Replies to post #31782 on XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[JJSeabrook]

This one:

JJSeabrook


Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:18:12 AM
Re: JJSeabrook post# 31651

Post # of 31783

PACER DOC #925 DECLARATION OF DAVID PERLSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DR. BECKER AND FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR POST-JUDGMENT ROYALTIES
I, David A. Perlson, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney in the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and
am counsel for Defendants in the above-captioned case. I provide this declaration upon personal
knowledge and, if called upon as a witness, would testify competently as to the matters recited
herein.
2. On April 9, 2013, the parties met and conferred about the possibility of
postponing briefing of the Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment Royalties and conducting
additional related discovery. Defendants’ counsel reiterated its position that Plaintiff should
make Dr. Becker available for deposition to give Defendants the opportunity to question Dr.
Becker about his new theories and then respond to Plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment royalties.
Plaintiff’s counsel said that such deposition was unnecessary, but did not elaborate. Defendants’
counsel also offered Plaintiff the opportunity to investigate Google’s scheduled launch of an
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 925 Filed 04/16/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 2301201980.51928/5267870.1
admittedly non-infringing alternative functionality in AdWords. Defendants’ counsel noted that
such an extended period of discovery would be sensible given that the change in operation could
impact post-trial damages both before and after this change was implemented. Plaintiff’s
counsel said Plaintiff would consider this option and asked that Defendants provide a proposal.
3. On April 15, 2013, the parties again discussed, among other things, extending the
time for briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment Royalties in order to give
the parties time to depose the opposing party’s experts. Plaintiff’s counsel proposed the
following alternative potential discovery schedule during the parties’ meet and confer of April
15: Dr. Ugone to provide his declaration in rebuttal to Dr. Becker’s declaration in support of
Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff to provide Dr. Becker for deposition, Defendants to provide Dr.
Ugone for deposition, Defendants to thereafter file their opposition brief, followed by Plaintiff
filing its reply brief.
4. As a result of their meet and confer efforts, on April 15 the parties agreed to a two
week extension for Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment
Royalties, and a one week extension for Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion for an Award
of Post-Judgment Royalties, in order to give the parties time to discuss their proposed discovery
and briefing schedules, pending approval by the Court.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an email exchange
between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants discussing, amount other things,
meeting and conferring about the briefing schedule concerning post-judgment royalties.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an email exchange
between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants discussing, among other things,
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-TEM Document 925 Filed 04/16/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 2301301980.51928/5267870.1
extending the time for briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment Royalties
and making Dr. Becker available for deposition.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated: April 16, 2013
David A Perlson