Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al
Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Eolas Technologies Incorporated,
Adobe Systems Inc., Amazon.com, Inc.,
Apple Inc., Argosy Publishing, Inc.,
Blockbuster Inc., CDW Corp.,
Citigroup Inc., eBay Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc.,
The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Google Inc.,
J.C. Penney Company, Inc., JPMorgan
Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Inc.,
Office Depot, Inc., Perot Systems Corp.,
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.,
Rent-A-Center, Inc., Staples, Inc., Sun
Microsystems Inc., Texas Instruments Inc.,
Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC
Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-00446-LED
PLAINTIFF EOLAS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR TWO EXTRA PAGES TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLIES
The Local Rules of this Court set the page limits for briefing on dispositive and nondispositive motions. L.R. CV-7. This Court has zealously enforced those page limits in this case
and others. See e.g. dkt. 323 (denying unopposed motion for extra pages). Eolas contends that
in their Reply briefs (e.g. dkt. nos. 1018-1022) Defendants have employed various tactics to
obtain extra briefing. In order to equalize the briefing of the parties, Eolas requests two extra
pages of briefing for its Sur Replies. Defendants do not oppose the relief sought in this motion,
but they do strongly disagree with the characterization of their actions.
In Defendants’ Reply in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity
Under Section 102(B) (dkt. 1018), Defendants submitted a six-page declaration. In response to
Eolas’ complaints about the declaration, Defendants filed a motion to substitute the six-page
version with a two-page version, which was granted. See dkt. 1040. Defendants’ Reply in
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of No Enhanced Damages for Willful
Infringement (dkt. 1020) employed long footnotes with less than 12-point font, as did certain
other Defendants’ replies
See dkt. nos. 1019-1022.
Eolas believes that Defendants have
effectively had additional briefing and, in fairness, Eolas seeks an additional two pages to
Eolas respectfully requests that it be granted two extra pages of briefing for its Sur
These two extra pages will effectively equalize the briefing between the parties.
Defendants do not oppose Eolas’ request for two extra pages.
For the reasons set forth herein, Eolas respectfully asks that the Court grant it two extra
pages of briefing for its Sur Replies.
Dated: October 20, 2011.
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Mike McKool
Texas State Bar No. 13732100
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
Texas State Bar No. 24040865
Texas State Bar No. 24070000
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Telecopier: (214) 978-4044
Kevin L. Burgess
Texas State Bar No. 24006927
Josh W. Budwin
Texas State Bar No. 24050347
Gretchen K. Curran
Texas State Bar No. 24055979
Matthew B. Rappaport
Texas State Bar No. 24070472
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 692-8700
Telecopier: (512) 692-8744
Robert M. Parker
Texas State Bar No. 15498000
Robert Christopher Bunt
Texas Bar No. 00787165
Andrew T. Gorham
Texas State Bar No. 24012715
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, Texas 75702
(903) 533-9687- Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
AND THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on October 20, 2011.
/s/ Josh Budwin
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?