Opinion
Case No. 02-CV-2060 B (CAB), consolidated with Case No. 03-CV-0699 B (CAB), Case No. 03-CV-1108 B (CAB).
May 16, 2007
Alison P. Adema, SBN 149285, HAHN ADEMA, San Diego, California, Attorneys for Lucent Technologies Inc.
BY: John M. Desmarais (admitted pro hac vice), Robert A. Appleby (admitted pro hac vice), Paul A. Bondor (admitted pro hac vice), KIRKLAND ELLIS LLP, New York, New York.
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-2, Lucent hereby requests an Order sealing the following documents lodged with the Court in support of its Opposition to Microsoft's Group 3 Motion for Award of Attorney Fees:
1. Declaration Of Jason Choy In Support Of Lucent's Opposition To Microsoft's Group 3 Motion For Award Of Attorney Fees.
2. Lucent's Opposition To Microsoft's Group 3 Motion For Award Of Attorney Fees.
The following exhibits lodged in support of the opposition:
3. Exhibit 1 a true and correct copy of a table showing Lucent's Claim of Infringement Given the Court's Original Markman Ruling.
4. Exhibit 2 a true and correct copy of a table showing Lucent's Claim of Infringement Given the Court's Clarified Markman Ruling.
5. Exhibit 3 a true and correct copy of the March 28, 2006 Stipulation Between Lucent and Microsoft, Dell, and Gateway Regarding the Dismissal of All Claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,617,676 and Order Thereon.
6. Exhibit 4 a true and correct copy of the November 29, 2006 Joint Motion Between Lucent and Microsoft, Dell, and Gateway Regarding the Dismissal of All Claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,910,781.
7. Exhibit 5 a true and correct copy of the April 7, 2006 Expert Report of Peter Kabal Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 4,701,954 and 4,910,781.
8. Exhibit 6 a true and correct copy of the December 18, 2006 Declaration of Dr. Peter Kabal in Support of Lucent's Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954.
9. Exhibit 7 a true and correct copy of excerpts from the July 7, 2006 Deposition Transcript of Peter Kabal.
10. Exhibit 8 a true and correct copy of excerpts from the March 1, 2007 Summary Judgment Hearing Transcript.
11. Exhibit 9 a true and correct copy of the Court's March 6, 2007 Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954.
12. Exhibit 10 a true and correct copy of the Defendants' February 1, 2007 Combined Response to the Court's Special Interrogatories Re Non-Infringement of U.S Patent No. 4,701,954.
13. Exhibit 11 a true and correct copy of the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954.
14. Exhibit 12 a true and correct copy of an August 30, 2004 Letter from C. Marchese to J. Desmarais.
15. Exhibit 13 a true and correct copy of the Court's December 28, 2006 Special Interrogatories by the Court and Order Thereon.
16. Exhibit 14 a true and correct copy of Lucent's May 9, 2003 Answer and Counterclaims.
17. Exhibit 15 a true and correct copy of the February 22, 2007 Group 2 Special Verdict Form.
18. Exhibit 16 a true and correct copy of the Court's March 21, 2007 Amended and Superceding Partial Judgment Following Summary Judgment on U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954.
Having considered Lucent's request and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following pleadings and exhibits are to be filed under seal:
1. Declaration Of Jason Choy In Support Of Lucent's Opposition To Microsoft's Group 3 Motion For Award Of Attorney Fees.
2. Lucent's Opposition To Microsoft's Group 3 Motion For Award Of Attorney Fees.
The following exhibits lodged in support of the opposition:
3. Exhibit 1 a true and correct copy of a table showing Lucent's Claim of Infringement Given the Court's Original Markman Ruling.
4. Exhibit 2 a true and correct copy of a table showing Lucent's Claim of Infringement Given the Court's Clarified Markman Ruling.
5. Exhibit 3 a true and correct copy of the March 28, 2006 Stipulation Between Lucent and Microsoft, Dell, and Gateway Regarding the Dismissal of All Claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,617,676 and Order Thereon.
6. Exhibit 4 a true and correct copy of the November 29, 2006 Joint Motion Between Lucent and Microsoft, Dell, and Gateway Regarding the Dismissal of All Claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,910,781.
7. Exhibit 5 a true and correct copy of the April 7, 2006 Expert Report of Peter Kabal Regarding Infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 4,701,954 and 4,910,781.
8. Exhibit 6 a true and correct copy of the December 18, 2006 Declaration of Dr. Peter Kabal in Support of Lucent's Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment Regarding U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954.
9. Exhibit 7 a true and correct copy of excerpts from the July 7, 2006 Deposition Transcript of Peter Kabal.
10. Exhibit 8 a true and correct copy of excerpts from the March 1, 2007 Summary Judgment Hearing Transcript.
11. Exhibit 9 a true and correct copy of the Court's March 6, 2007 Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954.
12. Exhibit 10 a true and correct copy of the Defendants' February 1, 2007 Combined Response to the Court's Special Interrogatories Re Non-Infringement of U.S Patent No. 4,701,954.
13. Exhibit 11 a true and correct copy of the Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954.
14. Exhibit 12 a true and correct copy of an August 30, 2004 Letter from C. Marchese to J. Desmarais.
15. Exhibit 13 a true and correct copy of the Court's December 28, 2006 Special Interrogatories by the Court and Order Thereon.
16. Exhibit 14 a true and correct copy of Lucent's May 9, 2003 Answer and Counterclaims.
17. Exhibit 15 a true and correct copy of the February 22, 2007 Group 2 Special Verdict Form.
18. Exhibit 16 a true and correct copy of the Court's March 21, 2007 Amended and Superceding Partial Judgment Following Summary Judgment on U.S. Patent No. 4,701,954.
IT IS SO ORDERED