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 5

John Lahad
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

John Lahad
Monday, July 21, 2014 6:02 PM
'Lance Yang'; 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

Lance,
Thank you for your email. Google's proposal does not remedy its deficient disclosures or provide
the required notice. Google has still chosen not to sufficiently identify any combinations, and the
possible combinations remain unreasonably high. Accordingly, Rockstar does not agree to your
proposal, and this issue is best resolved by the Court. If Google's position changes, let me know.
Thanks,
John
John P. Lahad
Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
713-653-7859 (office)
713-725-3557 (mobile)
713-654-6666 (fax)

From: Lance Yang [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 6:28 PM
To: John Lahad; Andrea P Roberts; David Perlson
Cc: 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
Subject: 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.

1