Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 595

RESPONSE to 592 Markman Hearing to Court's Proposed Language for "Text Format" and "Distributed Application" by Adobe Systems Incorporated, Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., CDW Corporation, Citigroup Inc., Ebay Inc., Frito-Lay, 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., The Go Daddy Group, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Wolff, Jason)

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Doc. 595

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-446 LED v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL., Defendants. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO COURT'S PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR "TEXT FORMAT" AND "DISTRIBUTED APPLICATION" At the hearing the Court requested the parties submit a statement with any objections to the Court's proposed constructions of the term "text format" and "distributed application." This submission responds to the proposed constructions. "Text Formats" Defendants' Proposed Construction tags or symbols that specify document formatting Court's Proposed Construction Defendants' Response to Court's Proposal coded information that describes how the content of a hypermedia document is to be interpreted by a browser application for display coded information that describes how the content of a hypermedia document is to be interpreted displayed by a browser application for display

While Defendants believe their proposed construction is correct and easy for a jury to understand, they also believe that the Court's proposed construction, as modified above, appears to address two issues of concern for Defendants. However, it is important to recognize that the Court's proposed construction for "text formats" -- even as modified above by Defendants -- does not resolve the dispute between the parties about the proper construction for "embed text

1

Dockets.Justia.com

format . . . first location," which appears to be the primary dispute between the parties. These issues are discussed below. First, the Court's proposed construction for "text formats," as modified above, resolves what a "text format" is: i.e. coded information (which would include tags or symbols). In so far as the Court's construction covers tags or symbols -- but is not so broad as to include programs or scripts, which were distinguished during prosecution -- this concern is addressed. Defendants in this regard refer the Court to their briefing on the "embed text format" related limitations (D.I. 569 at 11-14 and Ex. J, D.I. 569-4, at 62­63, 67), as well as slide 38 of their Markman presentation. Second, the Court's proposed construction for "text formats" addresses how "text format" relates to content of the hypermedia document received by the browser. At the hearing, counsel for one Defendant, Adobe, suggested that the Court's term "interpreted" might be framed as "used." The proposed modification above simplifies that suggestion and has the consent of all Defendants. The word "interpreted" in the Court's proposal is already a source of disagreement between the parties. Also, the word "interpreted" is not consistent with what is fairly disclosed in the specification or the intrinsic record. Also at the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel suggested that the word "coded" be removed from the Court's proposal. Defendants cannot agree to this, because the term "information" alone is too vague to provide meaningful assistance to the jury. It is unclear what a "text format" is if it is just "information." Moreover, the term "information" alone is not supported by the specification or the intrinsic record. In this regard, the patents describe a browser application that parses the received hypermedia document for tags or symbols that can be distinguished from the other information contained in the hypermedia document, such as textual information. '906

2

patent, 14:12-39 and Fig. 7A. When the browser encounters a tag or symbol, it knows to process that encoded information as a tag or symbol dictating the manner in which certain other information is displayed by the browser, rather than displaying the encoded information itself. (D.I. 569, at Ex. J, D.I. 569-4, at 67.) Conversely, when the browser encounters information that is not encoded as a tag or symbol, the browser will generally display that information itself, and will do so in the manner specified by any associated tags or symbols. (Id.) The Court's proposed language -- "coded information" -- conveys this distinction. However, it is important to recognize that the Court's proposed construction for "text formats" -- even as modified above by Defendants -- does not resolve the dispute between the parties about the proper construction for "embed text format . . . first location," which appears to be the primary dispute between the parties. For example, Defendants' position is that if the "location" of the "embed text format" is at the top of the HTML file received from the network server, then the interactive object must be displayed at the top of the hypermedia document. Conversely, if the "embed text format" is located at the bottom of the HTML file, then the interactive object must be displayed at the bottom of the hypermedia document. (See D.I. 569, at 12­14.) Eolas, on the other hand, wants to argue that even if the alleged "embed text format" is located at the top of the HTML file, the interactive object could still be displayed at the bottom of the hypermedia documents. The Court's proposed construction for "text formats" does not resolve this dispute. Defendants' proposed construction for "embed text format . . . first location," by way of contrast, is consistent with the Court's proposed construction for "text formats" and resolves the dispute between the parties about "embed text format . . . first location."

3

"Distributed Application" Defendants' proposed construction Eolas's proposed construction an application in which tasks are broken up and an application that may be broken up and performed in parallel on two or more performed among two or more computers computers The Court also suggested that Defendants' proposed construction of "distributed application" could be modified with the addition of "capable of." Defendants cannot agree to this proposal because it is no limitation at all. Each of the claims containing the term "distributed application" (claims 36, 40, and 44 of the '985 patent) is undisputedly a method claim and the plain language requires the steps using the distributed application to be performed. Mere potential distribution of the application is not enough and would eliminate the patent's belabored distinction between a "distributed application" and an "application" and, moreover, invite disputes about what it means to be "capable of." Regardless of how the Court resolves the above issue, the proper construction requires that broken-up tasks must be performed in parallel. As discussed in Defendants' presentation and brief, parallel processing is a key defining characteristic of the claims in question -- the patent states that parallel processing enables processing "fast enough" to perform tasks "in real time." Processing the different portions of the tasks serially would not reduce overall processing time, and thus would not address one of the core problems to which the patent is directed -- speeding up processing of time-consuming tasks. The lack of a parallel processing requirement would eviscerate the distinction between the special distributed applications shown in Figure 6 and the non-distributed applications more generally described with respect to the other claims and embodiments of the patent such as Figure 5, which shows a traditional client/server arrangement. See '985 patent at 10:53­11:16 & Figs. 5­6 (reprinted below). Thus even if Eolas's proposed construction were changed to "an application that is broken up and performed 4

among two or more computers," that construction would not be correct because it could encompass a traditional client/server arrangement as shown in Figure 5, which the patent teaches is not a distributed application. Accordingly, Defendants maintain their request that the Court construe "distributed application" to mean "an application in which tasks are broken up and performed in parallel on two or more computers."

Fig. 5: Client/server -- not distributed

Fig. 6: Is distributed

5

Dated: March 7, 2011

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Jason W. Wolff David J. Healey E-mail: [e-mail] FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1 Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800 Houston, TX 77010 713-654-5300 (Telephone) 713-652-0109 (Facsimile) Frank E. Scherkenbach E-mail: [e-mail] FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110-2804 617-542-5070 (Telephone) 617-542-8906 (Facsimile) Jason W. Wolff E-mail: [e-mail] Joseph P. Reid E-mail: [e-mail] FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 858-678-5070 (Telephone) 858-678-5099 (Facsimile) Counsel for Defendant ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

6

By: /s/ Edward Reines Edward Reines <[e-mail]> Andrew Perito <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Bar No. 03895700) <[e-mail]> Deborah J. Race (Bar No. 16448700) <[e-mail]> IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Amazon.com, Inc.

7

By: /s/ Richard A. Cederoth David T. Pritikin (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Richard A. Cederoth (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Shubham Mukherjee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Teague I. Donahey (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Aaron R. Bleharski (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Theodore W. Chandler (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Duy D. Nguyen (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric M. Albritton (Bar No. 00790215) <[e-mail]> ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, TX 75606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Apple Inc.

8

By: /s/ Thomas L. Duston Thomas L. Duston <[e-mail]> Anthony S. Gabrielson <[e-mail]> Scott A. Sanderson (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 6300 Willis Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-6357 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric H. Findlay (Bar No. 00789886) <[e-mail]> Brian Craft (Bar No. 04972020) <[e-mail]> FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP 6760 Old Jacksonville Highway Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant CDW LLC

9

By: /s/ M. Scott Fuller Edwin R. DeYoung (Bar No. 05673000) <[e-mail]> Roy W. Hardin (Bar No. 08968300) <[e-mail]> Roger Brian Cowie (Bar No. 00783886) <[e-mail]> M. Scott Fuller (Bar No. 24036607) <[e-mail]> Galyn Gafford (Bar No. 24040938) <[e-mail]> LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-6776 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Alexas D. Skucas (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric L. Sophir (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20006-4707 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant Citigroup Inc.

10

By: /s/ Edward Reines Edward Reines <[e-mail]> Andrew Perito <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Bar No. 03895700) <[e-mail]> Deborah J. Race (Bar No. 16448700) <[e-mail]> IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant eBay Inc.

11

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Yee Jeffrey K. Joyner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jeffrey F. Yee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christopher M. Joe (Bar No. 00787770) <[e-mail]> Brian Carpenter (Bar No. 03840600) <[e-mail]> Eric W. Buether (Bar No. 03316880) <[e-mail]> BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Frito-Lay, Inc.

12

By: /s/ Neil J. McNabnay Thomas M. Melsheimer (Bar No. 13922550) <[e-mail]> Neil J. McNabnay (Bar No. 24002583) <[e-mail]> Carl E. Bruce (Bar No. 24036278) <[e-mail]> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. One Marina Park Drive Boston, MA 02110-1878 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant The Go Daddy Group, Inc.

13

By: /s/ Scott T. Weingaertner Scott T. Weingaertner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Robert F. Perry (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Allison H. Altersohn (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Christopher C. Carnaval (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Mark H. Francis (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Michael E. Jones (Bar No. 10929400) <[e-mail]> Allen F. Gardner (Bar No. 24043679) <[e-mail]> POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Google Inc.

14

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Yee Jeffrey K. Joyner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jeffrey F. Yee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christopher M. Joe (Bar No. 00787770) <[e-mail]> Brian Carpenter (Bar No. 03840600) <[e-mail]> Eric W. Buether (Bar No. 03316880) <[e-mail]> BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.

15

By: /s/ Stephen K. Shahida Stephen K. Shahida (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> David O. Crump (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 600 13th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3096 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Trey Yarbrough (Bar No. 22133500) <[e-mail]> Debra Elaine Gunter (Bar No. 24012752) <[e-mail]> YARBROUGH WILCOX, PLLC 100 E. Ferguson Street Suite 1015 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant JPMorgan Chase & Co.

By: /s/ Michael Simons Michael Simons (Bar No. 24008042) <[e-mail]> AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorney for Defendant and Counterclaimant New Frontier Media, Inc.

16

By: /s/ Suzanne M. Wallman Kenneth J. Jurek <[e-mail]> Suzanne M. Wallman <[e-mail]> Brett E. Bachtell <[e-mail]> MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] J. Thad Heartfield (Bar No. 09346800) <[e-mail]> THE HEARTFIELD LAW FIRM 2195 Dowlen Road Beaumont, TX 77706 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Office Depot, Inc.

17

By: /s/ Scott F. Partridge Scott F. Partridge (Bar No. 00786940) <[e-mail]> Roger J. Fulghum (Bar No. 00790724) <[e-mail]> BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. One Shell Plaza 910 Louisiana Houston, TX 77002-4995 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Kevin J. Meek (Bar No. 13899600) <[e-mail]> Paula D. Heyman (Bar No. 24027075) <[e-mail]> BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 1500 San Jacinto Center Austin, TX 78701-4075 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Vernon E. Evans (Bar No. 24069688) <[e-mail]> BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-2980 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Shannon Dacus (Bar No. 00791004) <[e-mail]> RAMEY & FLOCK, P.C. 100 East Ferguson, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Perot Systems Corp.

18

By: /s/ John A. Fedock David B. Weaver (Bar No. 00798576) <[e-mail]> Avelyn M. Ross (Bar No. 24027871) <[e-mail]> Gentry C. McLean (Bar No. 24046403) <[e-mail]> John A. Fedock (Bar No. 24059737) <[e-mail]> VINSON & ELKINS LLP 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746-7568 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Playboy Enterprises International, Inc.

By: /s/ Jeffrey F. Yee Jeffrey K. Joyner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Jeffrey F. Yee (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Christopher M. Joe (Bar No. 00787770) <[e-mail]> Brian Carpenter (Bar No. 03840600) <[e-mail]> Eric W. Buether (Bar No. 03316880) <[e-mail]> BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC 1700 Pacific, Suite 2390 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Rent-A-Center, Inc.

19

By: /s/ Daniel V. Williams Mark G. Matuschak (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Donald R. Steinberg (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Kate Hutchins (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10011 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Daniel V. Williams, (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Michael E. Richardson (Bar No. 24002838) <[e-mail]> BECK REDDEN & SECREST 1221 McKinney, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Staples, Inc.

20

By: /s/ Kathryn B. Riley Mark D. Fowler (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> DLA PIPER US LLP 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Kathryn B. Riley (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> DLA PIPER US LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Eric H. Findlay (Bar No. 00789886) <[e-mail]> FINDLAY CRAFT, LLP 6760 Old Jacksonville Highway Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Oracle America, Inc. (formerly known as Sun Microsystems, Inc.)

21

By: /s/ Amanda A. Abraham Carl R. Roth (Bar No. 17312000) <[e-mail]> Brendan C. Roth (Bar No. 24040132) <[e-mail]> Amanda A. Abraham (Bar No. 24055077) <[e-mail]> THE ROTH LAW FIRM, P.C. 115 N. Wellington, Suite 200 Marshall, TX 75670 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Texas Instruments Incorporated

By: /s/ Edward Reines Edward Reines <[e-mail]> Andrew Perito <[e-mail]> WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Otis W. Carroll, Jr. (Bar No. 03895700) <[e-mail]> Deborah J. Race (Bar No. 16448700) <[e-mail]> IRELAND CARROLL & KELLEY 6101 S. Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Yahoo! Inc.

22

By: /s/ Scott T. Weingaertner Scott T. Weingaertner (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Robert F. Perry (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Allison H. Altersohn (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Christopher C. Carnaval (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> Mark H. Francis (pro hac vice) <[e-mail]> KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Michael E. Jones (Bar No. 10929400) <[e-mail]> Allen F. Gardner (Bar No. 24043679) <[e-mail]> POTTER MINTON A Professional Corporation 110 N. College, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant YouTube, LLC

23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic mail are being served with a copy of this document via the Court's CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this Seventh day of March 2011. Any other counsel of record will be served via First Class U.S. Mail on this same date. /s/ Jason W. Wolff Jason W. Wolff

24