Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 585

Additional Attachments to Main Document: 583 Response to Motion.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Wiley Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Wiley, Elizabeth)

Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 585 Att. 4

EXHIBIT C

Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION BRIGHT RESPONSE INC., , Plaintiff, vs. GOOGLE INC., et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-371-TJW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S SEVENTH SUPPLEMENTAL INITIAL DISCLOSURES PURSUANT TO FRCP 26(A)(1) AND DISCOVERY ORDER Defendant Google Inc. ("Google"), by counsel, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Discovery Order issued on June 11, 2008, hereby provides the following supplemental initial disclosures to plaintiff Bright Response, LLC, formerly known as Polaris IP, LLC ("Bright Response"). These disclosures are made to the best of Google's ability and are based on the information reasonably available to the company, or in its possession as of this date, following a good faith inquiry in accordance with Rule 26 and the Discovery Order. Google's investigation of possible witnesses and documents is ongoing, however, and it reserves the right to supplement and amend this disclosure to produce additional information acquired during the course of this litigation, and to rely on such information as evidence in this action. These disclosures are made without waiver of, or prejudice to, any objection Google may have to the use at trial of any of the information disclosed in this document, this document itself, or any document or thing produced pursuant to Rule 26 and the Discovery Order.

01980.51452/3610233.1

Google hereby incorporates by reference any and all Initial Disclosures of other defendants in this action or any other action brought by Bright Response for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 (the "'947 Patent"). I. Parties to the Lawsuit (Discovery order Paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b)). Pursuant to Paragraph 1(a) of the Discovery Order, the correct name of the Defendant is Google Inc. Pursuant to Paragraph 1(b) of the Discovery Order, Google is not currently aware of any potential parties to the lawsuit. II. Legal Theories and General Factual Bases of Claims or Defenses (Discovery Order Paragraphs 1(c)). Pursuant to Paragraph 1(c) of the Discovery Order, for a statement of the legal theories underlying Google's claims or defenses, Google states as follows: (i) as explained in Google's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for a More Definitive Statement; Motion to Strike; and Motion to Stay Discovery, and incorporated by reference herein, Bright Response's complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted; (ii) the `947 Patent is invalid and not infringed by Google; (iii) Google's product(s) have substantial non-infringing uses; (iv) Bright Response's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by waiver, unclean hands, laches and/or estoppel; (v) Bright Response's claims are limited by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel; (vi) Bright Response's claims are barred by inequitable conduct in prosecuting the `947 patent, including without limitation, the intentional failure to bring prior art to the attention of the patent office, the intentional failure to bring to the attention of the patent office rejections of identical claims in the co-pending '059 patent, and the intentional submission of false documentation to the patent office; and (vii) Bright Response's claims are limited by the failure to mark, failure to provide actual notice to Google, irregularities in the assignment history and/or failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287. In addition, as detailed more fully in

01980.51452/3610233.1

2

Google's petition for ex parte reexamination of the `947 patent,1 each of the claims asserted in Bright Response's infringement contentions are invalid over prior art. Bright Response is also barred from seeking injunctive relief because it has an adequate remedy of law available, it has unduly delayed seeking injunctive relief, and it has not, nor will it, suffer irreparable harm. The general factual bases for Google's claims and/or defenses may be found in the production of documents made as required by the Court's Discovery Order, and further evidence in support of Google's claims and/or defenses is expected to be located in Bright Response's, Yahoo! Inc.'s, AOL LLC's, and America Online, Inc.'s production of documents and through third party discovery. Further details regarding the legal and factual bases for Google's claims that the `947 Patent is invalid will be made in connection with Google's compliance with Local Patent Rule 3-3. These disclosures have been provided pursuant to Paragraph 1(c) of the Discovery Order prior to Google having had the opportunity to perform a full investigation into Bright Response's claims and its own claims and defenses, and these disclosures are being made prior to Google's filing of an answer and/or counterclaims in this matter. Moreover, as reflected in Google's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for a More Definitive Statement; Motion to Strike; and Motion to Stay Discovery, Bright Response's complaint is overly vague, thereby hindering Google's ability to disclose its legal theories and general factual bases. Google, therefore, hereby reserves the right to supplement these disclosures after it has performed a complete investigation into Bright Response's claims and its own claims and defenses.

1

On June 12, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted Google's petition for ex-parte reexamination of the `947 Patent.

01980.51452/3610233.1

3

III.

Individuals Likely to Have Discoverable Information that Google May Use to Support its Claims or Defenses (Discovery Order Paragraphs 1(d)). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) and Paragraph 1(d) of the Discovery Order,

Google hereby identifies the following individuals likely to have discoverable information that Google may use to support its claims and defenses and identifies the subjects of the information:

Name / Contact Information Jonathan Alferness2*

Connection with the Case Google employee

Subject Areas Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of AdWords Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of Google Toolbar

Albert Bodenhamer *

Google employee

Greg Badros *

Google employee

Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of Gmail

Chris Rohrs *

Google employee

Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of iGoogle Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of Google Search Business and financial aspects of Google Search Business and financial aspects of Google Search

Amit Singhal *

Google employee

Johanna Wright * Jack Menzel*

Google employee Google employee

2

All persons and entities identified herein who are designated with an asterisk ("*") are employees of the Defendant and should be contacted only through Google's counsel of record.

01980.51452/3610233.1

4

Name / Contact Information Shane Antos *

Connection with the Case Google employee

Subject Areas Past business and financial aspects of the accused instrumentalities; damages. Business and financial aspects of the accused instrumentalities; damages. Google patent licensing practices and policies relating to the accused instrumentalities; damages Business and financial aspects of the accused instrumentalities; damages Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of Rephil Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of Google's advertising programs Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of AdSense for Content Google's patent licensing practices and policies relating to the accused instrumentalities; damages Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of Google's advertising programs; business and marketing aspects of same Structure, characteristics, and/or operation of the accused features of Google's advertising programs

Mary Hollendonor* Michelle Lee *

Google employee Google employee

Gabe Mattera * Mike Jahr*

Google employee Google employee

Bartholomew Furrow*

Google employee

Bahman Rabii*

Google employee

Jack Ancone*

Google employee

Jeff Huber*

Google employee

Daniel Wright*

Google employee

01980.51452/3610233.1

5

Name / Contact Information Townsend, Townsend and Crew LLP (including individual attorneys that prosecuted the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947) 2 Embarcadero Ctr, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 [phone] Merchant & Gould, P.C. (including individual attorneys that prosecuted the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947) 3200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Ostrolenk Faber, LLP (including individual attorneys that prosecuted the application leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947) 1180 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Bright Response, LLC (including all successors, agents, and assigns) 208 C North Washington Avenue, Marshall TX 75670 Polaris IP, LLC (including all successors, agents, and assigns) 208 C North Washington Avenue, Marshall TX 75670 A n t h o n y Angotti 2 E. Main St. Marcellus, NY 13108 [phone]

Connection with the Case

Subject Areas

Prosecuted the Prosecution of the application application resulting in resulting in issuance of U.S. Patent the identified patent. No. 6,411,947

Prosecuted the Prosecution of the application application resulting in resulting in issuance of U.S. Patent the identified patent. No. 6,411,947

Filed the provisional application resulting in the identified patent and prosecuting the co-pending '059 patent Plaintiff

Prosecution of the provisional application resulting in issuance of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 and the copending '059 patent.

The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; development and use of EZ Reader; ownership and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; development and use of EZ Reader; ownership and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art.

Plaintiff

Named inventor

01980.51452/3610233.1

6

Name / Contact Information Amy Rice 22 Whitlock Lane Ridgefield, CT 06877 [phone] Fred Cohen 1215 5th Ave. New York, NY 10029 [phone] Rosanna Piccolo 191 Lakebridge Dr. N Kings Park, NY 11754-3957 Julie Hsu 323 Ferris St. Peekskill, NY 10566-4708 [phone] Chase Manhattan Bank (including all successors, agents, and assigns) P.O. Box 36520 Louisville, KY 40233 Jonathan Altfeld, P.O. Box 26622 Tampa, FL 33622 [phone] Brightware, Inc. (including all successors, agents, and assigns) 350 Ignacio Blvd. Novato, CA 94949 Silicon Valley Bank (including all successors, agents, and assigns) 3005 Tasman Drive Santa Clara, CA 95054 [phone]

Connection with the Case Named inventor

Subject Areas The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art.

Named inventor

The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art. The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art. The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art. The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; Development and use of EZ Reader.

Named inventor Named inventor

Assisted in development of the `947 Patent and EZ Reader Former Chase Manhattan Bank employee Original assignee; Assisted in development of the `947 Patent and EZ Reader Assignee

The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; Development and use of EZ Reader. The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; development and use of EZ Reader; ownership and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947, Ownership and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947

01980.51452/3610233.1

7

Name / Contact Information Firepond, Inc. (including all successors, agents, and assigns) 8900 34th Ave South, Suite 1000 Bloomington, MN 55425 Orion IP, LLC (including all successors, agents, and assigns) 74785 Highway 111, Suite 103 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Circinus IP, LLC (including all successors, agents, and assigns) 74785 Highway 111, Suite 103 Indian Wells, CA 92210 Bright Response, LLC (including all successors, agents, and assigns) Erich Spangenberg Audrey Spangenberg IP Navigation Group Acclaim Financial Group Douglas Croxall David Pridham Agnar Aamodt

Connection with the Case Assignee

Subject Areas The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; development and use of EZ Reader; ownership and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; development and use of EZ Reader; ownership and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; development and use of EZ Reader; ownership and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 The purported invention of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947; prior art; development and use of EZ Reader; ownership and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 Ownership, purchase and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 Ownership, purchase and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,311,947 Ownership, purchase, and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 Ownership, purchase, and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 Ownership, purchase, and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 Ownership, purchase, and licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947 Prior art to the `947 patent, including Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches Prior art to the `947 patent, including SMART: Support Management Automated Reasoning Technology for Compaq Customer Service

Assignee

Assignee

Plaintiff

Owner of Plaintiff Owner of Plaintiff Consulting company Owner of Plaintiff Former Owner of Firepond Plaintiff's Counsel Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Timothy L. Acorn

01980.51452/3610233.1

8

Name / Contact Information Bradley P. Allen Hermosa Beach, CA [phone] Klaus-Dieter Althoff

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,581,664 and 5,585,218; Case-Based Reasoning: Business Applications Prior art to the `947 patent, including Induction and Reasoning from Cases; INRECA: A Seamlessly Integrated System Based on Inductive Inference and Case-Based Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including A Case-Based System for Trade Secrets Law Prior art to the `947 patent, including Induction and Reasoning from Cases; INRECA: A Seamlessly Integrated System Based on Inductive Inference and Case-Based Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including Building a Case-Based Help Desk application Prior art to the `947 patent, including Integrating Case Based and Rule Based Reasoning: The Possibilistic Connection Prior art to the `947 patent, including A self-improving helpdesk service system using case-based reasoning techniques Prior art to the `947 patent, including A self-improving helpdesk service system using case-based reasoning techniques Prior art to the '947 patent, including A Knowledge- Based Message Management System Prior art to the `947 patent, including An Integrated Approach of RuleBased and Case-Based Reasoning for Decision Support Prior art to the `947 patent, including Fast Effective Rule Induction; Learning Rules that Classify E-Mail

Kevin D. Ashley Eric Auriol

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Ralph Barlette Piero P. Bonissone

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

W. Homer Carlisle

Kai H. Chang

Chang, Shi-Kuo Robert T. H. Chi

William W. Cohen

01980.51452/3610233.1

9

Name / Contact Information Noel Conruyt James H. Cross

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including Induction and Reasoning from Cases Prior art to the `947 patent, including A self-improving helpdesk service system using case-based reasoning techniques Prior art to the `947 patent, including Compaq Quicksource: Providing the Consumer with the Power of AI Prior art to the `947 patent, including Case-Based Diagnostic Analysis in a Blackboard Architecture Prior art to the `947 patent, including An example of Integrating Legal Case Based Reasoning with ObjectOriented Rule-Based Systems: IKBALS II Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,317,677 Prior art to the `947 patent, including Integrating Case Based and Rule Based Reasoning: The Possibilistic Connection Prior art to the `947 patent, including ICARUS: Integrating rule-based and case-based reasoning on the base of unsharp symptoms Prior art to the `947 patent, including Introspective Learning for CaseBased Planning Prior art to the `947 patent, including Recommending and Evaluating Choices in a Virtual Community of Use Prior art to the '947 patent, including Using Collaborative Filtering to Weave an Information Tapestry Prior art to the `947 patent, including Improving Rule-Based Systems through Case-Based Reasoning; Improving Accuracy by Combining Rule-based and Case-based Reasoning

Mary Czerwinski Jody J. Daniels Tharam Dillon

Charles P. Dolan Culver City, CA Soumitra Dutta

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

M. Fathi-Torbaghan

Susan Fox George Furnas

D. Goldberg Andrew R. Golding

01980.51452/3610233.1

10

Name / Contact Information Robert J. Hall Berkeley Heights, NJ

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,909,679; INFOMOD: A Knowledge-based Moderator for Electronic Mail Help Lists Prior art to the `947 patent, including Recommending and Evaluating Choices in a Virtual Community of Use Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,836,771 and 5,884,302 Prior art to the `947 patent, including Comparing a Form-Based and a Language-Based User Interface for Instructing a Mail Program Prior art to the `947 patent, including Inductive Learning and Case-Based Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,317,677 Prior art to the `947 patent, including An Integrated Approach of RuleBased and Case-Based Reasoning for Decision Support Prior art to the '947 patent, including On Automated Message Processing in electronic Commerce and Work Support Systems: Speech Act Theory and Expressive Felicity Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 6,058,435 Prior art to the '947 patent, including EZ Reader

Will Hill

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Chi Fai Ho 4816 Cabello Ct. Union City, CA 94587 Robin Jeffries

Igor Jurisica David M. Keirsey Aquora, CA Melody Y. Kiang

S. Kimbrough

Neal J. King Oakland, CA Phil Klahr Webalo, Inc. 11835 West Olympic Blvd. Suite 700e Los Angeles, CA 90064 [phone] Andrzej Kowalski

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Potential Prior Art Witness

Prior art to the `947 patent, including Case-Based Reasoning and the Deep Structure Approach to Knowledge Representation

01980.51452/3610233.1

11

Name / Contact Information Mark Kriegsman R. Krishnan David B. Leake Daniel Lee San Gabriel, CA Mario Lenz Lundy Lewis Mason, NH Beatriz Lopez Simon Lowenfeld Export, PA Shigeru Maeda P. Maes Michel Manago

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including Building a Case-Based Help Desk application Prior art to the `947 patent, including A Rule ­ Rule ­ Case Based System for Image Analysis Prior art to the `947 patent, including CBR in Context: the Present and Future Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,581,664; Compaq Quicksource: Providing the Consumer with the Power of AI Prior art to the `947 patent, including CABATA ­ A hybrid CBR system Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,666,481 Prior art to the `947 patent, including Case-based planning for medical diagnosis Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,402,524 Prior art to the `947 patent, including HELIC-II: Legal Reasoning System on the Parallel Inference Machine Prior art to the '947 patent, including Agents that Reduce Work and Information Overload Prior art to the `947 patent, including Induction and Reasoning from Cases; INRECA: A Seamlessly Integrated System Based on Inductive Inference and Case-Based Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including Case-Based Reasoning: A Review Prior art to the '947 patent, including CLUES: Dynamic Personalized Message Filtering Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,402,524 Prior art to the `947 patent, including Induction and Reasoning from Cases

Farhi Marir M. Marx Douglas A Mauman Apollo, PA Frank Maurer

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

01980.51452/3610233.1

12

Name / Contact Information D. Meyer

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including ICARUS: Integrating rule-based and case-based reasoning on the base of unsharp symptoms Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,243,689 Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,444,823 and 5,720,001; Compaq Quicksource: Providing the Consumer with the Power of AI Prior art to the `947 patent, including HELIC-II: Legal Reasoning System on the Parallel Inference Machine Prior art to the `947 patent, including HELIC-II: Legal Reasoning System on the Parallel Inference Machine Prior art to the `947 patent, including HELIC-II: Legal Reasoning System on the Parallel Inference Machine Prior art to the `947 patent, including HELIC-II: Legal Reasoning System on the Parallel Inference Machine Prior art to the `947 patent, including Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches; Case-based planning for medical diagnosis Prior art to the '947 patent, including A Rule-Based Message Filtering System Prior art to the `947 patent, including A Pragmatic Legal Expert System Prior art to the `947 patent, including ADAPtER: An Integrated Diagnostic System Combining Case-Based and Abductive Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including A self-improving helpdesk service system using case-based reasoning techniques

Fumihiko Mori, Yokohama, Japan Trung D. Nguyen Tomball, TX

Katsumi Nitta Hiroshi Ohsaki Yoshihisa Ohtake Masayuki Ono Enric Plaza

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Stephen Pollock James Popple Luigi Portinale

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Pradeep Raman

01980.51452/3610233.1

13

Name / Contact Information Kiron K. Rao Darren M. Redfern Stratford, Canada Kurt Reiser Los Angeles, CA Christopher K. Riesbeck Edwina L. Rissland

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including A Rule ­ Rule ­ Case Based System for Image Analysis Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 6,078,914 Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,317,677 Prior art to the `947 patent, including TaxOps: a Case-based Advisor Prior art to the `947 patent, including Combining Case-Based and RuleBased Reasoning: a Heuristic Approach; Argument Moves in a Rule-Guided Domain; CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture; Case-Based Diagnostic Analysis in a Blackboard Architecture; Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining; A CaseBased System for Trade Secrets Law Prior art to the '947 patent, including MARS ­ Machine Automated Response System Prior art to the `947 patent, including Comparing a Form-Based and a Language-Based User Interface for Instructing a Mail Program Prior art to the `947 patent, including Improving Rule-Based Systems through Case-Based Reasoning; Improving Accuracy by Combining Rule-based and Case-based Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including Recommending and Evaluating Choices in a Virtual Community of Use Prior art to the `947 patent, including Case-Based Diagnostic Analysis in a Blackboard Architecture Prior art to the `947 patent, including HELIC-II: Legal Reasoning System on the Parallel Inference Machine

Michael Robertson Jarrett Rosenberg

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Paul S. Rosenbloom

Mark Rosenstein

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Zachary B. Rubinstein Kiyokazu Sakane

01980.51452/3610233.1

14

Name / Contact Information Michael Sassin San Jose, CA Brian A. Schultz Pittsburgh, PA Naser Sheikhzadegan San Jose, CA Evangelos Simoudis West Newton, MA David B. Skalak

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 6,058,435 Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,402,524 Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 6,058,435 Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,224,206; Using Case-Based Retrieval for Customer Technical Support Prior art to the `947 patent, including Combining Case-Based and RuleBased Reasoning: a Heuristic Approach; Argument Moves in a Rule-Guided Domain; CABARET: rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture; Case-Based Diagnostic Analysis in a Blackboard Architecture; Arguments and Cases: An Inevitable Intertwining Prior art to the `947 patent, including TaxOps: a Case-based Advisor Prior art to the `947 patent, including Recommending and Evaluating Choices in a Virtual Community of Use Prior art to the `947 patent, including Integrating Rules and Cases for the Classification Task Prior art to the '947 patent, including Helping Users Program Their Personal Agents Prior art to the `947 patent, including Induction and Reasoning from Cases; INRECA: A Seamlessly Integrated System Based on Inductive Inference and Case-Based Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 6,085,201 Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,899,985 Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,402,524

Brian M. Slator Larry Stead

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Jerzy Surma L. Terveen Ralph Traphoner

Michael Man-Hak Tso, Hillsboro, OR Toshikazu Tanaka Toda, Japan Robert W. Thompson, Jr., Pittsburgh, PA

Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

01980.51452/3610233.1

15

Name / Contact Information Peter P. Tong 1807 Limetree La., Mountain View, CA 94040 Pietro Torasso

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,836,771 Prior art to the `947 patent, including ADAPtER: An Integrated Diagnostic System Combining Case-Based and Abductive Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including Integrating Rules and Cases for the Classification Task Prior art to the `947 patent, including A Rule ­ Rule ­ Case Based System for Image Analysis Prior art to the `947 patent, including An example of Integrating Legal Case Based Reasoning with ObjectOriented Rule-Based Systems: IKBALS II Prior art to the `947 patent, including An example of Integrating Legal Case Based Reasoning with ObjectOriented Rule-Based Systems: IKBALS II Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,402,524 Rebuttal regarding damages Prior art to the `947 patent, including SMART: Support Management Automated Reasoning Technology for Compaq Customer Service Prior art to the `947 patent, including Case-Based Reasoning: A Review; Case-Based Reasoning Tools: an overview Prior art to the `947 patent, including Induction and Reasoning from Cases; INRECA: A Seamlessly Integrated System Based on Inductive Inference and Case-Based Reasoning Prior art to the `947 patent, including EZ Reader and other products of Brightware.

Koen Vanhoof S. Venkataraman George Vossos

Vivian Vossos

Potential Prior Art Witness

Nabuyoshi Wada Kamakura, Japan Michael Wagner Sherry H. Walden

Potential Prior Art Witness Damages Rebuttal Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Ian Watson

Stefan Wess

Terry Whearley [phone] (m) [phone] ext. 147 (w)

Potential Prior Art Witness

01980.51452/3610233.1

16

Name / Contact Information Steven D. Whitehead Chuck Williams [phone] Keith E. Witek Hiroshi Yoshiura Yokohama, Japan John Zeleznikow

Connection with the Case Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness Potential Prior Art Witness

Subject Areas Prior art to the `947 patent, including Auto-FAQ: an experiment in cyberspace leveraging Prior art to the '947 patent, including ART*Enterprise and other products of Inference and Brightware Prior art to the '947 patent, including Computerized Facsimile (fax)System and Method of Operation Prior art to the `947 patent, including U.S. Patent No. 5,243,689 Prior art to the `947 patent, including An example of Integrating Legal Case Based Reasoning with ObjectOriented Rule-Based Systems: IKBALS II

Additionally, the following individuals are likely to have discoverable information on the subject of prior art: individuals listed in patents, publications and other references in the file history of the `947 patent, any related patents or related applications. Google incorporates by reference into its disclosures these individuals and their contact information identified in such references. Google also incorporates by reference into its disclosures contact information for persons identified on prior art patents, publications, and/or products it may produce during this litigation. Google's investigation, research and analysis of the issues in this case are ongoing. If Google identifies additional individuals likely to have discoverable information that it may use to support its defenses and counterclaims, such as third parties in possession of information and/or devices that constitute prior art, it will supplement this disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.26(e).

01980.51452/3610233.1

17

IV.

Documents in Google's Possession, Custody, or Control that Google May Use to Support its Claims or Defenses. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(B), Google hereby identifies the following

documents in Google's possession, custody, or control that it may use to support its claims or defenses: Category Documents describing the structure and functionality of relevant aspects of Google's accused products. Documents relating to sales, revenues and marketing of Google's accused products. Documents and things consisting of or reflecting prior art relevant to the `947 Patent. Copies of the `947 Patent, their file histories, and cited prior art. Location3 Google Inc.*

Google Inc.* Google Inc.* Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Google's investigation, research and analysis of the issues in this case are ongoing. Google expressly reserves the right to supplement its identification of categories of documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) as its investigation continues. V. Insurance and Indemnity Agreements (Discovery Order Paragraph 1(e)). Google is not aware at this time of any indemnity or insuring agreements under which any person or entity may be liable to satisfy part or all of any judgment entered in this action against Google, or to indemnify Google for payments made to satisfy any such judgment.

3

An asterisk (*) indicates documents, data compilations, and tangible things whose location for the purposes of this litigation is that of the offices of Google's outside counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, located at 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 and which are contained in the document production made in accordance with the Discovery Order.

01980.51452/3610233.1

18

VI.

Settlement Agreements Relevant to the Subject Matter of This Action (Discovery Order Paragraph 1(f)). With the exception of the general understanding that Bright Response has litigated and

settled previous actions regarding the `947 patent, Google is not currently aware of the specifics of any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action. VII. Statement of Any Party to the Litigation (Discovery Order Paragraph 1(g)). Google is not currently aware of any such statement. VIII. Computation of Damages. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii), Google hereby provides an initial computation of damages. Other than its attorneys' fees, Google has no current intention to include a claim in this action for damages caused by Bright Response. Nevertheless, Google reserves the right to assert a damages claim, if appropriate, against Bright Response at a later stage in this litigation.

DATED: August 1, 2010 Respectfully Submitted, By: /s/ Todd Kennedy Charles K. Verhoeven, pro hac vice LEAD ATTORNEY Amy H. Candido Jennifer A. Kash, pro hac vice David A. Perlson, pro hac vice Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

01980.51452/3610233.1

19

Jennifer Parker Ainsworth TX Bar No. 00784720 Wilson, Robertson & Cornelius, P.C. P.O. Box 7339 Tyler, Texas 75711 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Google, Inc., AOL LLC, and America Online, Inc.

01980.51452/3610233.1

20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served at least via e-mail on this date to counsel of record for Plaintiff Bright Response, LLC. August 1, 2010 /s/ Todd Kennedy

01980.51452/3610233.1

21