`
`New York
`Menlo Park
`Washington DC
`Sao Paulo
`London
`
`Paris
`Madrid
`Tokyo
`Beijing
`Hong Kong
`
`Davis Polk
`
`Dana M. Seshens
`
`Da vis Polk & Wardwell LLP
`450 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 1001 7
`
`212 450 4855 tel
`212 701 5855 fa x
`dana.seshens@davispolk.com
`
`Re:
`
`Comcast Corp., et al. v. Ravi Corp., et al. , Civ. No. 1: 16-cv-03852-AT
`
`May 27, 2016
`
`The Honorable Analisa Torres
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`500 Pearl Street
`New York , New York 10007-1312
`
`Dear Judge Torres
`
`We represent Plaintiffs ("Comcast") in the above-referenced matter, in which Comcast seeks,
`among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the breach by Defendants ("Ravi")
`of two different contracts between the parties. In particular, Comcast and Ravi are parties to
`software and patent licensing agreements that require disputes between them to be litigated
`exclusively in New York . Notwithstanding these clear forum selection clauses, Ravi has sued
`Comcast for patent infringement in two separate cases in the U S. District Court for the Eastern
`District of Texas and in a third action before the U.S. International Trade Commission (together,
`the "Ravi Actions"), thereby breaching the parties' agreements.
`
`Because the Ravi Actions deprive Comcast of its bargained-for forum , and because Ravi's
`breach requires Comcast to litigate the same disputes on multiple fronts, Comcast is suffering,
`and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm until the forum selection clauses are enforced.
`Accordingly, Comcast seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining Ravi from continuing to prosecute
`the Ravi Actions and ordering Ravi to take all steps necessary to secure the termination of those
`actions.1
`
`Counsel for Comcast has conferred with counsel for Ravi about Comcast's preliminary injunction
`motion , and the parties have agreed, subject to the Court's approval, to the following briefing
`schedule:
`
`• Ravi's opposition to Comcast's preliminary injunction motion shall be filed 21 days from
`the date Comcast's preliminary injunction motion is electronically filed ;2 and
`
`1 Comcast respectfully submits that, under these circumstances , no pre-motion conference
`is required in connection with Comcast's preliminary injunction motion because "a delay in filing
`might result in the loss of a right. " Individual Practices in Civil Cases, Part 111.A.i.
`2 By letter emailed separately to Chambers in accordance with this Court's Individual
`Practices in Civil Cases, Comcast is seeking permission from the Court to electronically file its
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-03852-JPO Document 19 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 2
`
`The Honorable Analisa Torres
`
`2
`
`May 27, 2016
`
`• Comcast's reply in further support of its preliminary injunction motion shall be filed 7 days
`from the date Defendants' opposition is electronically filed .
`
`Given the irreparable harm that Comcast is suffering by having to litigate the Rovi Actions in
`other jurisdictions while it seeks to enforce its contractual rights in New York, Comcast also
`respectfully requests that the Court set as soon as possible oral argument on Comcast's
`preliminary injunction motion for the earliest possible date convenient to the Court after the
`motion is fully briefed .
`
`Comcast is prepared to file its motion for a preliminary injunction now and can do so once the
`Court informs us whether we may file certain exhibits under seal. See supra note 2. If the
`briefing schedule to which the parties have agreed is acceptable to the Court, we respectfully
`request that Your Honor "so order" this letter solely with respect to that briefing schedule.
`
`We thank the Court for its consideration .
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`~))~
`
`Dana M. Seshens
`
`cc:
`
`Jesse Jenner, Esq. (Counsel for Rovi)
`Joshua Budwin , Esq. (Counsel for Rovi)
`
`Electronic Filin
`
`So ordered :
`
`U.S.D.J.
`
`motion for a preliminary injunction and supporting papers in redacted form and certain of its
`exhibits under seal.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
