Free
Message: Jury orders Samsung to pay Apple $290 million for patent infringement
Reply New Message
Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
e.Digital Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Apple Inc.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:13-cv-00785-DMS-WVG
DECLARATION OF PAMELA C.
CHALK AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS
A-Z SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT
E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S OPPOSITION TO
“APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION TO AMEND THE
STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT
TO CERTIFY THE COLLATERAL
ESTOPPEL ORDER FOR
IMMEDIATE APPEAL”
Date: December 20, 2013
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Ctrm: 13A (Annex)
Judge: Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
00785-DMS-WVG
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND STIPULATED PARTIAL JUDGMENT
-
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
1200 THIRD AVE
SUITE 1321
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TEL: 619.544.6400
FAX: 619.696.0323
I, PAMELA C. CHALK, declare:
1. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, except for those
matters stated under information and belief. If called as a witness, I could and
would competently testify thereto.
2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and a
member of the California State Bar. I am an associate attorney with the law firm of
Handal & Associates, attorneys of record in this matter for Plaintiff e.Digital
Corporation.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the email and attached August 26, 2013 letter sent by e.Digital’s counsel to the
Defendants in the
In re e.Digital cases.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the email sent to
Apple’s counsel on or about September 5, 2013 re: the drafts of the joint
motion/stipulated judgment.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the draft of the stipulated judgment that was attached to the September 5, 2013
email to Apple’s counsel.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
the “Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion to Stay all Deadlines In This Matter”
dated September 9, 2013 and filed in the
e.Digital v. Huawei case.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of an email string to/from GoPro’s counsel dated September 9-19, 2013.
8. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of an email string to/from GoPro’s counsel dated September 24, 2013.
9. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of an email string to/from ZTE’s counsel dated October 10, 2013.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the redlined draft of the stipulated judgment sent by ZTE’s counsel to e.DIGITAL
dated and/or sent on October 10, 2013.
11. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of relevant portions of
an email sent by GoPro’s counsel to e.Digital’s counsel on September 20, 2013.
12. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the redlined draft of the joint motion sent by GoPro’s counsel to e.Digital dated
and/or sent on September 20, 2013.
13. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the redlined draft of the stipulated judgment sent by GoPro’s counsel to
e.Digital dated and/or sent on September 20, 2013.
14. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of an email string to/from GoPro’s counsel dated September 20-27, 2013.
15. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the September 9, 2013 order entered in the
e.Digital v., Pantech case, Case
Number
3:13-cv-00023-DMS-WVG, Dkt #44.
16. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of an email sent by Apple’s counsel dated November 4, 2013.
17. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of “Defendants' Joint Preliminary Claim Constructions And Extrinsic Evidence.”
18. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of “Defendants’ Joint Responsive Claim Constructions And Extrinsic Evidence.”
19. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the docket for the Huawei appeal as of November 19, 2013.
20. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of an email from Apple’s counsel dated November 20, 2013.
21. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the docket for the
e.Digital Corporation v. SanDisk Corporation case, Case No.
3:12-cv-02698-DMS-WVG case as of November 21, 2013.
22. e.Digital has dismissed its ‘774 claims as to SanDisk. The ‘108 patent is not
currently asserted against SanDisk in that matter.
23. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of the relevant
portions of the document entitled, “
SanDisk Corporation’s Notice of Joinder of
Motion To Stay Proceeding Pending Appeal
” filed in the e.Digital Corporation v.
SanDisk Corporation
case, Case No. 3:12-cv-02698-DMS-WVG, on October 22,
2013. (Dkt#53).
24. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the docket for the
e.Digital Corporation v. Pantech Wireless, Inc. et al. case,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00023-DMS-WVG case as of November 21, 2013.
25. Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the document entitled, “
Defendant’s Notice of Joining Notice of Motion and
Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal In Case No. 3:13-CV-00785-DMSWVG
”,
filed in the
e.Digital Corporation v. Pantech Wireless, Inc. et al. case, Case
No. 3:13-cv-00023-DMS-WVG on October 21, 2013. (Dkt #49).
26. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the docket for
e.Digital Corporation v. Research in Motion Limited et al. case,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00781-DMS-WVG, as of November 21, 2013.
27. Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the document entitled, “
Defendant’s Notice of Joinder In Support of
Defendants’ Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal In Case No. 13-CV-
0785-DMS-WVG”
, filed in the e.Digital Corporation v. Research in Motion
Limited et al.
case, Case No. 3:13-cv-00781-DMS-WVG on October 21, 2013.
(Dkt #70).
28. Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the docket for the
e.Digital Corporation v. ZTE Corporation et al. case, Case
No. 3:13-cv-00782-DMS-WVG, as of November 21, 2013.
29. Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of relevant portions
of the document entitled, “
ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA), Inc.’s Notice of
Joinder Of Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal
,” filed in the e.Digital
Corporation v. ZTE Corporation et al.
case, Case No. 3:13-cv-00782-DMS-WVG
on October 22, 2013. (Dkt #52).
30. As of the date and time of the execution of this declaration, my office has
not received any notice, pleadings or documents which would in any way indicate
that Defendants SanDisk, Blackberry, ZTE, or Pantech have joined in Apple’s
motion to amend and/or are seeking certification of the Collateral Estoppel Order
in each of their respective cases.
31. My office provided drafts of the stipulated judgments to each Defendant
separately via their counsel before the Huawei settlement was entered into. It
should be noted that Apple and FUJIFILM have the same counsel. However,
separate drafts of the stipulated judgments were provided to the shared counsel of
Apple and FUJIFILM.
32. Each of the Defendants negotiated their respective stipulated judgments for
the most part on their own (with the exception of Apple and FUJIFILM who, as
noted, share the same counsel), separate and apart from each other, some without
regard to what the other Defendants agreed to or would agree to.
33. I spoke to counsel for GoPro about the stipulated judgment in that case after
GoPro had sent its redlined draft of the stipulated judgment to me via email and
emails were traded thereon.
34. While I may have stated during that conversation that e.Digital did not at
that time intend to appeal the Collateral Estoppel Order in the GoPro case, at no
time did I represent to GoPro’s counsel that e.Digital did not intend to immediately
appeal the Collateral Estoppel Order in any of the other e.Digital cases or the
Huawei case. It was my understanding that our discussions were limited to the
GoPro case only and that GoPro’s counsel had authority to negotiate the stipulated
judgment for his client only. GoPro’s counsel never stated otherwise during our
telephone conversation.
35. GoPro’s counsel never asked me what e.Digital’s intentions were with
respect to filing an appeal of the Collateral Estoppel Order in any of the other
e.Digital cases to include the
Huawei case.
36. I dispute GoPro’s version of the facts stated in the declaration of GoPro’s
counsel.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 22nd day of November, 2013.
Dated: November 22, 2013
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Pamela C. Chalk_________________
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
And Counter-Defendant
e.Digital Corporation
24 Recommendations
Reply New Message
Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message
Share
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply