Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1269

Opposed MOTION TO CORRECT THE CAPTION (CORRECTED) re 1268 Opposed MOTION TO CORRECT THE CAPTION by Eolas Technologies Incorporated, The Regents of the University of California. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(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’ CORRECTED OPPOSED MOTION TO CORRECT THE CAPTION Plaintiffs The Regents of the University of California and Eolas Technologies Incorporated (collectively “Plaintiffs”) file this Corrected Opposed Motion to Correct the Caption as reflected in the proposed order attached hereto and would show as follows: BACKGROUND On October 6, 2009, Plaintiff Eolas Technologies Incorporated, as a sole plaintiff and exclusive licensee of the patents-at-issue in this case, filed its Original Complaint against Defendants Adobe Systems Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Apple 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 1 McKool 400322v1 Microsystems Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC in this Court. [Dkt. No. 1]. The captions in the First Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 285], Second Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 517], and Third Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 891] all reflect that Eolas Technologies Incorporated is the sole plaintiff and that claims against all of those named defendants are still included in this action. Since the filing of the October 6, 2009 Complaint, however, this Court has granted Eolas’ joint motions to dismiss (with respect to Blockbuster Inc., sever)/stipulations of dismissal for Apple Inc. [Dkt. No. 910], Blockbuster Inc. [Dkt. No. 445], eBay Inc. [Dkt. No. 835], Frito-Lay, Inc. [Dkt. No. 1116], JPMorgan Chase & Co. [Dkt. No. 662], New Frontier Media, Inc. [Dkt. No. 672], Office Depot, Inc. [Dkt. No. 788], Perot Systems Corp. [Dkt. No. 705], Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. [Dkt. No. 720], Rent-A-Center, Inc. [Dkt. No. 758], Sun Microsystems Inc. [Dkt. No. 692], and Texas Instruments Inc. [Dkt. No. 708]. Most recently, this Court granted Eolas’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint to Add The Regents of the University of California as Co-Plaintiff. [Dkt. No. 988]. ARGUMENT In light of the Court’s previous granting of Eolas’ joint motions to dismiss or sever/stipulations of dismissal and the Court’s most recent granting of Eolas’ Motion, which added The Regents of the University of California as a co-plaintiff to this case, in order to accurately reflect (i) that the owner of the patents-at-issue is a plaintiff in this case and, thus, should be listed as the first plaintiff in the caption; and (ii) the current parties remaining in this case, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order the Clerk of the Court to amend the caption in the present action to reflect that The Regents of the University of California and Eolas Technologies Incorporated are co-plaintiffs in this case and to reflect that claims against Defendants Apple Inc., Blockbuster Inc., eBay Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2 McKool 400322v1 New Frontier Media, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Perot Systems Corp., Playboy Enterprises International, Inc., Rent-A-Center, Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc., and Texas Instruments Inc. have been dismissed. See, e.g., Hernandez v. United States, No. EP-11-CV-027-DB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90234, at *31-32 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2011) (“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court AMEND the caption in the present action to reflect that claims against Defendant Jesus Mesa, Jr. and all unknown Defendants are no longer included within the abovecaptioned cause.”); Marcair, Inc. v. United States, No. 4:07cv77, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50607, at *6 (E.D. Tex. July 12, 2007) (“The Court, in granting the United States’ Motion to Amend Caption, orders that the caption in this cause be amended to reflect the proper party defendant and directs the Clerk of the Court to make this change in the record such that the United States of America is listed as the sole defendant.”); EEOC v. Allied Aviation Serv., No. 3:05-CV-1379-L, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35657, at *4 (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2006) (“For the reasons stated herein, Proposed Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene is granted. The clerk of court is directed to amend the caption of this case to reflect Eric Mitchel, Francisco Ochoa, Christopher DiGiorgio, Carl Gaines, Mark Barret, Andrew Cervantes, Tristian Fernandez, Henry Firth, Walter Kelley, Wilborn Lyles, David McCoy, Scotty Mills, Michael Nelson, Jerome Sloan, Josh Toram Sr., Anthony Walker, Mark Webster, and Willie Winters as Plaintiffs/Intervenors.”). On January 21, 2012, Plaintiffs met and conferred with Defendants regarding the relief requested in this Motion. While the Defendants are amenable to the caption being corrected to accurately reflect that The Regents of the University of California is a co-plaintiff in this case and the remaining Defendants in this case, Plaintiffs understand that all but Defendant Adobe oppose the caption setting forth The Regents of the University of California as the first-named Plaintiff. 3 McKool 400322v1 There can be no argument regarding whether The Regents of the University of California is the owner of the patents-at-issue. Nor can there be any argument regarding whether Eolas Technologies Incorporated is the exclusive licensee of those patents. In “[t]he Parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts” in Section V of the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order the parties jointly filed on January 16, 2010, the parties indicated as follows: 7. The ’906 patent and the ’985 patent are owned by assignment by the University of California. Eolas has an exclusive license to the ’906 patent and the ’985 patent that includes, without limitation, the following: (a) all exclusionary rights under the patents, including, but not limited to, (i) the exclusive right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling products embodying the patented inventions throughout the United States or importing such products into the United States, and (ii) the exclusive right to exclude others from using and otherwise practicing methods embodying the patented inventions throughout the United States; and (b) the exclusive right to sue and seek damages for infringement of any of the exclusionary rights identified above. [Dkt. No. 1244 at p. 61]. Accordingly, listing The Regents of the University of California before Eolas Technologies Incorporated in the caption would be an accurate reflection of the status of those parties in relation to the patents-at-issue in this case—owner and exclusive licensee, respectively. Defendants’ withheld consent to the relief requested in this Motion based on Plaintiffs seeking to list first in the caption the owner of the patents-at-issue is, thus, baseless and unreasonable. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Correct the Caption in this action and adopt the amended caption contained in this Motion and the Proposed Order to this Motion. 4 McKool 400322v1 Dated: January 22, 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 J.R. Johnson Texas State Bar No. 24070000 jjohnson@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 MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Telecopier: (512) 692-8744 5 McKool 400322v1 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 (903) 531-3535 (903) 533-9687- Facsimile ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INC. AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants on January 21, 2012. Adobe has indicated that it does not oppose the relief sought in Plaintiffs’ Motion. The remaining Defendants indicated they are opposed to the relief sought in this Motion, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to have the caption corrected to list The Regents of the University of California as the first-named Plaintiff. /s/ Gretchen K. Curran Gretchen K. Curran CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on January 22, 2012. /s/ Gretchen K. Curran Gretchen K. Curran 6 McKool 400322v1

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?