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. 7

Exhibit 6

Dockets.Justia.com

ATTORNEY'S E Y E S O N L Y

DINOVO P R I C E ˇ

7000 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 350
A u s t i n . T X 78731

ELLWANGER ac HARDY LLP
. .. J u l y 8, 2 0 0 9

512539.2626 (0) 512.5392627 ( f )

www.dpehlaw.com

Via E m a i l T h o m a s B e r n a r d Walsh, I V F i s h & Richardson P C 5000 B a n k O n e C e n t e r 1717 M a i n S t r e e t D a l l a s , T X 75201 Richard S J Hung Morrison & F o e r s t e r L L P S a n Francisco 425 M a r k e t S t 34th F l o o r San Francisco, C A 94105-2482 MarkDBaker . Quinn E m a n u e l Urquhart O l i v e r & Hedges, LLP N Y . 51 M a d i s o n Ave 22ndFloor N e w York, N Y 10010

Re: S o f t w a r e R i g h t s Archive, U C v. Google Inc. e t ai., Case No. 2 : 0 7 - C V-511 . ( T r W ) ; I n t h e ˇUnited States D i s t r i c t C o u r t for t h e 'Eastern District o f T e x a s , . . Marshall Division; Insufficient D i s c l o s u r e s o f P r i o r A r t i n D e f e n d a n t s ' J o i n t Invalidity Cdntentions D e a r Counsel: . . . We write in reference t o D e f e n d a n t s ' j o i n t Invalidity. Contentions in t h i s m a t t e t u n d e r P . R 3 - 3 , w h i c h w e r e p r o d u C e d o n J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 . ~I . ... .. We are concerned b e c a u s e t h e Invalidity C o n t e n t i o n s s t a t e o n p a g e 4 that y o u r invalidity c l a i m charts are m e r e l y illustrative o t rePresentative o f D e f e n d a n t s ' complete invalidity

I As y o u k n o w , t h e 2 5 0 i n v a l i d i t y c l a i m c h a r t s a t t a c h e d as e x h i b i t s ( E x h i b i t s A-Ol to 1-70) t o t h e contentions amount to o v e r 13,000 p a g e s o f material. Y o u r InvalidIty Contentions purport to incorporate these c l a i m charts b y reference o n p a g e s 2 , 4 , 1 4 - 1 6 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 3 4 - 3 7 , 4 1 - 4 2 , 5 9 , 6 2 , and

C57.

.

July 8, 2 0 0 9 Page 2
A T I O R N E Y ' S EYES O N L Y

c o n t e n t i o n s for trial. 2 T i n s p o s i t i o n i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h .the disclosure requirements o f P.R. 33 (a). F o r example, p r i o r art u n d e r 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) " s h a l l be identified b y specifying the item o f f e r e d f o r sale o r p u b l i c l y u s e d or-known, t h e d a t e t h e o f f e r o r u s e t o o k p l a c e o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n b e c a m e known, a n d the identity of the person o r entity which made the Use or which made and - r e c e i v e d t h e offer~ o r t h e p e r s o n o r e n t i t y w h i c h m a d e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n k n o w n o r t o w h o m i t w a s m a d e k n o w n . " ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . We n o t e t h a t a l t h o u g h y o u h a v e a s s e r t e d p r i o r a r t p u b l i c a t i o n s d e s c r i b i n g c o m p u t e r s y s t e m s , y o u h a v e n o t p r o d u c e d o r designated t h e actual s o f t w a r e o r c o d e o f t h e s e s y s t e m s as p r i o r a r t as r e q U i r e d b y t h e r u l e s o f t h i s c o u r t . I n d e e d , t h e o n l y c o d e w e c o u l d l o c a t e w a s t h e " L y c u s 4 " c o d e i n y o u r p r o d u c t i o n . B a s e d o n y o u r f a i l u r e to s p e c i f y , p r o d u c e , a n d m a k e t h e required d i s c l o s u r e s u n d e r P.R. 3-3(a) for devices, software SQurce oode, programs, a n d / o r p r o g r a m suites, w e p r e s u m e t h a t y o u are n o t asserting s u c h code. o r p r o g r a m s as p r i o r art, b u t r a t h e r a r e r e l y i n g o n t h e p u b l i c a t i o n s t h e m s e l v e s a s p r i o r art. 3 P l e a s e c o n f i n n w h e t h e r y o u i n t e n d to assert a n y c o m p u t e r c o d e o r s o f t w a r e ( r a t h e r than j u s t a publication that describes t h e software) as p r i o r a r t a n d w h e t h e r s u c h c o d e o r s o f t w a r e w a s p r o d u c e d. .O u r s e c o n d a r e a o f c o n c e r n i s r e g a r d i n g y o u r failure t o i d e n t i f y w h e r e s p e c i f i c a l l y i n each a l l e g e d i t e m o f p r i o r a r t e a c h e l e m e n t o f t h e a s s e r t e d c l a i m s i s found, i n c l u d i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e s a n d acts p e r f o n n i n g t h e c l a i m e d functions, a n d y o u r -failure to p r o d u c e a c o p y o f e a c h i t e m o f p r i o r a r t identified i n y o u r I n v a l i d i t y Contentions w h i c h d o e s n o t a p p e a r i n the file history. P.R. 3 - 3 (c) r e q u i r e s a " c h a r t i d e n t i f y i n g w h e r e s p e c i f i c a l l y i n e a c h alleged-item o f p r i o r a r t e a c h e l e m e n t o f e a c h a s s e r t e d c l a i m is f o u n d , inCluding . . . t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s t r u c t u r e ( s ) , a c t ( s ) , o r n i a t e r i a l ( s ) i n e a c h i t e m o f p r i o r art t h a t p e r f o r m s t h e c l a i m e d function'" a n d P.R. 3 . 4 requires t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f - a " c o p y o f e a c h i t e m o f p r i o r a r t identified p u r s u a n t to P. R. 3-3(a) w h i c h does n o t a p p e a r i n the file h i s t o r y . . . . . . ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Y o u r I n v a l i d i t y C o n t e n t i o n s ˇ s t a t e o n p a g e 4 t h a t " D e f e n d a n t S _ a y also r e l y o n o t h e r d o c u m e n t s a n d information, including cited references a n d prosecution m histories f o r t h e p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t , a n d e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y t o p r o v i d e c o n t e x t o r t o aid i n understanding t h e c i t e d p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e f e r e n c e s . " . T h e y a d d o n p a g e 4 2 t h a t " i t w a s wellk n o w n t o u s e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e d i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t links betWeen d o c u m e n t s a n d data for i n f o r m a t i o n retrieval. T h e ' 4 9 4 P a t e n t s i m p l y c o m b i n e s t h e s e a n d o t h e r k n o w n m e t h o d s . " B a s e d ˇ o n y o u r failure to s p e c i f y w h e r e i n e a c h a l l e g e d i t e m o f software source c o d e , p r o g r a m s , a n d / o r p r o g r a m s u i t e s e a c h e l e m e n t o f t h e a s s e r t e d c l a i m s i s found; i n c l u d i n g w h e r e i n e a c h s u c h i t e m t h e c l a i m e d functions a r e performed, w e p r e s u m e t h a t youˇ are n o t asserting that d o c u m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n n o t l i s t e d i n y o u r c l a i m charts, i n c l u d i n g software source c o d e o r programs, c o n s t i t u t e p r i o r a r t o r § 103 m a t e r i a l . .-

2 The Invalidity COl;'tentions state, o n pages 4 and 14, that the "invalidity claim charts list specific examples o f where prior art references disclose, either expressly or inherently, each limitation o f the asserted claiim and/or examples o f disclosures in view o f which a person o f o t d ~ skill in the art would have considered each limitation, and therefore the claim as a whole, obvious. The references, however, may contain additional support ypon which Defendants may rely." (emphasis added). J As you are aware, the s a m e IIllJDe may b e associated with several different versions o f a software program or system, including versions that contain little o r no code in common. Multiple versions -o f a software program or system may have very different capabilities; and these capabilities do not always increase monotonically from earlier to later versions. As the Court's discovery order clearly states, Defendants are DOt excused from the requirements o f the Patent Rules because they have not coDJPleted their investigation o f the case, or bee.use another p a r t y h a s not made its disclosures. .

July 8, 2009 Page 3
A T I O R N E Y ' S EYES O N L Y

O u r third area o f concern deals with combinations o f prior art alleged i n your Invalidity Contentions to render the asserted claims obvious. Your Invalidity Contentions state, on page 17, that "Defendants identify the following additional exemplary prior art references that either alone or i n combination with other prior art (including any o f the above anticipatory p r i o r art) renders the asserted claims invalid as obvious under 3 5 U.S.C. §ˇ103." (emphasis added). O n page 22, the Invalidity Contentions also declare that the.combinations provided are merely illustrative.4 Identifying exemplary o r representative prior art references i s n o t consistent w i t h P.R. 3..3(b), which states that invaliˇdity contentions mustˇ describe: . " W h e t h e r each item o f prior art anticipates each asserted claim o r renders it obvious. I f a combination o f items o f p r i o r art makes a claim obvious, each such combination, and. the motivation t o combine such items, must be identified." (emphasis added). As stated i n Silffranv. Johnson & JohnSon, Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-00451 (TJW) (E.D. Tex. o r d e r compelling compliance with P.R. 3.3; Feb. 24, 2009), i n v a l i d i t y c o n t e n t i o n s t h a t ˇ " i n c l u d e l a n g u a g e p u r p o r t i n g t o m a k e t h e c o n t e n t i o n s merely i l l u s t r a t i v e " a r e i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e letter o f P . R . 3 - 3 ( b ) a n d a r e s u b j e c t t o b e i n g stricken.
. .
. '

.

O u r fourth area o f concern was previously identified i n o u r March I I , 2009 letter to d e f e n s e c o u n s e l , a n d related t o t h e n u m b e r o f r e f e r e n c e s a n d c o m b i n a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d i n y o u r Invalidity Contentions~ Your Invalidity Contentions regarding the ' 3 5 2 Patelit, as set forth on page 17, state that: " E a c h prior art reference disclosed i n the preceding sections (see § ill.A), either alone o r in combination with other prior art, also rend~ t h e asserted claims invalid as obvious." Given that the prior art references disclosed i n seCtion i l l . A amount to 63 references, the combinations o f these 63 references could exceed hundreds o f thousands, i f n o t millions, i n number, n o t including the "combination[s] with other p r i o r art" suggested i n y o u r Iilvalidity Contentions. As noted above, P.R. 3-3(b) requires that when a "combination o f i t e i n s o f prior art m a k e s a c l a i m o b v i o u s , e a c h s u c h c o m ~ i n a t i o n . a n d t h e m o t i v a t i o n t o c o m b i n e s u c h items. m u s t b e identified. , , 5 (emphasis added). Given your failure toˇ identify each such combination, we presume t h a t y o u will not rely o n such combinations at trial. I n the Saffran case cited above, the court held that because P.R. 3.3 requireS parties to "crystallize their theories o f the case early in the litigation" and provide notice o f all information intended to be used at trial, hundreds o f pages o f references that do n o t specifically identify all combinations o f prior art to b e used at trial are i n violation o f P.R. 3~3(b) . .

Defendants state OD page 22: "Examples o f combinationS o f prior art references relating to'information retrieval ...." (emphasis a d d e d ) . . .. .. Furthermore, P.R. 3-4(a) requires the production o f a "copy o f each iteni o f prior art identified pursuant to P. R.33(a) which docs not appcar in the file history ˇ . . ." Defendants' Invali~ty Contentions refer to several software programs by name, including Bell Laboratories'S Language, TIP, ENVISION, SMART, .lntcnncdia, Qyberpilot, "Lycos", all versions o f Structme through Stnleture Version 4.2, all versions o f UClNBT through UCINET IV, . GENVL, WWWW, g1BIS, and LEND Pattern Language Syntax Specification v. 1 . 3 , b u t Defendants have failed to specifically assert such programs as prior art or produce a copy o f t h e source code, executable code, or operational software systems for these programs, including the files, databases, commands, scripts, etc. t h a t you intend to Cite in this case or refer to at trial, or aD)' documents, published or unpublished, t h a t you intend to refer to at trial as being descriptive o f each version o f the these programs. .
4
~

July 8 , 2 0 0 9 Page 4
A l T O R N E Y ' S EYES ONLY

Finally, our fifth area o f concern deals with prior art cited in your claim charts, but not provided to us under P.R. 3-4(a). F o r example, E X A - 4 0 Chart cites Gelbart, :b., Smith, J.C., "Beyond Boolean Search: Flexicon, A Legal Text-Based Intelligent System." ACM, pp. 225-234 (1991) ("Gelbart, 1991''). We have not been provided with a copy o f this document. Given your failure to produce this docwnent, we presume that you will not rely on it. Similarly, EX A-40 Chart cites Turtle, "Inference Networks for Document Retrieval", SIGIR '90 ( l 9 9 ( ) . Given your failure to produce this document, we presume that you will not rely on it. I f you have a different Understanding o f the things I have stated in this letter, please let me know. . "

Yours very tnlly,
D I N O V O P R I C E E L L W A N G E R & H A R D Y LLP

v'~ "If~ (INP) "
Victor Hardy " " . . "" "".

cc:

Counsel for Plaintiff Couns~l for Defendants