Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 105

Opposed MOTION for the Court to Enter its [Model] Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art to Reduce Costs, to Limit the Number of Asserted Claims, and to Extend the Deadline for the Parties to Comply with P.R. 4-2 by Google Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Andrea Pallios Roberts, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Perlson, David)

EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP AND
NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP

v.
GOOGLE INC.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
Pursuant to Patent Rule 3-1
Plaintiffs Rockstar Consortium US LP and Netstar Technologies LLC (“Plaintiffs”)
provide the following Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions as to
Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) in accordance with Patent Local Rule (P.R.) 3-1.
Fact discovery has not yet begun and Google has not yet provided documents or other
information to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs reserve the right to supplement or alter their
responses herein based on any information produced by Google or other material located or
produced during the course of discovery.
I.

Preliminary Statement

Plaintiffs provide their P.R. 3-1 contentions, which contain the following information: (a)
a list of each claim of each patent-in-suit that is allegedly infringed by Google; (b) for each
asserted claim, the identity of each Accused Instrumentality of which Plaintiffs are aware; (c)
charts identifying where each element of each asserted claim is found in each accused
instrumentality, including for each element that is governed by 35 U.S.C. §112(6), the identity of
3106893v1/013149

1

the structure(s) and act(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that perform(s) the claimed function;
(d) a statement identifying whether each element of each asserted claim is claimed to be literally
present or present under the doctrine of equivalents; (e) for patents that claim priority to an
earlier application, the priority date to which each asserted claim allegedly is entitled; and (f)
identification of Plaintiffs’ own product(s) that incorporate(s) or reflect(s) each asserted claim.
In making these contentions, Plaintiffs have not yet received any discovery from Google
regarding its infringing methods and systems and has not had access to the source code of the
accused methods and systems.

Plaintiffs have, however, researched available information,

including (1) Google’s websites, (2) publicly available information published by Google
regarding the Accused Instrumentalities, and (3) publicly available statements and information
describing Google’s Accused Instrumentalities.
Google engages in the allegedly infringing conduct through computer systems operating
proprietary software. Google does not publicly disclose the precise operation of its computer
systems and does not publicly disclose its source code. Because Google has not publicly
disclosed the specific operation of the Accused Instrumentalities and does not publicly disclose
source code for those products and services, Plaintiffs are inherently limited in the degree of
specificity they can provide in the preliminary infringement contentions.

Under these

circumstances, the Eastern District of Texas recognizes that a plaintiff will not be able to provide
highly specified infringement contentions and that, under the federal rules, should be permitted
further discovery to supplement initial contentions with additional information. See American
Video Graphics, L.P. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3740 *7-8 (E.D. Tex.
2005).

Similarly, the law requires that Plaintiffs only provide Google “with notice of

infringement beyond that which is provided by the mere language of the patent rules themselves”

3106893v1/013149

2

and the disclosures are “not meant to provide a forum for litigation of the substantive issues.”
Network Caching Technology, LLC v. Novell, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9881, 2003 WL
21699799, *4-5 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these disclosures, including the identity
of the claims being asserted, upon receiving discovery from Google.
II.

Each Claim Of Each Patent In Suit That Is Allegedly Infringed By Defendant

Based on available information obtained to date, Plaintiffs allege that Google has
infringed and is infringing at least the following claims (“Asserted Claims”) of the following
patents:

Patent

Claims Alleged Infringed Literally
and/or Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

U.S. Patent No. 6,098,065
(“’065 Patent”)

1

U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969
(“’969 Patent”)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
22, 23

U.S. Patent No. 7,469,245
(“’245 Patent”)

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25

U.S. Patent No. 7,672,970
(“’970 Patent”)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43,
44, 45, 46, 47

U.S. Patent No. 7,895,178
(“’178 Patent”)

1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

U.S. Patent No. 7,895,183
(“’183 Patent”)

1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

U.S. Patent No. 7,933,883
(“’883 Patent”)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28

3106893v1/013149

3

III.

The Identity of Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities

Based on available information obtained to date, Plaintiffs allege that the following
Accused Instrumentalities infringe the Asserted Claims: Google’s advertising services and
applications including but not limited to Google Ads, Google AdWords, and Google AdWords
Express or similar functionality used in conjunction with google.com, the Google Search app, the
Android search bar, Google custom search, Google premium search services, youtube.com;
Google search services provided to third-party websites such as Custom Search Services or
AdSense for Search; and any Google-owned property that matches advertisements based in part
on a received search term, along with Google’s search algorithm and Google’s algorithm for
providing advertisements with search results. The Accused Instrumentalities also include any
Google system that collects user data through registration, tracking, or other means, including
but not limited to Google Plus, Doubleclick, Advertiser IDs for Android or any other system or
operation used to track user activity on any Google-owned property, the data from which is used
to provide search results and/or advertising to its users.

It also includes the computers,

databases, data centers, and code versions that perform or have performed the above activities.
IV.

Charts Identifying Where Each Element Of Each Asserted Claim Is Found Within Each
Accused Instrumentality
The claim charts attached as Exhibits A through G identify where each element of each

asserted claim is found within the Accused Instrumentalities, as required under P.R. 3-1(c).
V.

Whether Each Element Of Each Asserted Claim Is Claimed To Be Literally Present Or
Present Under The Doctrine Of Equivalents In The Accused Instrumentality
Plaintiffs claim that each element of each asserted claim is present literally in the

Accused Instrumentalities unless expressly noted in the claim charts attached. To the extent any
claim construction results in the Accused Instrumentalities falling outside the literal scope of any
asserted claim, Plaintiffs reserve the right to contend that the Accused Instrumentalities still

3106893v1/013149

4

infringe under the doctrine of equivalents.

Once the Court construes the claims at issue,

Plaintiffs will designate which of such claims are infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.
VI.

Priority Date to Earlier Application

Each of the claims asserted with respect to the Patents in Suit are entitled to a priority
date no later than June 6, 1996.
VII.

Plaintiffs’ Products That Incorporate or Reflect Each Asserted Claim

None.
VIII.

Document Production Pursuant To Patent Rule 3-2

Plaintiffs are serving herewith, via FTP, Plaintiffs’ initial document production, which
includes documents produced pursuant to P.R. 3-2. Plaintiffs have used their best efforts to
identify responsive P.R. 3-2 documents and only those documents. However, given the volume
of documents, some documents may have been inadvertently listed or inadvertently omitted. To
the extent such deficiencies are identified, Plaintiffs will supplement the production accordingly.
These documents have been marked “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL—
SOURCE CODE.” Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 2.2, access to such documents shall be limited
to each party’s outside counsel of record and the employees of such outside attorneys until such
time as a protective order is entered.
DATED: March 24, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

By: John P. Lahad
Max L. Tribble, Jr. – Lead Counsel
State Bar No. 20213950
Alexander L. Kaplan
State Bar No. 24046185
John P. Lahad
State Bar No. 24068095
Shawn Blackburn
NY State Bar No. 5017249
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

3106893v1/013149

5

1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Justin A. Nelson
State Bar No. 24034766
Parker C. Folse, III
WA State Bar No. 24895
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 3800
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
T. John Ward, Jr.
State Bar No. 00794818
WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 1231
Longview, TX 75606-1231
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Rockstar Consortium US LP and
NetStar Technologies LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to
electronic service are being served this 24th day of March, 2014 with a copy of this document
via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CD-5(a)(3).

/s/ John P. Lahad

3106893v1/013149

6

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
The following analysis shows how each claim element is literally present. In the event that a claim element is deemed to be missing
under a literal infringement analysis (e.g., due to claim construction), Rockstar reserves the right to demonstrate the presence of a
substantial equivalent of such an element and to pursue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
To the extent that the descriptions below give rise to either direct or indirect infringement, Rockstar alleges both.
The screenshots below constitute exemplary results of the Accused Instrumentalities’ algorithms and source code and do not serve to
limit the scope of alleged infringement. Rockstar alleges infringement by the Accused Instrumentalities at each applicable level of
abstraction, i.e., source code, algorithms, infrastructure, etc. Further, Rockstar alleges infringement by third-party applications “powered
by” Google or that otherwise rely on the Accused Instrumentalities.

U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
Claim No. 1

A method of providing
advertisements to a user
searching for desired
information within a data
network, comprising the steps
of:

Google’s advertising services and applications perform the steps of the claimed method. The infringing
services and applications include but are not limited to Google Ads, Google AdWords, and Google
AdWords Express (or similar functionality) used in conjunction with google.com, the Google Search app,
the Android search bar, Google custom search, Google premium search services, youtube.com, Google
search services provided to third party websites such as Custom Search Services or AdSense for Search, and
any Google-owned property that matches advertisements based in part on a received search term (hereinafter
the “Accused Instrumentalities”).1

1

Content demonstrating that preamble elements are found in the accused instrumentalities shall not be construed as an admission that the
preamble is limiting.
Page 1 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1722047?hl=en&ref_topic=3121771

receiving, from the user, a
The Accused Instrumentalities receive, from the user, a search request including a search argument
search request including a
corresponding to the desired information.
search argument corresponding
Page 2 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

to the desired information;

Page 3 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 4 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Mobile Handset Running Android 4.2

Page 5 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Tablet Device Running Android 4.0.2

Page 6 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Google Search App Running on iOS 7.1

Page 7 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

http://www.4nursing.com/search-our-site-or-search-the-internet.html

Page 8 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

GET request of “Advanced Search”

Page 9 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

searching, based upon the
received search argument, a
first database having data
network related information to
generate search results;

The Accused Instrumentalities search, based upon the received search argument, a first database having data
network related information to generate search results.

Page 10 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 11 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 12 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 13 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 14 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 15 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 16 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 17 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 18 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 19 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Page 20 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

Google Custom Search Results Page

Page 21 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

https://www.google.com/intl/en/insidesearch/howsearchworks/crawling-indexing.html

Page 22 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/intl/en/insidesearch/howsearchworks/ass
ets/searchInfographic.pdf

Page 23 of 217

Case No. 2:13-cv-893
Exhibit B: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,236,969 by Defendant Google
U.S. PATENT NO.
7,236,969

correlating the received search
argument to a particular
advertisement in a second
database having advertisement
related information; and

INFRINGEMENT BY EXEMPLARY ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY

http://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/thestory/
Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities correlate the received search argument to a
particular advertisement in a second database having advertisement related information.
See above.

Page 24 of 217