Pacer: EDIG v Dropcam - Handal objection in support of motion to transfer
in response to
by
Message: The Judge has already made a decision in his mind
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dropcam, Inc.
Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cv-01579-BEN-DHB
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS
TO THE DECLARATION OF
JENNIFER SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANT DROPCAM,
INC.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
Date: September 29, 2014
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Ctrm: 5A (Schwartz)
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”) submits the
following evidentiary objections to the “Declaration of Jennifer Schmidt in
Support of Defendant Dropcam, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer” (Dkt #19-4) and
Exhibit C thereto (Dkt #19-5, p. 46, et seq.) filed on August 29, 2014.
Testimony and/or Exhibit Objection
“Collectively, U.S. Patent Nos.
7,633,076 and 7,599,935 name at least
seven third-party inventors located in
the Northern District of California.” (¶
4.)
Lacks foundation. Failure to establish
personal knowledge. Misstates the
evidence. The referenced patents (Dkt
#19-5, pp. 1, et seq. and 31, et seq.)
were issued in December 2009 and
Case 3:14-cv-01579-BEN-DHB Document 25 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 4
OBJECTION TO SCHMIDT DECLARATION CASE NO.: 3:14-CV-01579-BEN-DHB
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 2510
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TEL: 619.544.6400
FAX: 619.696.0323
October 2009, respectively. The
declarant has failed to establish
personal knowledge of the respective
locations of the referenced inventors
and Dropcam has failed to request
judicial notice of these patents and the
statements made therein. At best, the
patents only state the location of the
inventors at the time the patents were
issued nearly five years ago. To the
extent the declaration implies the
patents identify the current location of
the inventors of the referenced patents,
this statement lacks foundation and
misstates the evidence.
“Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true
and correct copy of the statistical
report ‘Patent Litigation Filings and
Outcomes by Court,’ Lex Machina
(January 2014).” Exhibit C. (¶ 5; Dkt
# 19-5 at p. 49, et seq.)
Lacks foundation. Failure to establish
personal knowledge. The declarant has
failed to establish personal knowledge
of the assertions contained in the
Exhibit and Dropcam has failed to
request judicial notice of the document
or the contents thereof. The declarant
also fails to state how the exhibit was
obtained and/or where it can be found
other than a broad reference in the
body of the document to
“lexmachina.com.” On that basis, the
exhibit lacks foundation. The exhibit
further lacks foundation in that it does
not reveal the source of the alleged data
contained therein, how it was
compiled, and/or any other data that
would be relevant in determining the
accuracy of the data on which Dropcam
seeks to rely, including, without
limitation, the number and length of
any stays in cases that proceeded to
trial.
Case 3:14-cv-01579-BEN-DHB Document 25 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 4
OBJECTION TO SCHMIDT DECLARATION CASE NO.: 3:14-CV-01579-BEN-DHB
-HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 2510
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TEL: 619.544.6400
FAX: 619.696.0323
Respectfully submitted.
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
Dated: September 15, 2014 By: /s/ Gabriel Hedrick
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dropcam, Inc.
Defendant.
Case No. 3:14-cv-01579-BEN-DHB
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS
TO THE DECLARATION OF
JENNIFER SCHMIDT IN SUPPORT
OF DEFENDANT DROPCAM,
INC.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
Date: September 29, 2014
Time: 10:30 a.m.
Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Ctrm: 5A (Schwartz)
Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“Plaintiff” or “e.Digital”) submits the
following evidentiary objections to the “Declaration of Jennifer Schmidt in
Support of Defendant Dropcam, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer” (Dkt #19-4) and
Exhibit C thereto (Dkt #19-5, p. 46, et seq.) filed on August 29, 2014.
Testimony and/or Exhibit Objection
“Collectively, U.S. Patent Nos.
7,633,076 and 7,599,935 name at least
seven third-party inventors located in
the Northern District of California.” (¶
4.)
Lacks foundation. Failure to establish
personal knowledge. Misstates the
evidence. The referenced patents (Dkt
#19-5, pp. 1, et seq. and 31, et seq.)
were issued in December 2009 and
Case 3:14-cv-01579-BEN-DHB Document 25 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 4
OBJECTION TO SCHMIDT DECLARATION CASE NO.: 3:14-CV-01579-BEN-DHB
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 2510
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TEL: 619.544.6400
FAX: 619.696.0323
October 2009, respectively. The
declarant has failed to establish
personal knowledge of the respective
locations of the referenced inventors
and Dropcam has failed to request
judicial notice of these patents and the
statements made therein. At best, the
patents only state the location of the
inventors at the time the patents were
issued nearly five years ago. To the
extent the declaration implies the
patents identify the current location of
the inventors of the referenced patents,
this statement lacks foundation and
misstates the evidence.
“Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true
and correct copy of the statistical
report ‘Patent Litigation Filings and
Outcomes by Court,’ Lex Machina
(January 2014).” Exhibit C. (¶ 5; Dkt
# 19-5 at p. 49, et seq.)
Lacks foundation. Failure to establish
personal knowledge. The declarant has
failed to establish personal knowledge
of the assertions contained in the
Exhibit and Dropcam has failed to
request judicial notice of the document
or the contents thereof. The declarant
also fails to state how the exhibit was
obtained and/or where it can be found
other than a broad reference in the
body of the document to
“lexmachina.com.” On that basis, the
exhibit lacks foundation. The exhibit
further lacks foundation in that it does
not reveal the source of the alleged data
contained therein, how it was
compiled, and/or any other data that
would be relevant in determining the
accuracy of the data on which Dropcam
seeks to rely, including, without
limitation, the number and length of
any stays in cases that proceeded to
trial.
Case 3:14-cv-01579-BEN-DHB Document 25 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 4
OBJECTION TO SCHMIDT DECLARATION CASE NO.: 3:14-CV-01579-BEN-DHB
-HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 2510
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
TEL: 619.544.6400
FAX: 619.696.0323
Respectfully submitted.
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
Dated: September 15, 2014 By: /s/ Gabriel Hedrick
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION
17 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply