Thanks to intheend101 for posting this:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERTICAL COMPUTER SYSTEMS, §
INC., §
§
Plaintiff, §
§ Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-144 –DF-CE
v. §
§ JURY TRIAL
MICROSOFT CORPORATION §
§
Defendants. §
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE AMENDED
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. (“Vertical”), plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered civil action, moves the Court for leave to serve amended infringement contentions. In support, Vertical will show the following.
On November 30, 2007, the plaintiff served its infringement contents against the defendant. Subsequent to serving such contentions, the plaintiff determined that Microsoft’s SharePoint 200 should be accused of infringement in addition to the products originally accused.
Thus, the plaintiff requests leave to serve such amended contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-6(b).
The defendant does not oppose the plaintiff serving the amended infringement contentions.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grants this motion for leave to serve amended infringement contentions.
So the VCSY v MSFT litigation gets deeper. I did wonder just what Raymond Niro's group was able to examine from the November 2007 discovery process. If Microsoft actually placed SiteFlash technology in Sharepoint, they are either intending to settle at some point or they are supremely careless.
