Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 878

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages [DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CLARIFY OR EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS] by Adobe Systems Incorporated, Amazon.com Inc., CDW Corporation, Citigroup Inc., Google Inc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Staples, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Reines, Edward)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES
INCORPORATED,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., et al.,
DEFENDANTS.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 6:09-CV-446-LED

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CLARIFY
OR EXCEED PAGE LIMITATIONS

Defendants Adobe Systems, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., CDW LLC, Citigroup Inc., Google,
Inc., J.C. Penney Corp., Inc., Staples, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube LLC (collectively,
“Defendants”) respectfully move pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(l) to clarify, and if applicable
exceed, the page limitations for summary judgment motions, and would state as follows:
The Docket Control Order provides, for dispositive motions, that “[m]otions shall comply
with Local Rule CV-56 and Local Rule CV-7.” [Dkt. No. 249 at 3]. With respect to the page
limit applicable to summary judgment motions, Local Rule CV-7(a)(3)(A) further provides that
“a party’s summary judgment motions shall not exceed sixty pages collectively, excluding
attachments.” In this case, there are 9 separate and distinct parties remaining as defendants and
counterclaimants.
So far, the defendants have filed three summary judgment motions:
•

a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness joined by all defendants
(13 pages) [Dkt. No. 568];

•

a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Intervening Rights joined by all
defendants (10 pages) (“Intervening Rights Motion”) [Dkt. No. 567]; and

•

Go-Daddy alone filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement
Based on Its License Defense (14 pages) (“Go-Daddy License Motion”) [Dkt. No.
790].

That is a total of 37 pages of summary judgment motion briefing.

However, all

defendants are concurrently withdrawing the Intervening Rights Motion. So of the 24 pages of
summary judgment motions that would remain pending for adjudication, 14 pages are associated
with the Go-Daddy License Motion. When Go-Daddy submitted its own motion on the licensing
issues, because of Local Rule CV-7(a)(3)(A)’s reference to a “party” none of the Defendants

objected to that filing on the grounds that it would consume almost a quarter of the group’s
summary judgment allocation. If they had known that it would, they would have done so. For
that reason, the Defendants request that the Court not count the 14 page Go-Daddy License
Motion against the 60 page “per-side” summary judgment limit or, if it does, grant Defendants
14 additional pages for their motions.
All the defendants have worked hard to consolidate their briefing in joint motions and are
submitting the following summary judgment motions jointly, subject to the Court’s disposition
of this motion to clarify or exceed page limits:
•

Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Under §102(b) (7 pages);

•

Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity for Lack of Written Description (7
pages);

•

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Based on Divided
Infringement (8 pages);

•

Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Based on Microsoft/Apple
License Defense (20 pages)1; and

•

Motion for Summary Judgment of No Enhanced Damages for Willful
Infringement (5 pages).

In sum, Defendants file this motion to clarify the page limits applicable to each individual
Defendant as well as to all the Defendants collectively.2 In particular, whereas Go Daddy has
filed the Go-Daddy License Motion on behalf of Go-Daddy only and joined by no other
Defendants, Defendants request that the Go-Daddy License Motion be excluded from the limit

1

Go-Daddy is not a party to this motion.
Adobe is also filing an individual motion seeking leave to file a separate summary-judgment
motion that is unique to Adobe’s circumstances.
2

2

remaining for summary judgment motions filed on behalf of other Defendants individually and
for Defendants collectively, or the Defendants be permitted to exceed the page limit by 14 pages
if the limit is being applied “per side” rather than per “party.”

Respectfully submitted,
Dated: August 17, 2011
By: /s/ James R. Batchelder (with
permission)
James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Sasha G. Rao (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Mark D. Rowland
[e-mail]
Brandon Stroy (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Rebecca R. Hermes (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Han Xu (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
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 DEFENDANTS
GOOGLE, INC. AND YOUTUBE, LLC
/s/ Edward R. Reines

3

Edward R. Reines
Jared Bobrow
Sonal N. Mehta
Aaron Y. Huang
Andrew L. Perito
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Doug W. McClellan
[e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jennifer H. Doan
Texas Bar No. 08809050
Joshua R. Thane
Texas Bar No. 24060713
Haltom & Doan
Crown Executive Center, Suite 100
6500 Summerhill Road
Texarkana, TX 75503
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
Otis Carroll (Bar No. 3895700)
Deborah Race (Bar No. 11648700)
IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C.
6101 South Broadway, Suite 500
Tyler, Texas 75703
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

4

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
AMAZON.COM, INC. and YAHOO!
INC.
/s/ David J. Healey (with permission)
David J. Healey
[e-mail]
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1 Houston Center
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
OF COUNSEL:
Frank E. Scherkenbach
[e-mail]
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
One Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02110-1878
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Jason W. Wolff
[e-mail]
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC.
By: /s/ Thomas L. Duston (with permission)
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]

5

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
CDW LLC
By: /s/ M. Scott Fuller (with permission)
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]
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]

6

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
CITIGROUP INC.

By: /s/ Christopher M. Joe (with
permission)
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
J.C. PENNEY CORPORATION
By: /s/ Donald R. Steinberg (with
permission)
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)

7

[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
STAPLES, INC.

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service 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 17th day of August 2011. All other counsel
of record will be served via facsimile or first class mail.

/s/ Cynthia Jacobs
Cynthia Jacobs

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that, in compliance with Local Rule CV-7(h), counsel
for Amazon.com, Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. Edward Reines conferred in good faith in a phone
conversation with counsel for Eolas Technologies, Inc. John Campbell on August 17, 2011.
Counsel for Eolas indicated that Eolas opposes the relief requested herein, and after a full and
thorough discussion of the parties’ positions it was agreed that an impasse was reached, leaving
an open issue for the court to resolve.

/s/ Edward R. Reines
Edward R. Reines

9