Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 477

REDACTED VERSION of 460 Answering Brief in Opposition re Motion for Summary Judgment on Non-Infringement by Personalized User Model LLP. (Tigan, Jeremy)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
GOOGLE, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________________ )
GOOGLE, INC.,
)
)
Counterclaimant,
)
)
v.
)
)
PERSONALIZED USER MODEL, L.L.P.
)
and YOCHAI KONIG,
)
)
Counterclaim-Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )

C.A. No. 09-525 (LPS)
PUBLIC VERSION

PUM’S ANSWERING BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NON-INFRINGEMENT

OF COUNSEL:
Marc S. Friedman
SNR DENTON US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1089
Mark C. Nelson
SNR DENTON US LLP
2000 McKinney Avenue, Ste. 1900
Dallas, TX 75201
Jennifer D. Bennett
SNR DENTON US LLP
1530 Page Mill Road, Ste. 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
Original Filing Date: January 14, 2013
Redacted Filing Date: January 23, 2013

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881)
Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Personalized User Model, L.L.P.
and Yochai Konig

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... ii 
NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................ 1 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1 
STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................... 1 
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 2 
I. 

STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INFRINGEMENT. ...................... 2 

II. 

THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT EACH OF THE ACCUSED
PRODUCTS MEETS THE “DOCUMENT” LIMITATIONS. ......................................... 3 
A.  

PUM Has Provided Sufficient Evidence To Establish That Google
Search Analyzes And Identifies Properties Of Documents.................................... 3 

B. 

Advertisements Are “Documents” Under The Court’s
Construction......................................................................................................... 6 

C. 

Google News And Google Portrait Functionality Meets The
“Document” Limitations. ..................................................................................... 8 

III. 

THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS ESTIMATE PROBABILITIES. ...................................... 8 

IV. 

THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS ESTIMATE PARAMETERS. ....................................... 10 

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 12 

-i-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co.,
224 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000).............................................................................................. 2
Pennsylvania Coal Ass’n v. Babbitt,
63 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 2
Pichler v. Unite,
542 F.3d 386-87 (3d Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 2
Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc.,
665 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012).............................................................................................. 1
Tarkus Imaging Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
Case No. 10-63-LS, 2012 WL 2175788 (D. Del. June 14, 2012) ....................................5-6, 8
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
520 U.S. 17 (1997) ................................................................................................................ 6
RULES AND STATUTES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).................................................................................................................... 2

- ii -

NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
This is Personalized User Model, L.L.P.’s (“PUM’s”) answering brief in opposition to
Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Non-Infringement (D.I. 423) (“Mot.”).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Contrary to Google’s assertion, PUM has presented more than sufficient evidence to
establish a prima facie case that each of Google’s Accused Products meets the “document”
limitations of the asserted claims, and also estimates parameters and probabilities, as those terms
have been construed by the Court. This evidence includes the 345 pages of expert reports of
PUM’s expert (Dr. Michael Pazzani) and the hundreds of exhibits cited therein, numerous
admissions by Google in its documents and from its witnesses, and the testimony of Google’s
own experts. As established below, this evidence is more than sufficient to preclude summary
judgment, particularly where, as here, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in PUM’s favor
as the non-movant. Accordingly, Google’s Motion should be denied. 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Google submitted five factual declarations to support its Statement of Undisputed Facts
(D.I. 425, 426, 427, 428, and 429) and set forth additional facts in its Motion. (Mot. at 1-4.)
PUM, however, disputes many of these so-called undisputed facts.

1

Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment on U.S. Patent No. 7,320,031 (“’031 patent”) also
should be denied. PUM withdrew the ’031 patent from the case on October 11, 2010, pursuant
to the Court's September 8, 2010 Order (D.I. 88) requiring PUM to reduce the number of claims
to 15. Google cannot convert that voluntary withdrawal, done without prejudice, into a finding
of non-infringement. See Streck, Inc. v. Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 665 F.3d 1269, 1281
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming that district courts lack jurisdiction over unasserted claims).

-1-

These and other disputed facts discussed in the Argument below
require that Google’s Motion be denied.
ARGUMENT
I.

STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INFRINGEMENT.
Infringement is a question of fact. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374,

1379 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To obtain summary judgment, Google must demonstrate the absence of
any genuine issue of material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In deciding whether such a genuine
issue exists, the Court must view the evidence in light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw
all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. See Pennsylvania Coal Ass’n v. Babbitt, 63
F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir. 1995).

The Court may not resolve any factual disputes or make

credibility determinations. Pichler v. Unite, 542 F.3d 386-87 (3d Cir. 2008).

-2-

II.

THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES THAT EACH OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
MEETS THE “DOCUMENT” LIMITATIONS.
A.

PUM Has Provided Sufficient Evidence To Establish That Google Search
Analyzes And Identifies Properties Of Documents.

This evidence establishes that
Google analyzes documents and identifies their properties.6

4

Exhibit numbers refer to the exhibits attached to the Expert Report of Pazzani, which are
attached to Exhibit A to the Declaration of Pazzani in support of this Opposition.
5
Citations to Pazzani’s First Report (Ex. A) and Supplemental Report (Ex. B) also include
citations to the evidence referred to therein, including the exhibits referenced in the cited
paragraphs.

-3-

Google focuses on the
claim element “updating user-specific data files,” which the Court construed to include “a set of
documents associated with the user.”

(D.I. 348.)

Google attempts to read out the word

“associated” from the construction by arguing that the documents themselves must be stored
with the user. There is no such requirement; nor does it make any sense. This would require that
each Google user (i.e., cookie or account) have the actual documents stored as opposed to storing
a docID, pointer, or URL that associates the actual document with the user. This Court rejected
Google’s similar argument in the context of user models (namely, that each user must have his or
her personal learning machine resulting in the same algorithm being stored millions or billions of
times—once for each user—in Google’s system).

Here, according to Google, the same

document would have to be stored over and over again for multiple users. There is no such
requirement in the asserted claims, however.
To the extent the Court were inclined to consider Google’s new argument, the patents are
clear that a document (and a set of documents) may be associated with a user via an identifier.
For example, Figure 14 of the ’040 patent (Bennett Decl. Ex. A) associates a document with a
user using a “Document ID.” As the description of Figure 14 explains, the recently accessed
buffer includes information about the document itself and the user’s interaction with the
document. (See ’040 patent, 22:27-30.) One possible implementation of a buffer is Fig. 14, but
any suitable structure may be used. (Id. at 22:31-33.) The buffer contains, for each viewed
document, a document identifier (e.g., its URL) as well as other user-specific properties. (Id. at

-4-

33-43.7)

Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of PUM, there can be no question that PUM has
presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Google’s accused products contain a set
of documents associated with the user and that such set is updated. At a minimum, this is a
battle of experts that cannot be resolved without a trial. See Tarkus Imaging Inc. v. Adobe Sys.,
7

See also Figs. 4B and 15A associating web sites with the user through a site ID/Name. Given
the dynamic nature of the Internet, in which individual documents are constantly being added
and deleted, a site is defined through the first backslash (after the www). (’040 patent, 12:3040.)

-5-

Inc., Case No. 10-63-LS, 2012 WL 2175788 (D. Del. June 14, 2012) (denying summary
judgment because issues present a “battle of the experts” that is not amenable to resolution prior
to the presentation of evidence.)
Google’s

lack-of-equivalence

argument

is

also

logically

flawed.

Although

acknowledging that equivalence is measured by whether the substituted element matches the
function, way, and result of the claimed element,8 Google’s analysis incorrectly focuses on the
claim as a whole. (Mot. at 6). PUM asserts the doctrine of equivalence with respect to, for
example, limitations in the ’276 patent requiring retrieving or presenting documents to a user.
(Ex. A, ¶ 464).

The doctrine of equivalents also creates factual
issues making summary judgment improper.
B.

Advertisements Are “Documents” Under The Court’s Construction.

The Court construed “document” to mean “an electronic file including text or any type of
media.” (D.I. 348, ¶ 9.) Google’s summary judgment argument depends upon an extremely
narrow and incorrect interpretation of the word “file” in the Court’s construction.

8

See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 30 (1997).

-6-

-7-

Drawing all inferences in favor of PUM, PUM has presented sufficient evidence for a jury to
conclude that Google’s advertisements satisfy the document limitation of the claims. At a
minimum, this is a battle of experts that cannot be resolved without a trial. See Tarkus Imaging
Inc., 2012 WL 2175788.
C.

Google News And Google Portrait Functionality Meets The “Document”
Limitations.

Here, Google merely rehashes its earlier failed arguments.

III.

THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS ESTIMATE PROBABILITIES.

-8-

-9-

In sum, PUM has presented more than sufficient evidence to permit a jury to conclude
that the “estimating probability” claim elements are met by Google’s Accused Products. At a
minimum, this is a battle of experts that cannot be resolved without a trial.
IV.

THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS ESTIMATE PARAMETERS.

- 10 -

- 11 -

CONCLUSION
Summary judgment should be denied. As set forth above, PUM presented abundant and
compelling evidence that would enable a jury to find that the accused functionalities are present
in each of the Accused Products, particularly where, as here, all inferences must be drawn in
PUM’s favor.

- 12 -

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan

OF COUNSEL:

Karen Jacobs Louden (#2881)
Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
1201 N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Personalized User Model, L.L.P.

Marc S. Friedman
SNR DENTON US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1089
[phone]
Mark C. Nelson
SNR DENTON US LLP
2000 McKinney Avenue, Ste. 1900
Dallas, TX 75201
Jennifer D. Bennett
SNR DENTON US LLP
1530 Page Mill Road, Ste. 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125
[phone]
January 14, 2013
6946019

- 13 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 14, 2013, I caused the foregoing to be
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send electronic
notification of such filing to all registered participants.
Additionally, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were
caused to be served on January 14, 2013, upon the following individuals in the manner indicated:
BY E-MAIL

BY E-MAIL

Richard L. Horwitz
David E. Moore
POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
1313 N. Market St., 6th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801

Brian C. Cannon
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Charles K. Verhoeven
David A. Perlson
Antonio R. Sistos
Andrea Pallios Roberts
Joshua Lee Sohn
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)