Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 1412

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Leonard Davis: Post-Verdict Motion Hearing held on 6/11/2012. (Court Reporter Jill McFadden.) (Attachments: # 1 Attorney Sign-In Sheets) (rlf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DATE: June 11, 2012

Court Reporter: Jill McFadden

LEONARD DAVIS
Judge Presiding
Law Clerk: Allan Bullwinkel

Court Administrator: Rosa L Ferguson

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES
INCORPORATED

CIVIL ACTION NO: 6:09-CV-446

V

POST-VERDICT MOTIONS HEARING

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

SEE SIGN-IN SHEETS
On this day, came the parties by their attorneys and the following proceedings were had:
OPEN: 1:55 pm

ADJOURN: 4:35 pm

TIME:

MINUTES:

1:55 pm

Case called. PARTIES ANNOUNCED READY. (SEE SIGN-IN SHEETS)
Court addressed the parties on the Joint Motion to Correct the Judgment. Mr. Reines
responded that the parties are in agreement. Court addressed the parties on Plaintiff’s
Motion to De-designate. Mr. Bunt responded that it has not been resolved. Court asked that
Mr. Bunt go forward and address.
Mr. Bunt presented Plaintiff’s Motion to De-designate the Supplemental Validity Report
of Defendant’s Validity Expert Richard Phillips (Dkt #1410).
Ms. Doan responded. Court grants motion as the report was redacted.
Court asked to hear motion on court costs.
Mr. Jones presented the disputes on the Bill of Costs. Mr. McKool responded. Court will
take matter under advisement.

Court will move on the JMOL.
Mr. Burgess presented Plaintiff’s 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 (Docket No. 1367).

TIME:

MINUTES:

3:15 pm

Court in recess.

3:25 pm

Hearing resumed. Ms. Doan responded to Plaintiff’s Motion. Mr. Burgess responded to the
Plot.V issue. Ms. Doan continued her response. Mr. Lumish presented response as to the
New Trial. Mr. Reines responded as to Mintz. Mr. Burgess replied.

4:35 pm

There being nothing further, Court adjourned.