Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1329

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1317 Emergency MOTION to Strike DEFENDANTS' LATE-PRODUCED DOCUMENTS, VIDEO DEMONSTRATIONS, SOURCE CODE AND PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED PRIOR ART filed by Amazon.com Inc., Yahoo! Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Andrew L. Perito In Support Of Opposition, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Declaration Of Scott Walker In Support of Opposition)(Doan, Jennifer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
Eolas Technologies Incorporated and
The Regents Of The University Of California,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants,
)
vs.
)
)
Adobe Systems Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; CDW Corp.; )
)
Citigroup Inc.; The Go Daddy Group, Inc.; Google
)
Inc.; J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.; Staples, Inc.;
)
Yahoo! Inc.; and YouTube, LLC,
)
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants.
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-446-LED

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ LATE-PRODUCED DOCUMENTS, VIDEO
DEMONSTRATIONS, SOURCE CODE
AND PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED PRIOR ART [DKT. 1317]

The parties in this case have not always seen eye-to-eye, and have, over the course of the
case, sought the Court’s rulings on their genuine, good faith disputes. This is not one of those
disputes.

In fact, Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion to Strike starts from a false premise and

compounds it with false facts, a strategy plainly aimed at keeping compelling evidence and
demonstrations of invalidity away from the jury.

For instance, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants

have produced new prior art and source code, Dkt. No. 1317 at 1, even after numerous
representations from Defendants that their new productions are simply exhibit versions and trial
demonstratives taken from source code and prior art, the overwhelming bulk of which was
produced well before the fact discovery cutoff or public. In fact, Defendants produced their
demonstrative videos in advance of the deadline for disclosing trial demonstratives precisely to
address Plaintiffs’ complaint that Defendants were planning to offer “frankenvideos” at trial.
Likewise, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendants have not yet made the demonstration systems [that
were used to generate the demonstratives] available for inspection by Plaintiffs at or before
trial,” id., yet Defendants agreed to bring the systems to Tyler and make them available for
inspection before Plaintiffs filed their motions, and Plaintiffs’ counsel and technical consultant
were sitting in the room with Defendants’ counsel and the demonstration machines at the time
that the motion was filed.

Whatever criticisms Plaintiffs may have regarding the substance of

Defendants’ demonstratives, there will be ample opportunity for Plaintiffs to explore those
criticisms on cross-examination.

But Plaintiffs cannot hide this evidence and these

demonstrations from the jury based on ill-founded procedural complaints.

The prior art was

timely disclosed and the trial demonstratives showing that prior art were disclosed early. This
motion should be denied.
A. Plaintiffs’ Motion Starts From A False Premise: The Disputed Productions Are
Not New Prior Art
Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ productions are “new—and massive—productions of
alleged prior art, newly-created video demonstrations of that alleged prior art, and source code

1

related to that alleged prior art,” and attached a chart purportedly illustrating the production date
of these nineteen “new” productions as Appendix A to their Motion. Dkt No. 1317 at 1.
Several entries in Plaintiffs’ Appendix A chart are misleadingly duplicative.

Plaintiffs’ chart

refers only to the Bates ranges for the recent productions, ignoring the actual content of the
productions and their previous production dates.

In fact, had Plaintiffs checked prior

productions they would find that virtually all of the prior art disclosed has been previously
produced.

Defendants have prepared the following chart, which includes Appendix A to

Plaintiffs’ motion and appends a column at the end that highlights the omissions and errors in
Plaintiffs’ chart:
Number

Date

Party
Producing

Production
File

Bates Range
of Production

Size of
Production

Errors and
Omissions in
Plaintiffs’ Chart
(Date of First
Production for
Prior Art Code1)

1.

Jan. 6, 2012

All
Defendants

PA000

PA-00334745
- PA00334749

9 MB (10
files)

NOT PRIOR ART
P. Wei Identification
Document & UC
Transcript

2.

Jan. 10, 2012

Yahoo

YAHOOE067-E068

YAHOOE03114528 YAHOOE03114530

17 MB (2124
files)

PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE
ARCHIVES
My.yahoo.com and
yahoo.com

3.

Jan. 13, 2012

All
Defendants

VOL001

PA-NAT00000100 PANAT00000107

3000 MB
(25,729 files)

Viola 5/12/93
(7/12/10); vplot
5/7/93 (7/12/10);
Viola 7/30/92
(Public); Viola
10/25/92 (12/28/11);
Viola 3/9/93
(1/11/12); Viola
5/27/93 (7/12/10);
vplot (7/12/10);
Viola 10/16/93

1

Publicly available operating system code and SGMLS code for the machines used to
create Defendants’ demonstratives was included along with the prior art code to make it easier
for Plaintiffs to understand and review Defendants’ prior art and demonstratives.

2

Number

Date

Party
Producing

Production
File

Bates Range
of Production

Size of
Production

Errors and
Omissions in
Plaintiffs’ Chart
(Date of First
Production for
Prior Art Code1)
(7/12/10); Viola
6/11/93 (1/11/12);
Viola 10/23/92
(12/28/11)2

4.

Jan.14, 2012

All
Defendants

VOL0002

PA-NAT00000108 PANAT00000111

1100 MB
(9,391 files)

Viola 5/12/93
(7/12/10); Viola
5/27/93 (7/12/10);
vplot (7/12/10);
vplot folder 5/18/93
& 8/12/93 (7/12/10)

5.

Jan.14, 2012

All
Defendants

VOL0004

PA-NAT00000108 PANAT000001123

512 MB
(5,304 files)

ADBE018753
(7/12/10); LANL 92
CD (6/8/11);
ADBE196641Mediaview 3.0
(9/2/11); MV.tar
(7/12/10); MV_1.tar
(9/2/11); MV_2.1
(7/20/11); MV_2.tar
(6/8/11); MV_3.0
(7/12/10); MV_copy
(7/12/10); PA-NAT
00000071 (7/12/10)

6.

Jan. 14, 2012

Yahoo

YAHOOE069

YAHOOE03114531

366 MB
(1,090 files)

tkWWW4

7.

Jan. 15, 2012

Yahoo

YAHOOE070-E072

YAHOOE03114532 YAHOO-

771 MB
(5,736 files)

Viola 5/12/93
(7/12/10); Vplot
5/7/93 (7/12/10);
Viola 5/27/93

2

The October 23, 1992 and June 11, 1993 Viola code was produced on January 11, 2012
and December 28, 2012 respectively because this code had to be recovered from 27 back-up
tapes containing 60GB of data located in the possession of third-party witness Dale Dougherty
after the close of fact discovery. Mr. Dougherty agreed to appear for deposition and was deposed
after the close of fact discovery.
3
Plaintiffs’ chart is incorrect. Entry No. 4 overlaps with Entry No. 5. VOL0004
contains only PA-NAT-00000112.
4
At pages 4-5 of the Motion, Plaintiffs criticize Defendants for production of an “entirely
new prior art system.” Defendants do not rely on tkWWW as a basis for anticipation or
obviousness. tkWWW may be addressed by fact witnesses in the context of a discussion of the
state of the art. There is no prejudice to Plaintiffs from the demonstrations of tkWWW as
reflecting the state of the art as presented by percipient witnesses.

1

Number

Date

Party
Producing

Production
File

Bates Range
of Production

Size of
Production

E03114692

Errors and
Omissions in
Plaintiffs’ Chart
(Date of First
Production for
Prior Art Code1)
(7/12/10); Viola
7/30/92 (Public);
Viola 10/25/92
(12/28/11); Viola
3/9/93 (1/11/12);
Vplot (7/12/10);
Viola 10/16/93
(7/12/10); Viola
6/11/93 (1/11/12);
Viola 10/23/92
(12/28/11)

PRODUCTION
ALSO INCLUDES
FINANCIAL
DOCUMENTS
THAT ARE NOT
PRIOR ART
8.

Jan. 16, 2012

All
Defendants

PA001

PA-00334750
- PA00334761

6 MB (17
files)

NOT PRIOR ART
S. Silvey School
Transcripts

9.

Jan. 20, 2012

Yahoo

YAHOOE073

YAHOOE03114693

366 MB
(1,126 files)

tkWWW

10.

Jan 24, 2012

All
Defendants

VID001

VID00000001VID00000011

835 MB (11
files)

TRIAL
DEMONSTRATIVE
(VIDEO)

11.

Jan. 24, 2012

Yahoo

YAHOOE074

YAHOOE03114694

361 MB
(2,085 files)

Viola 5/12/93
(7/12/10); Vplot
folder 5/18/93 &
8/12/93 (7/12/93)

12.

Jan. 24, 2012

All
Defendants

VOL3

PA-NAT00000111

361 MB

Viola 5/12/93
(7/12/10); Vplot
folder 5/18/93 &
8/12/93 (7/12/93)

(2,085 files)

13.

Jan. 31, 2012

Yahoo

VID002

VID00000012VID00000017

2

565 MB (6
files)

TRIAL
DEMONSTRATIVE
(VIDEO)

Number

Date

Party
Producing

Production
File

Bates Range
of Production

Size of
Production

Errors and
Omissions in
Plaintiffs’ Chart
(Date of First
Production for
Prior Art Code1)

14.

Jan 31, 2012

All
Defendants

VID003

VID00000018VID00000020

144 MB (3
files)

TRIAL
DEMONSTRATIVE
(VIDEO)

15.

Feb. 1, 2012

All
Defendants

VOL5

PA-NAT00000113 to
PANAT00000121

3200 MB
(13,101 files)

Viola 10/16/93
(7/12/10); Vplot
5/7/93 (7/12/10);
Viola 5/12/93
(7/12/10); Vplot
8/12/93 (7/12/10);
Viola 5/27/93
(7/12/10); Viola
7/30/92 (Public);
Viola 4/14/95 3.3
(Public); Viola.org
data (8/18/11); Vplot
script 2012 (2/1/12)

16.

Feb 1, 2012

All
Defendants

VID004

VID00000021VID00000029

727 MB (9
files)

TRIAL
DEMONSTRATIVE
(VIDEO)

17.

Feb. 1, 2012

Yahoo

YAH00E075

YAHOOE03114695 to
YAHOOE03114703

3200 MB
(13,101 files)

Viola 10/16/93
(7/12/10); Vplot
5/7/93 (7/12/10);
Viola 5/12/93
(7/12/10); Vplot
8/12/93 (7/12/10);
Viola 5/27/93
(7/12/10); Viola
7/30/92 (Public);
Viola 4/14/95 3.3
(Public); Viola.org
data (8/18/11); Vplot
script 2012 (2/1/12)

18.

Feb. 1, 2012

All
Defendants

VOL6

PA-NAT00000122 to
PANAT00000124

7 MB (609
files)

tkWWW; viola3.3.tar.gz (Public);
MPEG_play2.0.tar.Z (Public)

19.

Feb. 1, 2012

Yahoo

YAH00E076

YAHOOE03114704

0.25 MB (34
files)

tkWWW

As this chart shows, the overwhelming majority of the purportedly late-produced prior art

3

falls into two categories, neither one of which is late: (1) previously-produced or public prior art
source code reproduced in specific packages to be used as trial exhibits; and (2) trial
demonstrative videos. As set forth below, neither one of these categories is late-produced prior
art and neither category should be stricken.
1. Defendants’ Production Of Subsets of Previously-Produced Code For Use
As Trial Exhibits Is Proper
It is not disputed that Defendants timely served Plaintiffs with their invalidity contentions
and expert reports on invalidity, setting forth in detail the basis for Defendants’ invalidity
defenses and substantial supporting evidence. Defendants have produced source code for the
key prior art systems numbering in the millions of lines of code and covering multiple versions
of these systems over time.

Given the volume and complexity of the code at issue, Defendants

identified the subsets of code versions and modules that they intend to introduce as exhibits at
trial.

There is nothing unusual or improper about this, nor is this in any way prejudicial to

Plaintiffs.

In fact, this only serves to assist Plaintiffs by focusing them on the precise code

bases that Defendants intend to rely upon at trial.

No new prior art is being added and no new

theories offered.5
2. Defendants Produced Demonstrative Videos Before The Parties’ AgreedUpon Deadline For Exchange Of Trial Demonstratives
Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is equally baseless with respect to the second category of
items in dispute—trial demonstrative videos.

The parties have agreed that all non-documentary

demonstratives or live product demonstrations will be exchanged at 8 pm two nights before their
use.

Dkt. No. 1244 at 64-65.

Notwithstanding this agreement, as shown above, Defendants

have provided a number of trial demonstrative videos to Plaintiffs days before that agreed-upon

5

For this reason, Plaintiffs’ reliance on LML Patent Corp. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No.
2:08-cv-448, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128724 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2011), Cummins-Allison Corp.
v. SBM Co. Ltd., et al., No. 9:07-cv-196, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22114 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 19,
2009) and Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 2d 896 (E.D. Tex. 2006) is
misplaced. In those cases, Defendants disclosed new prior art or new combinations well into
the case. That is not the situation here.

4

deadline.

Although they were under no obligation to do so, Defendants made this early

production of trial demonstratives precisely to avoid a dispute with Plaintiffs regarding these
demonstratives.

As the Court knows, at the January 24, 2012 pretrial hearing, Plaintiffs

contended that Defendants’ earlier-produced videos and the underlying source code had been
modified to create “frankenvideos” and were not true and accurate representations of the asserted
prior art’s capabilities.

January 24, 2012 Pretrial Hearing Tr. at 147-153.

To avoid that

concern and criticism, Defendants have undertaken significant time and expense to prepare these
trial demonstratives in advance and provide them to Plaintiffs’ counsel in an accessible and more
understandable way.

Plaintiffs’ attempt to punish Defendants for this early disclosure is

unfounded, to say the least.
B. Defendants Have Made The Systems Used To Create The Demonstrative Videos
Available For Inspection
On January 23, 2012, Plaintiffs requested access to the systems used to create
demonstrative videos of prior art code.
demonstrations].

[Ex. A, Budwin 1/23/12 ltr. re: prior art

Yahoo! originally had the Sun SPARCstation Model 10 workstations that

were used to create demonstrative videos VID00000001-29 in Sunnyvale, California.
Plaintiffs requested that these machines be made available in Tyler, Texas. Id. Accordingly,
despite the risks that transport presents to these very old and fragile computers, Yahoo!
transported two SPARCstation machines to an office in Tyler.

[Walker Decl. ¶ 2].

The bases and drives for these machines arrived in Tyler the morning of Wednesday,
February 1, but monitors did not arrive until afternoon due to a shipping error. Id. at ¶ 3.
Apparently due to damage that occurred during the shipping process, both the machines
indicated errors at boot time due to failures in the Non-Volatile Random Access Memory
(NVRAM).

Id. at ¶ 4. Yahoo! personnel and counsel worked diligently but unsuccessfully to

get the machines running.

That evening they reached out to obtain replacement machines,

5

contacting an individual from whom Yahoo! had previously purchased machines from the same
era.

Id. at ¶ 5. That contact provided the name of a new source, an individual located over an

hour from Tyler in Mesquite, Texas, from whom Yahoo! arranged to obtain two additional
machines and replacement hard drives for delivery the next day. Id. at ¶ 6.

Yahoo! also sent

two backup, replacement hard drives with an additional copy of the previously produced prior art
code necessary to run certain demonstrations from videos were made. See id. at ¶ 7.

These

replacement hard drives were carried by Yahoo! personnel traveling to Dallas, Texas on
Thursday, February 2. Id. at ¶ 8.
On Thursday morning, a temporary solution to the boot problems was identified, which
enabled the machines to start up successfully, access the local network, and communicate and
operate as they previously had when located in Sunnyvale prior to the move to Tyler.
point, Defendants notified Plaintiffs that the machines were available for inspection.

At that

Id. at ¶ 9.

However, when Plaintiffs’ representatives arrived, the hard drive on the “client” machine
apparently failed, and the machine failed to reboot properly. Id. at ¶ 10. Defendants made
numerous attempts to get the machines working, and Plaintiffs asked a number of questions
regarding the configurations of those machines and the steps necessary to run the demonstrations
illustrated in the demonstrative video.

Id. at ¶ 11.

Defendants committed to investigate

Plaintiffs’ requests and explained that they were taking steps to get the machines operating again,
and would notify Plaintiffs as soon as Defendants were again able to provide systems for
inspection. Id. at ¶ 12.
Yahoo! arranged to transport the backup hard drives from Dallas that night and the two
additional SPARCstations ordered on Wednesday arrived that night.

Id. at ¶ 13.

After

performing testing enabled by the newly arrived machines, Defendants confirmed that one of the

6

original hard drives had failed.

Id. at ¶ 14.

The backup hard drives were delivered at

approximately 1:00 am on Friday, February 3, 2012.

Id. at ¶ 15.

Working through the night

into Friday morning, and replacing internal hardware, including hard drives and apparently
failing NVRAM, Defendants were able to build two working machines, “client” and “remote,” in
addition to the original “server,” and restored network functionality among the machines. Id. at
¶ 16.
Defendants then offered those machines to Plaintiffs for inspection on Friday afternoon.
[Exh. B, Perito 2/3/12 3:05pm CT email to Budwin]. Defendants also offered to walk Plaintiffs
through the complete set of steps necessary to run each of the demonstrations illustrated in
eleven of the video trial demonstratives that Defendants intend to introduce at trial.
Perito 2/3/12 4:10pm CT email to Budwin].

[Exh. C,

Plaintiffs did not inspect these machines on

Friday, and on Saturday afternoon, after multiple emails asking when Plaintiffs planned to
inspect the machines, Plaintiffs finally informed Defendants that Plaintiffs’ technical expert was
out of town and would “likely proceed with the second inspection” on Sunday.
Budwin 2/4 3:42pm CT email to Perito].

[Exh. D,

Finally, at approximately 6:30 pm on Sunday,

Plaintiffs’ representative inspected the machines, taking code listings and screen shots.
C. The Demonstrative Videos Do Not Misrepresent The State Of The Art Or Violate
MILs 1 and 2
All but five of the Viola prior art demonstrative videos were produced using Violarelated code that bears original dates before October 17, 1994.

See supra, § A. Chart.

These

videos demonstrate the capabilities of the prior art and were produced on machines available
before October 17, 1994, running contemporaneous operating systems and software.

Because

the hard drives for these machines were recently loaded with operating system software and, in
the case of the “client” and “remote” workstations, rebuilt Friday, February 3, 2012, as a result of

7

the failure of the original “client” hard drive, certain files on those hard drives bear recent
creation and/or modified dates.

There is no justifiable objection that these videos are

misleading in any way or that they misrepresent the state of the prior art.

In fact, these videos

all could have been produced in October 1993 and would been identical—in all relevant
respects—to those that Defendants intend to present to the jury.
For the same reasons, Plaintiffs’ contention that these videos are barred by the Court’s
grant of Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (“MIL”) Nos. 1 and 2 is meritless.

Dkt. No. 1317 at 10.

The prior art codebases used to create these videos are unmodified and bear their original dates
before October 17, 1994—in fact, they are dated before October 17, 1993.

That simply

disposes of any basis for exclusion under MIL 1. Similarly, MIL 2 does not bar these videos, as
they in no way relate to any accused product, much less any contention that “an accused product
[is] based on technology that did not exist at the time of the invention.” Dkt. No. 1298. These
videos present compelling illustrations of the functioning of prior art systems and there is no
reason that the jury should be prevented from considering them.
The remaining Viola-related videos fall into three categories: (1) one video (produced as
VID00000018, hereinafter “Video 18”) illustrates how prior art vplot code could have been
executed on a remote system; (2) three additional videos (produced as VID00000007-9) illustrate
the flexibility and capabilities of the prior art Viola browser, which could have downloaded and
run Viola script code that provides search suggestion functionality; and (3) a third video
(produced as VID00000012) illustrates how Viola would have appeared in 1995/1996.
Video 18 was produced using prior art code, with addition of a single vplot-related file
created on January 29, 2012.

Defendants do not intend to offer this video as prior art, but

rather, as a demonstrative video that highlights how the Viola code could have been used by

8

others to create applications on a remote machine.

Likewise, Videos 7-9 are directed at

showing the robustness of the Viola code. Again, Defendants do not intend to offer these
videos as prior art.

Defendants expect that Plaintiffs will attempt to attack the capabilities of

the prior art Viola browser.

To rebut that unsupported position, Defendants are entitled to show

videos that illustrate the capabilities of the Viola browser and how it could be used to provide
search suggestion functionality in coordination with a modern system. These demonstrative
videos do not misrepresent the state of the prior art, and indeed, Defendants do not intend to
present these demonstrations to suggest that the search suggestion technology was known in
1993.

To the contrary, the demonstrations merely illustrate the robustness of the Viola system

for the jury’s consideration should Plaintiffs attempt to attack the system on that grounds, subject
of course to Plaintiffs’ cross-examination on Defendants’ demonstratives.
Video 12, the video that shows how Viola would have looked in 1995/1996, is not
offered as prior art, but as an illustration of diligence and the continued development of the Viola
system.

This use triggers none of the concerns Plaintiffs raised in their emergency motion.

D. There Is No Prejudice To Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs’ motion complains that they will be significantly prejudiced by the supposed
“eve-of-trial” production of allegedly-new prior art and demonstrations.
there is no prejudice to Plaintiffs.

The reality is that

For the first category at issue—subsets of code packaged to

be usable as trial exhibits—Plaintiffs have had virtually all of the code for months.

In fact, it is

clear that Plaintiffs knew about Viola and had access to public versions of the code in the 1990s.
In this case, they have had ample opportunity to depose the relevant witnesses and develop their
rebuttal, and many of those witnesses will testify live at trial and be subject to cross-examination
by Plaintiffs.
As to the second category—the video trial demonstratives—there can be no prejudice
9

because Defendants have provided those demonstratives long before the deadline that Plaintiffs
themselves agreed to. If Plaintiffs believe that exchange of product demonstrations and
nondocumentary demonstratives at 8 pm two days before their use in Court provides adequate
time for them to prepare cross-examination, as agreed in the Pretrial Order, Defendants have
only given them an additional head-start. That Defendants have also agreed to make the systems
used for the demonstrations available for inspection and assist Plaintiffs in their inspection
confirms that there is no prejudice here.

The bottom line is that, whatever substantive

challenges Plaintiffs have to the video demonstratives, how they were generated, or what they
show, they have had extra time and extra help to prepare their cross-examination.

Plaintiffs

have presented no legitimate basis to strike these demonstratives.

Dated:

February 6, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jennifer H. Doan
Edward Reines (Bar No.135960)
[e-mail]
Jared Bobrow (Bar No. 133712)
[e-mail]
Sonal N. Mehta (Bar No. 222086)
[e-mail]
Andrew L. Perito (Bar No. 269995)
[e-mail]
Aaron Y. Huang (Bar No. 261903)
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Doug W. McClellan (Bar No. 24027488)
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10

Jennifer H. Doan (Bar No. 088090050)
[e-mail]
Josha R. Thane (Bar No. 24060713)
[e-mail]
HALTOM & DOAN
6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
Texarkana, TX 75503
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Otis Carroll (Bar No. 3895700)
Deborah Race (Bar No. 11648700)
IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C.
6101 South Broadway, Suite 500
Tyler, Texas 75703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
AMAZON.COM, INC. AND YAHOO! INC.

11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). All other counsel of record not deemed to have consented
to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by certified mail,
return receipt requested, on this the 6th day of February, 2012.
/s/ Andrew L. Perito
Andrew L. Perito

12