Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al
RESPONSE in Opposition re 1367 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law UNDER RULE 50(b) THAT THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ARE NOT INVALID, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 59 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law UNDER RULE 50(b) THAT THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ARE NOT INVALID, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 59 filed by Amazon.com Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Phillips' Direct MediaView Demonstrative, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Phillips' Viola Chart Demonstrative, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Viola Type Demonstrative)(Doan, Jennifer) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/30/2012: # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (gsg, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:09-CV-446 (LED)
Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Google, Inc., J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and
YouTube LLC (collectively the “Defendants”) filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Renewed
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Under Rule 50(b) that the Asserted Claims of the
Patents-in-Suit are not Invalid or in the Alternative for a New Trial Under Rule 59.
Being well-advised, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Judgment as a
Matter of Law is DENIED.
ORDER – Solo Page
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?