Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,

Filing 201

REPLY to Response to Motion re 152 SEALED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY FOR LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION AND FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE BEST MODE Defendant Google Inc.'s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidty for Lack of Written Description and Failure to Disclose the Best Mode filed by Google, Inc.,. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Jerry T. Yen, # 2 Exhibit K)(Yen, Jerry)

Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,

Doc. 201 Att. 2

Exhibit K

Dockets.Justia.com

From: Valek, Michael [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 10:32 PM To: Ruffin Cordell; Jason Wolff; Jennifer P. Ainsworth Cc: Northeastern External Subject: RE: NU v. Google - your voicemail Ruffin, Neither Mustang, nor Index Server, are accused of infringement. Plaintiffs stipulated in Court that we are not asserting that Index Server infringes any of the claims. And, as you know, Mustang has never been accused of infringement. As we said below, Plaintiffs see no need for a Super Sack letter and we haven't promised one. If Google wishes to pursue non-infringement counterclaims for systems that are not accused of infringement, we will ask the Court to decline to exercise its discretion to hear those non-infringement counterclaims. Regardless, in light of Plaintiffs' stipulation regarding the Index Server system, the Court has already ordered that Google may not refer to Plaintiffs' prior infringement contentions, including those directed to Index Server. Thanks,

Michael A. Valek
Vinson & Elkins LLP 512.542.8807 (office) 512.236.3284 (fax) [e-mail]

From: Ruffin Cordell [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:18 PM To: Valek, Michael; Jason Wolff; Ainsworth, Jennifer (Wilson Law Firm) Cc: Northeastern External Subject: RE: NU v. Google - your voicemail

Michael, Just checking on your progress. Can we expect your Supersack letter tomorrow? Looks like both corporate representatives are here in Marshall to sign the letter. Thanks,
1

Ruffin
From: Ruffin Cordell Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:14 AM To: 'Valek, Michael'; Jason Wolff; Jennifer P. Ainsworth Cc: Northeastern External Subject: RE: NU v. Google - your voicemail

Michael, My understanding was that you were going to include Index Server and Mustang as part of your Supersack letter for all claims of the patent. I believe the Court invited us to re-raise this issue if no such letter was forthcoming. Have plaintiffs changed their minds on this? Ruffin
From: Valek, Michael [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 12:11 AM To: Jason Wolff; Ruffin Cordell; Jennifer P. Ainsworth Cc: Northeastern External Subject: NU v. Google - your voicemail Jason, I got your voicemail. Plaintiffs represented in front of the Court on Tuesday that we are not accusing Index Server of infringement. That representation is binding on our clients, so there is no need for a follow up letter saying the same thing. I don't understand your concern about waiving your non-infringement counterclaim as there is no infringement claim that remains with respect to Index Server. It seems the issue has already been put to bed. Regards,

Michael A. Valek
Vinson & Elkins LLP 512.542.8807 (office) 512.236.3284 (fax) [e-mail]

Treasury Circular 230 Disclosure: To the extent this communication contains any statement regarding federal taxes, that statement was not written or intended to be used, and it cannot be used, by any person (i) as a basis for avoiding federal tax penalties that may be imposed on that person, or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received

2

this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system.

Thank You.

*************************************************************************************************** ************************* This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.(FR08-i203d) *************************************************************************************************** *************************

3