Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 186

Declaration of Ravind S. Grewal in Support of 183 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Testimony Re Prosecution of '361 Patent filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Related document(s) 183 ) (Grewal, Ravind) (Filed on 7/6/2004)

Download PDF
Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc. Doc. 186 Att. 2 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW Document 186-3 Filed 07/06/2004 Page 1 of 15 EXHIBIT B Dockets.Justia.com ., ,. Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW Document 186-3 Filed 07/06/2004 Page 2 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION OVERTURE SERVICES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF, VS. GOOGLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DEFENDANT. NO. C 02- 01991 JSW ADR VOLUME I VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DARREN J. DAVIS (CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003 . REPORTED BY: KAREN E. KAY CSR NO. 3262, RM~, CRR JOB NO. 29884KEK 10868KLlNG STREET TOLUCA LAKE , CALIFORNIA 91602 800. 540. FAX 818. 508. 6326 e-mail: lois~ludwigklein. corn 0681 ~~ 80 540. 0 of 1 T LUDWIG KL, Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC. Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page 3 6815 YES. IN THIS DEPOSITION I' M SOMETIMES GOING TO REFER TO THE COMPANY AS OVERTURE AND SOMETIMES AS 09:37:18 09:37:19 09: 37 : 21 GOTO TYPICALLY DEPENDING ON APPROXIMATELY THE TIME 09:37:25 09:37:27 09:37:30 09:37:33 PERIOD I' M TALKING ABOUT. BUT SINCE IT' S THE SAME COMPANY WITH JUST A DIFFERENT NAME, I' D LIKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I' M REFERRING TO THE COMPANY UNDER BOTH NAMES WHEN I SAY THAT. SO WHEN I SAY " GOTO, " 09:37:37 IF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER THAT APPLIES TO OVERTURE, THE 09:37:40 TIME PERIOD WHERE THE COMPANY WAS CALLED OVERTURE, I'D LIKE YOU TO ANSWER AS TO THAT AS WELL AND VICE VERSA; IS THAT OKAY? OKAY. 09:37:41 09:37:43 09:37:46 I' LL BE IF I NEED CLARIFICATION, 09:37:49 SPECIFIC ABOUT IT. THANKS. 09:37:51 09:37:52 09:37:54 09:37:54 THAT WOULD BE GREAT. GREAT. WHEN DID YOU START AT OVERTURE? IN OCTOBER OF 1998. 09:37:59 WHAT WAS YOUR JOB TITLE AT GOTO ACTUALLY IN OCTOBER 09:38:04 09:38:07 1998? PRODUCT MANAGER. 09:38:11 09:38:13 DID YOU HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH THE COMPANY BEFORE OCTOBER OF 1998? 09:38:15 09:38:17 YES, I DID. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT FOR ME? 09:38:19 CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I -- -11:25:16 11:25:20 80 540 06 1 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSWREPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC. Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page. 4 of815 LUDWIG KL' ~ WHAT WERE THOSE VARIOUS TECHNICAL REASONS? THE ONE THAT I CAN RECALL IS THAT THERE WAS NOT A MEANS TO RECONCILE THE CLICKS THAT WERE 11:25:25 RECEIVED TO SPECIFIC ADVERTISER ACCOUNTS. WHO TOLD YOU THAT? I CAN'T RECALL. 11:25:29 11:25:34 IT. I JUST I HEARD 11:25:35 AGAIN, THAT WASN'T THE PART OF THE BUSINESS THAT I 11:25:40 11:25:42 WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH. DO YOU KNOW WHEN DO YOU KNOW WHEN 11:25:45 11:25:52 OVERTURE WAS TRYING TO BILL ITS USER BUT WAS UNABLE TO WHEN THAT HAPPENED? I BECAME AWARE THAT THERE WAS SOME 11:25:56 11:25:57 SITUATION LIKE THAT WHEN I JOINED THE COMPANY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER GOTO HAD BEEN PAID 11:25:59 11:26:03 11:26:07 11:26:10 11: 26: 14 FOR - - BY ANY OF ITS WEBSITE PROMOTERS FOR ANY OF THE TRAFFIC THAT OVERTURE DELIVERED AS OF ABOUT OCTOBER 1998? I BELIEVE SO, BUT I CAN'T BE ENTIRELY SURE. AGAIN, I WASN'T PART OF THE COMPANY AT THAT POINT. 11:26:22 11:26:25 11:26:36 11:26:38 11:26:40 11:26:43 WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? I'M SORRY. WHY DO I BELIEVE WHAT? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SOME WEBSITE PROMOTERS HAD PAID FOR THE TRAFFIC THAT WAS DELIVERED TO THEM AS OF OR PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1998? 11:26:45 11:26:53 I SEEM TO REMEMBER HEARING THAT WE HAD CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I 540 6 15 8 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC Filed 07/06/200400.Page.50of81 ~ LUDWIG KI STARTED TO RECEIVE MONEY, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE INSTANCE WAS. IT WAS JUST I WAS NEW TO 11:26:56 11:26:59 SOMETHING THAT WAS KIND OF OUT THERE. 11:27:06 11:27:10 11:27:12 11:27:13 THE COMPANY, AND I WAS REALLY JUST TRYING TO LEARN MY JOB AT THAT POINT. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD IN A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE? 11:27:15 11:27:19 11:27:22 POSSIBLY. I CAN'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY. IN PERHAPS AN E- MAIL STATUS REPORT? DOUBTFUL. WE WEREN'T BIG ON STATUS REPORTS 11:27:26 11:27:29 11:27:30 11:27:33 BACK THEN. WAS THERE AN INTERNAL WEB PAGE YOU COULD TO FOR NEWS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE COMPANY? NOT THAT I WAS AWARE OF, NO. THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN THINK OF YOU WOULD 11:27:36 11:27:40 HAVE LEARNED ABOUT THIS OTHER THAN A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE? 11:27:42 11:27:43 COULD HAVE JUST HEARD IT AROUND THE WATER COOLER. 11:27:46 11:27:49 AT THE TIME GOTO WAS IN THE IDEA LAB THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE AROUND. BUILDING. 11:27:55 11:27:58 11:28:00 OCCASIONALLY YOU JUST KIND OF HEARD THINGS PASSING. YOU COULDN'T NECESSARILY BE SURE WHAT WAS RIGHT AND WHAT WAS WRONG. MR . KWUN : 11:28:04 11:28:06 11:28:08 WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE TAPE, SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE A BREAK HERE. CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME A D. 8. Y 11:54:28 80 540. 0 of 1 LUDWIG KL - ~ Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSWREPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC. Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page 6 6815 THAT WAS MADE AT T. I DON'T SPECIFICALLY KNOW THERE WAS A PRESENTATION MADE. AND YOU DON'T RECALL TELLING ANYONE TO LOOK 11:54:31 11:54:35 11:54:37 11:54:43 11:54:44 FOR DOCUMENTS THAT RELATED TO NO. T. E. D. WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THAT? BELIEVE THAT FULFILLED MY DUTY TO 11:54:48 DISCLOSE BY DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION THAT I WAS AWARE OF. 11:54:51 11:54:53 AND TURNING BACK TO EXHIBIT 4, IF YOU COULD 11:55:05 11:55:09 11:55:13 JUST READ THE PARAGRAPH IT TO YOURSELF "I HEREBY DECLARE. OU CAN GO AHEAD AND READ BOVE YOUR SIGNATURE STARTING WITH AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE WITH THAT, 11:55:15 11:55:19 JUST LET ME KNOW. OKAY. 11:55:31 11:55:31 11:55:33 SO YOU READ THAT AND UNDERSTOOD THAT BEFORE YOU SIGNED THIS DOCUMENT; IS THAT CORRECT? YES. AND SO YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT YOU WERE UNDERTAKING A SERIOUS DUTY HERE IN SUBMITTING THIS PATENT APPLICATION? 11:55:35 11:55:35 11:55:37 11:55:40 YES. AND YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON YOU TO ACT WITH CANDOR IN ALL OF YOUR 11:55:41 11:55:42 11:55:44 11:55:49 101 INTERACTIONS WITH THE PATENT OFFICE? CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I W P Y W S 80 540 0of 1 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page. 7 6815 1 LUDWIG KL YES. OKAY. 11:55:51 11:55:57 CAN YOU CLARIFY JUST n CANDOR" ? I'M SORRY. 11:55:59 11:56:01 11:56:04 11:56:04 11:56:07 I'M NOT SURE I'VE SEEN THAT TERM SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. WHAT DID YOU HAT WERE YOU THINKING OF WHEN YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION? I KNOW THAT I WAS ER MY DUTY AND PER 11:56:08 11:56:12 JUST WHO I AM, I WAS AS FORTHCOMING AS I COULD BE AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT I KNEW 11:56:16 11:56:19 ABOUT WAS DISCLOSED AND THAT I COOPERATED WITH THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE 11:56:22 11:56:24 11:56:27 DURING THE PROSECUTION OF OUR PATENT APPLICATION. SO YOU NEVER TRIED TO HIDE ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU HAD? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 11:56:28 11:56:29 OU DIDN'T TRY TO AND YOU DIDN'T RELY ON REPLY ON TECHNICALITIES IN TERMS OF 11:56:33 ELL, I O I CAN SAY 11:56:36 11:56:39 SUPPOSE THIS IS TECHNICALLY TRUE BUT IT? NO. 11:56:42 11:56:43 SO YOU TRIED TO BE AS FORTHRIGHT AS 11:56:43 11:56:45 11:56:45 11:56:47 102 POSSIBLE? .A ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU COULD TURN TO EXHIBIT 3, WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME 80 540. 0 of 15 R Document 186-3 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW EPORTERS & VIDEO, INC. Filed 07/06/2004 0. Page 8 681 LUDWIG KLT RECEIVED RETRIEVAL REQUESTS. HOW ARE YOU ABLE TO 14:52:50 14:52:55 14:53:10 HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT? I KNOW OF NO OTHER WAY THAT A SITE LIKE HITS GALORE COULD OFFER THE SERVICES THAT THEY CLAIM 14:53:16 14:53:19 TO OFFER IN EXHIBITS 9 AND 10 WITHOUT RECORDING A RETRIEVAL REQUEST EVENT. BUT HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THEY RECEIVED RETRIEVAL REQUESTS? 14:53:23 14:53:28 14:53:30 14:53:34 14:53:37 BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO 1 () FULFILL THE SERVICE OFFERING THAT THEY MADE, I CAN THINK OF NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY COULD HAVE PROVIDED 14:53:41 14:53:43 THAT SERVICE WITHOUT RECORDING THOSE RETRIEVAL REQUESTS. 14:53:46 WHAT ASPECT OF THE HITSGALORE. COM SERVICE 14:53:48 14:53:55 14 : 54 : 00 REQUIRES RECEIVING RETRIEVAL REQUESTS? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. WHAT ASPECT? 14:54:02 14:54:03 14:54:07 WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE HITSGALORE. COM SERVICE THAT THEY OFFER THAT REQUIRES RECEIVING RETRIEVAL REQUESTS? 14:54:11 I CAN SEE NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY CAN 14:55:13 14:55:16 FULFILL THE CLAIM THAT THEY MADE IN WHAT WE HAVE LISTED AS EXHIBIT 9 OF EXHIBIT 8 INDICATING THAT THEY WILL LET ADVERTI SERS, QUOTE, "PAY FOR WHAT THEY 14:55:19 14:55:28 14:55:32 159 GET, " UNQUOTE, "WITHOUT RECORDING A RETRIEVAL CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I 80 540 6 15 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC Filed 07/06/2004 0.Page.90of81 1 LUDWIG KI REQUEST EVENT. 14:55:36 14:55:47 14:55:52 14:55:59 SO IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT BECAUSE HITSGALORE. COM STATES THAT THEY LET ADVERTISERS, QUOTE, "PAY FOR WHAT THEY GET, " UNQUOTE, THAT NECESSARILY MEANS THAT HITSGALORE. COM RECEIVES RETRIEVAL REQUESTS? 14:56:04 14:56:09 14:56:22 I CAN THINK OF NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY COULD FULFILL THAT CLAIM UNLESS THEY RECEIVED AND RECORDED THOSE RETRIEVAL REQUESTS. THAT 14:56:25 14:56:27 14:56:36 "YES"? ANSWER. IT'S OR "NO. IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC "YES" 14:56:51 14: 56: 54 SO IN YOUR RULE 102 DECLARATION, WHEN YOU 14:57:01 14:57:06 STATED THAT HITSGALORE. COM RECEIVES RETRIEVAL REQUESTS, DID YOU KNOW THAT TO BE TRUE? I COULD SEE NO OTHER WAY THAT THEY COULD FULFILL ON THEIR SERVICE OFFERING UNLESS THEY DID 14:57:11 14:57:20 14:57:21 14:57:24 14:57:28 14:57:32 THAT, SO I VERY DEFINITELY BELIEVED IT TO BE TRUE. .Q DID YOU EXPLAIN THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU HAD MADE THAT IT WAS MERELY THAT YOU COULDN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER WAY TO DO WHAT THEY WERE SAYING THEY DID? DID YOU MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION CLEAR TO THE EXAMINER? 14:57:34 14:57:37 14:57:44 14:57:47 I BELIEVED THAT SOMEONE REASONABLY SKILLED IN THE ART COULD OBSERVE WHAT HITS GALORE WAS DOING AND NOTE HOW IT WAS BEING DONE IN THE SAME WAY THAT 14:57:56 160 CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME 540 0 of 15 8 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS186-3 Filed 07/06/200400.Page .10681 1 Document & VIDEO, INC LUDWIG KL WHAT WAS IT ABOUT THE WAY THAT 14:59:44 14:59:45 14:59:49 HITSGALORE. COM WAS PROVIDING ITS SERVICE THAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT IT MUST BE THE CASE THAT HITSGALORE . COM WAS RECEIVING RETRIEVAL REQUESTS? 14:59:52 I BELIEVE IT WAS THE FACT THAT THEY CLAIMED 15:00:34 TO ONLY ALLOW ADVERTISERS TO GET WHAT THEY PAY FOR OR - - SORRY - - PAY FOR WHAT THEY GET, TO CITE 15:00:41 15:00:46 15:00:50 EXHIBIT 9. WHAT IS IT ABOUT HITS GALORE OFFERING A 15:00:52 15:00:57 SERVICE THAT ALLOWED ADVERTISERS TO ONLY PAY FOR WHAT THEY GET THAT LED YOU TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HITSGALORE . COM WAS RECEIVING RETRIEVAL REQUESTS? 15:01:01 15:01:06 IN ORDER FOR THEM TO ONLY PROVIDE TO 15:01:32 15:01:36 15:01:48 15:01:56 15:02:06 15:02:12 15:02:19 15:02:25 15:02:30 15:02:34 15:02:40 15:02:43 ADVERTISERS - - LET ME REPHRASE. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO SEND TRAFFIC TO ADVERTISERS BASED ON A SEARCHER'S THIS CASE, CLICKTHROUGH ON THEIR SITE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO RECORD THAT RETRIEVAL IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO FULFILL THE SERVICE THAT THEY OFFERED. IF YOU CREATE A WEB PAGE AND YOUR WEB PAGE HAS LINKS TO ANOTHER WEBSITE ON ANOTHER SERVER SOMEWHERE ELSE AND A USER GOES AND RETRIEVES YOUR WEB PAGE THAT INCLUDES THESE LINKS TO OTHER SITES AND THE USER THEN CLICKS ON ONE OF THOSE LINKS TO ONE OF THE OTHER SITES, DOES YOUR WEB PAGE OR YOUR CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I 15:02:46 162 8 Page 11 of 15 ~ LUDWIG KL Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS 186-3 Document & VIDEO, INC Filed 07/06/2004 00. 540. 0681 EXISTED BEFORE WEBSITE? THE SYSTEM THAT WAS DESCRIBED BY THE PRIOR MAY 1998 AT THE GOTO. COM 15:25:20 15:25:26 15:25:31 15:25:38 ART THAT WE HAD PROVIDED TO THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THE PRIOR ART 15:25:41 15:25:45 15:25:50 15:25:53 15:25:59 15:26:02 15:26:09 OKAY. DESCRIBED ALL THE FEATURES OF THE SYSTEM THAT EXISTED AS OF MAY 28TH, 1998? I KNEW OF NO FEATURE THAT EXISTED BEFORE MAY 28TH, 1998 THAT WAS NOT DESCRIBED IN THE PRIOR ART. BUT HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THAT PRIOR 15:26:10 15:26:14 15: 26: 17 ART DESCRIBED ALL OF THE FEATURES OF THE SYSTEM THAT EXISTED AS OF MAY 28TH, 1998? COULD YOU SAY YOUR QUESTION ONE MORE TIME. WELL, LET ME ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION. DID YOU KNOW WHAT FEATURES THE GOTO. COM LINE SYSTEM HAD PRIOR TO MAY 28TH, 1998? I LEARNED ABOUT WHAT THE SYSTEM CONTAINED HOW 15:26:37 15:26:45 15:26:48 15:26:53 15:27:07 15:27:13 SUBSEQUENT TO MY JOINING THE COMPANY IN OCTOBER THROUGH A NUMBER OF VARIOUS MEANS, EXPERIENTIAL 15:27:17 15:27:27 15:27:29 DISCUSSION. WAS YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT FEATURES THE GOTO . COM LINE AD SYSTEM HAD PRIOR TO MAY 28, 1998 15:27:34 BASED AT ALL ON DISCUSSIONS WITH ANY OF YOUR 15:27:41 172 CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME 8 . 540. 0681 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW REPORTERS186-3 Filed 07/06/2004 00Page 12 of 15 ~ Document & VIDEO, INC LUDWIG KI COpy OF THE MAY 19TH, 1998 PRESS RELEASE TO PATENT COUNSEL OR ANYONE ELSE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE 361 PATENT APPLICATION? 16:13:10 16:13:15 16:13:17 I BELIEVE SO BUT I CAN'T BE CERTAIN. ON WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT BELIEF? 16:13:35 16:13:37 COULD YOU REPEAT THE PREVIOUS QUESTION ONE MORE TIME. CORRECTLY. 16:14:58 16:15:00 I WANT TO MAKE SURE I ANSWERED 16:15:02 16:15:03 16:15:06 '98 PRESS ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR BELIEF THAT SOMEONE PROVIDED A COpy OF THE MAY 19TH, RELEAS E TO PATENT COUNSEL OR SOMEONE ELSE PRIOR TO 16:15:11 16:15:. THE FILING OF THE 361 PATENT APPLICATION? I KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN EXHAUSTIVE PRIOR 16:15:22 ART SEARCH DONE THAT WAS DONE CERTAINLY. AND IN 16:15:24 16:15:28 16:15:34 CONJUNCTION WITH COUNSEL AS WELL AS THE OTHER INVENTORS, I WAS CONFIDENT THAT ALL INFORMATION THAT WAS RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN PROVIDED AS PART OF THE DISCLOSURE PROCESS. 16:15:36 16:15:39 AND THE MAY 19TH, 1998 PRESS RELEASE IS RELEVANT TO THE 361 PATENT APPLICATION, 16:15:41 16:15:45 16:15:52 16:17:08 16:17:13 16:17:18 16:17:18 187 ISN'T IT? INASMUCH AS IT DISCUSSES THINGS THAT WERE AVAILABLE PREVIOUS TO THE INVENTION ITSELF, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT THAT CONSTITUTES RELEVANCE OR NOT. BUT YOU AND YOUR COINVENTERS AND THOSE CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT - VOLUME I Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW LUDWIG REPORTERS & aN Document 186-3 VIDEO, Filed 07/06/2004 800. 5413 0615 Page 0. of 81 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, KAREN E. KAY, CSR NO. 3862, A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY: THAT PRIOR TO BEING EXAMINED, THE WITNESS NAMED IN THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS WAS BY ME DULY SWORN TO TESTIFY TO THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH; THAT SAID PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN BY ME IN SHORTHAND AT THE TIME AND PLACE HEREIN NAMED AND WAS THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED INTO TYPEWRITING UNDER MY DIRECTION, SAID TRANSCRIPT BEING A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPTION OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS ACTION. JUNE 9TH 2003 CSR NO. 3862 - -0-225 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW I'- 121: J;?tIG & L Document 186-3 Filed 07/06/2004 312 321 4299 Page 14 of 15 ERRA T A SHEET CHANGES TO TESTIMONY OF DARREN J. DAVIS PAGE 12'" LINE FROM VIA A PRODUCT CALLED TIMES LINK AT RESULTS , SEARCH USTINGS VIA A PRODUCT CALLED TThiESLINK AT RESULTS. COMPONENTS OF 1J CONTAINfDAN OVERTURE. COM PAGE THE DIREct TRAfFIC CENTER SEARCH USTINGS CONTAINED A GOTO. COMPAGE 30~ 36* 41* 87'" TIlE DIREC"TRAFF1C CENTER JAY GAlLINAn) ERIK HOV ANEC I CAN' T REMEMBER IN THE IDEALAB~ BUILD ING. ERIC, NO. NO. rrWAS IN 2002BUT I DON' T BELIEVE SO. 1 BELIEVE SO. 1519.. J. GALUNA ITI ERIK HOVANIC I COULDN' T REMEMBER IN THE IDEA LAB BUll...DING. ERIK, YES. 1 BELIEVE SO, YES. BUT I BELIEVE SO. YES M NOT AWARE OF A MEANS THAT COULD SPECIFI CALL Y CONTAIN A SEARCH LISTING INTO SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS LIKE THAT. I CAN' T THINK OF A SPECIFIC WAY. DISCERNIDLE FROM TillS PAGE. 88" 100 113 114 150 3-6 152 DISCERNIBLE FROM TBIS PAGE. IT COULD BE DISCERNED BY' MOUSING OVER OR CLICKING AND HOLDING ONE OF THE . URLS. 159 168 172 I KNOW OF NO OTHER WAY IRA T A SITE LIKE ANYTHING THAT WASN' DISCLOSED IN THE PRIOR ARTDISCUSSION. I KNOW iliA T ONE WAY 11IA A SITE LIKE ANYTIllN G ELSE. DISCUSSION, AND I KNOW WHAT CAME INTO :BEING AFfERI JOINED THE COMPANY. NECESSARILY BEING CORRECTLY RECORDED PRIOR TO MAY 28. MAY HAVE BEEN WJSHFUL THINKING IIYPOTHETICALL Y , IF IT FUNCTIONED THAT WAY 176 NECESSARILY EEING RECORDED PRIOR TO MA Y 28. 189 MA Y HAVE BEEN IN ERROR 200 IF IT fUNCTIONED TI-IA T WAY Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW 10: 43 . BHG&L 312 321 4299 Document 186-3 Filed 07/06/2004 Page 15 of 15 214 244 THAT THE SYSTEM DESCRIBED IN THE MAY 19. 1998 PRESS REillASE HAD NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED NO. THAT THE SYSTEM DESCRIBED BY CLAIM 1 HAD NOT BEEN llvt PLEMENTED 286 MR- KWUN: YES. I DON' BELIEVE TI-lA T . BUT I KNOW WHAT FEATURES WERE ADDED TO THE SYSTEM AFfER I Sf AR TED WORK AT GaTO-COM IN OCTOBER 1998. MR. KWUN~ YESTHE WITNESS: I DON' BELfEVE THAT *These changes should be made globally throughout the transcript. SIGNA OF WITNESS IqjO

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?