Goodard v. Google, Inc.

Filing 73

Goodard v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 73 Att. 2

EXHIBIT B

Dockets.Justia.com

Llellerli.h r m a n , »
June 25, 2008
Via E - m a il
Christine Saunders Haskett Christine .I [e-mail] Direct + I (4 I 5 ) 7 7 2-6426 Direct Fax +1 ( 4 1 5 ) 7 7 2 -1788 Main + 1 ( 4 1 5 ) 7 7 2 - 6 0 0 0 Fax +1 ( 4 1 5 ) 7 7 2 -6268 03656 .0003

William H . M a n n i n g Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-201 5 Re : A d v a n c e d M i c r o Devices, I n c., et al. v. S a m s u n g E l e c t r o n i c s Co ., L t d ., et al.

Dear Bill : I write in response to your letter o f June 10, 2008 regarding the possibility o f grouping the Samsung products that AMD accuses o f infringement in order to streamline discovery in this case. Samsung is willing to consider entering into some type o f an agreement regarding representative products, but in order to do so, we need more information about A M D ' s reasoning underlying its infringement case . Only then can we understand the product features that AMD sees as relevant to its case and propose appropriate groupings o f products . With this requirement in mind, I respond below to the discussion in your letter regarding each o f the patents asserted by AMD in t u m . N one o f this discussion should be construed as an admission by Samsung o f infringement o f any o f the claims o f the AMD patents .
I.

U.S . P a t e n t No. 5,559,990

You state in your letter that most o f Samsung' S memory products "share the operational and structural characteristics that are relevant to the asserted claims o f the Cheng patent." You have not shared with us, however, what you believe those operational and structural characteristics to be . You then suggest that the parties "agree on an exemplar Samsung product for each category [ o f memory] ." In order to be able to suggest representative products for the purposes o f this patent, we need to know what the "operational and structural characteristics" are that AMD sees as significant to its case . We propose that AMD provide us with a claim chart for one Samsung product that AMD contends infringes each o f claims 1 , 8 , 15, 19, and 20 o f the ' 9 9 0 patent. In particular, this chart must explain where in the accused product AMD contends the
Heller Ehrman LLP 333 Bush S tre e t S an Franc isco, CA 94104-2878 www. hellere hrman .com
Beiji ng Hong Kong Lond on Los Ange les M adi so n. WI New York Sa n Diego San Fra nci sco Seattle/A ncho rage Sha ng hai Si licon Va lley Singapore Washi ngto n, D.C.

I-IellerEhrrnan1.1.1'

William H. Manning June 25, 2008 Page 2

limitations o f these claims are met. Once we have that chart, we will be in a better position to consider whether there are products representative o f groups o f products that have in common the features that AMD believes are important to its infringement case . Finally, with respect to this patent, you state that AMD will require detailed discovery on approximately 30 o f Samsung's products, after which AMD expects to be able to narrow the representative products to 15. We are unclear as to where these numbers are coming from, particularly given that your letter lists only nine categories o f memory. We also do not understand how AMD plans to narrow the number o f representative products from 30 to 15. Please explain in detail your reasoning behind this proposal.
II. U.S. P a t e n t No. 5,248,893

With respect to this patent, you have asked Samsung to provide " p r o o f that the transistors in other DRAMs operate the same way as the exemplar [K4T51083QE] chip, have the same genera l appearance , are layered in the same fashion, and that the various components o f the transistors have the same composition ." Again, we may be able to provide you with this information onee we know which aspects o f the appearance, layering, and component compositions AMD sees as important to its case . We suggest that you provide us with a claim chart showing how AMD contends that this product infringes claims 1, 4, and 14 o f t h e ' 893 patent, explaining particularly how the product is contended to satisfy each o f the requirements o f those claims. Once we have that chart, we will be in a better position to consider which universe o f products the K4 T51 083QE product would be a representative of, and also suggest representative products for other groups. We also suggest a similar approach for the RCAT transistors . In this case, we suggest that AMD provide us with a claim chart showing how the RCA T transistors that AMD has seen described in the publicly available literature infringe claims 1 , 4 , and 14 o f the '893 patent, so that we can identify representative products containing RCAT transistors.
III. U.S. P a t e n t No. 4,737,830

Although, as you note, there is a wide variety o f possible capacitor layouts in semiconductor products generally, we are hopeful that representative products may be identified for the purposes o f this patent. Again , to assist us in making a preliminary identification o f such products, please provide us with a claim chart showing how one Samsung product is contended to infringe claim 5 o f the ' 8 3 0 patent, particularly pointing out how AMD contends each o f the limitations o f claims 1 and 5 are satisfied . Once we have that claim chart, we will be in a better position to consider whether there are products representative o f groups o f products that have the relevant features in common.

HellerEhrmanl.l.l'
IV. U.S. P a t e n t No. 5,545,592

William H. Manning June 25, 2008 Page 3

You have asked Samsung to provide evidence that "the process used to manufacture the two exemplar [ K 4 T I G I 6 4 Q A - Z C D 5 and K9WAG08UIA] chips is the same, in every material way, as the process used to manufacture Samsung's other DRAM and NAND Flash chips." Again, however, we first need to know from AMD what it considers to be "every material w a y " in this context. We suggest that you provide us with a claim chart showing how AMD contends the K 4 T I G I 6 4 Q A - Z C D 5 and K 9 W A G 0 8 U I A products infringe claims 1 and 8 o f the '592 patent, particularly pointing out how these products are contended to satisfy each o f the limitations o f those claims . Once we have that chart, we will be in a better position to consider whether there are products representative o f groups o f Samsung products . that have in common the features that AMD believes to be important to its case.

V.

U.S. P a t e n t No. 5,623,434 a n d U.S. P a t e n t No. 5,377,200

I t is our understanding from your letter that AMD is asserting these patents against the circuitry o f the ARM cores contained in various Samsung products. Accordingly, we are willing to consider providing you with a list o f which Samsung products incorporate which o f the ARM cores that you have listed. We would a lso consider agree ing to a representative product containing each pertinent type o f ARM core, provided that the parties agree that the '43 4 and ' 2 0 0 patents are being asserted against circuitry that is solely contained with th e ARM core, and not against any circuitry outside o f the ARM core. Obviously, i f circuitry outside o f the ARM core is implicated in any way, it will be much more di fficult to agree on representative products.

F in ally, with respect t o both o f these paten ts, you have stated that an agreement as to representative products containing ARM cores "will not eliminate A M D ' s need for discovery to determine whether Samsung ' s proprietary semiconductor parts also prac tice the . . . patent claims." Unless you have some evidence , however, that any Samsung product not incorporating an ARM core infringes any o f the claims o f these two patents, we do not believe that you have the necessary basis to pursue an infringement claim against such products , under Rule 11. Obvious ly, if you do have such evidence, p lease let us know .

VI.

U.S. P a ten t No. 6,784,879

You have proposed that Samsung ident ify the groups o f televisions , camcorders, and ce ll phones that incorporate "the same or similar user interface " as the te levision, camcorder, and cell phone that AMD has identified. In order t o do as you propose , however, we need to know what it is about that user interface that AMD be lieves infringes the ' 879 patent. Although you have noted the picture -in-picture aspec t o f certain Samsung televisions , you have not told us what it is abou t the picture -in-picture feature that alleged ly infringes the '879 patent. Furt hermore, as camcorders and cell phones generally do not have a picture -in-

HellerE h r rn a n l.l o l'

William H. Manning June 25, 2008 Page 4

picture features, we do not know what it is about the user interfaces o f those products that AMD is accusing o f infringement. We propose that AMD provide us with a claim chart showing how the particular television, camcorder, and cell phone identified by AMD are contended to infringe claims I, 6, 11, 14, 17, and 21 o f t h e ' 879 patent, particularly pointing out what it is about those products that is contended to infringe each o f the limitations o f those claims . Once we have that chart, we will be in a better po sition to consider whether there are groups o f products that have the relevant features in common .

*

*

*

Finally, we note that your letter does not state whether AMD is also interested in identifying representative AMD products accused o f infringement by Samsung, in order to limit the discovery that will be required o f AMD in this case. Please let us know A M D ' s position on this point. Very truly yours,

Christine Saunders Haskett

~~