by Defendant OfficeMax Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order Granting Defendant OfficeMax's Joinder in Defendants Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted)(Baumgardner, Kevin)
75 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010
Terminated: 10/21/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY John S. Letchinger FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant OfficeMax Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2222571. (Attachments: # (1) Supplement ECF Agreement)(Baumgardner, Kevin)
76 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010
Terminated: 10/21/2010
Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Douglas S. Rupert FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant OfficeMax Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2222573. (Attachments: # (1) Supplement ECF Agreement)(Baumgardner, Kevin)
77 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [75] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney John S Letchinger for OfficeMax Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
78 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER re [76] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Douglas S. Rupert for OfficeMax Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS)
79 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010
Terminated: 10/22/2010
Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
Docket Text: Agreed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Edward J. Bennett and Michael D. Hunsinger by Defendant Office Depot Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) Noting Date 10/21/2010, (Carraway, J)
80 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Motion to Dismiss
Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant Apple Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/12/2010, (Roller, Jeremy)
81 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Motion to Dismiss
Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss or Sever Pursuant to FRCP 20 & 21 by Defendant Apple Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/12/2010, (Roller, Jeremy)
82 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Notice of Joinder
Docket Text: NOTICE of Joinder JOINING [62] MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), by Defendants Netflix Inc, Office Depot Inc, Staples Inc, eBay Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Carraway, J)
83 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Notice of Joinder
Docket Text: NOTICE of Joinder JOINING [63] MOTION to Dismiss Party or Sever for Misjoinder Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21, by Defendants Netflix Inc, Office Depot Inc, Staples Inc, eBay Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Carraway, J)
84 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Notice of Joinder
Docket Text: NOTICE of Joinder JOINING [62] MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), by Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Walters, Mark)
85 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Kevin Kramer filed by Defendant Yahoo! Inc re [62] MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service, # (2) Exhibit)(Walters, Mark)
86 Filed & Entered: 10/21/2010 Notice of Joinder
Docket Text: NOTICE of Joinder JOINING [63] MOTION to Dismiss Party or Sever for Misjoinder Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21, by Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order, # (2) Proposed Order)(Walters, Mark)
87 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Aneelah Afzali on behalf of Defendant AOL Inc. (Afzali, Aneelah)
88 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney
Docket Text: ORDER on [79] Agreed Motion for Withdrawal of Attorney Edward J Bennett and Michael D Hunsinger as Counsel for deft Office Depot Inc by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(TF)
89 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by AOL Inc, Google Inc, YouTube LLC Filed by Defendants AOL Inc, Google Inc, YouTube LLC.(Afzali, Aneelah)
90 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Notice of Joinder
Docket Text: NOTICE of Joinder JOINING [62] MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief can be Granted Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6), by Defendants AOL Inc, Google Inc, YouTube LLC. (Afzali, Aneelah)
91 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Motion to Dismiss
Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss Joinder in Defs Google Inc. and YouTube's Motion to Dismiss or Sever for Misjoinder by Defendant Facebook Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/12/2010, (Durbin, Christopher)
92 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Motion to Dismiss
Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss Joinder in Defs Google Inc. and YouTube's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted by Defendant Facebook Inc. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order) Noting Date 11/12/2010, (Durbin, Christopher)
93 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by Facebook Inc Filed by Defendant Facebook Inc.(Durbin, Christopher)
94 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Christen M.R. Dubois FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Facebook Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2224669. (Durbin, Christopher)
95 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY HEIDI L. KEEFE FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Facebook Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2224693. (Durbin, Christopher)
96 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY MICHAEL G. RHODES FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Facebook Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2224703. (Durbin, Christopher)
97 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY ELIZABETH L. STAMESHKIN FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Facebook Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2224709. (Durbin, Christopher)
98 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY MARK R. WEINSTEIN FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Facebook Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2224713. (Durbin, Christopher)
99 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Certificate of Service
Docket Text: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendant Facebook Inc re [96] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, [95] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, [94] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, [98] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice, [97] Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Durbin, Christopher)
100 Filed & Entered: 10/22/2010 Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRCP 7.1. by Yahoo! Inc Filed by Defendant Yahoo! Inc.(Walters, Mark)

Update:

Here's a bit more lawyering up:

10/25/2010 - 101 - ORDER re 94 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Christen M.R. Dubois for Facebook Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 102 - ORDER re 95 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Heidi L. Keefe for Facebook Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 103 - ORDER re 96 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Michael G Rhodes for Facebook Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 104 - ORDER re 97 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Elizabeth L. Stameshkin for Facebook Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 105 - ORDER re 98 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Mark R. Weinstein for Facebook Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 106 - NOTICE of Association of Attorney by Arthur W. Harrigan, Jr on behalf of Defendants Netflix Inc, Office Depot Inc, Staples Inc, eBay Inc. (Harrigan, Arthur) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 107 - APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Cortney S. Alexander FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant AOL Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2225882. (Afzali, Aneelah) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 108 - APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Gerald F. Ivey FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant AOL Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2225888. (Afzali, Aneelah) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 109 - APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Robert L. Burns FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant AOL Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2225891. (Afzali, Aneelah) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

10/25/2010 - 110 - APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Elliot C. Cook FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant AOL Inc (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2225900. (Afzali, Aneelah) (Entered: 10/25/2010)

And believe it or not, more lawyers:

10/26/2010 - 111 - ORDER re 107 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Cortney S. Alexander for AOL Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

10/26/2010 - 112 - ORDER re 108 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Gerald F. Ivey for AOL Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

10/26/2010 - 113 - APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Wendi R. Schepler FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendants Google Inc, YouTube LLC (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-2226844. (Jost, Shannon) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

10/26/2010 - 114 - ORDER re 109 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Robert L. Burns for AOL Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

10/26/2010 - 115 - ORDER re 110 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Elliott C. Cook for AOL Inc, by William M. McCool. (No document associated with this docket entry, text only.)(DS) (Entered: 10/26/2010)


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )