Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 116

RESPONSE in Opposition re 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 filed by NetStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John P. Lahad, # 2 Exhibit 1 Exhibit B to Google's Invalidity Contentions, # 3 Exhibit 2 6-23-2014 Letter from Google's counsel to Plaintiffs' counsel, # 4 Exhibit 3 7-2-2014 and 7-3-2014 Email exchanges between counsel, # 5 Exhibit 4 7-18-2014 Email from Google's counsel to Plaintiffs' counsel, # 6 Exhibit 5 7-21-2014 Email from Plaintiffs' counsel to Google's counsel, # 7 Exhibit 6 General Order 13-20, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Lahad, John)

Exhibit 4

John Lahad
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Lance Yang <[e-mail]>
Friday, July 18, 2014 6:28 PM
John Lahad; Andrea P Roberts; David Perlson
Amanda Bonn; Justin A. Nelson; Alexander L. Kaplan; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; Shawn
Blackburn; QE-Google-Rockstar; James Mark Mann; Andy Tindel; Gregory Blake
Thompson; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio; Max L. Tribble
RE: Rockstar v. Google

John,
Google understands that Rockstar is complaining about the number of combinations disclosed in Google’s invalidity
contentions, and not that Google has failed to identify and chart, on a element by element basis, each asserted
combination. The basis for your allegation that the number of combinations is impermissible remains unclear. As
Rockstar acknowledged during the July 10 in person conference, the local rules place no limit on the number of
combinations. Google maintains the position that its invalidity contentions fully comply with the Court’s Patent Rules.
In the spirit of compromise, however, Google proposes as follows. Google will identify no more than 5 references that
Google presently intends to rely on in light of information currently available for each of the six tables in Exhibit B that
chart obviousness references on a limitation by limitation basis. This amounts to a specific identification of no more 30
references total in these tables. The actual number may be lower if Google identifies the same references for multiple
tables. Google would make this identification by July 28. Due to ongoing discovery, the number of asserted claims, and
unsettled claim construction issues, Google would reserve its right to rely on the other references identified in Exhibit B
as the case evolves. Please let us know if Rockstar agrees to this proposal.
Google still believes that adopting the Court’s model order is the most appropriate and reasonable mechanism for
narrowing the issues in this case, including the number of Google’s combinations. In light of Google’s proposal to
identify a limited set of obviousness references, let us know if Rockstar would be willing drop its opposition to Google’s
motion to adopt the model order.
Best,
Lance
-----Original Message----From: John Lahad [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 9:22 AM
To: Andrea P Roberts; David Perlson
Cc: Lance Yang; Amanda Bonn; Justin A. Nelson; Alexander L. Kaplan; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kristin
Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; Shawn Blackburn; QE-Google-Rockstar; James Mark
Mann; Andy Tindel; Gregory Blake Thompson; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio; Max L. Tribble;
Lance Yang
Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google
David and Andrea,
Will Google be responding to my email?
Thanks,
John
1