Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1336

Proposed Jury Instructions by Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Reines, Edward)

Download PDF
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 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED JURY INSTRUCTION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT [DKT. 1335] In view of Plaintiffs’ filing at 11 pm tonight with less than a half hour notice, Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment at this hour and propose their own amendment. Section 4.1 Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment in Section 4.1 is objectionable because it misstates the law by stating that the Patent Office considers “the prior art” without distinguishing between original examination proceedings and reexaminations. This distinction is critical and plaintiffs' arguments have created the risk for juror confusion and consequent unfair prejudice on this very distinction. Sections 301 and 302 of the Patent Code, and 37 CFR 1.552, all provide that reexamination is limited to patents and printed publications. It does not include other forms of prior art such as prior invention under Section 102(g) and public use under Section 102(b). This concern would be addressed with the following instruction that in any event defendants believe is necessary to properly explain the law and the relevant legal rules to the jury given the trial record: “The rules for examination of a patent application before the issuance of a patent are different from those that govern a patent reexamination. the applicant is permitted to participate in the process. During an original examination, only In the reexamination, parties other than the applicant can, and did initiate the proceeding, but were not permitted to participate beyond that. In addition, while in the original patent examination the Patent Office can consider prior art in general, in reexamination printed publications and patents can be considered, but public uses and prior inventions cannot.” Section 5.1 Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to Section 5.1 is objectionable because instructing on the Constitutional basis for patent law again is unnecessary and also because of the statement that 1 you may not invalidate a patent “merely because you believe the invention should be dedicated to the public.” This proposed amendment is argumentative, inaccurate and confusing. If a juror believes the invention is invalid because it was dedicated to the public by third parties as prior art, that would be a proper basis to invalidate the patent. The proposed amendment’s statement of the purpose of the patent system and how the system achieves that purpose is also inaccurate, incomplete, and prejudicial. Dated: February 8, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Edward R. Reines Edward Reines (Bar No.135960) edward.reines@weil.com Jared Bobrow (Bar No. 133712) jared.bobrow@weil.com Sonal N. Mehta (Bar No. 222086) sonal.mehta@weil.com Andrew L. Perito (Bar No. 269995) andrew.perito@weil.com Aaron Y. Huang (Bar No. 261903) aaron.huang@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3000 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 Doug W. McClellan (Bar No. 24027488) doug.mcclellan@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 546-5000 Facsimile: (713) 224-9511 Jennifer H. Doan (Bar No. 088090050) jdoan@haltomdoan.com Josha R. Thane (Bar No. 24060713) jthane@haltomdoan.com HALTOM & DOAN 6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100 Texarkana, TX 75503 Telephone: (903) 255-1000 Facsimile: (903) 255-0800 2 Otis Carroll (Bar No. 3895700) Deborah Race (Bar No. 11648700) IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 South Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, Texas 75703 Telephone: (903) 561-1600 Facsimile: (903) 581-1071 Email: fedserv@icklaw.com Attorneys for Defendants AMAZON.COM, INC. AND YAHOO! INC. By: /s/ Douglas E. Lumish (with permission) Douglas E. Lumish dlumish@kasowitz.com Jeffrey G. Homrig jhomrig@kasowitz.com Jonathan K. Waldrop (pro hac vice) jwaldrop@kasowitz.com Joseph H. Lee (pro hac vice) jlee@kasowitz.com Parker C. Ankrum (pro hac vice) pankrum@kasowitz.com KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 333 Twin Dophin Dr., Suite 200 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 453-5170 Facsimile: (650) 453-5171 James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice) james.batchelder@ropesgray.com Sasha G. Rao (pro hac vice) sasha.rao@ropesgray.com Mark D. Rowland mark.rowland@ropesgray.com Brandon Stroy (pro hac vice) brandon.stroy@ropesgray.com Lauren Robinson (pro hac vice) lauren.robinson@ropesgray.com Rebecca R. Hermes (pro hac vice) rebecca.wight@ropesgray.com Han Xu (pro hac vice) han.xu@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284 3 Telephone: (650) 617-4000 Facsimile: (650) 617-4090 Michael E. Jones (Bar No. 10929400) mikejones@potterminton.com Allen F. Gardner (Bar No. 24043679) allengardner@potterminton.com POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Facsimile: (903) 593-0846 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS GOOGLE, INC. AND YOUTUBE, LLC 4 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 8th day of February, 2012. /s/ Andrew L. Perito Andrew L. Perito 5

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?