Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1029

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Substitute Declaration by Adobe Systems Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Substitute Declaration (Declaration of Wolff ISO of Reply ISO Defendants' MSJ of Invalidity Under Section 102(B)), # 2 Text of Proposed Order Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Substitute Declaration)(Wolff, Jason)

EXHIBIT 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND THE
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-446 LED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

DECLARATION OF JASON W. WOLFF IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER
SECTION 102(B)

DECLARATION OF JASON W. WOLFF IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER SECTION 102(B) - Page 1

I, Jason W. Wolff, declare and state as follows:
1.

I am a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C., counsel of record in this action for

Defendant Adobe Systems Incorporated (“Adobe”). I am a member of the Bar of the State of
California and of this Court. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration
and would testify truthfully to them if called upon to do so.
2.

Attached as Exhibits B (Dkt. 1018-2) and C (Dkt. 1018-3) are true and correct

copies of Exhibits 4 (January 31, 1993) and 7 (March 4, 1993), respectively, to the deposition of
Eric Bina.
3.

Attached as Exhibit D (Dkt. 1018-4) are excerpts from the Expert Report on

Invalidity by Richard L. Phillips.
4.

Attached as Exhibit E (Dkt. 1019) is a document showing part of a July 1993

message thread regarding browsers, which consists of true and correct copies of Exhibit 29 from
the Deposition of David C. Martin and Exhibit 13 from the Deposition of Christopher McRae.
5.

Eolas statement of fact no. 1 is denied. See Mukerji Exhibits 2 and 3 (Dkts. 869-2

and 869-3) particularly Dkts. 869-3 at 1 and 4 and 869-2 at 1 (respectively below):

DECLARATION OF JASON W. WOLFF IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER SECTION 102(B) - Page 2

6.

Eolas statement of fact no. 2 is denied. The cited materials do not establish an

October 1993 priority date.
7.

Regarding Eolas statement of fact no. 3, Defendants agree that claim 1 of the ’906

patent includes the quoted limitation, but dispute Eolas’s characterization of the claim language.
Eolas has argued a contrary position elsewhere. See, e.g., Dkt. 995 at footnotes 5 and 6:

8.

Defendants dispute the summary of the testimony in Eolas statement of fact nos. 4

and 5, which are raising a claim construction issue regarding the claim term “browser” as
opposed to a “web browser,” the latter being the subject of Mr. Wulff’s testimony.
9.

Eolas statement of fact no. 6 is denied. See Exhibit D (Dkt. 1019).

10.

Eolas statement of fact no. 7 is denied. See Dkt. 869 at 6, figures 1 and 2 and

Dkts. 896-2 and 896-3.

Executed this 14th day of October 2011, at San Diego, California.
/s/ Jason W. Wolff
Jason W. Wolff

DECLARATION OF JASON W. WOLFF IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER SECTION 102(B) - Page 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document has been served on October 14, 2011 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
/s/ Jason W. Wolff

DECLARATION OF JASON W. WOLFF IN SUPPORT OF REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER SECTION 102(B) - Page 4