Xerox Corporation v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 243

ORDER regarding Claim Construction re 141 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPENING BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS filed by Google, re 142 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPENING BRIEF filed by Xerox Corporation, re 162 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANSWERING BRIEF, 163 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ANSWERING BRIEF and DENYING Discovery Request re 202 Letter to The Honorable Leonard P. Stark from David E. Moore, Esquire regarding discovery dispute. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 8/1/2011. (rpg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

XEROX CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

c.A. No.

v.

10-136-LPS

GOOGLE INC. and YAHOO! INC.
Defendants.

ORDER
At Wilmington, this 1st day of August 2011 :
For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion issued this date,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the disputed claim language of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,979
(the "'979 patent"), shall be construed as follows:
1.

"Selected document content," as it appears in claims 1,2,18, and 19 of the '979

patent, is construed to mean "all or part of one or more documents."

2.

"Classification label," as it appears in claims 1 and 18 of the '979 patent, is

construed to mean "a label in any format that identifies a category in the organized classification
of document content."
3.

"Categorizing the selected document content using the organized classification

document content for assigning selected document content a classification label," as it
appears in claims 1 and 18 of the '979 patent, is construed to mean "determining the subject
matter of the selected document content using one or more of the categories defining the
organized classification of document content and assigning the corresponding classification
label(s) to the selected document content."
4.

"Query," as it appears in claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 of the '979 patent, is construed to

mean "a request for search results."
5.

"To restrict a search at the information retrieval system for information

concerning the set of entities to the category of information in the information retrieval
system identified by the assigned classification label," as it appears in claims 1, 2, 18, and 19 of
the '979 patent, is construed to mean "to confine a search at the information retrieval system to
the category of information identified by the assigned classification label(s), where the search
seeks information concerning the set of entities."
6.

Order~of~steps:

In claim 1, step (a) must be performed before steps (c) and (d),

step (b) must be performed before the completion of step (d), and step (c) must be performed
before completion of step (d); in claim 18, step (c) must be performed before steps (e) and (f),
step (d) must be performed before the completion of step (f), and step (e) must be performed
before the completion of step (f); the step of claim 2 must be performed during or after the
completion of step (d) of claim 1; and the step of claim 19 must be performed during or after the
completion of step (f) of claim 18.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc.'s request to compel
documents withheld by Xerox Corporation as privileged, made by letter on June 23, 2011 (0.1.
202), is DENIED.
Delaware counsel are reminded of their obligation to inform out-of-state counsel of this
Order. To avoid the imposition of sanctions, counsel should advise the Court immediately of any
problems regarding compliance with this Order.

( ()
'-~ \...-

,. f\
\'. /-i
..
~.-

~~-~~-~~.--~--~----~--~-~--

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2