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 hoc vice)
5 WATSON ROUNDS
5371 Kietzke Lane
6 Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: 775-324-4100
7
Henry C. Bunsow (admitted pro hoc vice)
8 Michelle A. Madriaga (admitted pro hoc vice)
HOWREY LLP
9 525 Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
10 Telephone: 415-848-4900
Facsimile: 415-848-4999
11
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 ) FOR RECOVERY OF ATTORNEY’S FEES
Defendant/Counterplaintiff ) AND RELATED NON-TAXABLE
22 ) EXPENSES
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOWREY LLP
Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC Document 248 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 1 of 3

1 Reno A & E hereby responds to Eberle’s Motion for Recovery of Attorney’s Fees and Related
2 Non-Taxable Expenses.
3 Reno A & E will respond in detail to Eberle’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities seeking
4
an order for entitlement to attorney’s fees and non-taxable costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285. However,
5
6 Eberle’s Motion can also be disposed of summarily. The jury’s finding that there was no inequitable
7 conduct by Reno A & E in the prosecution of the ‘964 patent, makes clear that this case is not
8 exceptional as a matter of law. B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 124 F.3d 1419, 1429
9 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Because there is no evidence of bad faith, or vexatious, unjustified or fiivolous
10 litigation, Eberle’s Motion must be denied outright. Id. Stephens v. Tech International, Inc., 393 F.3d
ll 1269, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 339 F .3d 1324, 1329
12
(Fed. Cir. 2003). An appropriate order is therefore requested denying Eberle’s Motion.
13
14
15 Dated; December , 2005 Respectfully submitted,
16 dba U/t V @nw`.g$I·••4
17 Lawrence G. Scarboroiégh (SBN 6965)
George C. Chen (SBN 19704)
18 BRYAN CAVE LLP
Two North Central Avenue, Suite 2200
19 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4406
20 Michael D. Rounds (pro hac vice)
WATSON & ROUNDS
21 5371 Kietze Lane
Reno, NV 89511
22 Henry C. Bunsow (pro hac vice)
23 Michelle A. Madriaga (pro hac vice)
HOWREY LLP
24 525 Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
25
Attorneys for Defendant and
26 Counterplaintiff RENO A & E
27
28
HOWREY LLP
-1-
Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC Document 248 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 2 of 3

l 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 true and correct copy of the foregoing document, Reno A & E’s
4
Opposition to Plaintiffs Eberle Design, Inc. and Electronic Devices, Inc.’s Motion for Recovery of
5
6 Attorney’s Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses, to be served via electronic mail through the
7 Court’s electronic filing system, to the following:
g Charles Hauff
Douglas Seitz
9 Snell & Wilmer
One Arizona Center
10 400 East Van Buren
Phoenix, AZ 85004
l l
l2 / T., Q -
Dated: O? $-43 , Q/Unqan
I3 Denise Aleman
14
15
I 6
l7
l 8
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HOWREY LLP
-2-
Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC Document 248 Filed 12/05/2005 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 248

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 248

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:02-cv-02575-DGC

Document 248

Filed 12/05/2005

Page 3 of 3