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 (312) 782-8087
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?