Possibly silly questions come to mind. The pertinent (or posibly pertinent) aspect is contained in the following statement from EDIG's Motion (bolding added by me):

"e.Digital complied with this Order on June 26,

2013, emailing and mailing the preliminary infringement contentions. (See, Docket

#35-2, “Declaration Of Kevin J. O'shea In Support Of Apple's Motion For

Judgment On The Pleadings Pursuant To Rule 12(c)”, a true and correct copy of

relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit “B”)."

Questions:

We live in a digital age. Does transmittal of a "soft" copy via email qualify as "service", or does it have to be a "hard" copy - tangible paper - transmitted "old school" via US Mail?

Would you think, even if transmitted by mail, it would have been "over nighted" and delivered, at most, within two days of the electronic transmittal via email? (which may still cause Apple's counter motion to be late/untimely).

In the court record, is a date shown (i.e., June 26) for the court's receipt of EDIG's input, thus starting the "clock"?

Also, wouldn't EDIG's input, being a court-related document, be transmitted to the court (et al) via PACER? Was it? If so, it was visible to all involved parties. I believe a PACER input is regarded by the court as "service" (but I could be wrong - but think about it....).

Finally, in EDIG's citation of the "rules", Apple was permitted "7 calendar days". In my business experience, "calendar" days ignores weekends and holidays. If the rule intended to allow for a weekend, it would have indicated such by not including the word "calendar". But Apple cites conflicting "rules" or interpretation of rules. Who is correct?

How was Apple's response transmitted?

As an aside, in my aerospace industry experience in preparing/transmitting proposals/quotes to the US Gov't, a FAX or other electronic transmittal to meet a "date certain" was (starting in the early 1990's) totally acceptable, though it had to be followed by a hard copy transmittal via mail service. This was important, in that in responding to a Government solicitation for a contract, if the supplier's response was even a minute late it would automatically be considered by the Gov't as "non-responsive" and would not be considered (except under extraordinary circumstances via waiver approved by the Secretary of Defense or Agency Head, e.g., head of the US Army, which would be extremely rare).

FWIW,

SGE