Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 504

RESPONSE to Motion re 442 MOTION in Limine 3 (joint) MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: MOTION TO PRECLUDE LEGALLY INCORRECT EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING THE INVENTORS AND DEPLOYMENT OF THE EZ READER SYSTEM filed by Bright Response LLC. (Weiss, Andrew)

Download PDF
Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 504 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-371-CE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BRIGHT RESPONSE, LLC'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3: MOTION TO PRECLUDE LEGALLY INCORRECT EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT REGARDING THE INVENTORS AND DEPLOYMENT OF THE EZ READER SYSTEM Plaintiff Bright Response, LLC ("Bright Response") respectfully files this response to Defendants' Joint Motion In Limine No. 3 seeking to preclude Bright Response from arguing or implying that, if the EZ Reader project was publicly available shortly prior to the critical date, EZ Reader should not invalidate the asserted claims because (1) the inventors were involved in the development of the EZ Reader project; or (2) it was only available shortly before the critical date. The public availability of the EZ Reader project is one of the primary fact issues to be decided by the jury. To the extent that this Motion assumes that the EZ Reader project was in fact publicly available prior to the critical date, Bright Response opposes this Motion as provided in response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Bright Response agrees, however, that it will not make arguments contrary to the law, including well established law related to invalidity prior art. Defendants assert that they have "reason to believe that Plaintiff may offer arguments that contradict established patent law 2995-011_100724_Resp_Defs_MIL_3.doc 1 Dockets.Justia.com concerning prior art." Such an assertion is false and this Motion is nothing but a waste of court resources. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion In Limine No. 3 should be denied as moot. Dated: July 26, 2010 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Andrew D. Weiss_ Andrew W. Spangler LEAD COUNSEL SPANGLER LAW P.C. 208 N. Green Street, Suite 300 Longview, Texas 75601 (903) 753-9300 (903) 553-0403 (fax) spangler@spanglerlawpc.com Elizabeth A. Wiley Texas State Bar No. 00788666 THE WILEY FIRM PC P.O. Box. 303280 Austin, Texas 78703-3280 Telephone: (512) 560.3480 Facsimile: (512) 551.0028 Email: lizwiley@wileyfirmpc.com Marc A. Fenster CA Bar No. 181067 mfenster@raklaw.com Andrew D. Weiss CA Bar No. 232974 aweiss@raklaw.com Adam Hoffman CA Bar No. 218740 ahoffman@raklaw.com RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 826-7474 (310) 826-6991 (fax) Patrick R. Anderson PATRICK R. ANDERSON PLLC 4225 Miller Rd, Bldg. B-9, Suite 358 Flint, MI 48507 (810) 275-0751 (248) 928-9239 (fax) patrick@prapllc.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date, July 26, 2010, I am serving counsel for Defendants, with a copy of this document and the attached exhibits pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 by electronic mail. \s\ Andrew D. Weiss

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?