Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 654

DECLARATION re 652 Answering Brief in Opposition, DECLARATION OF YURIDIA CAIRE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF CLAIMS 1, 4, 7, 21, 23, 25, 31 AND 32 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,139,761 by Leader Technologies Inc.(a Delaware corporation). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Rovner, Philip)

EXHIBIT C

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and Counterclaimant.

)
) CIVIL ACTION
)
)
) No. 1:08-cv-00862-JJF
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

EXPERT REPORT OF SAUL GREENBERG, PH.D

Steven L. Caponi (DE Bar #3484)
BLANK ROME LLP
1201 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
302-425-6400
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaimant Facebook, Inc.
OF COUNSEL:
Heidi L. Keefe (pro hac vice)
Mark R. Weinstein (pro hac vice)
Jeffrey Norberg (pro hac vice)
Melissa H. Keyes (pro hac vice)
COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto square, 4th floor
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Dated: April 8, 2010

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

have neglected to list any materials on Exhibit B that I have reviewed, they are identified in this
Report.
24.

To the extent a term was not construed by the Court in the Order issued on

March 9, 2010, or for which the Court indicated that no separate construction was necessary, I
have applied a meaning that one of ordinary skill in the art could give to that term. Otherwise, I
have applied the terms in my analysis as set forth in the Order.

VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE ’761 PATENT
25.

The ’761 patent, entitled “Dynamic Association of Electronically Stored

Information With Iterative Workflow Changes,” states that its field of invention “relates to
management and storage of electronic information. More particularly, this invention relates to
new structures and methods for creating relationships between users, applications, files, and
folders.” [’761 Patent, Col. 1:20] 1. In filing the application for the ’761 patent, the applicants
stated in the Background that prior art systems were limited because they did not know the
“context” in which files were created or used:
“Prior art communications tools do not know the business and/or personal
context(s) within which files are created and used. For example, a person may
create three files in a word processor, one relating to sales, the second relating to
operations, and the third relating to a son's football team. However, the word
processor itself has no way of knowing to automatically store those three files in
at least three different places.” [‘761 Patent, Col. 2:6]
The Background of the ‘761 patent goes on to emphasize how the prior art is limited as it creates
and stores files outside of a contextual framework, e.g., within a conventional file/folder system:

1

Throughout my Report, I quote from columns and lines of certain U.S. or foreign patent references,
specifically the ’761 patent and the prior art references. My citations following such quotations will
generally conform to the following format: [xxx Patent, Col. a:b], where “a” and “b” identify the column
and line, respectively, where the quotation may be found in the cited document.

Greenberg Expert Report
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

14 | P a g e

“Known software applications create and store files outside of a contextual
framework. For example, when a user creates a word processing file using a
conventional word processor application, the user typically must select a single
folder within which to store that file. The file may be stored in an existing folder
or the user may create a new folder to receive the file.… Under this scheme,
context is completely independent of the application. File context is limited to the
decision made by the user about the folder in which the file should be stored. The
user decision does not adequately represent or reflect the true context of the file
given that the file may contain information that could reasonable be stored in
multiple folders.” [‘761 Patent, Col. 2:17].
26.

The ‘761 patent then summarizes the perceived need for a tool that

automatically associates application files with various contexts:
“Notwithstanding the usefulness of the above-described methods, a need still
exists for a communications tool that associates files generated by applications
with individuals, groups, and topical context automatically.” [‘761 Patent, Col.
3:1].
27.

The ’761 patent then describes a computer-implemented system or

computer-implemented method that supposedly meets this need. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the applicants’ approach.
1. A computer-implemented network-based system that facilitates management of
data, comprising:
a computer-implemented context component of the network-based system for
capturing context information associated with user-defined data created by user
interaction of a user in a first context of the network-based system, the context
component dynamically storing the context information in metadata associated
with the user-defined data, the user-defined data and metadata stored on a
storage component of the network-based system; and
a computer-implemented tracking component of the network-based system for
tracking a change of the user from the first context to a second context of the
network-based system and dynamically updating the stored metadata based on
the change, wherein the user accesses the data from the second context.
The process outlined in claim 1 above can be paraphrased as a three-step computer-implemented
process running on a network-based system. First, as a user interacts within a “first context” to
define/create some data, a context component captures context information associated with the
Greenberg Expert Report
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

15 | P a g e

data, and dynamically stores that information as metadata associated with that data. Second,
when the user changes from the “first context” to a “second context,” a tracking component
tracks that change and dynamically updates the stored metadata based on that change. Third, the
user accesses the data from the second context into which the user has moved.
28.

The other independent claims asserted in this litigation (i.e. claims 9, 21

and 23) are, generally speaking, variations on claim 1 with similar requirements but using
somewhat different terminology. To the extent the differences between claim 1 and the other
asserted independent claims are significant to the invalidity analysis presented in this Report,
such differences are reflected in my more detailed analysis below.

IX. OVERVIEW OF BACKGROUND ART
29.

One of the concepts appearing in the claims of the ’761 patent is the

capture and storage of contextual information as metadata associated with user data, and tracking
actions by users over time. These concepts were basic and well-known in computer science long
before the ’761 patent was filed. The paragraphs below provide a partial list of this background
art.

A.

Audit Trails

30.

One common technology of capturing data associated with user dataand

tracking actions over time is the audit trail. Microsoft Computer Dictionary (a popular
dictionary for computer science terms), for example, defines an audit trail as follows:
Audit trail. n. In reference to computing, a means of tracing all activities
affecting a piece of information, such as a data record, from the time it is entered
into a system to the time it is removed. An audit trail makes it possible to
document, for example, who made changes to a particular record and when.
[Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 3d Ed. (1997) at 36].
Greenberg Expert Report
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

16 | P a g e

Executed this 3rd day of April 2010.
I declare that to the best of my knowledge the foregoing is true and correct as to the facts
stated and my opinions as expressed.

By:

Saul Greenberg, Ph.D.

Greenberg Expert Report
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

47 | P a g e