American GNC Corporation v. LG Electronics Inc. et alMOTION for Leave to File Surreply In Opposition To Defendants Motion For Leave To File First Amended AnswerS.D. Cal.October 18, 2017 CASE NO. 3:17-CV-1090-BAS-BLM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gregory Markow (State Bar No. 216748) gmarkow@cgs3.com Crosbie Gliner Schiffman Southard & Swanson LLP (CGS3) 12750 High Bluff Dr., Suite 250 San Diego, California 92130 Telephone: (858) 367-7676 David Berten (IL Bar # 6200898) dberten@giplg.com Alison Aubry Richards (IL Bar # 6285669) arichards@giplg.com Alexander Debski (IL Bar # 6305715) adebski@giplg.com Global IP Law Group, LLC 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 241-1500 Attorneys for Plaintiff American GNC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. LG ELECTRONICS INC., LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., and LG ELECTRONICS MOBILE RESEARCH U.S.A., LLC, Defendants. Case No. 3:17-CV-1090-BAS-BLM PLAINTIFF AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED ANSWER Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 50 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.1004 Page 1 of 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LG moved for leave to file an amended answer in order to add two affirmative defenses – inequitable conduct (Eighth Defense) and unclean hands (Ninth Defense) pertaining to one of the seven patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent. No. 6,792,353 (the “’353 Patent”). See Dkt. 40-2, p. 68 and 76. AGNC opposed the Motion on the grounds that these defenses fail as a matter of law and are moot. On October 16, LG filed a Reply that raises a new argument related to combining its allegations not raised in its Motion (or its proposed Amended Answer). As part of LG’s attempt to show that its new proposed defenses could meet the materiality standard of inequitable conduct, LG’s new argument is that four references could be combined. LG’s Reply also raises new caselaw (i.e. Mediostream v Microsoft) that was not raised in LG’s Motion (or its proposed Amended Answer). By asking the Court to rely on LG’s newly-raised Mediostream case, LG invites this Court to make legal error by relying on a now obsolete legal standard for inequitable conduct, not the current standard set forth by the Federal Circuit in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson, 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). LG’s Reply does not mention the Therasense standard. For the purpose of allowing AGNC to respond to this new argument and newly- raised caselaw, AGNC respectfully requests leave to file the six-page sur-reply brief attached as Exhibit A. Dated: October 18, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alison Aubry Richards Gregory Markow IL Bar # 216748 gmarkow@cgs3.com Crosbie Gliner Schiffman Southard & Swanson LLP (CGS3) Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 50 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.1005 Page 2 of 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12750 High Bluff Dr., Suite 250 San Diego, California 92130 T: (858) 367-7676 David Berten IL Bar # 6200898 dberten@giplg.com Alison Aubry Richards IL Bar # 6285669 arichards@giplg.com Alexander Debski IL Bar # 6305715 adebski@giplg.com Global IP Law Group, LLC 55 West Monroe Street Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60603 T: (312) 241-1500 F: (312) 241-1522 Attorneys for Plaintiff American GNC Corporation Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 50 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.1006 Page 3 of 4 CASE NO. 3:17-CV-1090-BAS-BLM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on October 18, 2017. /s/ Alison Aubry Richards Case 3:17-cv-01090-BAS-BLM Document 50 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.1007 Page 4 of 4
