Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 125

RESPONSE to Google's Miscellaneous Request Re Overture's Revised Claim Constructions by Overture Services, Inc., Sarah Elizabeth Mitchell. (Mitchell, Sarah) (Filed on 2/4/2004)

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 125

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 125

Filed 02/04/2004

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

ROBERT T. HASLAM (#71134) ROBERT D. FRAM (#126750) M. PATRICIA THAYER (#90818) S. ELIZABETH MITCHELL (#187053) HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & MCAULIFFE LLP 333 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104-2878 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE JACK C. BERENZWEIG WILLIAM H. FRANKEL JASON C. WHITE CHARLES M. MCMAHON NBC Tower--Suite 3600 455 North Cityfront Plaza Drive Chicago, Illinois 60611 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff, OVERTURE SERVICES, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION E-Filing Case No.: 02-01991 JSW (EDL) OVERTURE SERVICES INC.'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MISCELLANEOUS REQUEST RE OVERTURE'S REVISED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS [Local Civil Rule 7-10] Defendant. The Honorable Jeffrey S. White

OVERTURE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware 20 Corporation, 21 Plaintiff, 22 v. 23 24 GOOGLE INC., a California Corporation, 25 26 27 28

OVERTURE'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 125

Filed 02/04/2004

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-10(b)(2), Overture Services, Inc. ("Overture") hereby opposes in part Google Inc.'s ("Google's") request for leave to file a sur-reply in connection with Overture's revised proposed constructions for two claims in dispute -- "search listing" and "search result list." Overture apprised Google of these revised constructions on January 20, 2004, a full ten days before Google's response brief was due and thus ensured that Google would have an opportunity to respond, as required by the Standing Order On Patent Cases before Judge White. See Ex. A to Declaration of Christine P. Sun In Support of Miscellaneous Administrative Request ("Sun Decl."); Sun Decl. Ex. C. As previously explained to Google, Overture's revisions were based on further review of relevant dictionary definitions with an intent to clarify issues or moot, not add, disputes between the parties. See Sun Decl. Ex. A. Although Google demands a sur-reply to address Overture's revised construction of "search listing," it has failed to identify any substantive reason for allowing further briefing on this term. Overture's revisions squarely address concerns previously raised by Google. Accordingly, Overture requests that the Court deny Google's sur-reply demand to the extent it applies at all to further briefing by Google on "search listing." With respect to "search result list,"1 as already explained by Overture and recognized by Google itself, changing the word "set" to "series" in Overture's proposed construction was intended to moot Google's objections. See Sun Decl. Ex. C; Google's Administrative Request at 1. As Overture has already conceded that a search result list is ordered, a sur-reply addressed to the ordering issue is wholly unnecessary and thus inappropriate. // // // // // // Overture's revised proposed construction of "search result list" is "a series of search listings that is obtained as a consequence of the examination of data." See Sun Decl. Ex. A.
1

1
OVERTURE'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST 02-01991 JSW (EDL)

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 125

Filed 02/04/2004

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Google also argues it cannot fully respond to Overture's replacement of "calculation" with "the examination of data" without a sur-reply. As stated before to Google, this revision was intended to provide a construction that more closely tracks the relevant dictionary definitions, as made clear by the definitions already cited in the Joint Claim Construction Statement. See Sun Decl. Ex. A. To the extent Google insists on further addressing the specific `issue' of "the examination of data," Overture does not oppose to allowing a sur-reply no longer than two pages, due seven days after Overture's reply brief, for this sole narrow purpose.

DATED: February 4, 2004

HELLER EHRMAN WHITE & McAULIFFE LLP

By

/s/ S. Elizabeth Mitchell ROBERT T. HASLAM ROBERT D. FRAM M. PATRICIA THAYER S. ELIZABETH MITCHELL Attorneys for Plaintiff OVERTURE SERVICES, INC.

2
OVERTURE'S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE'S MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST 02-01991 JSW (EDL)