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

Filing 271

MOTION to Compel Defendants to Disclose Their Noninfringement Contentions by Software Rights Archive, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Kaplan, Lee)

EXHIBIT 4

MORRISON

I

FOERSTER

425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 9410S-2482 TELEPHONE: [phone] FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522 WWW.MOFO.COM

. .O U I I O I l · r O f i l . 5 T U L L ' ....... YOU. """ 'l""<;II<;O. LOI " " " . L n , '''LO "LTD. SAlol 0 1 . " 0 , " " " S l I l l o I G T O l o l . 0 . < : . 1oI0n".lN VIlOI .. I". O . N H l , "'<:."I<INTO. W"LNlIT <:nu:: TOlYO, LONDO". n u n ' G , I N " " " N " I . 110 NO l O l l " , IIN""'Oli. nUIiELI

M a r c h 27, 2009

W r i t e r ' s Direct Contact (415) 2 6 8 - 7 6 0 2

[e-mail]

V i a E l e c t r o n i c Mail Victor G. Hardy DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy L L P 7000 N. M o P a c Expressway, Suite 350 A u s t i n , T e x a s 78731 Re:

Software Rights Archive, L L C v. Google Inc., e t al., No. 07-CV-511 (£.D. Tex.)

D e a r Victor: I write o n b e h a l f o f D e f e n d a n t s i n r e s p o n s e t o y o u r l e t t e r o f M a r c h I I , 2 0 0 9 , concerning D e f e n d a n t s ' Invalidity Contentions. A t the outset, we disagree that Saffran holds that D e f e n d a n t s ' Invalidity Contentions a r e s o m e h o w d e f i c i e n t b e c a u s e o f t h e i r length o r b e c a u s e o f the n u m b e r o f a t t a c h e d c l a i m c h a r t s . 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 that the defendants anticipate[ d] using a t trial [and] include[d] language purporting to make the contentions merely illustrative." O n those bases alone, the c o u r t struck the d e f e n d a n t s ' i n v a l i d i t y contentions. Here, b y contrast, Defendants h a v e provided m o r e than a d o z e n c l a i m c h a r t s specifically d e s c r i b i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s that r e n d e r obvious one o r more claims o f the ' 3 5 2 , ' 4 9 4 , o r '571 patents. As a result, Saffran is inapplicable. While Defendants' c l a i m charts admittedly are quite long, they are necessarily so. In t h i s c a s e , 8 R A h a s a l l e g e d t h a t . f u d i f f e r e n t d e f e n d a n t s i n f r i n g e 6 4 c l a i m s o f three d i f f e r e n t 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 a n t i c i p a t o r y r e f e r e n c e ( 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 for obviousness) discloses all o f the limitations o f e v e n a single claim o f the asserted patents requires several pages. 8 R A ' s o w n Infringement Contentions c o n f i n n this. T h e y span m o r e t h a n 6 6 0 p a g e s ( o r a l m o s t 1,500 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 w n n c h a r t s ) . T h e length o f D e f e n d a n t s ' Invalidity C o n t e n t i o n s a l s o r e s u l t e d from D e f e n d a n t s ' a t t e m p t t o assist 8 R A by providing the actual text o f the invalidity references, a n d n o t j u s t citations to them. Removing this text n o w to shorten the Invalidity Contentions would n o t help (and c o u l d only h i n d e r ) 8 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

Victor G. Hardy March 27, 2009 Page Two Although Defendants do not agree with S R A ' s concerns regarding Defendants' Invalidity Contentions, in the interests o f cooperation, Defendants are willing to review them again and, i f appropriate, amend them to provide greater specificity. I f SRA believes that a particular claim chart or aspect o f Defendants' Invalidity Contentions is deficient, w e would a p p r e c i a t e y o u r c a l l i n g the 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 attention. W h i l e D e f e n d a n t s u n d e r t a k e this review, h o w e v e r , D e f e n d a n t s a s k t h a t S R A a m e n d its own Infringement Contentions to specifically identify how each and every one o f D e f e n d a n t s ' a c c u s e d p r o d u c t s o r s e r v i c e s allegedly i n f r i n g e immediately. U n d e r t h e P a t e n t Rules, 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 a r e s u p p o s e d t o p r o v i d e a c t u a l a n d a d e q u a t e n o t i c e o f the specific claims being asserted and how specifically the accused products or services allegedly infringe. See Linex Techs.Inc. v. Belkin Int'l, Inc., No. 07-222, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70885, a t *25 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ) . S R A ' s Infringement Contentions fall far s h o r t o f this r e q u i r e m e n t . Looking only a t S R A ' s Infringement Contentions with respect to Yahoo!, for example, S R A generally alleges that "Yahoo! Software" infringes 63 claims. SRA also provides, without further explanation, a list o f 130 Yahoo!-related "products, services, software and features" that " p e r f o n n or use an infringing link analysis," " u p o n infonnation and belief." Many o f the items in this list appear to have been included simply because they contain the word "Yahoo!" (e.g., Yahoo! Food, o r Yahoo! Groups) or because they are Yahoo! companies (e.g., the photo-sharing site Flider). S R A ' s Infringement Contentions for Yahoo! also attach another list o f 2 3 1 websites. S R A ' s apparent view, again " b a s e d o n information and belief," is that Yahoo! infringes merely because these websites are "Powered by Yahoo!" S R A ' s allegations o f infringement by Yahoo! apparently arise from nothing more 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 ! and G o o g l e are l i k e l y u s i n g s i m i l a r a l g o r i t h m s . " (Infringement Contentions at 4.) S R A ' s claim charts c o n f m n this. F o r literally dozens o f claim limitations, the sum total o f S R A ' s substantive analysis o n infringement is: Y a h o o ' s Software employs an infringing link popularity algorithm substantially identical to that o f G o o g l e ' s Software and, accordingly, each and every contention asserted against G o o g l e ' s S o f t w a r e is i n c o r p o r a t e d herein a n d a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t Y a h o o ' s Software.

or
The precise processes and algorithms used in Google's and Y a h o o ' s S e a r c h E n g i n e s a r e h e l d s e c r e t a n d a r e not m a d e publicly available. Analysis o f Go ogle's and Y a h o o ' s source

sf·2657472

MORRISON

I

FOERSTER

V i c t o r G. H a r d y M a r c h 2 7 , 2009 Page Three

c o d e a n d o t h e r p r o g r a m m i n g s c h e m a t i c s a r e n e c e s s a r y t o fully a n d a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e all i n f r i n g i n g f e a t u r e s 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 for the 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 , for G o o g l e , S R A also generally 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 " i n f r i n g e s 6 4 c l a i m s . S R A a l s o a c c u s e s 124 G o o g l e features, p r o d u c t s , a n d s e r v i c e s , a n d 6 0 p a g e s o f " P o w e r e d by G o o g l e s i t e s " o f i n f r i n g e m e n t - - w i t h o u t e x p l a i n i n g h o w e a c h o f t h e s e a c c u s e d instrumentalities specifically ( a n d allegedly) infringes. S i m i l a r l y , S R A accuses 53 o f l A C ' s features, products, a n d services o f infringement, 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 a s t o h o w e a c h o f these i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s allegedly infringes. S o m e o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s a r e not e v e n identified a d e q u a t e l y ( f o r instance, S R A has a c c u s e d 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 l i g h t o f t h e s e d e f i c i e n c i e s , i n p r e p a r i n g 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 , a l l o f t h e D e f e n d a n t s s t r u g g l e d to 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 t h o s e p o s i t i o n s m i g h t i m p a c t invalidity. 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 g i v e a n y m e a n i n g f u l n o t i c e o f D e f e n d a n t s ' a c t u a l positions w i t h r e s p e c t to the invalidity o f the a s s e r t e d p a t e n t s , " S R A should s e e k leave to a m e n d its o w n I n f r i n g e m e n t Contentions inunediately. S R A ' s a m e n d m e n t s to supply the 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 r i n g e m e n t C o n t e n t i o n s w o u l d e n a b l e D e f e n d a n t s to p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l c l a r i t y in 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 . I n p a r t i c u l a r , S R A s h o u l d e x p l a i n , f o r e a c h o f t h e 6 4 claims 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 D e f e n d a n t s a l l e g e d l y infringe. A s D e f e n d a n t s h a v e p r o v i d e d S R A w i t h m o r e t h a n 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 t o e x p l a i n t h e i r t e c h n o l o g i e s , n o t h i n g p r e v e n t s S R A from d o i n g s o i n u n e d i a t e l y . T o further assist D e f e n d a n t s ' potential reconsideration o f t h e i r I n v a l i d i t y Contentions, S R A a l s o s h o u l d r e s p o n d to c o m m o n I n t e r r o g a t o r y N o . 3 i n u n e d i a t e l y . A s y o u m a y r e c a l l , t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r y r e q u e s t e d t h a t S R A i d e n t i f y w i t h s p e c i f i c i t y e a c h p a s s a g e in w h i c h e a c h c l a i m e l e m e n t for the patents-in-suit i s described (i.e" to satisfy the 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 f i l e d 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 to t h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r y m a y e n a b l e D e f e n d a n t s to r e v i s e 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 , a s S R A h a s c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e ' 4 9 4 a n d ' 5 7 1 p a t e n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o a p r i o r i t y d a t e e a r l i e r t h a n M a y 17, 1996. Additionally, w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r reference qualifies a s p r i o r art ( o r not) for a n a s s e r t e d c l a i m d e p e n d s o n D e f e n d a n t s ' a b i l i t y 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 c o n t e n t i o n . S R A , h o w e v e r , p r e v i o u s l y d e c l i n e d t o a n s w e r this interrogatory.

5[·2657472

MORRISON

I

FOERSTER

Victor G. Hardy M a r c h 27, 2 0 0 9 Page F o u r Please let us know i f S R A agrees to s e e k leave to amend its Infringement Contentions and to provide a full a n d complete response to Interrogatory N o . 3 . I f i t would b e helpful to discuss these issues, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely,

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

sf-2657472