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)

Download PDF
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 mmckool@mckoolsmith.com Douglas Cawley Texas State Bar No. 04035500 dcawley@mckoolsmith.com Holly Engelmann Texas State Bar No. 24040865 hengelmann@mckoolsmith.com 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 kburgess@mckoolsmith.com Josh W. Budwin Texas State Bar No. 24050347 jbudwin@mckoolsmith.com Gretchen K. Curran Texas State Bar No. 24055979 gcurran@mckoolsmith.com Matthew B. Rappaport Texas State Bar No. 24070472 mrappaport@mckoolsmith.com J.R. Johnson Texas State Bar No. 24070000 jjohnson@mckoolsmith.com MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Telecopier: (512) 692-8744 McKool 405584v2 Robert M. Parker Texas State Bar No. 15498000 rmparker@pbatyler.com Robert Christopher Bunt Texas Bar No. 00787165 rcbunt@pbatyler.com Andrew T. Gorham Texas State Bar No. 24012715 tgorham@pbatyler.com PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C. 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114 Tyler, Texas 75702 (903) 531-3535 (903) 533-9687- 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

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?