`
`6/18/2020
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SIMPLEAIR, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GOOGLE LLC,
` Defendant.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`SIMPLEAIR, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
` CASE NO. 2:20-cv-02839-JAK-PLA
`ORDER RE SIMPLEAIR, INC.’S
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(DKT. 115, CASE NO. 2:16-cv-3758;
`DKT. 126, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-2839)
`
` CASE NO. 2:16-cv-03758-JAK-PLA
`
`ORDER RE SIMPLEAIR, INC.’S
`EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
`LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO
`GOOGLE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`(DKT. 115, CASE NO. 2:16-cv-3758;
`DKT. 126, CASE NO. 2:20-cv-2839)
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:16-cv-03758-JAK-PLA Document 117 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:1930
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. (“SimpleAir”) filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File
`Sur-Reply to Google’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Application,” Case No. 2:16-cv-
`3758, Dkt. 115; Case No. 2:20-cv-2839, Dkt. 126). In support of this position,
`SimpleAir asserts that in the Reply, Google LLC (“Google”): (1) submitted two new
`exhibits; (2) argued that SimpleAir applied the wrong law for claim preclusion; and
`(3) addressed dependent claims of previously-asserted patents not addressed in its
`opening brief. Application at 3.
`With respect to the new exhibits, Google proffered them to support its
`contention that the arguments by SimpleAir in its Opposition are inconsistent with
`positions SimpleAir has asserted in the past. With respect to the dependent claims,
`Google presented them in response to the arguments by SimpleAir regarding claims
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,380,106. Neither of these matters warrants a sur-reply.
`With respect to the legal standard for claim preclusion, a short sur-reply is
`appropriate. SimpleAir may file a sur-reply not to exceed three pages, that addresses
`what it contends is the applicable legal standard for claim preclusion. The sur-reply
`shall be filed on or before June 22, 2020.
`For the foregoing reasons, the Application (Case No. 2:16-cv-3758, Dkt. 115;
`Case No. 2:20-cv-2839, Dkt. 126) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-
`PART.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: June 18, 2020
`
`
`
` _________________________________
` John A. Kronstadt
` United States District Judge
`
`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
`
`