IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.

Filing 57

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF AND PREHEARING STATEMENT filed by Google, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Richardson, Michael)

IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.

Doc. 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
F'OR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION
$
$ $

IP INNOVATION L.L.C. AND TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION.

Plaintiffs.
V.

$ $ $ $

CASE NO. 2:07CV-503-LED

ruRY TRIAL REQUESTED

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

$
$

$ $

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Pursuant

to P.R. 4-3, Plaintiffs IP

Innovation L.L.C. and Technology Licensing
Prehearing

Corporation and Defendant Google Inc.
Statement.

file this Joint Claim Construction and

I.

Agreed Claim Constructions [P.R. a-3(a)] Pursuant

to P.R. 4-3(a), the parties have agreed on proposed

constructions

of

the

following claim terms, phrases, or clauses, of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,276,785,
entitled "Moving Viewpoint V/ith Respect To A Target In

A Three-Dimensional'Workspace,"

and 5,675,819, entitled "Document Information Retrievâl Using Global Word Co-Occurrence Patterns": U.S. Pa tent No.
lllil: ,,,Teiiù, point of interest (claims 52 and 55)
r,r,.;, r -i:,iriiri;,,iär i, ,

7U5

'

A point indicated by the user and relative to which the viewpoint can move

These constructions are also reflected in the tables attached as Exhibits

A (U.S. Patent

No. 5,276,785) and B (U.S. Patent No. 5,675,819).
USIDOCS 7228819vl

If the parties are able to reach further

Dockets.Justia.com

agreement concerning the constructions of any of the remaining claim terms, phrases, or clauses at issue, they

will supplement

the present Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.

il.

Disputed Claim Constructions [P.R.4-3(b)]
Pursuant

to P.R. 4-3(b), the parties' proposed constructions of disputed claim terms,
A and B, together with all

phrases, or clauses are also reflected in the tables attached as Exhibits

references from the specification or prosecution history that support the construction and an

identification of any extrinsic evidence. The parties expressly reserve the right to rely on any intrinsic and extrinsic evidence identified by the other party, and any evidence obtained, or that
may be obtained, through claim construction discovery. The parties expressly reserve the right

to amend, correct, or supplement its claim construction positions and supporting evidence in
response

to any change of position by the other party, in

response

to information

received

through claim construction discovery, including inventor depositions and expert depositions
concerning claim construction declarations, or for other good cause.

III.

Length of Claim Construction Hearing [P.R.a-3(c)]
The parties anticipate that the claim construction hearing

will require a total of four

hours. This would allow each party two hours to argue the disputed terms, phrases, and clauses.

IV.

Live \ilitness Testimony at Claim Construction Hearing [P.R. 4-3(d)]
Neither party intends to call witnesses live at the claim construction hearing. However,

the parties have agreed that deposition testimony and affidavits of expert and fact witnesses may
be used as exhibits to the Claim Construction Briefs required by P.R. 4-5.

V.

Identification of Expert Witnesses Expected to Offer Claim Construction Opinions
Pursuant to the Court's }l4ay 4,2009 Order, Google identifies the following expert

witnesses who are expected to offer claim construction opinions: Dr. V/. Bruce Croft,

Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA; and Dr. Norman

USiDOCS 7228819v1

I. Badler, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, PA. Plaintiffs identify the following expert witness who may offer claim construction opinions, either in the opening brief or on reply: Dr. Ophir Frieder, IITRI Professor

of Computer Science and Director of the Information Retrieval Lab, Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago,

IL.

Google notes that the current schedule does not contemplate claim

construction declarations being served in reply, and believes it would be inappropriate for

Plaintiffs' expert to do so; however, Google is willing to meet and confer in good faith with Plaintiffs to determine a schedule that would permit both parties to serve reply or rebuttal expert claim construction declarations should Plaintiffs desire to do so.

VI.

Other Issues [P.R. a-3(e)] According to the Docket Control Order, there is no prehearing conference scheduled

before the claim construction hearing. The parties do not at this time have any other issues that

might be appropriately taken up at either a prehearing conference before or at the claim
construction hearing. Should arry party become aware of such issues that it believes necessitates

a prehearing conference,
prehearing conference.

it will notifr

the other party and the Court and propose dates for

a

Dated: JuIy 13,2009

Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Douglas M. Hall
Raymond P. Niro Joseph N. Hosteny Arthur A. Gasey Paul C. Gibbons Douglas M. Hall David J. Mahalek NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO 181 West Madison, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]
a

USIDOCS 7228819v1

T. John'Ward Ward & Smith 111 V/. Tyler St. Longview, Texas 75601 Telephone: [phone] Toll Free [phone] Facsimile: (903) 7 57 -2323 Eric M. Albritton
[e-mail]

Attorney atLaw P.O. Box 2649 Longview, T){75606 Telephone: [phone] Facisimile: (903) 7 58-7397

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER.CLAIM DEFENDANTS IP INNOVATION L.L.C. AND TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION
Dated: July

13,2009

Respectfully submitted,

By:/s/ David

J. Beck

David J. Beck Texas Bar No. 00000070 [e-mail] Michael E. Richardson Texas BarNo. 24002838 mrichards o n@brs firm. co m BECK, REDDEN & SECREST, L.L.P. One Houston Center l22l McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, T){' 77010 (713) 9sr-3700 (713) 9sI-3720 (Fax) Mark G. Matuschak (admittedpro hac vice) V/ILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) s26-6000 (617) s26-s000 (Fax)
John M. Hintz (admittedpro hac vice) Victor F. Souto (admittedpro hac vice) Ross E. Firsenbaum (admiuedpro høc vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (2r2)230-8800 (2r2)230-8888 (Fax)
4
USIDOCS 72288t9v1

Elizabeth Rogers Brannen (admittedpro hac vice) Anna T. Lee (admittedpro hac vice) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1117 CalifomiaAvenue Palo Alto, CA94304 (6s0) 8s8-6042 (6s0) 858-6100 (Fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AND COI]NTER.CLAIM PLAINTIFF GOOGLE INC.

USIDOCS 7228819v1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this motion was served on all counsel who have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).

/s/ Michael E. Richardson Michael E. Richardson

USIDOCS 7228819v1