Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1145

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1134 SEALED PATENT MOTION for a Separate Trial filed by Eolas Technologies Incorporated, The Regents of the University of California. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)

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

Eolas Technologies Incorporated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
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
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-00446-LED

JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO AMAZON.COM, INC.’S
MOTION FOR A SEPARATE TRIAL (DKT. 1134)

Plaintiffs the Regents of the University of California and Eolas Technologies Inc.
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), file this response in opposition to Amazon, Inc’s motion for a
separate trial, Dkt. 1134. Amazon requests “an individual and separate trial” for the same
“reasons discussed in Defendant Yahoo!, Inc’s Motion for Separate Trials.” Id. at 1; Dkt. 1133 at
1-15. Amazon’s motion thus adds little to Yahoo!’s motion on the same topic, and it is
noteworthy only because it confirms that accepting Yahoo!’s arguments would lead to the
conclusion that “separate trials for each individual defendant are necessary” in this case. Dkt.
1134 at 1. But as explained in Plaintiffs’ response to Yahoo!’s motion, filed contemporaneously
with this response, Defendants’ proposal for a lengthy series of separate and independent trials
covering substantially overlapping questions of law and fact would create tremendous
inefficiencies and numerous opportunities for inconsistent or competing results. Such a result is
of course precluded by controlling case law and common sense. For the reasons discussed in
Plaintiffs’ response to Yahoo!’s motion, therefore, the Court should deny Amazon’s motion for
one more in a potentially long line of individual and separate trials.

1
McKool 405584v2

Dated: December 21, 2011.

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Mike McKool
Mike McKool
Lead Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 13732100
[e-mail]
Douglas Cawley
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
[e-mail]
Holly Engelmann
Texas State Bar No. 24040865
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
Kevin L. Burgess
Texas State Bar No. 24006927
[e-mail]
Josh W. Budwin
Texas State Bar No. 24050347
[e-mail]
Gretchen K. Curran
Texas State Bar No. 24055979
[e-mail]
Matthew B. Rappaport
Texas State Bar No. 24070472
[e-mail]
J.R. Johnson
Texas State Bar No. 24070000
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]

McKool 405584v2

Robert M. Parker
Texas State Bar No. 15498000
[e-mail]
Robert Christopher Bunt
Texas Bar No. 00787165
[e-mail]
Andrew T. Gorham
Texas State Bar No. 24012715
[e-mail]
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, Texas 75702
[phone]
[phone]- Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
AND THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

McKool 405584v2

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 e-mail and the Court’s ECF system on December 21,
2011.
/s/ Josh Budwin
Josh Budwin

McKool 405584v2