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

Filing 842

Opposed MOTION for Attorney Fees Yahoo!'s Motion to Declare this an Exceptional Case and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to 35 USC Sec. 285 by Yahoo! Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit B. James Decl., #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit 8, #10 Exhibit 9, #11 Exhibit 10, #12 Exhibit 11, #13 Exhibit 12, #14 Exhibit 13, #15 Exhibit 14, #16 Exhibit 15, #17 Exhibit 16, #18 Exhibit 17, #19 Exhibit 18, #20 Exhibit 19, #21 Exhibit 20, #22 Exhibit 21, #23 Exhibit 22, #24 Exhibit 23, #25 Exhibit 24, #26 Exhibit 25)(Chaikovsky, Yar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/7/2011: #27 Text of Proposed Order) (mll, ).

EXHIBIT 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES :
Plaintiff,
:
:
VS.
:
:
:
SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL.:
Defendant.
:

C.A. NO.
6:09-cv-269
TYLER, TEXAS
OCTOBER 7, 2001
1:30 P.M.

TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN D. LOVE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

MR. DOUGLAS A. CAWLEY
MR. JASON CASSADY
MR. AUSTIN CURRY
MCKOOL SMITH
300 CRESCENT COURT
SUITE 1500
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
[phone]
MR. ROBERT CHRISTOPHER BUNT
MR. ROBERT M. PARKER
PARKER & BUNT, P.C.
100 EAST FERGUSON
SUITE 1114
TYLER, TEXAS 75702
[phone]

Electronically signed by Kimberly Julian (401-385-935-7323)

2d9c2990-eb55-4a56-86fe-f1bd2b823adb

Bedrock Computer v. Softlayer Technologies

October 7, 2010

10
1

relates generally to functionality in a Lenox

2

Operating System running on a server and it helps to

3

prevent what's known as denial of service attacks

4

where hackers attempt to shut servers down by flooding

5

them with unwanted trash information.

6

Our theory before the jury will be that

7

a reasonable royalty in this case relates to how much

8

a defendant would negotiate to pay for the invention's

9

ability to protect against those denial of service

10

attacks which would either reduce or eliminate their

11

revenues if the attacks were severe enough.

12

Therefore, we sent an interrogatory to

13

the defendants in the case asking them to provide us

14

with information about the revenues of their business

15

units relying upon, to any degree, a Lenox server.

16

the purpose of that interrogatory is just to

17

establish, you know, let's get started with the

18

damages analysis, we need to know what revenues for

19

any business unit that rely on, to any extent, a Lenox

20

server, we need to know what those revenues are.

21

So

Now, of course there are going to be

22

arguments that we don't infringe, your patent's

23

invalid, yeah, we use Lenox servers, but we don't

24

really care about your invention.

25

that.

We understand all

But to do the damages analysis, we have to know

903.533.1172
Electronically signed by Kimberly Julian (401-385-935-7323)

CURRY JOHNSON JULIAN, INC.
www.cjjlitigation.com

877.533.1172

2d9c2990-eb55-4a56-86fe-f1bd2b823adb