Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 392

SEALED MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity by AOL, LLC., America Online, Inc., Google Inc., Yahoo!, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Todd Kennedy, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit O, # 17 Affidavit of Bradley Allen, # 18 Exhibit A, part 1 of 2, # 19 Exhibit A, part 2 of 2, # 20 Exhibit B)(Perlson, David) Modified on 7/2/2010 (ch, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/2/2010: # 21 Text of Proposed Order) (ch, ).

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 392 Att. 10

EXHIBIT I

Dockets.Justia.com

Sheafe, Bradlee 30(b)(6)
186
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 AAAI and Chase as evidenced by the AAAI's publication and award and as evidenced by press releases and article about EZ Reader." What's the connection between the EZ Reader and the '947 patent? A. It's Bright Response's understanding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 No, I don't. Does Bright Response have a view on that 12 13 14 15 16 But Bright Response is 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now? MR. PRIDHAM: Okay. Off the record at 4:27. in the project. Q. other? A. I just don't know. David, when you reach a breaking You just don't know one way or the

188

MR. PRIDHAM:

point, can we take a five-minute break? MR. PERLSON: Yeah. Why don't we just do it

that EZ Reader was a project that strove to implement some of the claims of the '947 patent. Q. Do you know whether the EZ Reader

actually did implement the claims of the '947 patent? A. Q.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

(Recess.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going back on the video

record at 4:44 at the beginning of tape number 4. BY MR. PERLSON: Q. Mr. Sheafe, going back to Exhibit Number

one way or the other? MR. PRIDHAM: BY THE WITNESS: A. It does not. Object to form.

4 and as to topic 17 -A. Q. Yes. -- that we were discussing previously,

aware that the inventors of the '947 as well as those who worked on the EZ Reader project have been -- provided testimony and documents in this litigation and Bright Response will rely on that testimony and those documents. BY MR. PERLSON: Q. A. What documents are you talking about? I'm not talking about any document

does Bright Response have any further information regarding this topic beyond what you've listed here and testified to already? A. Bright Response doesn't have any other

non-privileged information. Q. Okay. The -- go back to -- let's go to

the first page and topic 1.

187
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 specifically. As I said, Bright Response 1 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Is it your understanding that all those 20 21 The authors -- they 22 23 24 25 A. Q. I'm there. Bright Response acquired the '947 patent

189

understands that the inventors of the '947 patent as well as those who worked on the EZ Reader project have provided testimony and documents.

on February 6, 2006? A. That's correct. And I think that that's

don't know specifically what that testimony is or what those documents are. MR. PERLSON: By the way, David, we checked It

actually the date that Polaris acquired the patent, and then there was the subsequent name change to Bright Response. Q. Got it. Do you know whether in -- as

and that agreement is the form that we have. was produced to us like that.

I don't know if you

part of the acquisition of the '947 patent in February of 2006 did Polaris get documentation or other information that was relevant to the '947 patent as part of that transaction? A. Documentation describing what the patent

guys have a copy of it somewhere. MR. PRIDHAM: break. BY MR. PERLSON: Q. Do you know what individuals were I will find out on the next

is or was or what it could be used for or -Q. of stuff. A. Not to my knowledge. I mean, the Prosecution history, licenses, that kind

involved in the development of the EZ Reader? A. No. I have seen the AAAI article which

discusses EZ Reader, and I know that that article has authors. they are. Q. I don't remember specifically who

prosecution history in my own experience I know is available through Public PAIR, if one wants to spend one's time reviewing it. I don't know. I think it's reasonable

authors worked on EZ Reader? A. Not necessarily.

to presume that if there were licenses to the '947 or any other patents that were transferred to Polaris, that that information would also have been transferred somewhere.

are certainly authors of the paper which discusses the project. I suppose it's possible that they

could have written the paper but not been involved

Bright Response v. Google, et al

Page 186 - 189

Sheafe, Bradlee 30(b)(6)
190
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 The patents were transferred from affiliated companies. transaction. So, it was that sort of a 1 2 3 I've 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that consultation, that testimony relating to the conception and reduction to practice, which are both legal terms, that Bright Response relies upon its counsel for explanation of and advice pertaining to, that that testimony had been given by one or more of the inventors regarding that. That testimony was highly confidential and, therefore, I was not allowed or entitled to see the details of it, but that they were comfortable advising between November 1995 and April of 1996. Q. Okay. So, sitting here today, you can't

192

So, I think it's reasonable to

presume that information came off of that. seen it written down. Q.

I have no knowledge of it.

Do you know if there's been any effort

in connection with that transfer to insure that any documents that were relevant to the '947 patent would be maintained and saved, whether it be by Bright Response or an affiliated entity? A. Again, I'm not aware that any such To the extent that they did,

documents exist.

identify the specific facts or testimony that would support the understanding that the invention of the '947 patent was conceived and reduced to practice between approximately November 1995 and April 1996? MR. PRIDHAM: BY THE WITNESS: A. Now, again, it's my understanding that Object to form.

Bright Response generally maintains business records it feels are important to the conduct of its business. And I've been advised by counsel that any relevant documents have been disclosed. Q. In the fourth bullet under number 1 it

says, "BR understands that the asserted claims of the '947 patent claim priority to U.S. Patent Application Number 08/853074 and U.S. Provisional Application Numbers 60/042656 filed April 4, 1997 and 60/042494 filed April 3rd, 1997." Do you know whether -- does Bright Response have a position as to whether the claims

the testimony that would pertain specifically to that has been marked confidential. Bright Response

reserves the right to rely upon that testimony, but Bright Response is not allowed to see it. BY MR. PERLSON: Q. Does Bright Response know when in April

of 1996 this conception and reduction to practice

191
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 of the '947 patent are actually entitled to that priority date? A. It's Bright Response's position that the 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 was completed? MR. PRIDHAM: BY THE WITNESS: A. No. Again, it's Bright Responses Object to form.

193

'947 does claim and is entitled to priority from those documents. Q. The next bullet point says, "While

understanding that between approximately November of 1995 and April of 1996. So, it is possible that

Bright Response was not directly involved in the conception or reduction to practice of the inventions claimed by the '947 patent, Bright Response understands that the inventions claimed in the '947 patent were conceived and reduced to practice between approximately November 1995 and April 1996." Is that -- does that correctly reflect Bright Response's position? A. To clarify, not only was Bright Response

it was completed -- it's our understanding it was completed approximately between those months. Where within those months what stages of conception or reduction to practice occurred, Bright Response has no further information. BY MR. PERLSON: Q. Okay. Do you have any further -- does

Bright Response have any further information regarding the subject matter of topic number 1 other than what's listed in the bullet points and I've elicited from you in testimony? A. Q. No. Topic number 2, there's three bullet

not directly involved in the conception and reduction to practice, but as previously stated, it was not involved in the conception and reduction to practice, did not acquire the patent or an interest in the patent until well after the conception and reduction to practice. And it is Bright Response's understanding that through consultation with counsel, and again I was advised in the course of

points that are listed there. Does Bright Response have any more information regarding the prosecution of the '947 patent than is listed in these bullet points? A. Q. It does not. The next topic is the EZ Reader article?

Bright Response v. Google, et al

Page 190 - 193

Sheafe, Bradlee 30(b)(6)
194
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 A. Q. That's correct. To your knowledge, does the EZ Reader

article accurately reflect the development of the EZ Reader? MR. PRIDHAM: BY THE WITNESS: A. Bright Response doesn't know -- beyond Object to form.

the article doesn't know anything about the EZ Reader project. And, therefore, other than being

able to say this is what the article says, it has no opinion on the accuracy or veracity of the document. BY MR. PERLSON: Q. Number 4 says, "Efforts to sell, market

or distribute any embodiment of the claimed inventions of the '947 patent, including but not limited to any documents evidencing or memorializing, concerning or documenting any efforts to develop, sell, market or distribute any embodiment of the alleged invention of the '947 patent, the location of such documents and the description of such documents." A. documents." Q. "Destruction." Thank you. I think it says, "destruction of such

Bright Response v. Google, et al

Page 194