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)

James Shanahan 4/1/2011 12:00:00 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

2

STIPULATIONS

3

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by

4

certification of the within deposition shall be

7

Plaintiff and
Counterclaim Defendant,

hereto, that the filing, sealing and

6

XEROX CORPORATION,

and among counsel for the respective parties

5

and the same are hereby waived;

8

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that

9
10

GOOGLE, INC., YAHOO! INC.,
RIGHT MEDIA, INC., RIGHT MEDIA, LLC,
YOUTUBE, INC. and YOUTUBE, LLC,

question, shall be reserved to the time of the

11

- against -

all objections, except as to form of the

trial;

12

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the

13
14

April 1, 2011
9:06 a.m.
51 Madison Avenue
New York, New York

Public with the same force and effect as if

15

Defendants.
---------------------x

within deposition may be signed before any Notary

signed and sworn to before the Court.

16
17

*

*

*

*

18
19

CONFIDENTIAL
20
21

DEPOSITION of JAMES SHANAHAN, held at the
above time and place, taken before Randi
Friedman, a Registered Professional Reporter,
within and for the State of New York.

22
23
24

*

*

*

*

25
26

2
1
2

APPEARANCES:

3
4

4
1

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP

2

MR. WRITE: We are on the record.

3

This date is April 1st, 2011. The time on

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

4

the video monitor is 9:06 a.m. This is the

6

825 Eighth Avenue

5

beginning of Tape No. 1 in the videotaped

7

New York, New York 10019

6

deposition of James Shanahan in the case of

8

BY: ANDREI HARASYMIAK, ESQ.
7

Xerox Corporation versus Google,

10

8

Incorporated, Yahoo!, Incorporated, et al.

11

9

Civil Action No. 10-136-LTS-MPT. This case

10

is filed in the U.S. District Court for the

9

SCOTT LESLIE, ESQ.

12

QUINN EMANUEL

13

Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE, INC.

11

District of Delaware. We are at the offices

15

San Francisco, California 94111

12

of Quinn Emanuel, located 51 Madison Avenue,

16

BY: DAVID A. PERLSON, ESQ.

13

New York, New York. My name is Deverell

14

Write and I represent Veritext, New Jersey.

14

50 California Street, 22nd Floor

17
18
19

DAVIS, POLK & WARDELL, LLP

15

At this time will counsel please note their

20

Attorneys for Defendants

16

appearances.

21

RIGHT MEDIA, INC. and RIGHT MEDIA, LLC

22

1600 El Camino Real

17

23

Menlo Park, California 94025

18

24

BY: ANTHONY I. FENWICK, ESQ.

19

25

20

MR. FENWICK: Tony Fenwick from
Davis, Polk & Wardwell for defendants,
Yahoo! and Right Media.
MR. PERLSON: David Perlson from

26
27
28
29
30
31
32

ALSO PRESENT:
DEVERELL WRITE, Videographer

21
22

Quinn Emanuel for defendant Google.
MR. HARASYMIAK: Andrei

23

Harasymiak, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, for

24

plaintiffs Xerox Corporation.

25

Unsigned

MR. LESLIE: Scott Leslie,

Page 1 - 4

James Shanahan 4/1/2011 12:00:00 PM
189
1
2

Confidential
Topic 4 of Exhibit S-1.

3

191
1

Confidential

2

information that was conveyed to the user and

3

You're prepared to testify as Xerox's

also limit the scope of the information that had

4

corporate designee regarding Topic 4; is that

4

to be stored in association with a document; is

5

correct?

5

that right?

6

A.

Yes, I am.

6

7

Q.

What were the most difficult technical

7

A.

That was one of our considerations,

yes.

8

challenges that were encountered and overcome

8

9

during the conception or reduction of practice of

9

problem of limiting the scope of information was

10

the alleged inventions of the 979 Patent?

10

by formulating queries that would restrict

11

11

searches to specify folders of web directories;

of the biggest challenges that we faced in the

12

true?

13

context of our Document Souls' system.

13

Q.

I'll say information overload was one

One of the ways that you addressed the

12

14

A.

Q.

Anything other than information

14

15

overload that you would categorize as a

15

16

particularly difficult challenge that were

16

17

encountered and overcome?

A.

I'm not sure that's an accurate

characterization.
Q.

What's not accurate about my

characterization?

17

A.

Can you repeat that?

18

A.

From a technical perspective?

18

Q.

One of the ways in which you attempted

19

Q.

A technical challenge, yes.

19

to overcome the challenge of appropriately

A.

I think we placed difficulty

20

limiting the scope and volume of information that

21

was conveyed to the user, Document Souls' user,

22

and the scope and volume of the information that

20
21
22

challenges on scalability.
Q.

I'm trying to make a list of the most

23

difficulty technical challenges that were

23

had to be stored in association with a given

24

overcome -- encountered and overcome during the

24

document of the Document Souls' system, was to

25

conception and reduction of practice of the

25

develop the Document Souls' system such that it

190
1

Confidential

192
1

Confidential

2

alleged inventions of the 979 Patent. So far

2

would restrict -- it would formulate queries to

3

you've given me one, information overload and;

3

restrict searches to a specific category of

4

two, scalability.

4

information from the information retrieval
system; true?

5

Are there any other technical

5

6

challenges that you want to be on that list?

6

7
8
9

A.

The Document Souls' system that we

A.

I don't recall others at this point.

7

implemented would automatically construct queries

Q.

Okay. Now, information overload, is

8

based on entities that are automatically

9

extracted from the document content. And based

The Document Souls' system is a

10

upon categories that were automatically assigned

11

technology that was created to better address the

11

based on their content. The automatic

12

information needs of a user, end-user, human

12

construction of these queries facilitated a more

13

user. And as such, the user was interacting with

13

precise expression of information needed and,

14

this technology and the results presented by

14

therefore, led to a reduction of the number of

15

Document Souls' system could have been -- the

15

documents that would be actually associated with

16

results presented could have been quite a lot if

16

this document and potentially stored with this

17

we didn't bring a system like that described in

17

document and communicated to the user.

18

Patent 979 to bear. And, therefore, it was a

18

19

technical challenge to limit the information that

19

overcame the problem of information overload in

20

was being purveyed to the user. And in addition,

20

practice of the Document Souls' system was to

21

store the information. The information space

21

generate queries that restricted searches to

22

around the document could be -- could end up

22

specified folders in web directories; true?

23

being pretty large, and the 979 Patent was a way

23

24

or a means to control that.

24

language available to us through these external

25

information services. To the extent possible,

10

25

that really a technical challenge?
A.

Q.

So you wanted to limit the scope of

Unsigned

Q.

A.

And one of the ways that you actually

We generate queries using the query

Page 189 - 192

James Shanahan 4/1/2011 12:00:00 PM
193
1

Confidential

195
1

Confidential

2

the system was sufficiently flexible such that

2

3

the end-user who defined the personality who --

3

4

I'm sorry. Excuse me. Who specified the

4

all, to addressing the technical challenge of

5

information service, they had control over the

5

scalability?

6

scope of the query. So they had control over

6

7

saying that I want documents that are associated

7

reduction of the number of documents that will

8

with a particular category in the third-party

8

respond to an information need.

9

service. And -- so the framework was

9

10

sufficiently flexible to enable this hard

10

Patent enabled a filtering of responsive

11

requirement that the documents returned should be

11

documents to reduce the number of documents

12

associated with this node and third-party

12

identified in a search result to a number that

13

taxonomy. Or the query should focus on that

13

would be more manageable for the user? Is that

14

particular node, but it may not be a requirement

14

what you're getting at?

15

to have documents from that node. But that all

15

16

depended on how rich the query language was for

16

query language made available through the

17

the third-party -- the external system.

17

external information source, that could be the

18

case.

18

Q.

If the query language employed in the

I'll ask it again.
How did the 979 Patent relate, if at

A.

Q.

A.

So is what you're saying that the 979

Depending on the expressivity of the

19

third-party information service was rich enough

19

20

to facilitate a strict constraint of the search

20

of documents and the more relevant the documents,

21

to documents associated with a specified node,

21

the better; is that right?

22

then you wanted Document Souls to be able to

22

23

fully take advantage of that query language to

23

24

that fact; true?

24

over the questioning to Mr. Perlson, and I

25

will say on behalf of myself, that I think

25

A.

The Document Souls' system that we

Q.

The 979 Patent would enable the

A.

And the fewer -- the fewer the number

That would be desirable, yes.
MR. FENWICK: I'm going to turn

194
1

Confidential

196
1

Confidential

2

implemented was highly configurable, so this was

2

the production of the source code,

3

possible.

3

especially that's referenced in the

4

Q.

When you referred to the technical

4

testimony exhibits concerning reduction to

5

challenge of scalability, are you referring to

5

practice on the eve of the deposition, did

6

scalability with respect to number of users or

6

not give the defendants a fair opportunity

7

scalability with respect to volume of documents

7

to question the witness regarding, at least,

8

or both?

8

that subject matter.

9

A.

9

10
11
12

I think all of those would be

challenges, yes.

going to request more time with the witness

Do those challenges of scalability

11

or need more time, but I'm certainly

have anything to do with the 979 Patent?

12

reserving the right to make that request and

13

express that need in the future.

Q.

13

A.

14

issues.

15
16
17

And so I don't know whether we're

10

Q.

The 979 Patent addressed some of these

14
How did the 979 Patent address issues

of scalability?
A.

15

MR. PERLSON: Google joins that
position.

16

MR. FENWICK: Take a short break.

It certainly would reduce the number

17

MR. WRITE: The time on the video

18

of documents that would respond to an information

18

monitor is 5:04 p.m. We're off the record.

19

need that had that capability.

19

20
21

MR. FENWICK: Could I have that
answer read back.

22
23
24
25

(Whereupon, the requested portion
of the record was read by the reporter.)
BY MR. FENWICK:
Q.

Maybe we ought to try that one again.

20

(Whereupon, a short recess was
taken.)

21

MR. WRITE: We're back on the

22

record. The time on the video monitor is

23

5:11 p.m.

24
25

Unsigned

BY MR. PERLSON:
Q.

Good afternoon, Mr. Shanahan. My name

Page 193 - 196