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)

Download PDF
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:Healey@fr.com] 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

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?