Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1384

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
TYLER DIVISION
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiffs,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:09-CV-446 (LED)

ORDER
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.
SO ORDERED.

ORDER – Solo Page