Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Vringo Reply Appeal Brief Google

Vringo Reply Appeal Brief Google

Ratings: (0)|Views: 211|Likes:
Published by Markman Advisors
Vringo's Reply Brief in their Federal Circuit appeal against Google
Vringo's Reply Brief in their Federal Circuit appeal against Google

More info:

Published by: Markman Advisors on Mar 02, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/16/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Nos. 2013-1307, -1313 IN THE
 
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, v.
AOL INC., GOOGLE INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., GANNETT COMPANY, INC., and TARGET CORPORATION,
 Defendant-Appellants.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA IN CASE NO. 11-CV-512, JUDGE RAYMOND A. JACKSON.
REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-CROSS APPELLANT I/P ENGINE, INC.
J
EFFREY
K.
 
S
HERWOOD
 F
RANK
C.
 
C
IMINO
,
 
J
.
ENNETH
W.
 
B
ROTHERS
 D
AWN
UDENKO
A
LBERT
 C
HARLES
J.
 
M
ONTERIO
,
 
J
. J
ONATHAN
L.
 
F
ALKLER 
 
D
ICKSTEIN
S
HAPIRO
LLP
1825 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 420-2200 J
OSEPH
R.
 
E
 
Counsel of Record
S
TEPHEN
W.
 
L
ARSON
 
K
NOBBE
,
 
M
ARTENS
,
 
O
LSON
&
 
B
EAR
,
 
LLP
2040 Main Street, 14
th
 Floor Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 760-0404
  Attorneys for Plaintiff-Cross Appellant 
 
January 2, 2014
 
Case: 13-1307 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 75 Page: 1 Filed: 01/02/2014
Case: 13-1307 Document: 78 Page: 1 Filed: 01/02/2014
 
 -i-
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for Plaintiff-Cross Appellant I/P Engine, Inc. certifies the following: 1.
 
The full name of every party being represented by me is: I/P Engine, Inc. 2.
 
The real party in interest represented by me is: Vringo, Inc. 3.
 
All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the parties represented by me are as follows: Innovate/Protect, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vringo, Inc. 4.
 
The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this Court are: Joseph R. Re, Stephen W. Larson, KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP; Donald C. Schultz, W. Ryan Snow, CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC; Jeffrey K. Sherwood, Frank C. Cimino, Jr., Kenneth W. Brothers, Dawn Rudenko Albert, Charles J. Monterio, Jr., James Ryerson, Jonathan Falkler, Katie Scott, Krista Carter, Leslie Jacobs, Jr., DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP; Richard H. Ottinger, Dustin M. Paul, VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP. Dated: January 2, 2014 By: /s/ Joseph R. Re Joseph R. Re
 Attorney for Plaintiff-Cross Appellant
I/P ENGINE, INC.
Case: 13-1307 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 75 Page: 2 Filed: 01/02/2014
Case: 13-1307 Document: 78 Page: 2 Filed: 01/02/2014
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
-ii- I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
 
II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
 
A.
 
The District Court’s Laches Ruling Was Unsupported And Legally Erroneous ......................................................................... 3
 
1.
 
Defendants Cite No Evidence That The Blog Post Was Pervasive, Open, And Notorious ........................................ 3
 
2.
 
Comparisons Between The Content Of The Blog Post And I/P Engine’s Infringement Allegations Do Not Establish Constructive Knowledge ................................ 7
 
3.
 
The District Court Erred In Implementing The Laches Presumption .................................................................. 11
 
4.
 
Even Without The Opportunity To Present Rebuttal Evidence, I/P Engine Burst The Bubble Of Any Laches Presumption ..................................................... 14
 
B.
 
The District Court Erred In Denying I/P Engine’s Motion For A New Trial On Past Damages ..................................................... 17
 
III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 19
 
Case: 13-1307 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 75 Page: 3 Filed: 01/02/2014
Case: 13-1307 Document: 78 Page: 3 Filed: 01/02/2014

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->