Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 218

MOTION to Strike 198 Opposed MOTION Granting Defendants Leave to Amend and Supplement Invalidity Contentions by Software Rights Archive, LLC. Responses due by 2/2/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of L Kaplan, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Kaplan, Lee)

Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Doc. 218 Att. 6

Exhibit 5

Dockets.Justia.com

e

DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP

7000 N. MaPae Expresswa~ Suite 350
Austin, TIC 78731 512.539.2626 (a) 512.539.2627 (f)

www.dpehlaw.com

M a r c h 11. 2 0 0 9

YOw Email
Thomas Bernard Walsh, IV Fish & Richardson PC
5000 B a n k One C e n t e r 1 7 1 1 Main Street
Dall~ TX 75201

Jason W. Wolff Fish & Richardson PC 12390 HI Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130
Ramon K. Tabtiang Fish & Richardson PC 225 Franklin St Boston, MA 02110 Richard S J Hung Francis C. Ho MorriS()D & Foerster LLP 425 Market St.. 3 4 t h Floor San Francisco. CA 94105-2482 Jennifer A. Kash Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges L L P 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Mark D. Baker

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges. LLP
51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Re:
Software Rights Archive, U C v. Google Inc. et al..Case N o . 2:07-CV-S 11 (TJW); I n the United States District Court for the Eastern District o f

Texas, Marshall Division

March I I , 2 0 0 9 Page 2

Dear COWlSel:
We a r c w r i t i n g y o u because y o u r invalidity contentions ·do n o t c o m p l y with P.R. 3-3 as interpreted b y Judge W a r d ' s February 24, 2009 Order i n Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson et al. Copies o f t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s B r i e f and Order i n the Saffran c a s e a r c attachcd.
A s i n Saffran, D e f e n d a n t s ' invalidity contentions fail t o g i v e a n y meaningful n o t i c e o f D e f e n d a n t s ' actual positions w i t h respect to the i n v a l i d i t y o f the assertcd p a t e n t s . D e f e n d a n t s h a v e a p p a r e n t l y b u r i e d t h e i r i n v a l i d i t y p o s i t i o n s s o m e w h e r e within 13,OOO-plus p a g e s o f c l a i m charts. It s h o u l d b e noted that J u d g e Ward found that 800 p a g e s o f c l a i m charts excessive i n Saffran. Defendants h a v e asserted t h a t 8 0 plus r e f e r e n c e s are anticipatory o f the Egger patents. A cursory i n s p e c t i o n o f Defendants' c l a i m charts r e v e a l s t h a t t h e vaSt m a j o r i t y o f these references c o u l d n o t b e anticipatory u n d e r a n y v i e w o f the evidence, a s m a n y c l a i m elements arc c o m p l e t e l y m i s s i n g 011 the face o f t h e references. Nevertheless, Defendants assert that au o f t h e references are a n t i c i p a t o r y w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o w h a t i s a c t u a l l y d i s c l o s e d i n t h e r e f e r e n c e s . T h e large v o l u m e o e r e f e r e n c e s in c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h specious interpretations o f the refm-ences show t h a t Defendants h a v e h i d d e n t h e i r true p o s i t i o n s for trial.

Defendants § 103 combinations a l s o fail to comply w i t h P.R. 3-3. T h e claim c h a r t s f a i l t o i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c p o r t i o n s o f t h e references u p o n w h i c h D e f e n d a n t s r e l y for e a c h c l a i m e l e m e n t . leaving P l a i n t i f f to guess as to what Defendants b e l i e v e is disclosed i n e a c h reference and w h a t Defendants assert is a motivation to· c o m b i n e t h e references. T h e s e c l a i m c h a r t s a r e m e r e l y l o n g lists o f a multitude o f combinations o f references that g i v e n o r e a l guidance as t o the a c t u a l combinations the Defendants are pursuing. Taken a t f a c e v a l u e , t h e s e c h a r t s d i s c l o s e m i l l i o n s , i f n o t b i l l i o n s , o f c o m b i n a t i o n s o f references. This i s p r e c i s e l y the t y p e o f limiUess combinations that led J u d g e Ward t o strike the Saffran d e f e n d a n t s ' c l a i m charts. See P l a i n t i f f ' s B r i e f . a t 3 ( ' ' T h e s u m o C these almost limitless combinations has t h e i n t e n d e d r e s u l t o f making it literally impossible· for Saffran t o i d e n t i f y a n d s t u d y t h e references o r combinations o f references that defendants r e l y u p o n as p r i o r art for obviousness"). S i n c e t h e p r i o r art is a m a t t e r o f public record, w e s e e no r e a s o n w h y your d i s c l o s u r e s c a n n o t b e i m m e d i a t e l y a m e n d e d . Accordingly. w e l C q u e s t t h a t y o u s e e k p e r m i s s i o n from. the C o u r t to amend y o u r disclosures i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the SaJfran decision. We w i l l not o p p o s e the a m e n d m e n t provide that you: ( 1 ) i m m e d i a t e l y seek l e a v e t o amend. a n d (2) d o n o t a d d additional references t o t h e a s s e r t e d p r i o r art o r o t h e r w i s e e x p a n d the scope o f y o u r i n v a l i d i t y defenses. We are o p e n t o discussing these i s s u e s w i t h y o u t o find a w o r k a b l e s o l u t i o n ; I f a c t i o n i s n o t t a k c n p r o m p t l y , h o w e v e r , w e w i l l s e e k to preclude Defendants from asserting some o r p o s s i b l y a l l o f their invalidity defenses.

March U . 2009 Page 3

Yours very truly,
DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER." HARDY U P

EncloSUres cc: Andrew DiNovo Lee Kaplan