I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 166

Claim Construction Brief Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., I/P Engine, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION I/P ENGINE, INC. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512 v. AOL, INC., et al., Defendants. JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants AOL, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corp., and Gannett Company, Inc. (“Defendants”) collectively submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. Plaintiff asserts claims 10, 14, 15, 25, 27, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420 (“the ‘420 Patent”) and claims 1, 5, 6, 21, 22, 26, 28, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664 (“the ‘664 Patent”) against Defendants. I. AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS The parties agree on the construction of the following terms or phrases: Term Agreed Construction “informon” (‘420 claims 10, 25) information entity of potential or actual interest to the [individual/first] user “user” (‘420 claims 10, 25; ‘664 claims 1, 26) an individual in communication with the network (for the ‘420 claims) an individual in communication with a network (for the ‘664 claims) 01980.51928/4759577.1 1 Term Agreed Construction “relevance to the query” (‘420 claims 10, 25) how well an informon satisfies the individual user’s information need in the query “query” (‘420 claims request for search results 10, 25; ‘664 claims 1, 6) II. DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS Exhibit A lists the disputed terms or phrases of the asserted claims, Plaintiff’s proposed constructions, and Defendants’ proposed constructions. The charts attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C respectively list Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ proposed constructions for each disputed term or phrase of the asserted claims and identifies the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence on which each party relies in support of their proposed constructions. The parties reserve the right to rely on any evidence cited (or admissions made) by any other party. III. ANTICIPATED LENGTH AND ORDER OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING A. PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSAL Plaintiff anticipates that the total time necessary for the claim construction hearing will be 1.25 hours per side, for a total of 2.5 hours. Plaintiff proposes that the arguments be presented in the order indicated below, with Plaintiff presenting first for each argument: 1) Technology and patent overview; 2) a. “scan[ning] a network” and b. “a scanning system;” 3) a. “relevance to at least one of the query and the first user” and b. “[informons/information] relevant to a query;” 4) “combining;” 01980.51928/4759577.1 2 5) “demand search;” 6) a. “collaborative feedback data” and b. “[feedback system for] receiving information found to be relevant to the query by other users;” 7) “individual user” and “first user;” 8) Order of steps; 9) The separateness of the claimed systems; 10) Antecedent basis terms. See Proposed Order, attached hereto. B. DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL Defendants anticipate that the total time necessary for the claim construction hearing will be 1.75 hours per side, for a total of 3.5 hours. Defendants propose that the arguments be presented in the following order: 1) Technology and patent overview (20 minutes per side); Plaintiff presents first. 2) “[Feedback system for] receiving information found to be relevant to the query by other users” and “collaborative feedback data;” Defendants present argument first. 3) “Scan[ning] a network” and “a scanning system;” Defendants present argument first. 4) “Combining;” Plaintiff presents argument first. 5) The separateness of the claimed systems; Defendants present argument first. 6) “Relevance to at least one of the query and the first user” and “[informons/information] relevant to a query;” Plaintiff presents argument first. 7) “Demand search;” Plaintiff presents argument first. 8) “Individual user” and “first user;” Defendants present argument first. 9) Antecedent basis terms; Defendants present argument first. 10) Order of steps; Defendants present argument first. 01980.51928/4759577.1 3 In the alternative, Defendants propose that Plaintiff presents argument first on Issue # 1 above, Defendants present argument first on Issue # 2 above, Plaintiff presents argument first on Issue #3 above, Defendants present argument first on Issue #4 above, etc., with the parties alternating who presents argument first for each numbered issue.1 See Proposed Order, attached hereto. IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WITNESSES The parties do not anticipate calling any witnesses at the claim construction hearing, including expert witnesses, either live or by video. 1 In a May 17 email, Plaintiff objected that Defendants’ original proposed ordering of arguments “would result in Defendants presenting both first and last on the vast majority of the claim terms. This would be plainly unfair.” In fact, Defendants’ proposed ordering does not mandate who speaks last on any term – i.e., it does not limit each party’s ability to offer rebuttal argument. Nonetheless, in an effort to address Plaintiff’s concern that the order of arguments in Defendants’ proposal was unbalanced, Defendants proposed the alternate ordering listed above, in which the parties would alternate, issue-by-issue, who presents argument first. Plaintiff rejected this alternate proposal in another May 17 email, stating without elaboration that it “fails to address all of Plaintiff’s concerns.” As shown above and in the Proposed Order attached hereto, Defendants still believe that this alternate proposal would be a fair and equitable way to conduct the Hearing. 01980.51928/4759577.1 4 V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PREHEARING CONFERENCE The parties do not believe that a prehearing conference is necessary prior to the claim construction hearing. Dated: May 17, 2012 By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood_________ Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222) Frank C. Cimino, Jr. Kenneth W. Brothers DeAnna Allen DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 1825 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 420-2200 Facsimile: (202) 420-2201 Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. Dated: May 17, 2012 By: /s/ David Perlson_______________ David Perlson QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 By: /s/ Stephen E. Noona ____________ Stephen E. Noona (Virginia Bar No. 25367) KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C. 150 West Main Street Post Office Box 3037 Norfolk, VA 23514 Telephone: (757) 624.3000 Facsimile: (757) 624.3169 Counsel for Defendants AOL, Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc. and Target Corporation 01980.51928/4759577.1 5 By: /s/ Robert L. Burns____________ Robert L. Burns FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 Telephone: (571) 203-2700 Facsimile: (202) 408-4400 By: /s/ Cortney S. Alexander ________ Cortney S. Alexander FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111 Telephone: (404) 653-6400 Facsimile: (415) 653-6444 Counsel for Defendant AOL, Inc. 01980.51928/4759577.1 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 17th day of May, 2012, the foregoing JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT, was served via the Court’s CM/ECF system, on the following: Stephen Edward Noona Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. 150 W Main St Suite 2100 Norfolk, VA 23510 senoona@kaufcan.com David Bilsker David Perlson Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com Robert L. Burns Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Two Freedom Square 11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190 robert.burns@finnegan.com Cortney S. Alexander Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 3500 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111 cortney.alexander@finnegan.com /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood