Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 218

MOTION to Strike 198 Opposed MOTION Granting Defendants Leave to Amend and Supplement Invalidity Contentions by Software Rights Archive, LLC. Responses due by 2/2/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of L Kaplan, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Kaplan, Lee)

Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 218 Att. 9

IN T H E UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F TEXAS M A R S H A L L DIVISION SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC, Plaintiff,
§ § §

§ Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-511-CE

v.
G O O G L E INC., YAHOO! I N C . , l A C S E A R C H & MEDIA, INC., AOL L L C , a n d LYCOS, INC., Defendants.

§ §

§ J U R Y T R I A L DEMANDED
§

§
§ §

O R D E R G R A N T I N G P L A I N T I F F ' S M O T I O N T O S T R I K E ! N VA L I D I T Y C O N T E N T I O N S AND DENYING D E F E N D A N T S ' M O T I O N F O R L E A V E T O AMEND AND S U P P L E M E N T I N V A L I D I T Y C O N T E N T I O N S Before the Court are P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike Invalidity Contentions, along with supporting and opposing briefs, and Defendants' Motion
fOf Leave

to Amend and Supplement

Invalidity Contentions, along with supporting and opposing briefs. After reviewing the parties' briefs, and in view o f the pertinent law and facts, the Court hereby GRANTS P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike Invalidity Contentions and DENIES· Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend and S u p p l e m e n t Invalidity C o n t e n t i o n s . Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. 2. P l a i n t i f f s Motion to Strike Invalidity Contentions is GRANTED. Defendants' Motion for Leave to. Amend and Supplement Invalidity Contentions is DENIED. 3, Defendants' invalidity contentions, served pursuant to P.R. 3-3 on January 23, 2009, are
STRICKEN~

Dockets.Justia.com

4.

Defendants may submit revised invalidity contentions within ten days o f this Order; subject to the restrictions that they identify, as to anticipation, no more than five prior a r t references per asserted claim, and, as to obviousness, no more than five combinations per asserted claim; and that they provide detailed claim charts as to each such identification, containing the specific disclosures required by P.R. 3-3.

2