Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1184

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Corrected and Unopposed MFL to File Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Efforts to Initiate a Re-Examination of the '906 Patent by Adobe Systems Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Healey, David)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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. CORRECTED AND UNOPPOSED ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF EFFORTS TO INITIATE A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ’906 PATENT AND MOTION IN LIMINE This Corrected and Unopposed Motion for Leave to File A Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Efforts to Initiate A Reexamination is filed by Adobe Systems Incorporated (“Adobe”), one of the Defendants, to reflect that Plaintiff and Adobe have clarified that this Motion for Leave is not opposed. Accordingly, Adobe moves for leave to file one Motion in Limine beyond the limit set by this Court. Adobe needs to file one individual Motion in Limine on its own to exclude evidence relating to efforts to persuade the Director of the United States Patent And Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to initiate a re-examination of the ’906 patent. Adobe’s proposed motion presents a discrete issue: It seeks to exclude efforts by Adobe (or its predecessor) corporations (and necessarily others) to have the Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office initiate a re-examination of the ’906 patent. Notably, the Motion in Limine does not seek to exclude the re-examination or the re-examination record itself. As shown in Adobe’s Motion in Limine, this evidence is irrelevant to any jury issue. Adobe needs to be able to make a separate Motion in Limine because this evidence does not impact all of the remaining Defendants. Many Defendants have not prioritized this as a Motion in Limine, leaving Adobe to file this motion for itself. The specific facts and law are set forth in the Motion in Limine. Among the reasons this motion is unique to Adobe, and leave should be permitted for it to be filed, are as follows: Adobe’s products were involved in the trial of Eolas v. Microsoft. Adobe knew about the ’906 patent from that litigation, which pre-dates the re-exam. It also means that at the time certain companies were working to have the PTO initiate a re-examination, Adobe had no reason to think it infringed, since products by it and its predecessor companies had been featured in the Eolas v. Microsoft trial and were never accused of infringement at that time (or afterward until this suit was filed). If the lobbying effort is permitted to go to the jury, Adobe would have to explain Adobe’s concern was the impact on web browsers, especially compatibility with its own products for designing websites, its own websites, and its FLASH and authoring tools. Further, Adobe and its predecessors pre-date Eolas, had relationships with the Regents of the University of California (and do today), and licenses and agreements with the Regents. Evidence about the past history of the Microsoft case is likely relevant to estoppel or laches issues for Adobe, but these are equitable issues to be tried to the Court, and the evidence is of no relevance in the jury trial. Since Adobe is uniquely situated in the volume of material and past relationships, Adobe has a unique interest in excluding this evidence, and moves to file its own Motion in Limine on the topic. 1 Adobe asks that the Court grant its corrected unopposed motion for leave to file this Motion in Limine. Dated: January 6, 2012 Respectfully submitted, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: /s/ David J. Healey David J. Healey E-mail: Healey@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1 Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77010 (713) 654-5300 (Telephone) (713) 652-0109 (Facsimile) OF COUNSEL: Frank E. Scherkenbach E-mail: Scherkenbach@fr.com Proshanto Mukherji Email: Mukherji@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-1878 (617) 542-5070 (Telephone) (617) 542-8906 (Facsimile) Jason W. Wolff E-mail: Wolff@fr.com FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 (858) 678-5070 (Telephone) (858) 678-5099 (Facsimile) Counsel for Defendant ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED 2 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Plaintiff and Adobe clarified on January 6, 2012, after the original motion for leave was filed, that the motion for leave to file the Motion in Limine is unopposed. /s/David J. Healey David J. Healey CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been served on January 6, 2012, on 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/ David J. Healey__________________ David J. Healey 3

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?