Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.
Letter to the Honorable Leonard P. Stark from Richard L. Horwitz regarding response to PUM letter dated March 11, 2014 - re 640 Letter,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Horwitz, Richard)
Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:01 PM
'Bennett, Jennifer D.'
Andrea P Roberts; 'Nelson, Mark C.'; 'Murphy, Regina'; 'Friedman, Marc S.'; 'Jacobs, Karen';
'Tigan, Jeremy A.'; 'Snead, Karen J.'; 'Grodin, Andrew M.'; 'Butler, Nell'; 'Salgado, Richard D.';
Google-PUM; 'Rich Horwitz (email@example.com)'; 'Moore, David E.'; 'Palapura,
RE: PUM v. Google
As stated in prior correspondence, we disagree that Google has in any way contradicted the Court's order, or
that our prior disclosures were insufficient. Rather, it is the breadth and ill-defined nature of PUM's case that
makes it difficult for Google to set forth its precise order of proof on invalidity (we note that PUM itself stated
on our meet and confer that the manner in which PUM chooses to put on its case is outside the Court’s
order). Nonetheless, to avoid the need to burden the Court with further disputes, we identify below which
references we intend to use for anticipation and which references will only be used for obviousness:
Mladenic: Anticipation and obviousness
Wasfi: Anticipation and obviousness
Montebello: Anticipation and obviousness
For the obviousness combinations we refer PUM back to our January 31, 2014 disclosure. Obviously, we will
not present combinations that include references we’ve dropped.
We continue to believe that under PUM’s interpretation of the Court’s Order, PUM did not comply with it for
the reasons previously stated. We have pressed PUM to provide confirmation as to whether it will present an
infringement case for each of the five accused profilers in Google Search. On our meet and confer I asked the
direct question “will PUM provide an element by element infringement analysis for each of these five
profilers?” PUM refused to answer yes or no. Instead, PUM said that it answered my question through its
response that the manner in which these five accused profilers in Google Search is accused is set forth in
Pazzani’s report. Given that Dr. Pazzani’s report explicitly lists five different Google profilers (link, dilip,
Rephil, category navboost, and session) that allegedly qualify as the “learning machine” under the Asserted
Patents (Pazzani Report ¶¶ 163 et seq), this means PUM intends to present an infringement case as to each of
these learning machines. It would not be consistent with PUM’s representation to, for example, use one or two
of them as representative of the others. If PUM acts in a manner inconsistent with its representation, we will
seek appropriate relief from the Court. It is inappropriate for PUM to seek granularity on Google’s invalidity
case while keeping its own infringement case open-ended.
-----Original Message----From: Bennett, Jennifer D. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:19 PM
To: David Perlson
Cc: Andrea P Roberts; Nelson, Mark C.; Murphy, Regina; Friedman, Marc S.; Jacobs, Karen;
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?