Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Filing 86

REDACTED VERSION of 78 Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from Karen Jacobs Louden regarding Invalidity Contentions by Personalized User Model LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 through 7)(Tigan, Jeremy)

Personalized User Model LLP v. Google Inc.

Doc. 86 Att. 1

EXHIBIT 1

Dockets.Justia.com

EXHIBIT 2

Page 1 of 1

Bennett, Jennifer D.
From: Sent: To: Cc: Eugene Novikov [[e-mail]] Thursday, August 26, 2010 11:18 AM Bennett, Jennifer D.; Nelson, Mark C.; Friedman, Marc S. [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Google-PUM

Subject: PUM v. Google - supplemental interrogatory responses

Counsel In light of the fact that the number of asserted claims is the subject of a dispute before the Court ­ and Plaintiff's stated intention to significantly reduce the number of asserted claims ­ Google is not able to provide supplemental interrogatory responses on invalidity tomorrow. As discussed when the agreement was reached, our willingness and ability to provide supplemental prior art responses at this stage depended on the nature of Plaintiff's infringement interrogatory responses, including the number of claims asserted. Charting all 68 claims that Plaintiff has "asserted" at this stage for several references, many or most of which will not be asserted at trial, is pointless and unreasonable. Indeed, Plaintiff itself has not even provided infringement allegations for many of the supposedly asserted claims and claim elements. We will provide supplemental interrogatory responses on invalidity and prior art within a reasonable amount of time after the dispute regarding asserted claims is resolved, and Plaintiff provides complete and coherent contentions regarding the claims it actually plans to assert at trial. As always, please let us know if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further. Gene

9/1/2010

EXHIBIT 3

Jennifer Bennett [phone] [e-mail]

1530 Page Mill Road Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125 650.798.0300 650.798.0310 fax www.sonnenschein.com

April 29, 2010
VIA E-MAIL

Eugene Novikov 50 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-4788 [phone] [e-mail]

Re: Dear Eugene:

Personalized User Model, LLP v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 09-00525-JJF

This letter is in response to your April 22, 2010 letter regarding P.U.M.'s infringement contentions. P.U.M. will comply with the Court's Scheduling Order. However, Google has produced only 1,500 pages of documents to date and has yet to produce any source code. Unless Google immediately supplements its production with additional documents and source code responsive to P.U.M's document requests, it will be impossible for P.U.M. to provide final infringement contentions by June 18, 2010. Additionally, with respect to P.U.M. supplementing its responses to Google's interrogatories to identify specific Bates numbers for documents, because Google also cites to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) in response to six of its responses to P.U.M.'s interrogatories (Nos. 2-6, and 9), the parties should mutually agree upon a time to exchange this information. Sincerely, s/ Jennifer Bennett Jennifer Bennett

Brussels

Chicago San Francisco

Dallas

Kansas City

Los Angeles Silicon Valley

New York Washington, D.C.

Phoenix Zurich

St. Louis

Short Hills, N.J.

EXHIBIT 4

Page 1 of 2

Bennett, Jennifer D.
From: Sent: To: Cc: Bennett, Jennifer D. Saturday, June 05, 2010 1:56 PM 'Eugene Novikov' Google-PUM; Friedman, Marc S.; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Shin, Jimmy M.; Nelson, Mark C.; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

Subject: RE: PUM v. Google - stipulation to amend scheduling order GeneWe have reviewed the stipulation to amend that you have prepared and it looks good. Did you want to finalize for filing or would you like us to? We would like to have this filed on Monday. Thanks,

Jennifer D. Bennett Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP [e-mail] www.sonnenschein.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by returning it to the sender and delete this copy from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained herein (including any attachments), unless specifically stated otherwise, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein to another party. -----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eugene Novikov [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 4:20 PM To: Bennett, Jennifer D. Cc: Google-PUM; Friedman, Marc S.; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; Shin, Jimmy M.; Nelson, Mark C.; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]' Subject: PUM v. Google - stipulation to amend scheduling order

Jennifer ­ Attached please find a draft stipulation to change the dates in the scheduling order. Additionally, below is our understanding of the agreement on the remainder of the dates. May 25, 2010 ­ Google produces source code. July 1, 2010 ­ PUM provides list of asserted claims. July 16, 2010 ­ PUM provides supplemental interrogatory responses regarding infringement contentions. Defendant provides Plaintiff with prior art interrogatory responses based on Plaintiff's previously served infringement contentions. August 27, 2010 ­ Google provides supplemental prior art interrogatory responses based on Plaintiff's list of asserted claims and supplemental infringement contentions. If Google finds that it cannot meet this deadline

9/1/2010

Page 2 of 2

due to the number of asserted claims on PUM's list, the parties will meet and confer regarding an alternative timeline. August 27, 2010 ­ Parties exchange claim construction positions (was July 16). September 17, 2010 ­ Due date for opening claim construction brief (was August 13). October 22, 2010 ­ Due date for responsive claim construction brief (was September 17). December 2010 ­ Markman hearing (no change). Gene

9/1/2010

EXHIBIT 5
FULLY REDACTED

EXHIBIT 6
FULLY REDACTED

EXHIBIT 7

Page 1 of 1

Bennett, Jennifer D.
From: Sent: To: Cc: Bennett, Jennifer D. Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:04 PM 'Eugene Novikov' Google-PUM; Friedman, Marc S.; Nelson, Mark C.; Shin, Jimmy M.; Moore, David E.; Horwitz, Richard L.; [e-mail]; [e-mail]

Subject: RE: PUM v. Google: invalidity charts GeneDuring the call yesterday PUM offered to provide a subset of claims to Google if Google would agree to then chart the subset and to defer on moving on the number of asserted claims until after we received such invalidity supplementation and the additional promised documents and code. Google refused that compromise. Thanks, Jennifer D. Bennett Silicon Valley Direct: 70325 [e-mail] From: Eugene Novikov [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:54 PM To: Bennett, Jennifer D. Cc: Google-PUM; Friedman, Marc S.; Nelson, Mark C.; Shin, Jimmy M.; Moore, David E.; Horwitz, Richard L.; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Subject: PUM v. Google: invalidity charts

Jennifer: On our call Monday, in order to resolve the parties' dispute, Google offered to chart some subset of the 68 asserted claims given that Plaintiff does not contest it will not assert at trial all, or even close to all, of these claims. Plaintiff refused to identify such a subset and instead indicated it believed Google should chart each of the 68 claims for each prior art reference. As Plaintiff has refused to identify any such subset, Google will provide supplemental invalidity charts for the asserted independent claims that have not yet been charted, and for the following dependent claims: `040 patent: 2, 3, 4 `031 patent: 2, 3 `276 patent: 2, 3, 4 Google will provide these charts on or before September 8. If there is some reasonable number of additional (or different) claims that Plaintiff believes it will assert, and that it would be productive for Google to chart, please let us know by the end of today. Gene

9/1/2010