Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1400

Unopposed MOTION FOR HEARING ON 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 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 by Eolas Technologies Incorporated, The Regents of the University of California. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES
§
INCORPORATED and THE REGENTS
§
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA §
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
vs.
§
§
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., AMAZON.COM §
INC., CDW CORPORATION, CITIGROUP §
INC., THE GO DADDY GROUP, INC.,
§
GOOGLE INC., J.C. PENNEY
§
CORPORATION, INC., STAPLES, INC.,
§
YAHOO! INC., and YOUTUBE, LLC.,
§
§
Defendants.
§

CASE NO. 6:09-CV-00446-LED

JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR HEARING ON
RENEWED MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA AND EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED 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
Plaintiffs, Eolas Technologies Incorporated (“Eolas”) and The Regents of the University
of California (“The Regents”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) file this request for hearing on Renewed
Motion of Plaintiffs for Judgment as a Matter or 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 [Dkt.
1367], which is currently pending before this Court. Defendants Amazon.com Inc.; Google Inc.;
J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.; Yahoo! Inc.; and YouTube, LLC (“Defendants”) do not oppose
this request.

1
McKool 442469v1

Dated: April 25, 2012.

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Mike McKool
Mike McKool
Lead Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 13732100
[e-mail]
Douglas Cawley
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
[e-mail]
Holly Engelmann
Texas State Bar No. 24040865
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
Kevin L. Burgess
Texas State Bar No. 24006927
[e-mail]
Josh W. Budwin
Texas State Bar No. 24050347
[e-mail]
Gretchen K. Curran
Texas State Bar No. 24055979
[e-mail]
Matthew B. Rappaport
Texas State Bar No. 24070472
[e-mail]
J.R. Johnson
Texas State Bar No. 24070000
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]

2
McKool 442469v1

Robert M. Parker
Texas State Bar No. 15498000
[e-mail]
Robert Christopher Bunt
Texas Bar No. 00787165
[e-mail]
Andrew T. Gorham
Texas State Bar No. 24012715
[e-mail]
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, Texas 75702
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA AND EOLAS
TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on the 25th day of April, 2012, counsel for Plaintiffs Eolas and The
Regents conferred with counsel for Defendants regarding the relief requested in the foregoing
motion and counsel for Defendants advised counsel for Plaintiffs that Defendants do not oppose
this request.
/s/ John B. Campbell ______________________
John B. Campbell

3
McKool 442469v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing document
was filed electronically on April 25, 2012. As such, counsel for Plaintiffs has served this Motion
in electronic form on all counsel who have consented to electronic service.
/s/ John B. Campbell ______________________
John B. Campbell

4
McKool 442469v1