Xerox Corporation v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 163

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANSWERING BRIEF re 141 Claim Construction Opening Brief filed by Xerox Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Day, John)

Gregory Grefenstette 3/30/2011 12:26:00 PM
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

3
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
C.A. No. 10-136-LPS-MPT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
XEROX CORPORATION,
:
:
Plaintiff and
:
Counterclaim Defendant, :
:
- against :
:
GOOGLE, INC., YAHOO! INC., RIGHT :
MEDIA, INC., RIGHT MEDIA, LLC, :
YOUTUBE, INC. and YOUTUBE, LLC :
:
Defendants. :

2
3

STIPULATIONS
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by

4

and among counsel for the respective parties

5

hereto, that the filing, sealing, and

6

certification of the within deposition shall be

7

and the same are hereby waived;

8

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED

9

that all objections, except as to the form of the

10

question, shall be reserved to the time of trial;

11
12

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED

13
14

any Notary Public with the same force and effect

15

March 30, 2011
9:00 a.m.
51 Madison Avenue
New York, New York

that the within deposition may be signed before

as if signed and sworn to before the Court.

16

*

*

*

17

CONFIDENTIAL TRANSCRIPT

18
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF GREGORY
GREFENSTETTE, held at the above-mentioned time
and place, before Randi Friedman, a Registered
Professional Reporter, within and for the State
of New York.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Job No. CS322800

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

4
1

APPEARANCES:

2

Confidential
MR. CALVERT: We are now on the

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim
Defendant

3

record. This is the video operator

4

speaking, Robert Calvert, of Veritext

5

Reporting. Today's date is March 30th,

825 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York 10019
BY: ANDREI HARASYMIAK, ESQ.
SCOTT LESLIE, ESQ.

6

2011. The time on the video monitor is 9:03

7

a.m. We are here at the offices of Quinn

8

Emanuel & Urquhart, located at 51 Madison

9

DAVIS, POLK & WARDWELL, LLP
Attorneys for Defendant, Right Media
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, California 94025

11

Grefenstette in the matter of Xerox

12

Corporation versus Google, Incorporated, et
al. The venue of this case is United States

14

District Court, for the District of

15

BY: DAVID A. PERLSON, ESQ.

videotaped deposition of Gregory

13

QUINN EMANUEL
Attorneys for Defendant, Google, Inc.
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111

Avenue, New York, New York to take the

10

Delaware. The Index No. is 10-136-LPS-MPT.

16
17
18
19

Will counsel please voice-identify
yourselves and state whom you represent.
MR. PERLSON: David Perlson of
Quinn Emanuel representing Google.

BY: ANTHONY I. FENWICK, ESQ.
20
***
ALSO PRESENT:
Robert Calvert

MR. FENWICK: Tony Fenwick from

21

Davis, Polk & Wardwell representing the

22

defendant, Right Media.

23

MR. HARASYMIAK: Andrei

24

Harasymiak, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, LLP

25

representing Google Corporation and the

Unsigned

Page 1 - 4

Gregory Grefenstette 3/30/2011 12:26:00 PM
9
1
2
3
4

Confidential
that document, in the context of that document.
Q.

2

Okay. Was there anything new and

3

unique that you invented to do that?

5

11
1

4

MR. HARASYMIAK: I caution the

5

Confidential
Retrieval System.
Q.

How was it that the patent achieved a

precise result, as you say?
A.

We implemented -- we had an

6

witness not to reveal the substance of any

6

implementation in our ideas of the patent. In

7

attorney/client communications when

7

our implementation, it would recognize entities

8

answering that question.

8

in a document. Then take a certain part of text

9
10
11
12

THE WITNESS: We thought the idea

9

Q.

classification that was found for that text

12

What was new?

classification system. And then that

11

BY MR. PERLSON:

around those entities and classify it using a

10

was new and the patent was granted.

around the entity would be used to add in a

13

MR. HARASYMIAK: Same caution.

13

classification category. And that classification

14

THE WITNESS: The combination of

14

category would then match up against some

15

classification category in the Information

16

Retrieval System to restrict or favor the

17

documents in that one category.

15
16
17

the techniques used in the patent.
BY MR. PERLSON:
Q.

Is that the only way you can describe

18

what was new in the patent, by saying just the

18

19

combination of the techniques in the patent?

19

20
21

A.

No. I suppose I could describe it

20

otherwise.

Q.

And how would that restriction be

done?
A.

Well, the category would favorize

21

certain documents that were in that category.

22

Q.

Okay. Can you please do so?

22

Favorize, I'm sorry. The category that was found

23

A.

So you want me to redo -- could I have

23

around the entity that was the basis of the query

24

would favorize the documents that are in that

25

category.

24
25

the question?
Q.

Sure. You said that you could

10
1

Confidential

12
1

Confidential

2

describe it otherwise, and I'm asking you to do

2

Q.

You said favorize?

3

that.

3

A.

Yes. So it depends how it's

4

4

implementing in the Information Retrieval System,

5

it. So it depends who the audience would be, and

A.

Well, there's many ways to describe

5

but it could be restricted to only the documents

6

in what context who would be understanding the

6

in a category, or it could take those documents

7

patent.

7

in that category and wait them higher than other

8

Q.

Give me an example of an audience.

8

documents. There's a lot of different ways of

9

A.

Why don't you give me an example of an

9

implementing the Information Retrieval System.

10

audience and I could --

10

Q.

If the documents in the category were

11

Q.

Okay. How about a jury?

11

merely waited higher than other documents, then

12

A.

I'd have to -- well -- what level of

12

the search wouldn't be restricted to only
documents in that category; right?

13

the jury is -- what level of understanding the

13

14

jury would have.

14

15

Assume that you don't know what level

15

16

of understanding the jury would have. I want to
know how you would describe your patent to a

17

18

jury.

18

MR. HARASYMIAK: Objection to

16

17

19

Q.

A.

Okay. I would say that this patent is

form.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry; I didn't
hear that.
BY MR. PERLSON:

19

Q.

You didn't hear the question?

A.

I didn't hear the objection.
He said, form. He said, "Objection to

20

a method -- it was part of a long series of

20

21

patents. This particular patent is a method for

21

Q.

22

taking a part of a document and generating a

22

form."

23

query that's specific to certain entities in that

23

A.

24

document. It allows you to have a precise result

24

25

if that query is sent off to an Information

25

Unsigned

Okay. I don't know what that means.

So restate the question, please?
MR. PERLSON: Can you just read it

Page 9 - 12