Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 415

Emergency MOTION to Strike Portions of Defendants' Invalidity Expert's Report and Defendants' Summary Judgment Briefing and Request for Expedited Briefing by Bright Response LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Elizabeth Wiley, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit A-1, # 4 Exhibit A-2, # 5 Exhibit A-3 - part 1, # 6 Exhibit A-3 - part 2, # 7 Exhibit A-3 - part 3, # 8 Exhibit A-4, # 9 Exhibit A-5 - part 1, # 10 Exhibit A-5 - part 2, # 11 Exhibit A-5 - part 3, # 12 Exhibit B, # 13 Exhibit C, # 14 Exhibit D, # 15 Exhibit E, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(Wiley, Elizabeth)

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 415 Att. 15

EXHIBIT E

Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION POLARIS IP, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GOOGLE INC. et al., Defendants. DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES Defendant Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") makes the following supplemental disclosures. However, Yahoo's investigation is continuing, and this disclosure provides information currently known and available to Yahoo after a good-faith inquiry and investigation. Yahoo's ability to perform additional inquiries and/or investigations is severely limited by the vagueness of the allegations included in the Complaint. Accordingly, Yahoo reserves the right to supplement and/or amend this disclosure. 1. DISCLOSURES A. Yahoo's correct name is Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo is without knowledge of the correct Civil Action No.: 2:07-cv-371

names of the other parties to this action. B. C. Yahoo is unaware of any potential parties to this lawsuit. Yahoo believes that U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 (the " `947 patent") is invalid for

failure to comply with one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112, as evidenced by the recent order from the United States Patent Office granting an ex parte request for reexamination of the `947 patent. Accordingly, Yahoo denies infringement of any valid claim of the `947 patent. Yahoo also believes that any properly plead claims of infringement of the `947 patent would be barred by the doctrines of laches and/or estoppel. Yahoo also believes that any
YAHOO INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES­ Page 1

23.

Chuck Williams (Address unknown, [phone]) (former CTO of Inference Corp., and former CEO of Brightware, Inc.): Information

known by this person is expected to include the technology and products that became the '947 patent, and the technology and products that became U.S. Patent No. 5,581,664. 24. Bradley Allen (former Inference Corp. employee) (1446 5th Street, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, [phone]): Information known by this person is expected to include the technology and products that became the '947 patent, and the technology and products that became U.S. Patent No. 5,581,664. 25. Karl Branting (9734 Summer Park Ct., Columbia, MD 21046, (410) 6609094, Lead Artificial Intelligence Engineer, The Mitre Corporation): Yahoo!'s expert regarding invalidity. 26. Gerald Mossinghoff (Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C. 1940 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314): Yahoo!'s expert regarding inequitable conduct. 27. Mary Woodford (1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, District of Columbia 20006, Senior Advisor of Cornerstone Research): Yahoo!'s expert regarding damages. 28. James Allan (140 Governors Drive, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, [phone], Professor of Computer Science at University of Massachusetts, Amherst): Yahoo!'s expert regarding non-infringement.

YAHOO INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES­ Page 6

Jason C. White Mansi Shah Scott Sherwin HOWREY LLP 321 N. Clark, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo! Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served via email on all counsel of record on July 2, 2010. /s/ Josh R. Thane Josh R. Thane .

YAHOO INC.'S SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES­ Page 23