Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 712

MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY FROM ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. REGARDING INVESTMENT/LICENSING AGREEMENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL VENTURES' ENTITIES by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rosemary Snider, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)

EXHIBITJ

Page 1 of 1
Rosemary Snider
From:

Dionne Robinson

Sent:

Thursday, June 16,201112:50 PM

To:

Rosemary Snider

Cc:

Norka Constantine

Subject:

FW: Meet and Confer, My Understanding for Adobe

Importance: High

From: David Healey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 201112:30 PM
To: Josh Budwin; Michael Florey; Eolas

ee: Adobe-Eolas; Stacci Mahadeo; Brenda A. Bagins!de
Subject: RE: Meet and Confer, My Understanding for Adobe
Importance: High

1) We agreed that Eolas would supplement the joint interrogatory as to the impact of the
Microsoft settlement on each Adobe product in one week, cleaning up defects Eolas pointed out
in the definitions and question in the identification of the license and settlement and covenant not
to sue, so the answer Eolas gives is something it can view as accurate, and Eolas' answer will be
subject to that clean up (done through its objections).
2) We disagreed on Intellectual Ventures license and investment. I said for Adobe that ifEolas
had something specific we would consider it. Eolas said they wanted the investment and the list
of patents licensed. I told Eolas "no", but that we would confirm with Adobe. As of now, no one
from Adobe has responded to my email, but I am not expecting Adobe to change position on this
point.
3) I (for Adobe) told Eolas we would go with what Judge Davis ruled for web-analytics, but for
any needed tweaks for Adobe based on particulars ofthe defendants' businesses and Adobe's
business (which we expect could be easily resolved in light ofJudge Davis' ruling). Adobe will
not re-Iitigate what Judge Davis rules on in his order: Eolas said it is possible it might settle the
dispute or the case with the defendants litigating this issue. Eolas said the June 29 hearing might
go away.
My observation is that if the June 29 hearing does not happen, the parties will need to be aware
that an expert report deadline could get reset fast, and likely should agree on a set of deadlines to
avoid problems.
The issue of supplementing the damages interrogatory is being worked out as discovery
concludes on this issue, and was taken out of the Local Rule 7 meet and confer.
The net is that the Intellectual Ventures discovery remains the one point of impasse after the
exhaustion of the Local Rule 7 conference today.
Ifl have misunderstood let me know.
**************************************************************************************i

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
email and destroy all copies of the original message.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication
(including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used.
for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting. marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein. (FR08-i203d)
**************************************************************************************.

611612011