Copy Protection LLC v. Netflix Inc.

MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief in Opposition to Netflix Inc.'s Motion to Stay -

D. Del.May 28, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COPY PROTECTION LLC, Plaintiff, v. NETFLIX, INC., Defendant(s). : : : : : : : : x C.A. No. 14-cv-365-LPS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COPY PROTECTION LLC'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO NETFLIX INC.'S MOTION TO STAY On May 19, 2015, Defendant Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) filed its Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Stay Litigation Pending Inter Partes Review of the Patent-in-Suit. (D.I. 52.) Plaintiff Copy Protection LLC (“Copy Protection”) moves this Court for permission to file a sur- reply brief.1 D. Del. LR 7.1.2(b) requires Copy Protection to obtain leave from the Court to file a sur- reply brief in order to respond to Netflix’s Reply Brief. Whether to grant leave to file a sur-reply is within the discretion of the Court. Walsh v. Irvin Sterns Costumes, No. 05-2515, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2120, *36-37 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 19, 2006) (holding that a sur-reply is proper when it includes information that enables the Court to more fully and fairly decide a particular issue). In its Reply Brief, Netflix presents “facts” and new “evidence” to support its argument that any delay in filing Netflix’s IPR was caused by Copy Protection’s refusal to comply with Netflix’s discovery requests. However, as presented by Netflix, its recitation of “facts” 1 Pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.1, Plaintiff certifies that it has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with the Defendant on this matter, but could not do so. Case 1:14-cv-00365-LPS Document 61 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1429 2 mischaracterizes the record. Copy Protection’s sur-reply, which is attached as Exhibit A, will serve to make the record more complete and therefore help the Court decide Netflix’s Motion to Stay this case. Accordingly, Copy Protection respectfully requests that it be permitted to file the sur- reply brief attached as Exhibit A. Dated: May 28, 2015 Respectfully submitted, FARNAN LLP /s/ Brian E. Farnan Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089) Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165) 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 302) 777-0300 (302) 777-0301(Fax) bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com Jonathan A. David (admitted pro hac vice) Stephen F. Roth (admitted pro hac vice) Aaron S. Eckenthal (admitted pro hac vice) Maegan A. Fuller (admitted pro hac vice) LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ & MENTLIK, LLP 600 South Avenue West Westfield, NJ 07090 (908) 654-5000 (908) 654-7866 (Fax) JDavid@ldlkm.com SRoth@ldlkm.com AEckenthal@ldlkm.com MFuller@ldlkm.com Litigation@ldlkm.com Counsel for Plaintiff Copy Protection LLC Case 1:14-cv-00365-LPS Document 61 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1430