Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1233

RESPONSE to 1190 Notice (Other) by Eolas Technologies Incorporated, The Regents of the University of California. (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 THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
AND EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED’S RESPONSE TO THE
STATEMENT BY GO DADDY, CDW AND JC PENNEY REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE, ISSUE NO. 4 [DKT. NO. 1190]
Defendants Go Daddy, CDW, and J.C. Penney filed a “statement” regarding Defendants’
Motion in Limine issue 4, which seeks to preclude “suggestion, testimony, or argument
regarding any Eolas Technologies Inc. litigation settlement agreements and resulting licenses”.
[Dkt. No. 1189 at 4-6]. In their “statement”, Defendants Go Daddy, CDW, and J.C. Penney
argue that “[t]he 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.”

[Dkt. No. 1190 at 2].

Accordingly, to the extent that Defendants Go Daddy, CDW, and J.C. Penney express their

McKool 406801v1

opposition to the remaining Defendants’ efforts to preclude evidence regarding the Microsoft
license, Plaintiffs support such opposition. To the extent that Defendants Go Daddy, CDW, and
J.C. Penney argue that their license defense is an issue for the jury to decide, Plaintiffs disagree,
and as set forth in their Notice of Issues to Be Tried to the Bench [Dkt. No. 1173], Plaintiffs
contend that Defendants’ license defense is for the Court to decide.
Dated: January 13, 2012.

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

McKool 406801v1

Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
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
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA AND EOLAS
TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document, attachment, and exhibits were
filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) and, therefore, was served on all
counsel of record on January 13, 2011.
/s/ Gretchen K. Curran
Gretchen K. Curran

McKool 406801v1