Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1298

ORDER denying 860 Sealed Patent Motion to Strike; denying 861 Sealed Patent Motion to Strike; denying 868 Sealed Patent Motion to Strike; denying 869 Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 873 Sealed Patent Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 874 Sealed Patent Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 877 Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 901 Sealed Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; denying 902 Sealed Patent Motion to Exclude Portions of Expert Testimony; denying 903 Sealed Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; denying 904 Sealed Patent Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony; denying 905 Sealed Patent Motion to Exclude Expert Reports; denying 906 Motion to Strike/Preclude Expert Testimony; denying 930 Sealed Patent Motion to Strike; denying 1150 Sealed Patent Motion to Preclude Reliance on Documents; denying 1151 Sealed Patent Motion Regarding Portions of Expert Testimony; denying 1152 Sealed Motion to Strike; denying 1154 Sealed Motion to Strike; granting 1182 Motion for Leave to File Motion in Limine; granting in part 1186 Sealed Patent Motion in Limine; denying in part 1189 Sealed Patent Motion in Limine; granting 1271 Motion in Limine; granting 1273 Sealed Motion in Limine; granting 1282 Motion to Include Jury Questionnaire with Jury Summons. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 01/25/12. cc:attys 1-25-12 (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 6:09-CV-446

ORDER
On January 24, 2012, the Court held a pretrial hearing and heard arguments regarding
many of the currently pending motions. After considering the parties’ briefing and oral
arguments, the Court ORDERS that:
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under Section 102(b) (Docket
No. 869) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of No Enhanced Damages for Willful
Infringement (Docket No. 873) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Joint Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Based on
Divided Infringement (Docket No. 874) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Lack of Written Description
(Docket No. 877) is DENIED;
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Preclude Reliance on Documents and Facts Related to A/B Testing
Produced by J.C. Penney Company, Inc. After Close of Fact Discovery (Docket No.
1150) is DENIED;
Google Inc’s and YouTube LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Report of
David M. Martin Jr. Concerning New Infringement Contentions (Docket No. 860) is
DENIED;

Defendant CDW LLC’s Motion to Strike Late-Disclosed Infringement Allegations
(Docket No. 868) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Portions of the Expert Testimony of David Martin and
Roy Weinstein (Docket No. 902) is DENIED;
Defendant Staples, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Late-Disclosed Infringement Allegations
(Docket No. 930) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Daubert Motion Regarding Portions of the Expert Testimony of David
Martin (Docket No. 1151) is DENIED;
J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.’s Motion to Strike “Supplemental” Expert Reports of
David Martin Disclosing New Infringement Contentions (Docket No. 1152) is DENIED;
Defendant CDW LLC’s Motion to Strike a Portion of the December 13, 2011
Supplemental Expert Report of Dr. David Marin, Jr. (Docket No. 1154) is DENIED;
Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC’s Motion to Strike Portions of the Expert Reports of
Roy Weinstein (Docket No. 861) is DENIED;
Defendant Go Daddy’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Roy Weinstein on Go
Daddy’s Damages (Docket No. 901) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Roy Weinstein (Docket No. 903) is
DENIED;
Defendant CDW LLC’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Roy Weinstein (Docket
No. 904) is DENIED;
Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC’s Motion to Exclude the Expert Reports and Opinions of
Roy Weinstein (Docket No. 905) is DENIED;
Defendants’ Daubert Motion to Preclude Expert Testimony of Jonathan H. Bari (Docket
No. 906) is DENIED; and
Adobe Systems Incorporated’s Motion for Leave to File a Motion in limine to Exclude
Evidence of Efforts to Initiate a Re-Examination of the ‘906 Patent and Motion in limine
(Docket No. 1182) is GRANTED.
The Court also heard arguments regarding several motions in limine. The Court reminds
the parties that the grant of a motion in limine is not an absolute bar to presenting evidence at

2

trial that is covered by the motion. Rather, it simply requires that the party desiring to present
such evidence approach the bench prior to offering or even mentioning the evidence. Likewise,
the denial of a motion in limine does not preclude the requesting party from objecting at trial to
evidence covered by the denied motion. Any motion in limine not addressed by this order will be
carried.
The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs The Regents of the University of California and
Eolas Technologies Incorporated’s Omnibus Motion in limine (Docket No. 1186) is GRANTED
IN PART as to the first five points, which were raised and discussed at the hearing.
Additionally, Defendants’ Motion in limine (Docket No. 1189) is DENIED IN PART as to the
second point, which was raised and discussed at the hearing. The Court further ORDERS that
Plaintiffs The Regents of the University of California and Eolas Technologies Incorporated’s
Second Omnibus Motion in limine Solely for the Validity Trial (Docket No. 1271) is
GRANTED, and Defendants’ Supplemental Motions in limine Regarding the Invalidity Trial
(Docket No. 1273) is GRANTED.
The Court ORDERS that the parties’ Joint Motion to Include Jury Questionnaire with
Jury Summons (Docket No. 1282) is GRANTED. The parties’ supplied jury questionnaire shall
be provided to the jurors at the courthouse prior to voir dire.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th day of January, 2012.

__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3