Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al
Filing
1244
Proposed Pretrial Order by Eolas Technologies Incorporated, The Regents of the University of California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27)(McKool, Mike) Modified on 1/17/2012 (mjc, ). Modified on 1/17/2012 (mjc, ).
EXHIBIT 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., APPLE INC.,
ARGOSY PUBLISHING, INC., BLOCKBUSETER 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
CV 6:09-cv-446 LED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
DEFENDANT ADOBE SYSETMS INC.S' SECOND AMENDED TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST
Defendant Adobe Systems Inc. (“Adobe”) submits the following Second Amended Trial Exhibit List. This exhibit list is for notice
purposes only. Defendant Adobe does not know the precise nature or scope of the testimony and evidence that the Plaintiff may seek
to present at trial. As such, Defendant Adobe reserves the right to modify, amend or supplement this list prior to or during the trial
based on case developments including, by way of example and not of limitation, rulings by the Court including on any motions and/or
in limine, especially regarding content found in some of the exhibits. Defendant Adobe reserves the right to remove exhibits and/or
portions of the exhibits from its list and will work with Plaintiff Eolas to reduce the number of exhibits. Defendant Adobe’s inclusion
of any exhibits on the lists set forth below is not a stipulation as to their admissibility. Defendant Adobe further reserves the right to
use any exhibits set forth by any of the other Defendants and Plaintiff Eolas’ trial exhibit list, for any purpose. Defendant Adobe also
reserve the right to use any document—including those not identified on the following exhibit list and/or Plaintiff Eolas’ trial exhibit
list(s)—for impeachment purposes.
DEFENDANT ADOBE SYSETMS INC.S' SECOND AMENDED TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST - Page 1
E-mail dated 10/28/1991 from Tim
Berners-Lee re WorldWideWeb
mailing list: Introduction
E-mail dated 01/24/1992 from Tim
Berners-Lee re Viola – WWW
interface
Declaration of inventors re
Application Serial No. 08/324,443
filed 12/05/1994
Re-Exam re 5,838,906
[Berners-Lee Depo Exh
01] EOLASTX0000087619
[Berners-Lee Depo Exh
12] EOLASTX0000087700-0000087702
[Doyle Depo Exh 20]
EOLASTX-0000007737
DX-AD2
DX-AD3
DX-AD4
B
B
[Doyle Depo Exh 31]
EOLASTX-00001679480000168022
B
[Doyle Depo Exh 34]
EOLASTX-00002124960000212525
A
DX-AD5
Business Plan – Eolas
Technologies Incorporated dated
10/03/1995
DX-AD6
United States Patent No. 7,599,985 [Doyle Depo Exh 44]
B2 dated 10/06/2009
Defendants’ Notice of Deposition [Doyle Depo Exh 45]
to Plaintiff Eolas Technologies,
Inc. dated 03/30/2011
B
DX-AD8
Declaration of Michael D. Doyle
Under 37 CFR 1.131 dated
09/22/2007
[Doyle Depo Exh 47]
PH_001_00007870700000787191
B
DX-AD9
Exclusive License Agreement
between The Regents of the
University of California and Eolas
Technologies Incorporated dated
08/01/1995
[Doyle Depo Exh 49]
EOLASTX-00000161680000016209
B
DX-AD7
DEFENDANT ADOBE SYSETMS INC.S' SECOND AMENDED TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST - Page 2
B
Admitted
DX-AD1
Expect
to Call
(A)\
May
Call (B)
B
Objection
Bates No.
Offered
Description
Marked
Ex. No.
Date
Witness
DX-AD10
Office Action in Ex Parte
Reexamination re U.S. Patent No.
5,838,906 dated 10/30/2003
[Doyle Depo Exh 60]
PH_001_00007852920000785303
DX-AD11
Interview Request Continuation
Sheet dated 04/22/2004
[Doyle Depo Exh 61]
PH_001_00007853110000785315
B
DX-AD12
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview
Summary dated 04/27/2004
[Doyle Depo Exh 62]
PH_001_00007853160000785339
B
DX-AD13
USPTO Response to the Office
Action mailed 03/12/2004 dated
05/10/2004
[Doyle Depo Exh 63]
PH_001_00007853590000785379
B
DX-AD14
USPTO Interview Summary date
04/27/2004
[Doyle Depo Exh 64]
PH_001_00007853800000785403
B
DX-AD15
Declaration of Michael D. Doyle
re Application No. 08/234,443
dated 05/27/1997
[Doyle Depo Exh 66]
B
DX-AD16
Request for Ex Parte
Reexamination Transmittal Form
dated 12/22/2005
[Doyle Depo Exh 67]
PH_001_00007860910000786133
B
DX-AD17
Order Granting Ex Parte
Reexamination dated 01/24/2006
[Doyle Depo Exh 68]
PH_001_00007862550000786266
B
DEFENDANT ADOBE SYSETMS INC.S' SECOND AMENDED TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST - Page 3
Admitted
Expect
to Call
(A)\
May
Call (B)
B
Objection
Bates No.
Offered
Description
Marked
Ex. No.
Date
Witness
DX-AD18
Office Action in Ex Parte
Reexamination
[Doyle Depo Exh 69]
PH_001_00007869430000786982
DX-AD19
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview
Summary dated 09/06/2007
[Doyle Depo Exh 70]
PH_001_00007870180000787021
B
DX-AD20
Patent Owner’s Statement of the
Substance of the Interview dated
09/06/2007
[Doyle Depo Exh 71]
PH_001_00007870280000787051
B
DX-AD21
Declaration of Edward W. Felten
dated 12/22/2005
[Doyle Depo Exh 72]
PH_001_00007870520000787069
A
DX-AD22
Office Action in Ex Parte
Reexamination
[Doyle Depo Exh 73]
PH_001_00007872080000787244
B
DX-AD23
Ex Parte Reexamination Interview
Summary dated 05/09 and
06/03/2008
[Doyle Depo Exh 74]
PH_001_00007872540000787256
B
DX-AD24
Patent Owner’s Statement of the
Substance of the Interview dated
05/09 and 06/03/2008
[Doyle Depo Exh 75]
PH_001_00007872570000787273
B
DX-AD25
Email dated 05/19/1994 from
Michael Doyle re the
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?