Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 425

Unopposed MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT ITS P.R. 3-1 INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO STAPLES NEWLY ADDED AUTOCOMPLETE FUNCTIONALITY by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)

Download PDF
Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al Doc. 425 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION Eolas Technologies Incorporated, Plaintiff, vs. Adobe Systems Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Apple Inc., Blockbuster Inc., CDW Corp., Citigroup Inc., eBay Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc., The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., Perot Systems Corp., Playboy Enterprises International, Inc., Rent-A-Center, Inc., Staples, Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc., Texas Instruments Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC Defendants. Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-446 JURY TRIAL EOLAS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT ITS P.R. 3-1 INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO STAPLES NEWLY ADDED AUTOCOMPLETE FUNCTIONALITY 1 Austin 62697v2 Dockets.Justia.com I. INTRODUCTION Eolas moves the Court for leave to supplement its P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions with respect to Staples and its newly added AutoComplete functionality as discussed herein. Staples does not oppose this request. This request does not extend to any other defendants in this action. II. EOLAS' UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR RELIEF 1. 2010. 2. Since March 5, 2010, Staples added new functionality to its accused products: Eolas served its P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions against Staples on March 5, namely the AutoComplete functionality included in the infringement contentions attached as Exhibit A hereto. Prior to filing this Motion, Eolas provided a copy of the infringement contentions for Staples' newly added AutoComplete functionality to counsel for Staples. Counsel for Staples has indicated that it does not oppose Eolas' request for leave to supplement its infringement contentions for the '985 patent for AutoComplete functionality it recently added to its accused website. Eolas will re-serve such contentions on Staples' counsel within three days of the date the Court grants this motion. 2 Austin 62697v2 Dated: September 28, 2010. MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. /s/ Mike McKool Mike McKool Lead Attorney Texas State Bar No. 13732100 mmckool@mckoolsmith.com Douglas Cawley Texas State Bar No. 04035500 dcawley@mckoolsmith.com MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Telecopier: (214) 978-4044 Sam F. Baxter Texas State Bar No. 01938000 sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 104 E. Houston St., Ste. 300 P.O. Box O Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 923-9000 Telecopier: (903) 923-9095 Kevin L. Burgess Texas State Bar No. 24006927 kburgess@mckoolsmith.com Steven J. Pollinger Texas State Bar No. 24011919 spollinger@mckoolsmith.com Josh W. Budwin Texas State Bar No. 24050347 jbudwin@mckoolsmith.com Matthew B. Rappaport Texas State Bar No. 24070472 mrappaport@mckoolsmith.com MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Telecopier: (512) 692-8744 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Austin 62697v2 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Counsel for Eolas has conferred with counsel for Staples regarding the relief requested in this Motion. Defendant is unopposed to the relief requested in this Motion. /s/ Josh Budwin Josh Budwin 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 service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A) on September 28, 2010. /s/ Josh Budwin Josh Budwin Austin 62697v2

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?