Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 241

MOTION to Compel Production of Documents by Third Parties Neal Cohen and Vista IP Law Group, LLP by AOL LLC, Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendant Google Inc. and AOL LLC's Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Third Parties Neal Cohen and Vista IP Law Group, LLP, # 2 Declaration of Emily C. O'Brien in Support of Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Declaration of Christin Cho in Opposition to Motion to Compel, # 20 Errata 1, # 21 Exhibit 2, # 22 Exhibit 3, # 23 Proposed Order Granting Defendant Google Inc. and AOL LLC's Motion to Compel)(O'Brien, Emily) Modified on 9/25/2009 (sm, ). Modified on 9/25/2009 (sm, ).

x y

b

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-.1DL

Document 95-2

Filed 05/08/2008

Page 9 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DIST]Ii.ICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICINCr, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:07-cv-432 (LED)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOGGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOO! INC.,
IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, tNC., and A9.COM, INC., Defendants.

DISCOVERY ORDER After review of the pleaded claims and defenses in this action and in furtherance of the rnanagelnent of the Court' s docket under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, the Court enters the following Discovery Order: 1. Disc! © snres , On or by June 2©, 240$ and without awaiting a discovery request, each party shall disclose to every other party the following information: A. B C. the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit; the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties; the Iegal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party's claims or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial); the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, a brief statement of each identified person's connection with the case, and a brief, fair summary of the substance of the information known by such person; any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity may be Iiabie to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment; any settlement.agreements relevant to the subject matter of^this action; any statement ofany party to the litigation;

D.

E.

F. G. 2.

Additional Disclosures . Each party shall provide to every other part}+the following information: A. the disclosures required by the Court's Patent Rules in accordance with the deadlines set forth in said rules and the Court's Docket Control Order;

51300fZ482118.1

^^^^ !

._---

^^^

P

.:::

Case 2 :07-cv-00432-LED-JDL

Document 95-2

Filed 05/08/2008

Page 2 of 6

8,

C.

D,

to the extent that any party pleads a claim for reliefor defensive matter other than those addressed in the Patent Rulesl, on or by October 21, 2008, and without awaiting a discovery request, a copy of all documents , data compilations and tangible things in the possession , custody, or control of the party that are relevant to those additionally pleaded claims ar defenses involved in this action. By written agreement of all parties, alternative forms of disclosure may be provided in lieu of paper copies , For example, the parties may agree to exchange images of documents electronically or by means of computer disk; or the parties may agree to review and copy disclosure materials at the offices of the attorneys representing the parties instead of requiring each side to furnish paper copies of the disclosure materials; and on or by October 21, 200 $, a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any party to the action, wherein Plaints ff shall specify as to each Defendant the categories of damages that it seeks in regard to that Defendant, and snaking available for inspection and copying { See local Rule CV-34), the documents or other evidentiary materials on which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered ; and those documents and authorizations described in Local Rule CV-34. The parties have discussed the electronic production of electronica [ ly-stored and hard copy information . The parties have agreed to further meet and confer regarding the format of document production in advance thereoF, including the format for the production ofelectronically-stored information.

3.

Testifying Experts . By the date provided in the Docket Control Order, each party shall disclose to the other party or parties: A. B. C. the expert's name, address, and telephone number; the subject matter on which the expert will testify; the genera ! substance of the expert's mental impressions and opinions and a brief summary of the basis for them, or if the expert is not retained by, employed by, ar otherwise subject to the control of the disclosing parry, documents reflecting such information; if the expert is retained by, employed by, or otherwise subject to the central of the disclosing party; (i} the final versions of their expert reports, materials retied upon, and their invoices for work performed; and (2} the expert's current resume and bibliography, Testifying experts' draft reports, notes , and communications with counsel will not be subject to discovery, except to the extent relied upon by the expert in the final version of his or her reports}. The foregoing does not otherwise restrict discovery by oral deposition, and does not obligate any party to retain draft reports.

D.

E.

1 `t'he Patent Rules are Appendix M to the l..acal Rules , which are available on the Court's website at www.txed.uscourts.gov.

51340R482118.t sf 2452586

2 1...! v^ ^ ^ ^

% r' ///

p^^^.

^^^

ice,

Case 2:07-cv-d0^32-LED-JDL

Document 95-2

1=ifed db10812008

Page 3 0l· 6

4.

Discovery Limitations . Discovery is limited in this case to the disclosures described in Paragraphs 1 through 3, together with the following: A. lnterro atories : Plaintiff may serve up to 20 common interrogatories as to all Defendants , and an additional 10 interrogatories separately on each Defendant. Defendants may collectively serve up to 20 common interrogatories on Plaintiff. and each Defendant may serve separately up to 10 additiona ] interrogatories an Plaintiff. Requests for Admission : Piaintiffmay serve up to 50 common requests for admission as to all Defendants , and an additiona130 requests for admission separately on each Defendant . Defendants may collectively serve up, to 50 common requests for admission on Plaintiff, and each Defendant may serve separately up to 30 additional requests for admission on Plaintiff. There is no limit on the number of requests for admission the parties may serve to establish the authenticity of documents . Requests far admission directed to document authentication shall be clearly denoted as such and shall be served separately from arty requests for admission subject to the numerical limitations stated above. De ositions of Parties and Third -Parties: The panics agree to a limit of 30 fact depositions per side (presumptively no more than eight against each Defendant). The parties further agree that expert depositions will not count toward these limits. The parties further agree that depositions taken pursuant to FRCP 30{b){6} will count towards the 30 fact deposition limit. The parties further agree #hat individual and 30{b )( G) depositions vfthird parties shall also count towards the 30 fact deposition limit. The parties reserve the right to revisit the issue of the number and length of depositions as discovery progresses . if any party requests more than Z hours far a particular deposition or if any side seeks more than 30 depositions , the parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the issue without intervention by the Court. Depositions of lxperts : Plaintiff shall be entitled to a total of three expert witnesses on issues far which Plaintiff has the burden of proof. Each Defendant shall be entitled to a total of two expert witnesses individually, and the defendants shall collectively share up to a total of three group experts on issues for which Defendants have the burden of proof. Depositions of Defendant's expert witnesses shall be limited to 7 hours per witness per report . Depositions of Plaintiffs experts also shall be limited to 7 hours per witness per report, unless their report addresses issues relating to multiple defendants . if so, the parties agree that 7 hours per Plaintiff s expert may be insufficient to address issues relating to each defendant . As such, the parties agree to meet and confer regarding additional hours for any such deposition . The parties' ability to seek additiona] deposition hours of expert(s) shall not be prejudiced in any way by this subparagraph. Document Sub oenas on Third-Parties: The parties may serve as many document subpoenas on third -parties, and as many depositions on written questions of custodians of business records ofthird -parties, as needed . However, oral depositions ofthird-parties are included in the calculation of the 30 fact

B.

C.

D.

E.

s i^as^zasz^ ^s.i

3

sf-2452586

^/1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

_ ___.

°^

.°^,.

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LIrD-JDL

Document 95-2

Filed 05108!2005

Page 4 of 6

deposition limit set forth above in subparagraph C.
For the purposes of this Order, " side" means a party or a group of parties with a common interest. privileged information . There is no duty to disclose privileged documents or information. However, the parties are directed to meet and confer concerning privileged documents ar information after the Scheduling Conference. By the date provided in the Docket Control Order, the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents ar information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. The parties agree that only documents created prior to September 27, 2007 need be identified on the privilege log. A party may move the Court for an order compelling the production of any privileged documents or information identified on any other party's privilege log. If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall file with the Court within thirty (30) days of the filing of the motion to compel any proof in the form of declarations or affidavits to support their assertions of priviiege, along with the documents over vvhich privilege is asserted for rn camera inspection. if the parties have no disputes concerning privileged documents or infarrnation, then the parties shall inform the Court of that fact by the date provided in the Docket Control Order. 6. Pre-trio[ Disclosures .l3y the date provided in the Docket Control Order, each party shall provide to every other party the following disclosures regarding the evidence that the disclosing party intends to present at trial: A. The name and, if not previously provided, the address and telephone number, of each witness, separately identifying those whom the party expects to present at trial and those whom the party may cal! if the need arises. The designation of those witnesses whose testimony is expected to be presented by means of a deposition and, if not taken stenographically, atranscript of the pertinent portions of the deposition testimony. An appropriate identification of each document or other exhibit, including summaries of other evidence, separately identifying those which the party expects tv offer anti those which the party may offer if the need arises.

B.

C.

lay the date provided in the Docket Control Order, a party may serve and file a list disclosing {1) any objections to the use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another party under subparagraph "B:' above; and (2} any objections, together with the grounds therefor, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified under subparagraph "C." above. Objections not so disclosed, other than objections under Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, shall be deemed waived unless excused by the Court for good cause shown. 7. Signature . The disclosures required by this order shall be made in writing and signed by the party or counsel and shall constitute a certification that, to the best of the signer's

si3oorxaa2^is .^ sf 245258b

4

C^^ ^^ `E L.V ,_._. ^^

lwn.^

^.F.m,

Case Z: 07-cv-00432 - LED-JDL

Document 95-2

Filed Ob108/2008

Page 5 ofi 6

knowledge, information and belief, such disclosure is complete and correct as of the time it is made. 8. Exchange of Disclosures . if feasible, counsel shall meet to exchange disclosures required by this order; otherwise, such disclosures shall be served as provided by Fed. R. Civ.1'. S. Notification of the Court. The parties steal! promptly file a notice with the Court that the disclosures required under this order have taken place. Duty to Supplement . Alter disclosure is made pursuant to this order, each party is under a duty to supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information on the basis of which it knows that the information disclosed was either incomplete or incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true. Protective Orders. The parties intend to submit an agreed-upon Protective Order or their competing versions by June 13, 2008. Discovery Disputes . Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any "hotline" disputes before contacting the 1iscovery 1-Totline provided by Local Rule CV-26(f). if the undersigned is not mailable, the parties shall proceed in accordance with Local Rule CV-26(fl. Discovery Conferences. Within 72 hours of the Court setting any discovery motion for hearing, each party's lead trig! counsel and local counsel shall meet and confer in person by telephone in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court intert+entian. Counsel shall premptly notify the Court of the results of the meeting. Attendance by proxy is not permitted. Unless excused by the Court, lead counsel shall attend any discovery hearing set by the Court. No Excuses. A party is not excused from the requirements of this Discovery Order because it has not fiaIly completed its investigation of the case, or because it challenges the sufficiency of another party's disclosures , or because another party has not made its disclosures . Absent court order to the contrary , a party is not excused from disclosure because there are pending motions to dismiss, to remand or to change venue . Parties asserting the defense of qualified immunity may submit a motion to limit disclosure to those materials necessary to decide the issue of qualified immunity. Courtesy Paper Copies. in cases pending before this Court, the parties are exempt from complying with Local Rule CV- 5 which requires that paper copies be provided to the presiding judge's chambers if a document exceeds five pages in length. Paper copies will not be accepted by this Court unless specifically requested or as provided below. Hearing Notebooks. With the exception ofl4iarkman notebooks required in the Docket Control Order, hearing notebooks are na longer required or requested. However, the Court may request hearing notebooks in specific instances.

9.

10.

.l 1.

12.

14.

14.

15.

16.

SI3002482i18.1

5

sf-2452586

I._I\^^ ^ ^^^

_..^_

Case 2:07-c^-00432-LED-JDL

Document 95-2

E=iled 05/08/2008

Page 6 of 6

17.

Requests for T^roduction . Because documents relevant to any claim or defense are to be produced pursuant to the patent rules and paragraphs one and two of this order, requests 'for production are unnecessary. However, should a party believe that certain relevant documents have not been produced , that party may request said documents by letter. The Court will entertain a motion to compel documents without the necessity ofa movant propounding formal requests for production.

Dated: May 8, 2008

8o gTtDFTtT^D and SXG1Vx10 this 9tlr day of I1'fay, 2008.

JOHN D. OVE UMTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

s^3oor^irsaiis . i

^

6

^ j'^

^' ^^ ^ ^_ r.N ^4

^,.....^

1.,.,.,

Case 2:a7-cv-08432-LED-JDl_

Document 98-2

Filed 05/9312008

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TOR THE EASTERN T))<STRICT OF TEXAS 1VIARSHAILT.. DI'VISIOIV PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2;07-cv-432 {LED) ,1rU-R'f^ TXtXAT^ DEIVIANDED .

GOOGLE INC., AOL LLC, MYCROSOI~ 1' CORPORATION, YAHOO? INC.,
IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM, INC.,

Defendants.

Agreed Docket Control Order DATE DUE 4/1.212fF1.0 AC'T'ION

9:00 a.m..TURY TRIAL as reached at the United States District Court, 100 E.
Houston, Roam 125, Marshall , Tex^3s 75670.

4/b/2010
3/i 8/24 T4

9:04 a.m. 3URY SELECTION at the United States District Court, 140 E.
Houston , Room 125, Marshall , Texas 75570. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE at the United States District Court, 211 W. Ferguson , Tyler, Texas . All pending motions will be heard. Lead trial counsel must attend the retrial conference.

Parties to file estimates of the amount of #ime they request at jury selection
311 6124 1 4 and trial far {1} voir dire, {2) opening statements, {3} direct and cross examinations , and 4 closin ar men#s.

311 512 0 1 0
3/11/2010

Pretrial Ob'ectians due.
The parties are directed to confer and advise the Court on or before 3:00 o'cloclt p.m. the day before the pre-trial conference which paragraphs are a eed to and those that need to be addressed at the re-trial conference.

2/2b/2410
212512410

Ob'ections to Rebuttal De sition Testimon due.
Motions in Limine due.

Rebuttal Designations and Objections to Deposition Testimony due. Cross 21 1 212 0 1 0
examination line and page numbers to be included . In video depositions, each party is responsibie far preparation ofthe fnal edited video in accordance with their arties ' desi nations and the Court's Tulin son ob " ections. Pretrial Disclosures due. Video and Stenographic Deposition Designations due. Each party who ra oses to offer de asition testimon shall f le a disclosure identi in the

V2212414

1 ^^^^^ _^

^^^ . 313

Case 2:07-cv-00432-!_ED-JDL

Document 98-2

Filed 05/13!2048

Page 2 of 5

line and page numbers to be offered. In video depositions, each party is responsible for preparation ofthe final edited video in accordance with their arties' deal nations and the Court's ratio son ob'ections.

faint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed jury Instructions with citation to
authority, and Torm of the Verdiet for jury trials. Proposed Findings of Fact -and Conclusions of Law with citation to authority for bench trials. Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting of Court Proceedings. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of coact proceedings is requested for trial or hearings, the party or parties making said request shall flit a notice with the Court and email the Gaurt Reporter, Shea Sloan, at

1/12/2010

shea Sloan txed.uscourts. ov.
1/8/2410 12/1012009 Parties to Identi Rebuttal Trial Witnesses. Last Day for Response to Dispositive Motions (including Daubert motions}. Responses to diapositive motions filed prior to the diapositive motion deadline, including Daubert Motions, shall 6e due in accordance with Local Rule CV-7 e , Last Day for Dispositive Motions from al] parties and any other motions that may require a hearing (including Daubert motions); Motion for Summary Judgment shall comply with Local Rule CV56. Answer to Amended Pleadin s after Markman Hearin doe, Parties to Identi Trial Witnesses Amend Pleadings {after Markman Hearing}. It is not necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after the deadline. However, except as provided in Patent Rule 3-6, if the amendmenf would effect preliminary or foal infringement contentions or preliminary or final invalidity contentions, a motion must be made pursuant to Patent Rule 3-7

11/12/2009 1 21412 0 0 9

l 0/23/2009

irres ective of whether the amendment is made rior to this deadline.
10/16/2009 9/18/2009 8/17/2009 Discove Deadline. This date is the last da to cam Iete discove Parties designate responsive expert witnesses (non-construction issues). Ex err witness re orts due. Refer to Local Rules for re aired information. Parties with burden of proafdesignate expert witnesses {non-construction issues). Expert witness reports due. Refer to Local Rules for required information.

8112/2009
611 812 0 0 9

Comply with P.R.3-7-Famishing documents and privilege logs pertaining to
willful infrin ement.

Carnply with P.R. 4-6- Markman I^caring at 9:U0 a.m. at the United
States District Court, 211 West Ferguson, 2nd Ftoor, Courtroom at' icr, Texas. Jud a Jahn D. Love, Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness due. The filing party is to provide the Court with 2 binders containing their brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. If a technical advisor has been appointed the moving party is to provide their brief on disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits to the advisor.

6/11/2009

Briefing shall comply with Local Rules CV-'1 and 56 and Patent Ruie 4-5(e},
Motions to extend a e limits will onl be anted in exce tonal

Z

EXHIBf1 __ ^ PAGE ^^-

Gase 2:07'-cv-00432-LED-JDL

Document 98-2

Filed fl511312008

Page 3 al' b

circumstances.

Carnply with P.R. 4-5(d}- Chart due. Parties shall jointly submit a claim

6/11/2009

construction chart on computer disk in R'ordFerf'ect format or in such other
format as the Court ma direct in accordance with P.R. 4-5 d . 1?arties to f le a notice with the Court stating the estimated amount of time requested for the Markman Hearing . The Court will no#ify the parties if it is unable to accommodate this r uest. Comply with P.R. 4-5(c)- Reply brief and supporting evidence due re response to claim construction . The f ling party is to provide the Court with 2

6/$12009

6!612009

bi nders containing their reply brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. If a

5/21/2009

technical advisor has been appointed the moving party is to provide their brief an disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits to the advisor. Response to Motion far Summary Judgment an lndefiniteness due. The filing party is to provide the Court with 2 binders containing their brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. If a technical advisor has been appointed the moving party ^s to provide their brief on disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits to the advisor . I3rieftng shalE comply wish Local Rules CV-7 and 56 and Patent Rule 4-S(e). Motions to extend page limits will only be granted in exceptional
circumstances.

5/15/2009

4/30/2009

411 5f2009

Responsive brief and supporting evidence due to party claiming patent infringement . The filing party is to provide the Court with 2 binders containing their Markman brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. if a technical^advisor has been appointed the moving party is to provide their Marlsinan brief an disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits to the advisor. Motion far Summary 3udgment on Indefiniteness due. The moving party is to provide the Court with 2 binders containing their brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. If a technical advisor has been appointed the moving Party is to provide their brief on disk or CD along with a hard copy, tabbed and bound in notebook format with exhibits to the advisor. Briefing shall comply with Local Rules CV-7 and 56 and Patent Rule 4-5(e). Motions to extend page limits will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Gomply with P.R. 4-5(a}- The party claiming patent infringement shall serve and file an opening brief and any evidence supporting its claim construction. The f ling party is to provide the Court with 2 binders containing their Markman brief and exhibits appropriately tabbed. If a technical advisor has been appointed the moving party is to provide their Markman brief on disk or CD along with a hard copy; tabbed and bound in notebook format with

exhibits to the advisor.l3riefing shall comply with Local Rules CV-7 and 56
and Patent Rule 4-S(e). Motions to extend page limits will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Tutorials due. Deadline for arties, if the desire to ravide Court with

3/12/2009

3

^'^/^p! C/^ i^ i ^ I ,

_,_.

PAG ^ ^ 1 ^^._

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-JOL

Document 98-2

Filed 051 312008

Page 4 of 5

tutorials concerning technology involved in patent. If a technical advisor has been

appointed, each party that provides a tutorial shall provide a copy to the
2126/2009 advisor. DiSCOVery Deadline - Glaim Construction Issues. This date is the last day to com fete discover on claim construction issues.

1/30/2009

Res and to Amended Pleadin s.
Proposed'I'echnical Advisors due. Parties to provide name, address, phone number, and curriculum vitae for up to three agreed technical advisors and information regarding the nominees' availability for Markman hearing or a

1/30/2009

statement that they could not reach an agreement as to any potential technical
advisor. If the parties cannot agree on a technical advisor, they shall not submit an ro osed technical advisors to the Court. Comply with P.R. 4-3- l+iling of.foint Claim Construction and Pre-hearing
Statement.

1/30/2409

Defendant shall assert any counterclaims. After this deadline, leave of Court 1/1612009
must be obtained to assert any counterclaims. Add any inequitable conduct allegations to pleadings. It is not necessary to file a motion for [cave to add inequitable conduct allegations to pleadings prior to this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to add inequitable conduct allegations to leadin s. Amended Pleadings (pre-claim construction) due fronx all parties. It is not necessary. to file a Motion for Leave to Amend before the deadline to amend pleadings. It is necessary to file a Motion for Leave to Amend after the deadline. However, if the amendment would affect infringement contentions or invalidity contentions, a motion must be made pursuant to Patent Rule 3-7 irres ective of whether the amendment is made rior to this deadline. Comply with P,R. 4-2- Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence. Privilege Lags to be exchanged by parties (ar a letter to the Court stating that there are no disputes as to claims of privileged documents .

1116/2049

1 215120 0 8

10/30/2008

CampIy with P.R. 4-I -Exchange Proposed '1'er^ns and G`laim Elements for
Construction. Comply with P.R. 3-3 and 3-4-Invalidity Contentions due. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to add andlor amend Invalidity contentions, pursuant to Patent Rule 3-6. Defendant shall join additional parties. It is not necessary to file a motion to join additional parties prior to this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to join additional
arties.

7/14/2008

5/191200H

Parties submit the name of a med iator.

Comply with P.R, 3-1 and P.R. 3-2- Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
51141200$ Infringement Contentions due. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtain leave of Court to addand/ar amend infringement contentions, pursuant to Patent Rule 3-6. Plaintiff shall join additional parties. It is not necessary to file a rnotivn to join additional parties prior to this date. Thereafter, it is necessary to obtailY leave of Court to 'oin additional arties. Plaintiff shall add new atents

4

I ^^^ ^ ^ 1^ . ..._.._..._._..------^

Case 2 :07-cv-00432-LFD^JDI.

Document 9$-2

Filed 05/13/2008

Page 5 of 5

andlor claims for patents - in-suit. It is not necessary to file a motion to add additional patents or claims prior to this date. Thereafter it is necessa to obtain leave of Court to add ^atents or claims.

9o Ol[t^?El[t]ED and STGNI;ll this 14th day of May , 20118.

JOI-IN D. OVE UNITEll STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAGE

^^?

^ ^

^ ^

^^,}

°^'i 1^

Case 2:07-cv-00432-1_E©-JDl_

Document ^ 05-2

Filed 06/06/2008

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-432 (LED/JDL}
JURY DEMANDED

GOOGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOOI INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM, INC.

Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Performance Pricing, Int.'s Agreed Amended Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions regarding Defendants Microsoft Corporation and IAC Search & Media, Inc. and Motion for -Extension far Defendants to Comply with Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the Motion should be GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Performance Pricing, Inc,'s Agreed Amended Motion for Leave to Amend I'lainti ff's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions regarding Defendants Microsoft Corporation and IAC Search & Media, Inc. is . ', GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintif^I'erformance Pricing, Inc. may serve its First Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contenl7ons upon Defendants in this matter. It is further ORDERED that the Motion for Extension for Defendants to Comply with

SAG E .^^----^

^^,

^

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-JDL

Documen# 105-2

Filed 06106/2fl08

Page 2 of 2

Patent Rules 3-3 and 311 is GRANTED. Defendants are hereby granted an extension to Jufy 30, 2QQ8 to comply with Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9tlE day of June, ^UU$.

JOHN D. OVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

u gg ^!t ^ ^ 1^ _ _..._^

P^^^ ^.

..

,-^,:

^.

^J

^^^ ^ . 32 ^

^.^^

^^

Case 2 : 07-cv-00432 - LED-JDL

Documen# 908-2

Filed OBl9312008

Page 9 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES I?ISTR.ICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

P^ItFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff,
v. G40GLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOI{T CORPORATION, 'S^AHOOE INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, IlVC,, AR.COM, INC.,

CASE N0.2:07-cv-432 (LED)

Defendants.
QRDER ON THIS i 6 day of June , 2008, the Court considered. the Joint Motion to Extend

Deadlines for Fsling Protective Order and Serving Initial Disclosures filed by PlasntiffPerfoxrnance Pricing, Inc, and Defendants Google Inc., AOL LLC, Microsoft Corporation, YAHOO! Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc. and A9. Com, Inc. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opinion that it is meritorious. It is therefore: ORDERED that the new deadline for Titling a Protective Order i s June 27 , 2008 . and the ne^v deadline far serving initial disclosures is Tune 27, 2408.

$o ORDERED and SIGNED t[^is 16th day of June, 2008.

^oxN D. o vE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

994.400D4/lOI625 .U1

^ ^ !-^ ^^ '- ^ N.

-------

/.. n.^Y

., ../

EXHIBIT - _ ^ ` PAGE 3 ^^

,,:.;,

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-JDL

Document 119-2

Eiled 0612712x08

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

I?ERF^RMANCE PRICING, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:07-ev-432 (LEDIJDL)
v.

GOOGLE INC., AOL I,LC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAI-IOOi fNC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING THE JOINT MOTION POR AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OP TIME TO )EiILE A JOINT, PROPOSED PROTECTIVE OI2DEI2
OR COMPETING VERSIONS THEREOF'

Performance Pricing, Inc. ("Plaintiff} and Google Inc., AOL, LLC, Microsoft .Corporation, ^altoo? Inc., IAC Search & Media, Ina., and A9.Cam, Inc, ("Defendants") filed their joint rrtation and asked the Court to farther extend the deadline to provide the Court with a -proposed protective order, or coittpeting versions thereof, until and through JuEy S, 2008. Upon consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion shall be in all things granted, and it is further ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff and Defendants to file their proposed protective .order, or competing versions thereof, shall be extended until and through July 8, 2008. So ORDERED and $TGNEb this 30th day of Junc, 2008.

VE JOAN D. UNI'I'ED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

tA481T854100041W0368682_i }

P1^G^.. 33^---.^.-

^^.

^[ ^^^t^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ._

Case 2A7'-cv-00432-LED -JDL

Document '126-2

Fiied OTl2812008

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I;OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC. v.

Case No. 2:07-cv-432 (LED/JDL)
GOGGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOOi INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM, I!^rC.

ORDER OItANTINO DEFENDANTS ' JOINT UNOPPOSED 1vIOTION FOR AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OE TIME

TO COMPLY .WITH PATENT RULES 3-3 AND 3-4
Defendants Google Inc ,, AOL, LLC, Microsoft Corporation , Yahoo! Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., and A9 . Com, inc. (" Defendants ") filed their j oint unopposed motion and asked the Court to further extend t he deadline to comply with PR 3-3 and 3^ up to an including August b, 2008 . Such motion is GRANTED.

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants Google Inc., AOL, LLC, Mierosali
Corporation , Yahoo'. Inc., IAC Search & Media, Ine., and A9 . Com, Inc. have until and through

August 6, 2008 to comply with Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4. So ORDEI2F,D and SIGNED this 29t1^ day ofJ'uly, 2aa8.

JorIN D.

vIJ

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

{wo^ ^^esatioooa^w^s^ossa.E }

EXH^^^^ _. --.----.-r---. PAGE ^3^ --

^^ ^._.. ,.--^4 (^

Gase 2:07-cv 00432-LED-JDL

Document '[45-2

Filed 10130!200$

Page 1 of '1

IN THE UNITED STATFrS D)STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE FRICING, INC., a Texas corporation; Plaintiff,

v.
GOOGLE INC ., a Delaware corporation; AOL LLC, a Delaware limited Eiability company; MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; YAHOOI WC., a Delaware corporation; IAC SEARCH &c MEDIA, INC,, a Delaware cot oration; A9.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;

Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-432-LED-JDL

(JURY) Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING TIIE J^OYNT 1VIOTION TO . EXTEND DEADLINE FOR EXCHANGE Or PROIQOSED TERMS AND CLAIM ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION UNDER PATENT RULE 4-1.

Perforrnance^Pricing , Ina ("PlaintifF') and Google Inc., AOL, LLC, Microsoft
Corporation, Yahoo! Ine., IAC Search & Medsa, Inc., and A9.Corn, Inc. ("Defendants") filed their joint motion and asked the CoarE to extend the deadline to Exchange Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for Construction under P.R. 4-l through and until November ;i, 201}8. Upon consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that said Motion shall be in all things granted, and it is further ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff and Defendants to Exchange Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for Construction under E.R. 4-1 shall be extended until and through So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st clay of October November 3, 20Q8. , 2445. [C^^/L^

C/11^ I

B ^^^ _.._

-

-

l

JOHN D.

VE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

_^

^^ F"'^"'f ^ _,...... _^---^!

^^

VJ

^.

.

,.-

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-,#DL

Dacumer^t I52-2

filed '{'2/0412008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES IISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff,
v. GOOGI E INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAH00? INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., A9.COM, INC.,

CASE N0.2:07^-cv-432 ^I..ED}

Defendants. URDI+IR
On this day, the Court considered the Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence filed by Plainti#fPerformancePncing , Ilrc. and Defendants Goggle Inc., AQI. LLC, Microsoft Corporation , YAH04! Inc., and IAC Search & Media, Inc. After considering the rnation , the Court is of the opinion that it is meritorious. It is therefore: ORDERED that the new deadline for serving preliminary claim constructions grid identification of extrinsic evidence is December I2, 2008.

Sa ORbERFD and SIGNET) this 5tli clay of I)eecrnber, 2008.

^oHN D,

vE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

99 9, 690011120 Z 625.6 k

EXHIBIT __. ^ PACE ._---^-

^'

^ CA ^

W

Case 2:07'-cv-00432-1wED-,lDL

Document 954-2

Filed 12111!2008

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff,
Case No . 2:07-CV-^32 (LED) v.

GpOGLE INC., AOL LLC, tvIICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOO! INC.,
IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9,COM, INC,, Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GI2ANTYNG JOINT ?VIOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE F012 EXC^7AI^iGE OF PRELINIINARY CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE On this day, the Court considered the Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for Exchange of Preliminary Clairn Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence Fled by Plaintiff Performance Pricing, Inc, and Defendants Gongle Inc,, AOL LLC, Microsoft Corporation , Yahoo! [nc., and IAC Search & Media, Tnc. After considering the motion , the Court is of the opinion that it is meritorious . It is therefore: ORDERED that the new deadline for serving preliminary claim constructions and identification of extrinsic evidence is December Z3, 2008.

Sa ORI}EREb and SIGNED this 12th day of I3ecernUer, 2008.

JOHN D. VE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5ezs»o^9

EXHIBIT ._ ^ PAGE ___3 yZ--

\,; . ._ ,^

^^

r"NY V'

^.^

^^

Case 2:07-cv-00432-L.^D-J17L

Dac^menf 156-2

Filed 12!1612008

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OE TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISIOiV

Pl~R,FORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff, Case No . 2:07-CV-432 (LED)

v. GOOGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOO! 1NC,,
3AC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM, INC., Defendants.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO E7^T>u ND DEADLINE FOR F1lRST ROUND OIi' MEDIATIQN . On this day,^ the Court considered the Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for First Round of

Mediation filed by PlaintiffPerformance Pricing, Inc. and Defendants Googie Inc., AOL LLC, Microsoft Corporation , Yahoo! Ine., and IAC Search & Media, Inc. After considering the motion , the Court is ofthe opinion that it is meritorious . It is therefore: ORDERED #hat the new deadline for the first round of mediation is May 15, 2009.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this !,7th day of December, 2008.

JOHN D_ OVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE .FUDGE

sf-2b 17495

ExH ^ B ^^` .__. .. -^-^ PAGE.

^^, __ ,.-./

EXHIBIT . PAGE 3^^

Case 2:07-cam 00432-I.^D-.IDL

Document 160-2

Fiied 01/26/2009

Page 1 of 1

_

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff,
Case No . 2:07-CV-432 {LED} v. GOGGLE INC., AOI, LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOO! INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM, INC., Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING .IOINT MOTION TO AMEND THE bOCKET CONTROL ORDER REGARDIl^IG THE P.R. 4-3 DEADLINE On this day, the Court considered the !Dint Motion to Amend the Docket Control Order Regarding the P.R. 4-3 Deadline fled by FlaintiffFerformance Pricing, Inc. and Defendants Gaogle Inc., AOL LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Yahoo! Inc., and IAC Search &. Media,.Inc. After considering the motion, the Court is othe opinion that it is meritorious. It is therefore:

ORDERED that the new deadline for the parties to file their P.R. 4-3 3oint Claim
Construction and Pre-hearing Statement is February i 0, 2009.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this ZTtli clay of January, 2009.

JOHN D. OVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE .FUDGE

{A0717654160041tiY4383488.1 ) sf-2617079

f

PAGE

3^^

i

^ ^_ tT'7 W

uw.^^

^^

,.e,.^

,-^^.

Case 2:07'-cv-00432-LED-JDI-

Dac^lment 162-2

Filed O'11301200^

Page 1 of 1

TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOIZ THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

I'ERI.ORMANCE 1'RiC1NG, INC., Flaintiff, Case No . 2:07-CV-432 (LED} v. GOOGLE II^^C., AOL LLC, M7CROSOF'f CORPORATION, YAHOO' 1rNC.,

,1"UR'S^ TRIAL DEMANDED

IAC SEARCH & MED1A, INC., and A9.C0\^I, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING ,IOIItiT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO PROVIDE PROPOSED TECI3NICAL ADVISORS

Having considered the parties' Joint Motion far Extension of Deadline to Provide Proposed Technical Advisors, the Court hereby GRANTS said Matian. It is therefore ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to provide the name, address, phone number, and curriculum vitae for three (3} agreed technical advisors and information regarding the nominees ' availability for Markman hearing or a statement # hat they could not reach an agreement as to any potential technical advisor is extended until and through February 13, 2009.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of 1E'ebrnary, 2003.

JOHN D. OVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUllGF:

{A07178541^06^11W03847^2.! } sf 2617079

EX^1^^T . ^..^ ^--PAGE

\.

._

J

p^

^_

E

`

[

^^

^ ^} V^ ^

-^

r^`^.

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-,IDL

Document 164-2

Filed 02/1012009

Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE EASTERN DISTRICT OE TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff, Case No. 2:07-CV·-432 {LED}
v, ', ', ', GOGGLE INC., AOL I,LC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOO! INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and ^ A9.CQM, INC., Defendants.

.IURY TRIAL. DEMANDED

ORDER. GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL EXTENSIOI^I OF TIME · REGARDII^TG THE PARTIES' P.R. 43 DEADLINE

On this day, the Court considered the Joint Motion for Additional Extension of Tirrte Regarding the Parties' P.R. 4-3 Deadline filed by Plaintiff Performance Pricing, Inc. and Defendants Google Inc., AOL LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Yahoo! Inc., and IAC Search & 1Vledia, Inc. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opistion that it is meritorious. It is therefore: .ORDERED that the new deadline for the parties to file their P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Pre-hearing Statement is February 12, 2009.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of February, 2009.

30I.1N D.

VE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE lAO^^7ssa^aooa^wossssa^.i } s^as^^o^s

EXHIBIT ^ PAGE _^-

__...

^ ^

^ W

v^ ^^

/^

+'^^^

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-JDL

Dacurriertt 167-2

Filed 021'[312009

Page 1 of 1

1N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION]

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC.,
Plaintiff, Case No . 2:07-CV-432 {LED}
v.

GOOGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION , YAHOOI INiG., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM, INC., Defendants.

JURY TRLA,L DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING SECOND JOINT awIOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLxNI TO p120 VIDE PROPOSED TECHNICAL ADVISORS

Having considered the parties' Second Joint Motion for Extension of Deadline to Provide Proposed Technical Advisors, the Court hereby GRANTS said Motion. It is therefore ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to provide the name, address, phone number, and curriculum vitae for three (3} agreed technical advisors and information regarding the nominees ' availability for Markman hearing or a statement that they could not reach an agreement as to any potential technical advisor is extended until and through February 27, 2009.

Sa ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of February, 2009.

JOHN D. OVE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

{P63178541000414Y0385919,1 }

^A^ E

3s^

,r^.

EXHIBIT _ ^ PAGE ^ s^

Case 2:07-cv-00432-1.ED-JDL

Document 469-2

Filed 02/27/2009

Page ^ of 1

IN T>^IE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEI^AS MARSHALL DIVISION

PER]µQRMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2:07-cv-432 (LED) JrURY 'T'RIAL DElVIANDED

GOOGi,E INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATIQN, YAHOO? INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COM, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING J'OYNT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO PROVIDE PROPOSED TECHNICAL ADVISORS Having considered the parties' mint Motion far Extension of Deadline to Provide Proposed Technical Advisors, the Court hereby GRANTS said Motion . It is therefore ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to provide the name, address, phone number,

and curriculum vitae for up to three (3) agreed technical advisors and information regarding the
nominees ' availability for Marlcanan hearing or a statement that they could not reach an

agreement as to any potential technical advisor is extended until and through March I3, 2009.

So ORDERED at^d SXGNED this 3rd day of March, 2009.

JOHN D.

VE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JCJDGE

EXHIBIT ._ ^ PAGE 3S`f

^^ __

i^^} .%

IN THE UMTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plainti#'f, Case No. 2:07-CV^32 {LED)

v. GOGGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSaFT CORPORATION, YAHOO? INC., IAC SEARCI-i & MEDIA, I1VC., and A9.COM, INC.,
Defendants.

J[]RY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTIQN FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE TO PROVIDE TECHNYCAL, TX3'I'OItIAY,S Having considered the parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Deadline to Provide Proposed Technical Tutorials, the Court hereby GRANTS said Motion. It is therefore aRDER^D that the deadline for the parties to provide technical tutorials is extended. until

and through March 26, 2009. Sa ORDERED and SIGNED tf^is 4th day of Marcl>;, 2©U9.

30HN D. OVE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5i367l281425a.1 u

PAGE

^s^---

r' .n.^.,

/'w^

-.=::;i

EXHIBIT -- ^ PAGE 3^

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LSD-,IDL

Document 180-2

Filed 03/2412009

Pags 1 of ^

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR THE EASTERN DISTRICT 0)~ TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PERI`ORMANCE PRICING, ITTC., PIaint7ff, v. GOOGLE II\^C., AOI. LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOO! INC., IAC SEARCI,I & MEDIA, INC., A9.COM, INC., Defendants. } } ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE N0.2;07-cv-432 (LED)

d1(JR'Y TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING .IOINT MOTION Ik'OIt EXTENSION OE DEADIJINE TO SUBMZ'I' TECHNOLOGY TUTORIALS The joint Mohan for Extension of Deadline to Submit Technology Tutorials is GRANTED, It is 1'ereby ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to provide technical tutorials to the Court is extended until and through April 2, 2009.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 25th dad of Marei^, 20U9.

,,^a JOHN D. OVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGi:

^,6,.^^,,^^sn.^

EXHIBIT .._ ^ PAGE 3s^

^ ^ ^

^ ^ ^

i

Case 2:07-cv-p0432-LED-JDL

Document 184-2

1=ifeci p41a2120p9

Page 1 of 3

[JNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2-07-cv-432 {LED)

JURY DEMANDED
GOGGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAHOOI 1NC., IAC SEARCH & MIaDIA,1NC., and A9.COM, INC. Defendants.

ORDER
Came on for consideration Plaintiff Performance Pricing , Int.'s Agreed Motion for Extension of Tune for Parties to Submit Technology Tutorials to the Court and the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED. IT IS, THEREI~ORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for Extension of Time for Parties to Submit Technology Tutorials to the Curt is GRANTED and the deadline far submission of technology tutorials is extended up to and including April 3, 2009.

Sv ORDEXtEI) and SIGNED this 3rd day of APri1, 2009.

70HN D. OVE
UNITIrD STATES MAGISTRATE ]UDGE

EXHIBIT ^ ^ PAGE 3^ ^

-MM. i

EX H I B IT PAGE 3 6l

-^

Case 2:07-cv-0©432-LEd-JDL

document 991-2

Filed 0511512408

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXA5

MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2-07GV-432-LED {Eastern District of Texas)

v.
GOOGLE INC.; AOL LLC; MICROSOFT CORP.; YAHOO! INC.; AND IAC SEARCH &.MI;DIA, INC., Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOIL FIRST ROIdND OF MEDIATION .

On this day, the Court considered the Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for First Round of Mediation filed by Plaintiff Performance Pricing, Inc. and Defendants Google Inc ., AOL LLC, Microsoft Corporation , and Yahool Inc. After considering the motion , the Court is of the opinion that it is meritorious . It is therefore: · ORDERED that the new deadline far the f rst round of mediation is July 3 1, 2009.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day oI'N[ay, 2009.

JOHN D. OVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I

EXHIBIT PAGE __ ^^ 7

-µ^

^

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action i\io. 2:47-cv 432 (LEDIJDL}
JURY DEMAN.UED

GOOGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, YAH00! INC., IAC SEA,ZtCH & MEDIA, INC., and A9.COlv1, INC.
Defendants.

ORDER Before the Court is Fiaintiff Performance Pricing, Inc.'s Agreed Motion for Extension of Certain Deadlines and Page Limits. After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the

Motion should be GRANTED.
it is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Ferforrnance Pricing, Ind.'s Agreed Motion for Extension of Certain Deadlines and Page Limits is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Performance Pricing, Inc, may file its Reply Claim Construction Brief on or before June $, 2004 and may have an additional eight ( 8) pages in which to file their Reply Claim Construction Brief for a total of eighteen ( 1 S} pages. It is further ORDERED that Defendants may file aSur-Reply Claim Construction Brief

on or before June 12, such brief not to exceed I O pages.
. So ORDERED and SIGNED Phis 8th day of rune , ZU09. ^Q

E^NI^IT PAGE
JOHN D. OVE

^/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

^^y

,: ,

PAGE

^ c^,

PERFORMANCE PRICING, iIVC., Plaintiff, v.
GOGGLE INC.; AOL LI,C; MICROSOI T CORP.; YAHOO! INC.; AND IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., Defendants. Civil Action No. 2-07CV-432-LED (Eastern District of Texas}

JURY TRIAL llCIVtANDIt:D

O1tIlER GRANTI[^'G JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR FIRST ROUND OF MEDIATION

On this day, the Court considered the Joint Motion to Extend Deadline for First Round of Mediation filed by PIaintiff Performance Pricing, Inc. and Defendants Googie Inc., AOL LLC,

and Mierosolt Corporation. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opinion that it is
meritorious . it is therefore: ORDERED that the new deadline far the first round of mediation is August I3, 2UQ9.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12th day of dune, 2009.

VE JOHN D. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

^^^F

^^^

^C ^Z

^ G`7

^'

^\

/^`\

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC.; AOL LI.C; MCCROSOFT CORP.; YAHOO! INC.; AND IAC SCARCH & MEDIA, iNC., Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMAI^IDED Civic Action No. 2-07CV-^32-LED (Eastern District of Texas)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TQ EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PATENT RULE 4-5(d} FILING

On this day, the Court considered the Jaint Motion to Cxtend Deadkine for Patent Rulc 45(d) Filing filed by PlaintiffPerFormance Pricing , Cnc. and Defendants Google Inc., AOL LLC, and Microsoft Corporation . After considering the motion , the Court is of the opinion that it is meritorious . It is therefore: QRDERED that the new deadline for the parties to comply with Patent Rule 4-5(d} is June 12, 2449. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 12#h day of June, 2409.

. .

JOHN D. VE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

EX HI B I T _ ^ PAG E ._^^

^..^

.^.

EXHIBIT ._ PAGE ^6 ^

-^-.

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-.1Q1.

t3ocwment 210-2

Filed 0 611 912 0 0 9

Page 1 of 7

C.INITL^D STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DT^IISIOIrI

I'lRFORMANCE PRICINCr, INC,, Plaintiff; v. GOOGLE INC.; AOL LLC; MICROSOFT CORP.; YAHOO! INC.; AND IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., Defendants. .YCTRY TRIAL DE^NDED

Civil Action No. 2-07CV-432-LED (Eastern District of Texas)

ORDER. GRANTING ^'OTNT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINES FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURES, DISCOVERY AND DI5POSYTN'E 1VtOTIONS
Ori this day, the Court considered the Joint Motion to Exte:ud Deadlines for Expert Disclosures , Discovery and Dispositive Motions filed by Plaintiff Performance Pricing, [nc. and Defendants Google Inc ., AOL LLC, and Microsoft Cor^oratian. After considering the rdotiaq the Count is of the opinion that it is meritorious . It is therefore ORDERED that tlze: Deadline for parties ^^th the burden of proof io designate exlaert witnesses, and that expert reports are due, is September 3 $, 2009; DeadIiste to designate responsive expert witnesses , and that are expert reports due, is October 30, 2409; I}iscavery deadline is November 13, 2009; Last day Eo file dispositive motions {including Daubert} is November 20, 2009; and Last day to respond to dispositive motions (including Daubert) is December 18, 2009. _ -

I

EXHBiI^ _. ^A^ E ^. ^^^^o -

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22nd day oi ' rune, 2009.

JOHN ©. OVE (JNI'fEp STATES MAGISTRATE J'Ui^GE

EXHIBIT PAGE

^

^

J C^

Case 2:07-cv-00432-LED-.!D[_

Document 2'19-2

Filed 07!1612009

Page 1 of ^

IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PERFORMANCE PRICING, INC., Plaintiff,

r^.
GOOGLE INC., AOL LLC, MICROSO>^T CORPORATION, YAHOO! INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., and A4.COM, INC., Defendants.

Case Na. Z:07-cv-^32 (C,EU} JURY TRL4L DEMANDED

ORDER

Came on for cgnsideration Plaintiff Performance Pricing, Int.'s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Further Limited Claim Construction Briefing and the Court is of

the opinion that the Motion should be GRANTED. It is therefore:
ORDERED that the new deadline for Plaintiff to submit the further limited claim construction brieFing under section 4 (pp. 4-5} of the Court's July 1 S, 2©09 Order is '^Jednesday, July 22, 2009 , and the new deadline for Defendants to submit its response is Tuesday, July 28, 2409. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of July, 20f19.

JOHN D.

VE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

01002 . Si3 0 5/3 01 21 2 5.1 ^

^^HIB^^ PAGE

^'

^^.

^^ P"^"1 ^ .

v ^^

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T1fCE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

PERFORMANCE PIZJCING, INC.,
Plaintiff,

v. GOpGLE 1NC. and AOL LLC, Defendants.

Case No. 2:07-cv-432 (LED)
JUit'Y TRIAL DEIVIANI7ED

ORI}ER GRANTING DEFENDANTS GOOGLE IYC. AND AOL LLC'S UNOPP©SED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT THEIR SllPPLEIVTENTAL RESPONSE BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Before the Court is Defendants Google lnc. and AOL LLC's (collectively, "Defendants"}
Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Tine to Submit to Submit Their Supplemental Response Brief on Claim Construction as ordered by the Court in section 4 (pp. 4-5} of the Court's Order issued on July 1 ^, 2009 (Docket No. 218} {"Order"}. The Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED. Therefore, it is hereby ORDEREb that the deadline far Defendants to submit a supplemental response brief on

claim constructing is extended to Thursday, July 30, 2009.
Sa ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of ^^ly, 2009.

JoxN D. oVE
UMTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

EXHIBIT ^ PAGE 3^