Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1383

RESPONSE in Opposition re 1368 Opposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 1354 Judgment Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Correct Judgment Pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(a) filed by Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(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’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CORRECT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 59(e) AND 60(a) INTRODUCTION Defendants Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC (“Defendants”) agree that the Court should amend its February 13, 2012, Judgment [Dkt. No. 1354] because it does not resolve all claims against all parties and thus is not final. Defendants further agree that an amended judgment should dispose of Defendants’ counterclaims (other than those alleging patent invalidity) as moot. The parties disagree, however, about whether Plaintiffs’ infringement claims should be expressly dismissed “with prejudice” (even as the parties appear to agree that Plaintiffs’ claims are extinguished). They should. Patent invalidity is an affirmative defense to patent infringement, and all of Plaintiffs’ asserted claims have been fully and finally adjudicated invalid after a week-long jury trial. ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFFS’ INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED “WITH PREJUDICE” A. The Jury Verdict And Existing Judgment Resolve Plaintiffs’ Infringement Claims In Favor of Defendants On February 9, 2012, the jury found that Defendants proved by clear and convincing evidence that all asserted claims of the ’906 and ’985 Patents are invalid. Jury Verdict [Dkt. No. 1353]. The Court’s February 13, 2012 Judgment [Dkt. No. 1354] orders that these claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid and further directs that “Plaintiffs take nothing.” Plaintiffs’ Motion disputes neither the scope of the jury’s verdict nor the terms of the Court’s judgment. There should be no dispute that Plaintiffs’ infringement claims based on these patents are extinguished. In Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court granted summary judgment that the patent-in-suit was invalid and, as a consequence, was not infringed. 599 F.3d at 1293. The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating the rule that “[t]here can be no 1 infringement of claims deemed to be invalid.” Id. at 1295; see also Sonoscan, Inc. v. Sonotek, Inc., No. 90-00357-A, 1990 WL 359369, at *4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 1990) (declaring the patent-insuit invalid after a bifurcated trial of defendant’s on-sale bar affirmative defense and dismissing “with prejudice” plaintiff’s infringement claim because “[plaintiff] has no claim under an invalid patent”), aff’d, Sonoscan, Inc. v. Sonotek, Inc., 936 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The same rule applies here with equal force. The jury’s invalidity verdict disposes of Plaintiffs’ claims of infringement as a matter of law. B. Express Dismissal “With Prejudice” Of Plaintiffs’ Infringement Claims Avoids Any Ambiguity Regarding Disposition of Plaintiffs’ Infringement Claims The Court ordered that “Plaintiffs take nothing” from Defendants. That order resolved Plaintiffs’ infringement claims in favor of Defendants and is a final decision on the merits of those claims. Nevertheless, when Defendants raised the need for an amended final judgment to dispose of their counterclaims other than for invalidity, Plaintiffs would not agree that the form of the amended judgment should also include an express dismissal “with prejudice” of Plaintiffs’ infringement claims. Although Plaintiffs have not suggested in their motion or otherwise that their infringement claims should be dismissed without prejudice, entry of an amended judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims “with prejudice” will make express that the jury’s verdict has resolved Plaintiffs’ infringement claims and that the judgment bars subsequent relitigation of those claims. See Astron Indust. Assocs. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 405 F. 2d 958, 960 (5th Cir. 1968) (“It is clear that a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, or, for that matter, a dismissal with prejudice at any stage of a judicial proceeding, normally constitutes a final judgment on the merits which bars a later suit on the same cause of action”). In particular, an explicit dismissal with prejudice will make clear that Plaintiffs cannot assert, in any future litigation involving Defendants’ accused products and technology, claims of 2 the patents-in-suit that they did not ultimately assert in this case. Such “claim splitting” is barred by res judicata, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., No. 2011-1147, slip op. at 10 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2012), and an express dismissal with prejudice will avoid any confusion by successors-in-interest to the patents, other courts, or anyone else. Amending the judgment would thus remove any ambiguity about the final disposition of Plaintiffs’ infringement claims and clarify the preclusive effect of the judgment. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter the Amended Final Judgment [Dkt. 1386-1] proposed by Plaintiffs with the modification (indicated herein by italics) that “Plaintiffs’ claims for infringement and damages are dismissed with prejudice based on Defendants’ invalidity affirmative defense and counterclaim.” convenience, Defendants submit a proposed form of judgment as Attachment A. 3 For Dated: March 29, 2012 /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 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. /s/ Douglas E. Lumish (with permission) Douglas E. Lumish (Bar No. 183863) dlumish@kasowitz.com Jeffrey G. Homrig (Bar No. 215890) 4 jhomrig@kasowitz.com Joseph H. Lee (Bar No. 248046) jlee@kasowitz.com Parker C. Ankrum (Bar No. 261608) pankrum@kasowitz.com KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 200 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: 650-453-5170 Facsimile: 650-453-5171 Jonathan Keith Waldrop jwaldrop@kasowitz.com KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP 1360 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1150 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 260-6133 Facsimile: (404) 393-0743 Michael E. Jones (Bar No. 10929400) mikejones@potterminton.com Allen F.Gardner (Bar No. 24043679) allengardner@potterminton.com POTTER MINTON P.C. 110 N College , Suite 500 PO Box 359 Tyler, TX 75710-0359 Telephone: (903) 597-8311 Facsimile: (903) 593.0846 Brandon Stroy (pro hac vice) brandon.stroy@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 596-9000 Facsimile: (212) 596-9090 James R Batchelder (pro hac vice) James.Batchelder@ropesgray.com Han Xu (pro hac vice) han.xu@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: (617) 235-4903 Facsimile: (617) 235-9873 Mark D. Rowland (Bar No. 157862) mark.rowland@ropesgray.com 5 Rebecca R. Hermes (Bar No. 252837) rebecca.hermes@ropesgray.com Sasha Rao (Bar No. 244303) sasha.rao@ropesgray.com Lauren N. Robinson (Bar No. 255028) lauren.robinson@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Ave., 6th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 617-4000 Facsimile: (650) 617-4090 Attorneys for Defendants GOOGLE INC. and YouTube LLC /s/ Christopher M. Joe (with permission) Christopher M. Joe (Bar No. 00787770) chris.joe@bjciplaw.com Eric W. Buether (Bar No. 03316880) eric.buether@bjciplaw.com Brian A. Carpenter (Bar No. 03840600) brian.carpenter@bjciplaw.com Mark D. Perantie (Bar No. 24053647) mark.perantie@bjciplaw.com Niknaz F. Bukovcan niky.bukovcan@bjciplaw.com BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 466-1279 Facsimile (214) 635-1830 Attorneys for Defendant J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC. 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic services on this the 29th day of March 2012. Local Rule CV5(a)(3)(A). /s/ Edward R. Reines Edward R. Reines 7

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?