PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 446

RESPONSE in Opposition re #433 MOTION in Limine and Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Mr. Stanley Peters filed by Google Inc., Yahoo! Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Text of Proposed Order)(Perlson, David)

Download PDF
PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 446 Att. 1 EXHIB IT 1 Pre-Trial Conference Hearing 1 2 3 IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MARSHALL DIVISION ------------------------- 4 PA ADVISORS, 5 Plaintiff, : Civil Docket No. VS. : 2:07-cv-00480-RRR 7 GOOGLE, INC., et al., 8 Defendant. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ------------------------Washington, D.C. Monday, December 28, 2009 The above-entitled matter came on for Pretrial Conference, pursuant to Notice. BEFOREHONORABLE RANDALL R. RADER, Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PA Advisors v. Google Page 9 Pre-Trial Conference Hearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 JUDGE RARER: In other words, you want it to include that iG^reflect the user's cultural, educational, social backgrounds and psychological profile? MR. VERHOEVEN: That's correct, Your Honor, and I don't have the full briefing in front of me on this, but -- and I also, unfortunately, don't have the patent 7 8 9 to look at right here, but my recollection is at the end of the second independent claim, the claim language. this is actually part of 10 11 12 Brian, can you help me out here? JUDGE RARER: MR. CANNON: This is Claim 45? Well, Claim 1 works, as well, for 13 thi s. S o it' s th e JUDGE RARER: Claim 1 is in somewhat doubt 14 15 16 17 anyways. Claim 45 you may have trouble with. So let's stick with 45. MR. CANNON: Okay. Let's look at Claim 45. 18 JUDGE RARER: An overall linguistic pattern of 19 20 the user -MR. CANNON: Right. So if you -- 21 22 PA Advisors v. Google JUDGE RARER: -- substantially corresponding to. MR. CANNON: So Claim 45 is -- is a multi-step Page 25 Pre-Trial Conference Hearing 1 method claim for generating a user data profile which is 2 3 4 5 6 7 a user profile and Step K after -- after the completion of this, you know, complex series of steps, Step K requires that the computer system store the user profile and it -- it be representative of an overall linguistic pattern of the user, that overall linguistic pattern substantially corresponding to the user's social, cultural, educational, economic background and to the user's psychological profile. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So that not only is it defined in the specification, your Honor, but in the actual claim, it confirms that the pattern JUDGE RADER: Well, you're not going to have any trouble then if it's in the claim, are you? MR. CANNON: JUDGE RADER: I'm in Claim 45, Subsection K. Yes, I see that, but, I mean, you're not going to have any trouble because you've got the language you need in the claim anyway, right, and you know that this Court is going to enforce the language of the claim very specifically? MR. CANNON: does not have that. Page 26 Right. Because the Google system PA Advisors v. Google Pre-Trial Conference Hearing 1 JUDGE RADER: Well, that, of course, is a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 question of -MR. CANNON: That's right. We have to demonstrate that to Your Honor. JUDGE RADER: That's a question we'll have to have proven, unless you can show it as a matter that is not in contention. But it doesn't sound to me, Mr. Cannon or Mr. Verhoeven, that you have any concerns with the claim construction because the -- the construction '"a 10 11 12 you wish the Court'to enforce is already in the claim. Am I correct? MR. VERHOEVEN: Your Honor, this is Mr. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Verhoeven. We continue to believe that the construction of the phrase 18^linguistic pattern!ZM by itself was defined in the patent and that the more accurate -JUDGE RADER: If I enforce the claim which has the same language, do you have a problem? MR. VERHOEVEN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I didn't hear the first part of your sentence. I apologize. JUDGE RADER: If I enforce.the claim which has the language in it you request, do you have any problem? MR. VERHOEVEN: Yes, we would still like Your Page 27 PA Advisors v. Google

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?