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. 8

Exhibit 7

Dockets.Justia.com

MORRISON

I

FOERSTER

425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 TELEPHONE: [phone] FACSIMlLE: 415.268.7522 WWW.MOFO.COM

MORRiSON

01:

F O E R S T E R LLP

N E W Y O R K , SAN F R A N C I S C O . LOS ANGELBS. PALO ALTO, SAN D I E O O , W A S H I N O T O N , D . C . NORTHERN VIkGINIA. DENVeR. SACRAMENTO. WALNUT caEBK TOKYO. LONDON. BEIJING. SHANOHAI, HONO KONO. SINGAPORe,DRUSSBLS

M a r c h 27, 2009

W r i t e r ' s Direct C o n t a c t (415) 2 6 8 - 7 6 0 2 [e-mail]

Via Electronic Mail Victor G. Hardy DiNovo Price Ellwanger & H a r d y L L P 7 0 0 0 N. M o P a c E x p r e s s w a y , S u i t e 3 5 0 Austin, Texas 78731 Re:· Software Rights Archive. L L C v. Google Inc., e t aI., No. 07-CV-511 (B.D. Tex.)

D e a r Victor: I write o n b e h a l f o f Defendants i n response t o your letter o f M a r c h 11, 2009, c o n c e r n i n g D e f e n d a n t s ' I n v a l i d i t y Contentions. A t t h e o u t s e t , w e d i s a g r e e t h a t S a f f r a n holds t h a t D e f e n d a n t s ' I n v a l i d i t y C o n t e n t i o n s are s o m e h o w deficient b e c a u s e . o f t h e i r length o r because o f t h e n u m b e r o f a t t a c h e d c l a i m charts. Saffran i n v o l v e d 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 d i d n o t " s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y combinations o f references t h a t the defendants anticipate[d] using a t trial [and] include[d] language purporting to m a k e t h e contentions merely illustrative." O n those bases alone, t h e . court struck t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' invalidity contentions .. Here, b y contrast, Defendants h a v e . p r o v i d e d m o r e t h a n a d o z e n c l a i m c h a r t s specifically describing c o m b i n a t i o n s t h a t r e n d e r obvious one o r m o r e claims o f t h e ' 3 5 2 , ' 4 9 4 , o r '571 patents. A s a result, Saffran is inapplicable. While D e f e n d a n t s ' c l a i m charts admittedly are quite long, t h e y are necessarily so. In this case, S R A has alleged t h a t five different defendants infringe 64 claims o f three different patents. E x p l a i n i n g h o w e v e n a s i n g l e anticipatory reference ( o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f r e f e r e n c e s f o r obviousness) discloses all o f the limitations o f even a s i n g l e c l a i m o f t h e asserted patents r e q u i r e s s e v e r a l p a g e s . S R A ' s o w n I n f r i n g e m e n t C o n t e n t i o n s c o n f i r m this. T h e y s p a n m o r e than 6 6 0 p a g e s ( o r a l m o s t 1 , 5 0 0 p a g e s , a c c o u n t i n g f o r t h e u s e o f m u l t i - c o l u m n c h a r t s ) . T h e l e n g t h o f D e f e n d a n t s ' I n v a l i d i t y C o n t e n t i o n s also r e s u l t e d f r o m D e f e n d a n t s ' a t t e m p t t o a s s i s t S R A b y p r o v i d i n g the a c t u a l t e x t o f t h e i n v a l i d i t y r e f e r e n c e s , a n d n o t J u s t c i t a t i o n s t o t h e m . R e m o v i n g this t e x t n o w t o s h o r t e n t h e I n v a l i d i t y Contentions w o u l d n o t h e l p ( a n d c o u l d o n l y h i n d e r ) S R A ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f D e f e n d a n t s , positions.

MORRISON

I FOERSTER

V i c t o r G. Hardy M a r c h 2 7 , 2009 Page Two Although Defendants do n o t a g r e e w i t h S R A ' s concerns regarding D e f e n d a n t s ' I n v a l i d i t y C o n t e n t i o n s , i n t h e interests. o f c o o p e r a t i o n , D e f e n d a n t s a r e w i l l i n g t o r e v i e w t h e m a g a i n a n d , i f appropriate, a m e n d t h e m t o p r o v i d e g r e a t e r specificity. I f S R A believes t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m c h a r t o r a s p e c t o f D e f e n d a n t s ' I n v a l i d i t y C o n t e n t i o n s is d e f i c i e n t , w e w o u l d a.ppreciate y o u r c a l l i n g t h e s p e c i f i c c h a r t o r p o s i t i o n . t o o u r a t t e n t i o n . W h i l e Defendants undertake this review, h o w e v e r , D e f e n d a n t s a s k that S R A a m e n d its o w n Infringement Contentions t o specifically i d e n t i f y h o w e a c h a n d e v e r y o n e o f D e f e n d a n t s ' accused products o r s e r v i c e s a l l e g e d l y infringe immediately. U n d e r t h e P a t e n t Rules, S R A ' s Infringement C o n t e n t i o n s are s u p p o s e d t o p r o v i d e actual a n d adequate notice o f t h e specific claims being a s s e r t e d a n d h o w s p e c i f i c a l l y the a c c u s e d p r o d u c t s o r services a l l e g e d l y infringe. See Linex Techs. Inc. v. B e l k i n Int'l, Inc., No. 07~222, 2 0 0 8 U.S. Dist. L E X I S 70885, a t *25 (E.D. Tex. S e p t . 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ) . S R A ' s I n f r i n g e m e n t C o n t e n t i o n s fall far s h o r t o f t h i s requirement.· L o o k i n g o n l y a t S R A ' s I n f r i n g e m e n t C o n t e n t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to Y a h o o ! , f o r e x a m p l e , SRA generally alleges t h a t " Y a h o o ! S o f t w a r e " infringes 63 claims. S R A a l s o p r o v i d e s , w i t h o u t further explanation, a l i s t o f 1 3 0 Y a h o o ! - r e l a t e d " p r o d u c t s , services, s o f t w a r e and f e a t u r e s " t h a t " p e r f o n n o r u s e a n i n f r i n g i n g l i n k analysis," ' ' u p o n i n f o r m a t i o n a n d b e l i e f . " M a n y o f t h e items i n this l i s t a p p e a r t o h a v e b e e n i n c l u d e d s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y c o n t a i n t h e w o r d " Y a h o o ! " (e.g., Y a h o o ! F o o d , o r Y a h o o ! G r o u p s ) o r b e c a u s e t h e y a r e Y a h o o ! c o m p a n i e s (e.g., t h e p h o t o - s h a r i n g s i t e F l i c k r ) . S R A ' s I n f r i n g e m e n t C o n t e n t i o n s f o r Yahoo! a l s o attach a n o t h e r l i s t o f 2 3 1 w e b s i t e s . S R A ' s a p p a r e n t v i e w , a g a i n ' ' b a s e d o n i n f o n n a t i o n a n d b e l i e f , " is t h a t Yahoo! i n f r i n g e s m e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e s e w e b s i t e s a r e " P o w e r e d by Yahoo!" S R A ' s allegations o f i n f r i n g e m e n t b y Yahoo! a p p a r e n t l y a r i s e from n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n S R A ' s a s s u m p t i o n t h a t " Y a h o o ! a n d G o o g l e a r e l i k e l y u s i n g siririlar a l g o r i t h m s . " . (Infringement Contentions a t 4.) S R A ' s c l a i i n chartS c o n f i r m this. F o r literally d o z e n s o f c l a i m limitations, t h e s u m l o t a l o f S R A ' s s u b s t a n t i v e analysis o n i n f r i n g e m e n t is: Y a h o o ' s Software e m p l o y s a n infringing l i n k p o p u l a r i t y algorithm substantially identical t o t h a t o f G oo g l e ' s Software and, accOrdirigly, e a c h a n d e v e r y c o n t e n t i o n a s s e r t e d agafust G o o g l e ' s Software i s i n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e i n a n d asserted against Y a h o o ' s Software. or T h e p r e c i s e processes a n d algorithms u s e d i n -Google's a n d Y a h o o ' s Search Engines a r e h e l d s e c r e t a n d are n o t m a d e p u b l i c l y available. A n a l y s i s o f G o o g l e ' s a n d Y a h o o ' s s o u r c e

8f-2651472

MORRISON

I

FOERSTER

Victor G. Hardy March 27, 2009 Page Three code and other progranlming schematics are necessary to f u l l y a n d a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e a l l i n f r i n g i n g features a n d f u n c t i o n a l i t y o f G o o g l e ' s a n d Y a h o o ' s Software[.] S R A ' s I n f r i n g e m e n t C o n t e n t i o n s f o r t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s a r e d e f i c i e n t in s i m i l a r ways. F o r e x a m p l e , f o r G o o g l e , S R A a l s o g e n e r a l l y a l l e g e s t h a t " G o o g l e ' s S o f t w a r e " infringes 64 claims. S R A a i s o accuses 124 Google features, products, and services, and 60 pages o f " P o w e r e d b y G o o g l e s i t e s " o f infringement - - w i t h o u t explaining h o w each o f t h e s e a c c u s e d i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s s p e c i f i c a l l y ( a n d a l l e g e d l y ) infringes. S i m i l a r l y , S R A a c c u s e s 5 3 o f l A C ' s features, p r o d u c t s , a n d s e r v i c e s o f i n f r i n g e m e n t , w i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g a n y s p e c i f i c i t y as to h o w each o f these instrumentalities allegedly infringes. Some o f the instrumentalities are n o t e v e n i d e n t i f i e d a d e q u a t e l y ( f o r i n s t a n c e , S R A h a s accused s u c h a l l e g e d l A C instrumentalities a s " B l o g s " a n d " C i t y . " ) In light o f these· deficiencies, i n preparing their Invalidity Contentions, all o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s struggled t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e p o s i t i o n s t h a t S R A m i g h t b e t a k i n g o n i n f r i n g e m e n t a n d h o w those p o s i t i o n s m i g h t i m p a c t i n v a l i d i t y . A s a result, i f S R A b e l i e v e s t h a t D e f e n d a n t s ' I n v a l i d i t y C o n t e n t i o n s " f a i l to give a n y meaningful n o t i c e · o f D e f e n d a n t s ' actual positions with reSpect to the invalidity o f the asserted p a t e n t s , " S R A should s e e k leaV'eto . amend its own Infringement CoIitentions immediately. S R A ' s amendments to supply t h e r e q u i s i t e s p e c i f i c i t y i n i t s I n f t j n g e m e n t C o n t e n t i o n s w o u l d enable D e f e n d a n t s t o p r o v i d e additional clarity i n t h e i r I n v a l i d i t y Contentions. I n p a r t i c u l a r , S R A s h o u l d explain, f o r e a c h o f the 6 4 c l a i m s a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 , 0 0 0 a l l e g e d l y i m p l i c a t e d i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s , e x a c t l y h o w Defendants allegedly infringe. A s D e f e n d a n t s have provided S R A w i t h m o r e than 2 0 , 0 0 0 p a g e s o f production p u r s u a n t t o P a t e n t R u l e 3 - 4 to e x p l a i n t h e i r technologies, n o t h i n g prevents S R A from d o i n g s o i m m e d i a t e l y . T o further a s s i s t D e f e n d a n t s ' p o t e n t i a l r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e i r I n v a l i d i t y C o n t e n t i o n s , S R A also should respond to c o m m o n Interrogatory N o . 3 immediately. As you m a y recall, that interrogatory requested t h a t S R A identify With specificity each passage i n which e a c h c l a i m e l e m e n t f o r t h e p a t e n t s - i n - s u i t i s d e s c r i b e d (i.e., t o s a t i s f y t h e w r i t t e n d e s c r i p t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t ) a n d e n a b l e d i n a n y e a r l i e r filed a p p l i c a t i o n . S R A ' s c o m p l e t e a n s w e r t o this interrogatory m a y e n a b l e D e f e n d a n t s t o r e v i s e t h e i r Invalidity Contentions, as S R A h a s contended that the ' 4 9 4 .and ' 5 7 1 patents are entitled to a priority date earlier than M a y 17, 1996. Additionally, w h e t h e r a particular reference qualifies as p r i o r art ( o r not) for an asserted c l a i m depends o n D e f e n d a n t s ' ability to c o m p l e t e l y u n d e r s t a n d S R A ' s contention. SRA, however, previously d e c l i n e d to a n s w e r this interrogatory.

sf-2657472

MORRISON

I FOERSTER

Victor G. Hardy March 27, 2009 Page Four P l e a s e l e t u s k n o w i f S R A a g r e e s t o s e e k l e a v e t o a m e n d its I n f r i n g e m e n t C o n t e n t i o n s and to provide a full and complete response to Interrogatory N o . 3 . I f it w o u l d b e helpful to d i s c u s s t h e s e i s s u e s , p l e a s e f e e l free t o g i v e m e a c a l l . Sincerely,

/ s l R i c h a r d s.J. H u n g
R i c h a r d S.J. Hung

5f-2657472