appeal that Order. During the negotiations of the

parties’ stipulated partial judgment in this case, Plaintiff hid the fact that it

already

had secured the right to file an immediate appeal of the Collateral Estoppel Order.

plan, it would have required that the stipulated partial agreement include a Rule

54(b) certification, so that the appeals could be taken together.

The current situation would have been avoided if Plaintiff had simply

informed Apple and the other Defendants of its intention to immediately appeal the

Collateral Estoppel Order. Instead, Plaintiff hid the ball. Apple and the other

Defendants cannot be faulted for what they did not—and could not—know.

Plaintiff’s argument that Apple and the other Defendants should have

foreseen the current situation is equally applicable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff should

have known—and likely did know—that Apple and other Defendants would seek

to participate in any appeal. Notably, despite arguing various substantive issues in

its Opposition to the Application to Shorten Time, Plaintiff did not explain why—

or if—it objects to an amendment of the Stipulated Partial Judgment to include a

Rule 54(b) certification.

Apple and other Defendants seek to prevent a situation where the parties’

rights are adjudicated without all parties being present and allowed to represent

themselves. Shortening the briefing schedule as requested in the Application to

Shorten Time will significantly increase the likelihood that the appeals will be

heard together, and reduce the overall time for the Federal Circuit’s consideration

of the Collateral Estoppel Order.