Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 Lawrence G. Scarborough (SBN 6965)
George C. Chen (SBN 19704)
2 BRYAN CAVE LLP
Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200
3 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406
Telephone: 602-364-7000
4
Michael D. Rounds (admitted pro hac vice)
5 WATSON ROUNDS
5371 Kietzke Lane
6 Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: 775-324-4100
7
Henry C. Bunsow (admitted pm hac vice)
8 Michelle A. Madriaga (admitted pro hac vice)
HOWREY LLP
9 525 Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
10 Telephone: 415-848-4900
Facsimile: 415-848-4999
1 1
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterplaintiff
12 RENO A&E
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
16
17 EBERLE DESIGN, INC., and ELECTRONIC ) Case Nos. CIV 02 2575 PHX DGC (Lead)
DEVICES, INC., ) CIV 03 883 PHX DGC
18 )
Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants, ) (Consolidated)
19 )
vs. ) RENO A & E’S OPPOSITION TO
20 ) PLAINTIFFS’ EBERLE DESIGN INC. AND
RENO A & E, ) ELECTRONIC DEVICES, INC.’S MOTION
21 ) TO AMEND JUDGMENT
I Defendant/Counterplaintiff )
22 )
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOWREY LLP
Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC Document 249 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 1 of 4

l Eberle has failed to cite any reason t0 amend its own proffered form of judgment entered by the
2 Court on November l, 2005, and its Motion must be denied.
3 First, there is no basis to amend the judgment based upon Eberle’s Motion for a New Trial. For
4 the reasons stated in Reno A & E’s opposition, the Motion is without substance and must be denied.
2 Moreover, the Motion has not even been considered as of yet, and a new judgment need only be
7 considered if that Motion is granted. The judgment cannot be amended with an incomplete
8 hypothetical.
9 Second, there is no reason to delete paragraph 2, reflecting the jury’s anticipation and
10 obviousness findings, and amend paragraph l to delete the specific on sale finding. Both of these
H paragraphs reflect the jury’s specific findings, as any reasonable judgment should. See, Fed. R. Civ. P.
E 49(b) (appropriate judgment to be entered upon verdict and answers). The alleged "practicality" of
14 avoiding a cross appeal is also without merit. Whether the Federal Circuit considers the issues through
15 a cross appeal, or as an argument to support an invalidity judgment, makes no practical difference.
16 The issues are considered in both instances. Again, what is tantamount is that the judgment accurately
17 reflect the jury’s findings.
18 Third, there is no reason to amend paragraph 2 to list the specific claims. The judgment is
19 accurate — Eberle did not prove any claim invalid for anticipation or obviousness. There is no legal
ij) basis to amend an accurate judgment — none.
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
www up W
-1-
Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC Document 249 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 2 of 4

1 For the foregoing reasons, Eberle’s Motion to Amend the Judgment must be denied.
2 Dated: December _i_, 2005 Respectfully submitted,
3
By: gg ! { gy/!Fe1~•/¤}¥f¤•¢a
4 Lawren e G. Scarborough ( BN 6965)
George C. Chen (SBN 19704)
5 BRYAN CAVE LLP
Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200
6 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406
7 Michael D. Rounds (pro hac vice)
WATSON & ROUNDS
— 8 5371 Kietze Lane
9 Reno, NV 89511
Henry C. Bunsow (pro hac vice)
10 Michelle A. Madriaga (pro hac vice)
HOWREY LLP
U 525 Market Street, Suite 3600
12 San Francisco, CA 94105
Attorneys for Defendant and
13 cOu¤ieip1a1m1rr1¤cENo A & E
14
15
16
17
18
19 , .
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOWREY LLP
-2-
Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC Document 249 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 3 of 4

1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of the law offices of Bryan
3 Cave, and that on this date I caused a tme and correct copy of the foregoing document, Reno A & E's
4
Opposition to Plaintiffs Eberle Design, Inc. and Electronic Devices, Inc.’s Motion to Amend
5
6 Judgment, to be served via electronic mail through the Court’s electronic filing system, to the
7 following:
g Charles Hauff
Douglas Seitz
9 Snell & Wilmer
One Arizona Center
10 400 East Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85004
11
12 - - cn/tz a_r*——#
Dated: S O S rn
13 Denise Aleman
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOWREY LLP
-3-
Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC Document 249 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 249

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 249

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 249

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 249

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 4 of 4