Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.

Filing 101

Attachment 3
Declaration of Ashok Ramani in Support of 100 Brief Declaration of Ashok Ramani In Support Of Netflix's Opening Claim-Construction Brief filed byNetflix, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7.1# 8 Exhibit 7.2# 9 Exhibit 7.3# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Exhibit 11# 14 Exhibit 12# 15 Exhibit 13)(Related document(s)100) (Ramani, Ashok) (Filed on 12/6/2006)

Download PDF
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc. Doc. 101 Att. 3 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 101-4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 1 of 4 EXHIBIT 3 Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 101-4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 2 of 4 Serial No. 08/901,687 ~ ) Group Art Unit: 2167 ) ) Application No. 09/561,()41 ) Exaiiner: K. Rice -l~ ) Filed: April 28, 2000 ) a ~ 0",.; ~'~ T l( .. ~ '¡~'õ tB ~ ) For: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RENTING ITEMS Commissioner for Patents Washington, D.C. 20231 ~v SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF NEIL D. HUNT I, NEIL D. HUNT, declare:. 1. I am Vice President, E-Commerce, ofNetflix Incorporated (hereinafter "Netfl"), wlúch is the, sole Assignee and the owner of the entire right, title aiid interest in the above- referenced patent application. 2. I have been employed by knowledge of Netfix since January 25,1999. I have personal the conception, development and deployment ofNetflix's movie rental services. I am also a named the inception and formation ofNetflix. I have personal knowledge of inventor on the above-referenced patent application, and lam personally familiar wíth the clais now pending in that application. 3. Netflx was incorporated on August 27, 1997. NetfIix began offering movies for renta to customers on April 14, 1998 using a conventiona pay-per-rental modeL. The pay-per- the above-referenced patent application on the basis that one or more featues recited in Clais 1-100 were not rentçil model did not implement the invention recited in Claims 1-100 of implemented in the pay-per-rent modeL. For example, the pay-per-rentalmodel did not include ''receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more items that a customer desires to rent; providing to the customer up to. a specified number of the one or more items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria" and "in response in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer, providing to the customer one or more other items -256055-001 1 NFLlX0000290 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 101-4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 3 of 4 Serial No. 08/901,687 indicated by the one or more item selection criteria" as required by Claims 1-30 and 36-95. Clainis 31.35 and 96-100 include simlar limtations, except in the context of movies. 4. In particular, in the pay-per-rental model, customers rented movies one at a time. The pay-per-renta model did not include a mechanism, such as a rental queue, for establishin a set of specified movies from which initial and subsequent movies were rented. Furthermore, the pay-per-rental model did not provide subsequent movies from the set of specified movies "in response to receiving any of the items provided to the customer." Tn the pay-per-rental model, movies were provided to. customers when customers actively selected a paricular movie to rent and not in response to receiving back previously rented movies rrom customers. 5. As another example, the pay-per-rental model did not iIplem'ent a method "wherein a tota CUiTent number of items provided to the customer does not exceed the specified number," as required by Claims 1.15, 31-80 and 96- 100, since there was no liniit on the total current number of movies that a customer could have rented at any particular time. In addition, the pay-per-rental model did not include "wherein a total mimber ofitems provided to the customer within a specified period oftiîie does not exceed a specified limit," as required by claims 16-30 and 8 i -95, since there was no limit the number of movies that a customer could rent with any specified period oftime. 6. There may be other limitations required by Claims l-l 00 that were not included in the Netflx pay"per-rental model and these examples are not meant to be exhaustive.. 7. The invention defiied by Claim 1-100 of the above-referenced patent application was first publicly implemented in Netfix's "Marqueé Program." The Marquee Pro¡pam was first made availableto test customers on or around September 23, 1999, and put into widescale public use on or around December 16, 1999, both of 28,2000 filing date of which occurred less than one year before the Marh the above-referenced patent application. A press release announcing the Marquee Program, dated December 16,1999, is attached to ths Supplemental Declaration, 8. The dates set forth in this Declaration are not, and should not be construed as, a date of invention of the subject matter of the above-referenced patent application. Having been wared under 18 U.S.C. 1001 that any false statemellts made in this Declartion may adversely affect the validity of any patent issuing from the present patent application, I hereby declare that all statements made by me herein are tre, and all statements made by me upon information and belief are believed by me to be tre. -356055-0011 NFLlX0000291 Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 101-4 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 4 of 4 Serial No. 08/90l,687 SUBSCRIED AND SWORN at Los Gatos, California, on October -l, 2002. NEIL D, HUNT NOW- -4- 56055-0011 NFLlX0000292

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?