Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 205

Declaration of Ravind S. Grewal in Support of 204 , 195 Reply Re 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# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 204 , 195 ) (Grewal, Ravind) (Filed on 7/30/2004)

Overture Services, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Doc. 205 Att. 3

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 205-4

Filed 07/30/2004

Page 1 of 7

Exhibit

Dockets.Justia.com

~..-

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

CONFIDENTIAL - UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 205-4

Filed 07/30/2004

Page 2 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

OVERTURE SERVICES, INC.

a Delaware Corporation

Plaintiff,
vs. GOGGLE INC., a California Corporation
Defendant.
) CO2- 01991 JSW

The videotaped deposition of JOHN
RAUCH, taken before DEBORAH A. MILLER, a Notary

Public within and for the County of DuPage, State
of Illinois, and a Certified Shorthand Reporter of
said state, at Suite 3600, 455 North Cityfront

Plaza Drive, Chicago, Illinois, on the 23rd day of
July, A. D. 2003, at

9: 08 a.

ORI

GI rJAL

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES - CHICAGO (312) . 782-'-8087

CONFIDENTIAL - UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER of 7 Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW Document 205-4 Filed 07/30/2004 Page 3

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

This is Ben Stanson of

Legal Video Services,

Incorporated, 205

West

Randolph Street,
operator of this
09: 08

Chicago,

Illinois.
It'

m the

camera.

This is the videotaped
s being taken

deposition of John G. Rauch.

pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on

behalf of the plaintiff.
We are on the record on July
2003 .
23 rd,

The time is 9:08 a. m. as indicated on

the

09:08

video screen. We are at Chicago, Illinois. This

455 Cityfront Plaza in

case is captioned

Overture Services, Incorporated, versus Google
Incorporated, Case No. CO2- 019910 JSW (BDL).

09: 09

t hems e

Will the attorneys please identify ve s f or the video re cord.
Daralyn Durie for defendant

MS. DURIE:

Google.
MR. BERENZWEIG:

Ja~k Berenzweig for the

plaintiff Overture
09: 09

Services.
defendant,

And I' d like to make a correction.
This deposition is being taken by the

22

not by the plaintiff.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
MR. WHITE:

Sorry.

Thank you.

Do you want to announce me on

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES - CHICAGO
(312) 782 - 8 087

..

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 205-4

Filed 07/30/2004

Page 4 of 7

CO~FIDENTIAL - UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER

(WHEREUPON, the record was

read by the reporter.
MR. BERENZWEIG:
I obj ect to the form of the

question.
10: 22

MS. DURIE:

ll reask

it.

BY MS. DURIE:
Did you understand the beta system to

constitute an experimental use as of the time of

your initial conversation with Mr. Naughton?
10: 22

Can you explain what you mean by
experimental use"

Okay.
the term
patent laws?

Do you have an understanding of

experimental use" in the context of the

10:22

A.

I do.

What is your understanding?

Some public use of an invention on an
experimental basis more than a year prior to

filing a patent application can

be, I guess, an

10: 2

20

an exclusion from a statutory

bar.

Okay. Okay.
23

Let'

s use that definition.

Did you have an understanding from your
initial conversation with Mr. Naughton that the

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES - CHICAGO
(312) 782- 8087

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 205-4

Filed 07/30/2004

Page 5 of 7

CONFIDENTIAL - UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER

be ta

sys t em.. was an experimental use?

described

Not an experimental us e it here.
Fine.

as we

Have you ever come to that

10: 23

conclusion?
MR. BERENZWEIG:
MS. DURIE:

Which conclusion?

Fair enough.

BY MS. DURIE:
Have you ever come to the conclusion
10: 23

that the beta system that existed more than one

year prior to the filing date was an experimental

use as you have defined

it?
closely. As I

I haven' t analyzed it

understand the law to be on the issue

10:24

experimental use, conclusion.

so I haven' t come to such a

I take it then that you did not tell

the examiner that the beta system that existed at

GoTo more than one year prior to the filing date
10: 24

was an experimental use as you have defined

it?

That'

s correct.

Do you recall whether when you

first

saw what has been marked as Exhibit 10 you made
any efforts to ascertain why you had not been

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES - CHICAGO
( 3 12 )

782 - 8 0 8 7

-"

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

Document 205-4

Filed 07/30/2004

Page 6 of 7

CONFIDENTIAL - UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER

provided with a copy of it earlier?
I don t recall any such

efforts, no.

Okay.

Do you recall whether when you

first saw Exhibit 27 you made any efforts to

10:25

ascertain why you had not

been

provided with a

copy of it earlier?
NO, I don t recall such

efforts.

Would it be your normal practice if you
learned that you had not been provided wi th a
10 : 25

client'

s press release in putting together an

initial IDS to make an inquiry as to why
information had not been provided to you?
MR. BERENZWEIG:

that

May I hear that question

back ,

please.

(WHEREUPON, the record was

read by the reporter.
MR. BERENZWEIG:
the witnes s' practice?

Your question is limited to

MS. DURIE:

Yes.

BY THE WITNESS:
A..

I think it depends on the nature of the

press release.
BY MS. DURIE:

Let us assume that the press release

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES - CHICAGO
(3

12)

782-8087

"-

'--

Case 3:02-cv-01991-JSW

CONFIDENTIAL - UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document 205-4

Filed 07/30/2004

Page 7 of 7
2 55

my hand and affix my seal of office at

Chicago,

Illinois, this

28th day of

July, 2003.

94 Notary Public, Dupage
a.t~

i~

/2

vtIV~--ttJJ
J II /7 (J

My commission expires

County, Illinois. 3/01/06.
OFFICIAL SEAL

R. Certificate No. 84- 3889.

DEBORAH A MILLER
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE MY COMMISSION

Of IU.INOJS

SCPIRES: 0310 1 106

ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES - CHICAGO [phone]