Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 714

MOTION to Compel PRODUCTION OF SOURCE CODE FROM EBAY INC. AND AMAZON.COM, INC. by Eolas Technologies Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Budwin, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Text of Proposed Order)(McKool, Mike)

EXHIBIT 6

Page 1 of 5
Matt Rappaport
From:

Lee, Joseph [[e-mail]]

Sent:

Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:26 PM

To:

Josh Budwin; Matt Rappaport; Ankrum, Parker

Cc:

Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Hurt, Christian

Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al.

Josh, we agree, with one edit, highlighted below. 

eBay and Amazon: Both eBay and Amazon have produced and/or made available for
inspection all versions of the source code that implement the functionality that you
understand were accused of infringement in our infringement contentions, to the extent
such code is within the present possession, custody or control of eBay or Amazon,
subject to a reasonable and diligent search. 

Yahoo: Yahoo has not produced all versions of the source code that implement the
functionality that you understand were accused of infringement in our infringement
contentions. Instead, Yahoo has produced different versions of the source code
(typically a recent version of the code and an earlier version of the code, such
as the version of the code that existed c. 2004/2005 or the earliest version of the code it
was able to locate, whichever is later). For the non-produced versions of the source
code, Yahoo agrees that: (1) Yahoo will not point to the absence of source code
beyond what it has made or will make available for inspection to argue that Eolas has
failed to meet its burden of proof on infringement for versions not produced; and (2)
Yahoo agrees that infringement or noninfringement of the Yahoo accused products can
be determined without reviewing any additional source code beyond what it has already
produced or will produce prior to the close of fact discovery.  

Joseph H. Lee
Associate

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax

From: Josh Budwin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:16 PM
To: Lee, Joseph; Matt Rappaport; Ankrum, Parker
Cc: Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Hurt, Christian
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 

Joe/Parker - 

Please advise as to this by the end of the day tomorrow. I've been seeking your confirmation for a week
now. 

Thank you. 

6/20/2011

Page 2 of 5

From: Josh Budwin
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 9:05 AM
To: 'Lee, Joseph'; Matt Rappaport; 'Ankrum, Parker'
Cc: Eolas; 'Lumish, Douglas'; 'Hurt, Christian'
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 
Counsel -- 

Please advise as to your agreement with the statements below (note I corrected a few typos in my original email below). 

From: Josh Budwin
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:33 PM
To: 'Lee, Joseph'; Matt Rappaport; Ankrum, Parker
Cc: Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Hurt, Christian
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 

Counsel - 

As we discussed on today's call, our understanding of your source code production for each of your
clients (eBay, Amazon and Yahoo), is set forth below. To the extent that my understanding is at all
incorrect, please let me know. Otherwise, please reply to this email and confirm my understanding. 

eBay and Amazon: Both eBay and Amazon have produced and/or made available for inspection all
versions of the source code that implement the functionality that you understand were accused of
infringement in our infringement contentions, to the extent such code is within the present
possession, custody or control of eBay or Amazon, subject to a reasonable and diligent search. 

Yahoo: Yahoo has not produced all versions of the source code that implement the functionality that
you understand were accused of infringement in our infringement contentions. Instead, Yahoo has
produced different versions of the source code (typically a recent version of the code and an earlier
version of the code, such as the version of the code that existed c. 2004/2005 or the earliest version
of the code it was able to locate, whichever is later). For the non-produced versions of the source
code, Yahoo agrees that: (1) Yahoo will not point to the absence of source code beyond what it has
made available for inspection to argue that Eolas has failed to meet its burden of proof on
infringement for versions not produced; and (2) Yahoo agrees that infringement or noninfringement of
the Yahoo accused products can be determined without reviewing any additional source code beyond
what it has already produced or will produce prior to the close of fact discovery.  

Thank you. 

From: Lee, Joseph [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:07 PM
To: Josh Budwin; Matt Rappaport; Ankrum, Parker
Cc: Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Hurt, Christian
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 

We're dialed in but on hold. 

Joseph H. Lee
Associate

6/20/2011

Page 3 of 5

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
[e-mail]
[phone] Direct
[phone] Fax 

From: Josh Budwin [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 3:06 PM
To: Matt Rappaport; Ankrum, Parker
Cc: Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Lee, Joseph; Hurt, Christian
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 

My apologies -- Matt's the host for the call.  

From: Josh Budwin
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 5:05 PM
To: Matt Rappaport; 'Ankrum, Parker'
Cc: Eolas; 'Lumish, Douglas'; 'Lee, Joseph'; 'Hurt, Christian'
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 
Parker - 

We are on the line. Do you plan to join soon? 

Thank you.  

From: Matt Rappaport
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:33 PM
To: 'Ankrum, Parker'
Cc: Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Lee, Joseph; Hurt, Christian
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 
Thanks Parker,  

We'll plan to speak at 3pm pacific / 5pm central Thursday. Dial in info below: 

Participant Passcode: 849875
US/CAN Toll Free: 1-800-591-2259  

--Matt 

From: Ankrum, Parker [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:13 PM
To: Matt Rappaport
Cc: Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Lee, Joseph; Hurt, Christian
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 

Matt, 

We are available at 3 p.m. PST on Thursday and 10 a.m. PST on Friday.  

6/20/2011

Page 4 of 5
Regards, 

Parker C. Ankrum 
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 
201 Redwood Shores Parkway 
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 
Direct: (650) 802‐3215 

From: Matt Rappaport [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 2:50 PM
To: Ankrum, Parker
Cc: Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Lee, Joseph; Hurt, Christian
Subject: RE: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 

Parker, 

As a prelude to a formal meet and confer we would like an informal call to fully understand your position on
this issue for each of Amazon, eBay, and Yahoo. Eolas’ position is that we are entitled to each defendant’s
source code over the entire damages period -- or alternatively that a defendant can stipulate that the source code
they have provided is representative of the accused products over the damages period.  

Please provide your availability on Wed, Thurs, and Friday of this week to discuss this matter. 

Thank you, 

Matt 

From: Ankrum, Parker [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 7:31 PM
To: Matt Rappaport
Cc: Eolas; Lumish, Douglas; Lee, Joseph; Hurt, Christian
Subject: Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al. 

Matt, 

I write in response to your November 2, 2010 letter regarding alleged deficiencies in Amazon's source code production.  
At the outset, Amazon notes that it has already produced code for the accused features and functionalities identified in 
Eolas' March 5, 2010 infringement contentions months ago in May 2010.  Amazon also made available for inspection all 
available versions of the source code used to implement the accused functionalities of the accused products in 
September 2010.  This source code is now available for inspection in Weil's Redwood Shores office pursuant to the 
terms of the protective order.   

We do not agree that additional code needs to be produced at this time.  Contrary to your assertions, the complete 
source code (including code concerning features or functionality that are not accused of infringement) is not 
discoverable for each of the accused features and accused products.  The code that Amazon has already produced 
includes all of the code for implementing the accused features and so sufficiently sets forth the design and operation of 
the accused features.  Further, it is not apparent from Eolas' infringement contentions that Eolas has accused any 
Amazon Checkout functionality of infringing any of the asserted claims.  Accordingly, there is nothing in the asserted 
claims or the Eolas' infringement contentions that requires analysis of additional source code beyond what Amazon has 
already made available. Rather, whether Amazon's products meet the limitations of those claims or not can be 
determined by inspecting the code that has been produced and/or made available for inspection, operating the 
products, and evaluating their functions relative to the claim language.   

6/20/2011

Page 5 of 5

Further, we do not agree that Eolas is entitled to code beyond that Amazon has already made available for the accused 
functionalities or that Amazon should stipulate that code that has been produced is representative of any other versions 
of the code.  In fact, as we previously stated, Amazon has endeavored to produce all versions of the relevant portions of 
its code for the accused products.  This code can be located by date and is presently available for inspection.  If you 
believe that any particular versions of the code are missing, please identify them. 

Regards, 

Parker C. Ankrum 
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 
201 Redwood Shores Parkway 
Redwood Shores, CA 94065 
Direct: (650) 802‐3215 

The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email
([e-mail]), and destroy the original message. Thank you. 

The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email
([e-mail]), and destroy the original message. Thank you. 

The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email
([e-mail]), and destroy the original message. Thank you. 

The information contained in this email message is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by email
([e-mail]), and destroy the original message. Thank you.

6/20/2011