Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 741

NOTICE by Inc., Yahoo! Inc. re #735 MOTION for Reconsideration and Objections to Judge Love's Order Granting Bedrock's Motion For Leave To Supplement Expert Report of Roy Weinstein [Doc No 666] MOTION for Reconsideration and Objections to Judge Love's Order Granting Bedrock's Motion For Leave To Supplement Expert Report of Roy Weinstein [Doc No 666] Yahoo and Amazon Notice of Joinder re Weinstein Report (Bright, Christopher)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 6:09–CV–00269 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS YAHOO! AND AMAZON’S JOINDER IN DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUDGE LOVE’S ORDER GRANTING BEDROCK’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT EXPERT REPORT OF ROY WEINSTEIN Please take notice that Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo!”), and, Inc. (“Amazon”) hereby join in Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Love’s Order Granting Bedrock’s Motion for Leave to Supplement Expert Report of Roy Weinstein (Dkt. No. 735) (“Motion for Reconsideration”). On March 28, 2011, Bedrock served Mr. Weinstein’s Supplemental Report (Dkt No.666). In the March 31, 2011 Order granting Bedrock leave to serve the Supplemental Report (Dkt. No. 691) (“Order”), the Court granted Defendants leave to provide a supplemental rebuttal report and to make “objections to the opinions expressed in Weinstein’s supplemental report” at the time of trial. Order at 2. Yahoo! and Amazon reserve the right to object at trial that Mr. Weinstein’s Supplemental Report and corresponding opinions have no basis in fact and are contrary to Federal Circuit law. See, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2011) (emphasizing the necessity of tying damages opinions to the facts of the case). Yahoo! and Amazon join in Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 735), and preserve all objections made. Dated: April 18, 2011 /s/ Christopher D. Bright Fay E. Morisseau (Texas Bar No. 14460750) John C. Low (Texas Bar No. 24050960) MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713.653.1700 Facsimile: 713.739.7592 Yar R. Chaikovsky John A. Lee Bryan K. James MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 275 Middlefield Rd., Suite 100 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650. 815.7400 Facsimile: 650. 815.7401 Christopher D. Bright MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 18191 Von Karman Ave, Ste. 500 Irvine, California 92612 Tel: 949.757.7178 Fax: 949.851.9348 Natalie A. Bennett MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 227 West Monroe Chicago, IL 60614 Tel: 312.984.7631 Fax: 312.984.7700 -2- Jennifer Doan Texas Bar No. 08809050 J. Scott Andrews Texas Bar No. 24064823 HALTOM & DOAN Crown Executive Center, Suite 100 6500 Summerhill Rd. Texarkana, Texas 75503 Tel: 903.855.1002 Fax: 255.0800 Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo! Inc. /s/ E. Danielle T. Williams (with permission) Steven Gardner E. Danielle T. Williams John C. Alemanni Alton Absher II KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1001 West 4th Street Winston-Salem, NC 21701 Tel: 336.607.7300 Fax: 336.607.7500 William H. Boice Russell A. Korn KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Suite 2800 1100 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 Telephone: 404.815-.6500 Fax: 404.815.6555 J. Thad Heartfield Texas Bar No. 09346800 M. Dru Montgomery Texas Bar No. 24010800 THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM 2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, TX 77706 Telephone: 409.866.2800 Fax: 409.866.5789 Attorneys for Defendant, Inc. -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 18, 2011, all counsel of record for Plaintiff who have or are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being electronically served with a copy of this document via the CM/ECF system. /s/ Christopher D. Bright Christopher D. Bright -4-

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?