Motorola, Inc. v. Lemko Corporation et al

MOTION

N.D. Ill.September 15, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MOTOROLA, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) LEMKO CORPORATION, XIAOHONG SHENG, SHAOWEI PAN, HANJUAN JIN, XIAOHUA WU, XUEFENG BAI, NICHOLAS LABUN, BOHDAN PYSKIR, HECHUN CAI, JINZHONG ZHANG, ANGEL FAVILA, ANKUR SAXENA, RAYMOND HOWELL, FAYE VORICK, and NICHOLAS DESAI, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08 CV 5427 Defendants. ) ) Judge Matthew F. Kennelly * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ) Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown LEMKO CORPORATION, SHAOWEI PAN, XIAOHUA WU and XIAOHONG SHENG, ) ) ) Counter-Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) MOTOROLA, INC., ) ) Counter-Defendant. ) MOTOROLA INC.’S MOTION TO SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND ITS LOCAL RULE 56.1(b)(3) RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS LEMKO CORPORATION’S, SHAOWEI PAN’S, AND NICHOLAS LABUN’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MOTOROLA’S DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIM FOR PATENT OWNERSHIP Plaintiff Motorola, Inc. (n/k/a Motorola Solutions, Inc., and hereafter referred to as “Motorola”), by and through its attorneys, hereby respectfully requests that the Court enter an order to permit Motorola to amend its Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) Response To Defendants Lemko Case: 1:08-cv-05427 Document #: 816 Filed: 09/15/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:18994 Corporation’s, Shaowei Pan’s, And Nicholas Labun’s Statement Of Undisputed Facts In Support Of Their Motion For Summary Judgment On Motorola’s Declaratory Judgment Claim For Patent Ownership, and Exhibit 4 attached thereto. In support of its motion, Motorola states as follows: 1. On August 15, 2011, Defendants Lemko Corporation (“Lemko”), Shaowei Pan (“Pan”), and Nicholas Labun (“Labun”) filed a Motion For Summary Judgment On Motorola’s Declaratory Judgment Claim For Patent Ownership. 2. On September 7, 2011, Motorola filed its Response to Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment On Motorola’s Declaratory Judgment Claim For Patent Ownership, including a Response to Defendants’ Statement Of Undisputed Facts and Additional Statements of Undisputed Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(C). 3. On September 15, 2011, Motorola realized that it inadvertently had included an incorrect citation in Paragraph 18 of Motorola’s Additional Statements of Undisputed Facts and had attached the incorrect document as Exhibit 4 to that filing. 4. Motorola seeks leave to file a corrected Response to Defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts and Additional Statements of Undisputed Facts to correct the citation error and to attach the correct Exhibit 4. 5. This Motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Motorola respectfully requests that this Court enter an order to permit Motorola to amend its Local Rule 56.1(B)(3) Response To Defendants Lemko’s, Pan’s and Labun’s Statement Of Undisputed Facts In Support Of Their Motion For Summary Judgment On Motorola’s Declaratory Judgment Claim For Patent Ownership. Case: 1:08-cv-05427 Document #: 816 Filed: 09/15/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:18995 Date: September 15, 2011 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Maureen L. Rurka R. Mark Halligan Deanna R. Swits Jason T. Kunze NIXON PEABODY LLP 300 South Riverside Plaza, 16th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60606 T: (312) 425-3900 F: (312) 425-3909 Dan K. Webb Lawrence R. Desideri Maureen L. Rurka J. Ethan McComb Joanna R. Travalini WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 T: (312) 558-5600 F: (312) 558-5700 Attorneys for Plaintiff Motorola, Inc. Case: 1:08-cv-05427 Document #: 816 Filed: 09/15/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:18996 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that MOTOROLA INC.’S MOTION TO SEEK LEAVE TO AMEND ITS LOCAL RULE 56.1(b)(3) RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS LEMKO CORPORATION’S, SHAOWEI PAN’S, AND NICHOLAS LABUN’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MOTOROLA’S DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CLAIM FOR PATENT OWNERSHIP was filed electronically in compliance with the General Order on Electronic Case Filing, Section III(B)(1). As such, these documents were served on all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(D) and Local Rule 5.9. Date: September 15, 2011 /s/ Maureen L. Rurka Attorney for Plaintiff Motorola, Inc. Case: 1:08-cv-05427 Document #: 816 Filed: 09/15/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:18997