Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1190

NOTICE by The Go Daddy Group, Inc. re 1189 SEALED PATENT MOTION in Limine Statement by Go Daddy, CDW and JC Penney Regarding Defendants Motion in Limine, Issue No. 4 (Mukherji, Proshanto)

Download PDF
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. STATEMENT BY GO DADDY, CDW AND JC PENNEY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE, ISSUE NO. 4 Defendants The Go Daddy Group, Inc., CDW LLC, and J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (collectively “the Microsoft Server Defendants”), who use Microsoft software such as Microsoft IIS to provide their accused websites, do not join Defendants’ Motion in Limine, Issue No. 4 to the extent it seeks to exclude the license and settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and Microsoft or discussion thereof. These agreements are critical to the Microsoft Server Defendants’ noninfringement defenses. Thus, the Microsoft Server Defendants ask that any order excluding these agreements not apply in any trial involving the Microsoft Server Defendants. All three Microsoft Server Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment of noninfringement (D.I. 790, 876) on the ground that the Microsoft license authorizes them to provide their accused websites and authorizes visitors to view them. Plaintiffs have not filed a cross motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, if the Court denies the Microsoft Server Defendants’ summary judgment motions due to a finding of genuine issues of material fact, then the MiSTATEMENT BY GO DADDY, CDW AND JC PENNEY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE, ISSUE NO. 4 - Page 1 crosoft license defense must be tried to the jury. Although Plaintiffs have posited that this defense may be tried to the bench, they have not explained why, if summary judgment is denied, a bench trial of any factual disputes related to this particular defense would be appropriate. Moreover, in addition to forming the basis for the Microsoft Server Defendants’ license defense, the Microsoft license and settlement agreements will also be important at trial as a defense against Plaintiffs’ claims that these defendants induce visitors to their websites to infringe the patents-in-suit. “[I]nducement requires that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement.” DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted). It likewise “requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2068 (2011). A reasonable belief that the induced acts are noninfringing negates this element. See, e.g., Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Medical Group, Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, 1024–25 (Fed. Cir. 2009); DSU Medical Corp., 471 F.3d at 1307. The Microsoft Server Defendants’ reasonable belief that visitors to their sites were licensed will be an important defense to Plaintiffs’ inducement claim. The Microsoft license and settlement agreements would therefore be highly relevant to the Microsoft Server Defendants’ defenses should they go to trial, and the Court should not exclude this evidence in any trial involving these defendants. STATEMENT BY GO DADDY, CDW AND JC PENNEY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE, ISSUE NO. 4 - Page 2 Dated: January 7, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Proshanto Mukherji Thomas M. Melsheimer Neil J. McNabnay Carl Bruce Fish & Richardson 1717 Main Street Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 214.474.5070 melsheimer@fr.com mcnabnay@fr.com bruce@fr.com Proshanto Mukherji Fish & Richardson 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 617.542.5070 mukherji@fr.com Attorneys for Defendant THE GO DADDY GROUP, INC. /s/ Christopher M. Joe Christopher M. Joe Brian Carpenter Eric W. Buether Buether Joe & Carpenter 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 214-466-1270 Chris.Joe@BJCIPLaw.com Eric.Buether@BJCIPLaw.com Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPLaw.com Attorneys for Defendant J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC. /s/ Thomas L. Duston Thomas L. Duston Julianne Hartzell Scott A. Sanderson Anthony S. Gabrielson Marshall Gerstein & Borun 233 S. Wacker Drive 6300 Willis Tower Chicago, IL 60606 STATEMENT BY GO DADDY, CDW AND JC PENNEY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE, ISSUE NO. 4 - Page 3 312.474.6300 tduston@marshallip.com jhartzell@marshallip.com ssanderson@marshallip.com agabrielson@marshallip.com Eric Hugh Findlay Brian Craft Findlay Craft 6760 Old Jacksonville Highway Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75703 903.534.1100 efindlay@findlaycraft.com bcraft@findlaycraft.com Attorneys for Defendant CDW LLC STATEMENT BY GO DADDY, CDW AND JC PENNEY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE, ISSUE NO. 4 - Page 4 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 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/ Proshanto Mukherji 11146665.doc STATEMENT BY GO DADDY, CDW AND JC PENNEY REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE, ISSUE NO. 4 - Page 5

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?