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)

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 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 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 McKool 406801v1 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Telecopier: (512) 692-8744 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 Telephone: (903) 531-3535 Telecopier: (903) 533-9687 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

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?