Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 126

MOTION to Compel by Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Exhibits ISO Motion to Compel, # 2 Affidavit of Amanda Bonn ISO Motion to Compel, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion to Compel)(Bonn, Amanda)

Exhibit 2

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | silicon valley
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

June 18, 2014
VIA EMAIL
Ms. Kristin Malone
Susman Godfrey LLP
Suite 3800
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-3000
Re:

Rockstar Consortium, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-893 (E.D. Tex.)

Dear Kristin:
I write in response to your April 30, 2014 letter regarding Google’s document production, which
sets forth a list of categories of documents sought by Rockstar. The categories in your letter are
listed below, with brief responses in italics following each of them. Google has provided these
brief responses in an effort to work cooperatively with Rockstar regarding the scope and
substance of its broad requests.1 In particular, many requests seek “all” documents, when “all”
documents are not needed, and/or could not reasonably requested given the burden and breadth
of the request. Indeed, it seems that Rockstar has taken various terms that have been mentioned
in other Google cases or in public materials, and asked for “all” documents related to these terms
1

Google’s failure to specify an objection to a particular request should not be considered a
waiver of that objection. Thus, for example, although Google does not raise a privilege objection
in response to each of Plaintiff’s 153 document requests, Google does not waive any privilege or
work product objections with respect to any of the requested documents.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | Akasaka Twin Tower Main Bldg., 6th Floor, 17-22 Akasaka 2-Chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan | TEL [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

FAX +81

3 5561-1712

without regard to relevance to Rockstar’s contentions in this case. Further, as we’ve previously
explained, Rockstar’s Infringement Contentions do not sufficiently specify what Rockstar
accuses of infringing the asserted claims. Without such specificity—which to date, Rockstar has
refused to provide—it is difficult, if not impossible, for Google to identify what documents are
“relevant” to the litigation, thereby defeating the purpose of the required disclosures under the
Patent Local Rules.
As you can see, there are various categories of documents requested by Rockstar that Google
does not understand and/or does not understand the relevance of in the context of this litigation.
Given the sheer volume of Rockstar’s requests, we think it would be useful for Rockstar to
provide a written explanation in response to Google’s questions, and then we can schedule a
meet and confer to discuss those issues.
Google’s Patent Local Rule 3-4(a) Production
Before addressing Rockstar’s specific document requests, Google notes that it conducted an
extensive document collection in connection with its production pursuant to Patent Local Rule 34(a). Google analyzed Rockstar’s Infringement Contentions and identified, as best as it could
given the lack of specificity, the functionalities it appears are accused of infringement. Google
identified the wiki and site repositories in which it stores documents relating to those
functionalities, and “scraped” those repositories. Google then produced all non-privileged
documents collected. In other words, Google went above and beyond merely producing
documents “sufficient to show” the operation of the accused functionalities, as required by the
Patent Local Rules. Thus, many of the categories of technical and other documents requested by
Rockstar in your letter were already produced pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-4(a).
Google’s Objections to Rockstar’s Document Requests
Preliminarily, the definitions set forth in your letter are incredibly broad. In particular, Google
objects to the definition of “Google” on this basis. By way of example only, the definition
includes subcontractors and any business cooperation involving Google Inc. Google will
respond to Rockstar’s requests on behalf of Google Inc. only.
Google similarly objects to Rockstar’s document requests because they use the term “Accused
Instrumentalities,” which is overbroad. These requests would cover aspects of Accused
Instrumentalities—one of which is described in Rockstar’s Infringement Contentions as simply
“Google Ads”—that have nothing to do with the functionalities accused of infringement. As set
forth in more detail below, Google will produce (or already has produced) documents relevant to
the functionalities accused of infringement, to the extent that Google understands what they are.
Of course, our production or agreement to produce documents is not an admission that any claim
element in any asserted claim is met in any Google product, nor relevant to how Google’s system
actually operates.
Further, Google objects to Rockstar’s requests to the extent that they ask for “all documents”
regarding a particular subject matter. As explained in more detail below, Google will produce
documents located after a reasonably diligent search, and expects to meet and confer with

2

Rockstar regarding custodians and electronic search terms, as contemplated by the ESI
agreement being negotiated by the parties.
Google also objects to the extent that many of the 153 separate document requests (some of
which have sub-parts) appear to be duplicative of one another. The repetitive nature of
Rockstar’s requests has made it extremely burdensome for Google to fully respond to Rockstar’s
requests. Any agreement to provide documents is subject to these and specific objections below.
Rockstar’s numbered requests and Google’s responses are set forth below:
1. All documents related to the Accused Instrumentalities’ ability to provide advertisements
based on searches, including documents related to the design, development, testing, and/or
modification of this functionality.
Google produced documents responsive to this request as part of its Patent L.R. 3-4(a)
production. Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data
pursuant to the terms of the proposed ESI agreement.
2. All documents related to Google’s search algorithm (or any predecessor version of Google’s
search algorithm such as BackRub) and the components of Google’s search algorithm from June
1996 to the present.
This request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad. It is not clear what Rockstar is referring
to when identifying generally “Google’s search algorithm.” This request goes beyond
Rockstar’s Infringement Contentions as it does not appear to be tied to the specific
functionalities accused of infringement. Further, Google does not understand the relevance of
predecessor versions of Google’s search algorithm, such as BackRub which pre-dates the
patents-in-suit, or versions of Google’s search algorithm dating back to June 1996. Please
explain the relevance of this broad request.
3. All documents reflecting any decision to implement changes to Google’s search algorithm
and/or components of Google’s search algorithm (or any predecessor version of Google’s search
algorithm such as BackRub), including any enhanced or additional functionality, from June 1996
to the present.
This request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad. It is not clear what Rockstar is referring
to when identifying generally “Google’s search algorithm.” This request goes beyond
Rockstar’s Infringement Contentions as it does not appear to be tied to the specific
functionalities accused of infringement. Further, Google does not understand the relevance of
predecessor versions of Google’s search algorithm, such as BackRub which pre-dates the
patents-in-suit, or versions of Google’s search algorithm dating back to June 1996. Please
explain with more specificity what Rockstar seeks with this request. Google also refers Rockstar
to its explanation above concerning Google’s Patent L.R. 3-4(a) Production.
4. All documents related to the use of fuzzy logic in Google’s search algorithm (or any
predecessor version of Google’s search algorithm such as BackRub) from June 1996 to the
present.
3

This request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad. It is not clear what Rockstar is referring
to when identifying generally “Google’s search algorithm.” This request goes beyond
Rockstar’s Infringement Contentions as it does not appear to be tied to the specific
functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of all predecessor versions
of Google’s search algorithm. It is further unclear what Rockstar is referring to as “the use of
fuzzy logic in Google’s search algorithm.” Please clarify.
5. All documents related to the use of user profile data in Google’s search algorithm (or any
predecessor version of Google’s search algorithm such as BackRub) from June 1996 to the
present.
This request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad. It is not clear what Rockstar is referring
to when identifying generally “Google’s search algorithm.” This request goes beyond
Rockstar’s Infringement Contentions as it does not appear to be tied to the specific
functionalities accused of infringement. Further, Google does not understand the relevance of
predecessor versions of Google’s search algorithm, such as BackRub which pre-dates the
patents-in-suit, or versions of Google’s search algorithm dating back to June 1996. It is further
unclear what Rockstar is referring to as “user profile data.” To the extent that Google
understands this request, Google produced documents responsive to this request pursuant to
Patent L.R. 3-4(a). Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial
data pursuant to the terms of the proposed ESI agreement.
6. All documents related to Google’s algorithm and/or method of matching searches and/or
search terms with advertisements served with search results since the introduction of AdWords
or any predecessor version of matching search terms with advertising.
This request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad. It is not clear what Rockstar is referring
to when identifying generally “Google’s algorithm.” In any event, Google produced documents
responsive to this request pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4(a). Additional documents may also be
located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the terms of the proposed ESI
agreement.
7. All documents reflecting any decision to implement changes to Google’s algorithm and/or
method of matching searches and/or search terms with advertisements, including any enhanced
or additional functionality, served with search results.
This request is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. It is not clear what
Rockstar is referring to when identifying generally “Google’s algorithm.” It is further unclear
what Rockstar means by “decision to implement changes,” and “enhanced or additional
functionality.” Please explain and we can meet and confer regarding the scope of this request.
8. All documents related to determining “PageRank,” including but not limited to documents
related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of any functionality used to
determine “PageRank.”
Google does not understand the relevance of PageRank. Please explain and we can meet and
confer to get a better understanding of what Rockstar is seeking.
4

9. All documents related to Google ad selection or ad targeting (including but not limited to
Google SmartASS, Smart Ads, or any predecessor or later versions).
This request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Google ad selection or ad targeting and
Smart Ads are complicated systems and there are many details of the systems that can have no
possible relevance. In any event, Google produced documents responsive to this request as part
of its Patent L.R. 3-4(a) production. Additional documents may also be located in Google’s
searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and
electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
10. All documents related to Google’s AdMixer, including but not limited to documents related
to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of any functionality for the
AdMixer.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. There are many aspects of Google’s Ad Mixer
that could have no bearing on the functionalities accused of infringement. We should meet and
confer to discuss what documents Rockstar is seeking with this request. To the extent that this
request is tied to the accused functionalities, Google believes that it is redundant of prior
requests and Google’s Patent L.R. 3-4(a) production. Additional documents may also be located
in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding
custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
11. All documents related to Google matching searches and/or search terms with advertisements
served with search results.
This request appears to be duplicative of No. 6 above. If Rockstar is seeking a different category
of documents with this request, please explain.
12. All documents related to the creation and/or implementation of AdWords, AdWords Express,
Google Custom Search, and AdSense for Search, including code (including executable or
compatible code), product specifications, flowcharts, models, drawings, promotional literature,
advertising, engineering design, engineering analysis and testing.
This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “creation,”“implementation,”
“models,” “promotional literature,” “advertising,” “engineering design,” or “engineering
analysis and testing.” Please explain what types of documents Rockstar is seeking in this
request. Further, this request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the accused
functionalities. Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4(a), Google already produced documents sufficient to
show the operation of the accused functionalities in AdWords, AdWords Express, Google Custom
Search, and AdSense for Search. Additional documents may also be located in Google’s
searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and
electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
13. All documents related to Google’s use of data it collects through Google Plus, Google Play,
Doubleclick, Google Display Network, Android, Advertiser IDs for Android (or any predecessor
version of Advertiser IDs for Android), or any other system or method in returning search results
or advertisements served with search results.
5

Google does not understand what Rockstar means by “Google’s use of data it collects.” Please
explain and we can meet and confer to discuss what types of documents Rockstar is seeking in
this request.
14. All documents related to Google’s use of data it collects regarding a user’s (a) prior searches,
(b) search results, (c) links a user clicks on, (d) advertisements served with search results, (e)
advertisements a user clicks on, or (f) any other data gleaned about a user from its use of Google
search or of the advertisements served with search results.
Again, Google does not understand what Rockstar means by “Google’s use of data it collects.”
Google also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks protected information about users.
In any event, documents responsive to this request were produced in response to Google’s Patent
L.R. 3-4(a) production. Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of
custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic
search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
15. All documents related to the design and/or development of any Accused Instrumentality,
including but not limited to AdWords, AdSense for Search, Google Custom Search, AdWords
Express, and Google Search.
This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the terms “design” and “development,”
and incredibly overbroad as it is not limited to the specific functionalities accused of
infringement. Please explain and we can meet and confer to discuss what types of documents
Rockstar is seeking that would not fall within Patent L.R. 3-4(a).
16. All documents related to any marketing strategies or presentations for any Accused
Instrumentality including but not limited to AdWords, AdSense for Search, Google Custom
Search, AdWords Express, and Google Search.
This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “marketing strategies or
presentations.” It is also incredibly overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the specific
functionalities accused of infringement. Google also refers Rockstar to its explanation above
concerning Google’s P.L. Rule 3-4(a) production. Additional documents may also be located in
Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding
custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
17. All documents related to the importance of any Accused Instrumentality to Google and/or to
Google’s revenues or profits.
This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the term “importance.” It is also incredibly
overbroad as it is not limited to the specific functionalities accused of infringement. Please
explain and we can meet and confer regarding what Rockstar is seeking with this request, as we
are not certain that there is an effective way to search for responsive documents.
18. All documents related to how Google uses the data it collects in the request immediately
above in serving any advertisement, including but not limited to advertisements with Google’s
search results (through AdWords, AdWords Express, Android, youtube.com, or any other
product), Google-owned websites (through gmail or any other properties), third-party websites
6

(through AdSense for Search, AdSense for Content, syndicated search, Google Display Network,
Google custom search, Google premium search, Doubleclick, Android, or any other product ),
Doubleclick, or Android.
Google does not understand this request. Please explain.
19. All documents showing the differences in click-through-rate or any other metric for
measuring the success of advertisements between using user-specific and/or location-specific
information to return search results or advertisements and not using user-specific and/or locationspecific information.
This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “differences in click-throughrate or any other metric for measuring the success of advertisements.” Google also refers
Rockstar to its explanation above concerning Google’s Patent L.R. 3-4(a) production.
Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the
parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by
the proposed ESI agreement.
20. All videos or any other documents relating to how the Accused Instrumentalities operate or
the importance of the Accused Instrumentalities, including but not any videos by any senior
Google executives or Hal Varian.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the accused functionalities.
Google produced documents sufficient to show how the accused functionalities operate pursuant
to Patent L.R. 3-4(a). As it relates to the “importance” of the Accused Instrumentalities, this
request appears to be duplicative of prior requests. If Rockstar disagrees, please explain how it
differs. Further, as set forth in Google’s proposed ESI agreement, Google proposes that absent
a showing of good cause, video recordings need not be collected and preserved.
21. All documents and/or presentations related to descriptions of how the Accused
Instrumentalities work, including but not limited to presentations such as “The Life of a Dollar”
or any other presentations that Google uses internally to educate its employees on any aspect of
the Accused Instrumentalities.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the accused functionalities. This
request again appears to be duplicative of prior requests, as well as Google’s Patent L.R. 3-4(a)
production. If Rockstar disagrees, please explain how it differs. Additional documents may also
be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer
regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI
agreement.
22. All documents or presentations about the Accused Instrumentalities provided to the Board or
to any senior management group or Google officer or related to such documents or presentations.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the accused functionalities. It is
further vague and ambiguous with respect to “documents . . . provided to,” “senior management
group,” “Google officer,” and “or related to such documents or presentations.” This request
appears to cover any email or other document sent to any of these individuals relating to any of
7

the services included in Rockstar’s broad list of Accused Instrumentalities. We should meet and
confer regarding the scope of this request.
23. All documents related to any holdback studies or A/B testing for searches and/or
advertisements.
This request is overbroad as it seeks “all documents” for “any” holdback studies or A/B testing
for searching and advertisements. We should meet and confer regarding what Rockstar seeks
with this request.
24. All summaries of holdback studies or A/B testing for searches and/or advertisements.
This request is overbroad as it seeks “all summaries” of holdback studies or A/B testing for
searches and advertisements. We should meet and confer regarding what Rockstar seeks with
this request.
25. All documents related to how Google prices an advertisement to serve with search results,
including but not limited to any smart pricing.
This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrases “how Google prices an
advertisement,” and “smart pricing.” It is further overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to
the accused functionalities. Please explain and we can meet and confer regarding what
Rockstar is actually seeking with this request. To the extent that Rockstar is seeking documents
regarding how much an advertiser pays for an ad, responsive documents were included in
Google’s Patent L.R. 3-4(a) production.
26. All documents related to how Google decides to serve a particular advertisement in
AdWords, AdWords Express, AdSense for Search, Google Custom Search, AdSense for
Content, Doubleclick, or Google Display Network.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the specific functionalities accused
of infringement. Further, Google does not understand the relevance of AdSense for Content, or
Google Display Network to Rockstar’s infringement claims. These services are not accused of
infringement in Rockstar’s Infringement Contentions. And, the phrase “serve a particular
advertisement in . . . Doubleclick,” does not make sense. Google produced documents sufficient
to show the operation of the accused functionalities pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4(a). Additional
documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’
meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the
proposed ESI agreement.
27. All documents related to how Google prices an advertisement served through AdSense for
Content, Google Display Network, or Doubleclick, including but not limited to any smart
pricing.
This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrases “how Google prices an
advertisement,” and “smart pricing.” This request is also irrelevant because AdSense for
Content and the Google Display Network are not accused of infringement. Nor does Google
understand what Rockstar means by “an advertisement served through . . . Doubleclick.” Please
8

explain what Rockstar seeks in this request, as well as its relevance to Rockstar’s claims in this
case. Google also refers Rockstar to its explanation above concerning Google’s Patent L.R. 34(a) production.
28. All documents related to any transfer pricing agreements and/or intellectual property
agreements between Google, Inc. and any other Google-affiliated company.
This request is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrases “transfer pricing agreements”
and “intellectual property agreements.” It is further overbroad to the extent that it is not limited
to agreements or intellectual property relating to the functionalities accused of infringement.
And it is overbroad to the extent that it seeks any agreement relating to transfer pricing or any
intellectual property between Google and “any other Google-affiliated company.” We should
meet and confer to discuss what Rockstar is seeking in this request.
29. All documents related to any revenue sharing agreements for advertisements served with
search results on third-party sites.
We do not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
30. All documents related to how Google serves advertisements and search results on third party
sites.
To the extent that this request is limited to the functionalities in the accused Google advertising
services which are accused of infringement, Google produced documents sufficient to show how
they operate pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4(a). Additional documents may also be located in
Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding
custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement. If
Rockstar is seeking some other category of documents in this request, we should discuss what
that is.
31. All dashboard information for any Accused Instrumentality since January 1, 2007.
This is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to the
functionalities accused of infringement. We should meet and confer regarding the scope of this
request.
32. All internal Google wiki information for any Accused Instrumentality since January 1, 2007.
This is vague and ambiguous and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to the
functionalities accused of infringement. As explained above, Google produced documents
relating to the accused functionalities from its internal wikis in connection with its Patent L.R. 34(a) production.
33. All licenses and/or agreements between Google and any third party for providing Google
search services to a third party, including but not limited to all licenses and/or agreements
between Google and Yahoo!.

9

This request is overly broad. We do not understand what relevance Google’s agreements with
these third parties has to the litigation. Please explain.
34. All documents related to or supporting Google’s statement that “Ads are matched to search
results based on the terms a person uses to search,” found at
https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1722047?hl=en&ref_topic=3121771.
Google believes this request is duplicative of prior requests. If it is not, please explain how it
differs. In any event, pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4, Google produced documents sufficient to show
the operation of the accused ads functionalities. Additional documents may also be located in
Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding
custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
35. All documents related to or supporting the following Google statements:
a. “Use matching options with your keywords to help control which searches can trigger your
ad.”
b. “When choosing the appropriate match type for a keyword, we typically recommend starting
with broad match to maximize your potential to show your ads on relevant searches.”
c. “Use the search terms report to monitor which keyword variations triggered your ads.”
This request does not identify the source of these statements. Please let us know where they are
from.
36. All documents related to the “search terms report,” including documents related to the use,
design, development, testing, and/or modification of the “search terms report.”
This is vague and ambiguous, including with respect to the phrase “search terms report.” This
request is also overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the functionalities accused of
infringement. Please explain the relevance of this request.
37. All documents related to or supporting Google’s statement that “AdWords allows you to
target customers in the geographic locations you’ve chosen, so your ads can appear in the areas
where you do business.”
This request does not identify the source of this statement. Please let us know where it is from.
We also do not understand the relevance of this statement to this case. Please explain.
38. All documents related to the Accused Instrumentalities’ abilities to determine a user’s
physical location, including but not limited to IP address and device location.
This request is vague and ambiguous, including with respect to the terms and phrases “Accused
Instrumentalities’ abilities,” and “device location.” This request is also overbroad to the extent
that it is not limited to the functionalities accused of infringement. As it relates to the accused
functionalities, Google produced responsive documents pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4(a).
Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the
parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by
the proposed ESI agreement.
10

39. All documents related to the Accused Instrumentalities’ abilities to match advertisements
based on a user’s IP address, device location, or user-selected location.
This request is vague and ambiguous, including with respect to the terms and phrases “Accused
Instrumentalities’ abilities,”“device location,” and “user-selected location.” This request is
also overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the functionalities accused of infringement.
As it relates to the accused functionalities, Google produced responsive documents pursuant to
Patent L.R. 3-4(a). Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial
data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms
as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
40. All documents related to the “PREF” cookie, including but not limited to documents related
to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of the “PREF” cookie.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Google will meet and confer regarding the scope of
this request, but does not believe that “all documents related to the ‘PREF’ cookie” are
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
41. All documents related to the Advertising IDs in Android, including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of the
Advertising ID and any predecessor or successor versions.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Google also does not understand the relevance of
this request. Google will meet and confer regarding the scope of this request, but does not
believe that “all documents related to the ‘Advertising IDs in Android” are reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
42. All documents related to conversion cookies “used to help advertisers determine how many
times people on their ads end up purchasing their products,” including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of same.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Google also does not understand the relevance of
this request. Google will meet and confer regarding the scope of this request, but does not
believe that “all documents related to conversion cookies” are reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, please identify the source of the quoted language.
43. All documents related any cookies used in advertising (“advertising cookies”), including but
not limited to documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of
advertising cookies.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. This request also appears to be duplicative of prior
requests. Google will meet and confer regarding the scope of this request, but does not believe
that “all documents related to any cookies used in advertising” are reasonably calculated to
11

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Google also refers Rockstar to its explanation
above concerning Google’s Patent L.R. 3-4(a) production.
44. All documents related the Accused Instrumentalities’ abilities to collect and use prior
purchasing information, including through Google Wallet or otherwise, including but not limited
to documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of this
functionality.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. For example, this request asks for documents
related to the “Accused Instrumentalities’” abilities to collect and “use” prior purchasing
information, but does not articulate what purported “use” Rockstar is interested in. To the
extent that Rockstar is seeking documents relating to the operation of the functionalities accused
of infringement, Google refers Rockstar to its explanation above concerning Google’s Patent
L.R. 3-4(a) production. If Rockstar is seeking something else, please explain its relevance to
Rockstar’s claims.
45. All documents related to AdWords’ “language targeting” feature, including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of the “language
targeting” feature.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Google does not understand the relevance of
AdWords’ “language targeting” feature to Rockstar’s claims. Please explain.
46. All documents related to “Google Instant predictions” or any functionality in the Accused
Instrumentalities to predict searches as a user types, including but not limited to documents
related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of the “Instant predictions”
or similar functionality.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Google does not understand the relevance of
“Google Instant predictions”, or “any functionality in the Accused Instrumentalities to predict
searches as a user types” to Rockstar’s claims. Please explain.
47. All documents related to “Personalized Search,” including but not limited to documents
related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of “Personalized Search.”
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Google produced documents responsive to
this request in its Patent L.R. 3-4 production. Additional documents may also be located in
Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding
custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
48. All documents related to “Query Understanding” that “gets to the deeper meaning of the
words you type” as described at
http://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/algorithms.html, including but not limited
to documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of “Query
Understanding” functionality.
12

This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of the requested
documents.
49. All documents related to the placement of advertisements alongside, above, or below the
search results, including but not limited to code (including executable or compatible code),
product specifications, flowcharts, models, drawings, promotional literature, advertising,
engineering design, engineering analysis and documents related to the use, design, development,
testing, and/or modification of this functionality.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. It also appears to be duplicative of prior
requests regarding the operation of Google’s ads system. Google produced documents
responsive to this request in its Patent L.R. 3-4 production. Additional documents may also be
located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer
regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI
agreement.
50. All documents related to Google’s algorithms used to look up search terms in Google’s index
to find appropriate pages, as described at
https://www.google.com/intl/en/insidesearch/howsearchworks/crawlin g-indexing.html and
http://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearch works/thestory/.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of “Google’s
algorithms used to look up search terms in Google’s index” generally, as opposed to those
algorithms related to the functionalities accused of infringement.
51. All documents related to Google’s “Search Lab,” including but not limited to guidelines,
evaluations, analyses, methodologies, summaries, presentations, and reports.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain what you are referring to as “Search
Lab” and its relevance to the litigation.
52. All documents related to Google’s ability to present advertisements based on (a) recent,
previous searches, (b) Google Web History, (c) websites visited that belong to businesses that
advertise with Google, (d) non-personally identifying information in a Google account, such as
age or gender, (e) previous interaction with Google’s advertisements or advertising services, (f)
language; and (g) location.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. It also appears to be duplicative of prior requests.
Google produced documents responsive to this request in its Patent L.R. 3-4 production.
Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the
parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by
the proposed ESI agreement.

13

53. All documents related to the “Knowledge Graph” functionality, including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of “Knowledge
Graph.”
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of “Knowledge
Graph.”
54. All documents related to the “Social Search” functionality, including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of “Social
Search.”
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of “Social Search.”
55. All documents related to the “Ads Preferences Manager,” including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of the “Ads
Preferences Manager.”
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of Ads Preferences
Manager.
56. All documents related to “AdWords Express” functionality, including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of “AdWords
Express.”
This request is vague and ambiguous, overbroad and appears to be duplicative of prior requests.
Google produced documents responsive to this request as part of its Patent L.R. 3-4 production.
Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the
parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by
the proposed ESI agreement.
57. All documents related to “YouTube Interest-based Advertising” functionality, including but
not limited to documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of
“YouTube Interest-based Advertising.”
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of “YouTube Interestbased Advertising.”
58. All documents related to “AdWords for video” functionality, including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of “AdWords for
video.”
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of “AdWords for
video.”
14

59. All documents related to “pay-per-click,” “cost-per-click,” and “actual cost-per-click”
functionality, including but not limited to documents related to the use, design, development,
testing, and/or modification of same.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. We should meet and confer regarding the scope of
this request. Google also refers Rockstar to its explanation above concerning Google’s Patent
L.R. 3-4(a) Production.
60. All documents related to determining “click-through rates,” including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of any
functionality used to determine “click-through rates.”
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Google produced documents responsive to this
request pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4. Additional documents may also be located in Google’s
searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and
electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
61. All documents related to determining “Ad Rank” or “Ad Position” including but not limited
to documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of any
functionality used to determine “Ad Rank” or “Ad Position.”
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. It also appears to be duplicative of prior requests
regarding Google’s ads systems. Google produced documents responsive to this request
pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4. Additional documents may also be located in Google’s searches of
custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic
search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
62. All documents related to determining whether an advertisement gets “top” or “other”
placement on an original or subsequent search results page, including but not limited to
documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of any
functionality used to determine whether an advertisement gets “top” or “other” placement on
original or subsequent search results pages.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. It also appears to be duplicative of prior requests.
Google produced documents responsive to this request pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4. Additional
documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’
meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the
proposed ESI agreement.
63. All documents related to determining “Quality Score” including but not limited to documents
related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of any functionality used to
determine “Quality Score.”

15

This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. It also appears to be duplicative of prior requests.
Google produced documents responsive to this request pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4. Additional
documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’
meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the
proposed ESI agreement.
64. All documents related to ad shards, including but not limited to documents related to the
storage, function, use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of any functionality for
ad shards.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. It also appears to be duplicative of prior requests.
Google produced documents responsive to this request pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4. Additional
documents may also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’
meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the
proposed ESI agreement.
65. All documents related to determining click-through rates or predicted click through rates or
quality score 2, including but not limited to how predicted click through rates or quality score 2
is determined or to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of any
functionality used to determine click-through rates, predicted clickthrough rates or quality score
2.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Google also does not understand what is meant by
“quality score 2.” It also appears to be duplicative of prior requests. Google produced
documents responsive to this request pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4. Additional documents may
also be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer
regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI
agreement.
66. All documents related to “display URL” and “destination URL,” including but not limited to
any documents related to the use, design, development, testing, and/or modification of same.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain what Rockstar is seeking with this
request.
67. Any presentations about Google’s Ad System, Google Front End, Ads Database, Adwords
Front End, or Adwords Back End.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain the relevance of all such
presentations to this case.
68. All documents from the analytics and/or strategic insight group(s) regarding performance,
improvement, or testing regarding search results and/or advertisements.
16

This request is vague and ambiguous, including with respect to the terms and phrases “strategic
insight group(s),” “performance, “improvement,” “testing,” and “regarding search results
and/or advertisements.” It is also overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to the
functionalities accused of infringement. Nor does Google understand the relevance of the
requested documents. Please explain what Rockstar is seeking with this request, and the
relevance of such materials.
69. All documents concerning the marketing, advertising, or promotion of the Accused
Instrumentalities to existing or potential advertisers, search partners, licensees, or other thirdparties.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. We should meet and confer regarding the scope of
what Rockstar seeks in this request.
70. All documents that refer or relate to strategic plans, business plans, business strategies,
licensing plans, licensing proposals, licensing forecasts, prospectuses, market surveys, marketing
strategies, market analyses, and/or marketing forecasts of customer demand for the Accused
Instrumentalities, including both internal documents and any schedules or reports by third-party
industry analysts, research firms, trade associations, or similar entities.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Nor does it appear to be limited to documentation
created on Google’s behalf. We should meet and confer regarding the scope of what Rockstar
seeks in this request.
71. All documents mentioning or concerning any of the Patents-in-Suit or their applications or
foreign counterparts – including parents, divisional, continuation, or continuation-in-part
applications, whether or not they matured into patents, or any patent or patent application held by
or assigned to Rockstar.
This request is overbroad to the extent it is not limited to the Patents-in-Suit. Indeed, it appears
to seek information about patents and applications that are not related to the Patents-in-Suit in
any way. Responsive documents may be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant
to the parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as
contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
72. The file histories and patents for any patent or patent application that describes the Accused
Products, including but not limited to any declaration, affidavit, or testimony submitted to the
Patent and Trademark Office or any other governmental agency regarding the Accused
Instrumentalities.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Moreover, this request is unclear at least because it
refers to file histories and patents, but then asks for declarations, affidavits, or testimony for any
governmental agency regarding the Accused Instrumentalities. It is not clear if the requested
testimony is limited to testimony about particular patents. We should meet and confer regarding
the scope of this request.
17

73. All documents mentioning or related to Nortel, including but not limited to all documents
related to the auction for Nortel’s intellectual property assets.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it seeks “all
documents mentioning or related to Nortel.” In addition to other located documents regarding
the 2011 Nortel auction of Nortel’s intellectual property assets, responsive documents may be
located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer
regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI
agreement.
74. All documents related to Google’s bid for Nortel’s intellectual property assets, including but
not limited to how Google valued Nortel’s portfolio, any document related to “Ranger,” who
Google partnered with in the auction, how much Google was responsible for of the Ranger bid,
why Google decided to bid, how it decided on its stalking horse bid number, all bids that it made
whether alone or partnered with another person or entity, and how it decided to bid the amounts
it did.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it seeks
information regarding Google’s valuation of Nortel’s entire patent portfolio, and not just the
Patents-in-Suit. In addition to other located documents, responsive documents, however, may be
located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer
regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI
agreement.
75. All documents related to the winning bidder in the Nortel auction, including but not limited
to all documents related to Rockstar as the term relates to the winning bidder in the Nortel
auction.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, as it seems to seek all documents related to
Rockstar, regardless of whether they relate to the issues in this litigation. This request also seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Responsive documents may be located in
Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding
custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
76. All documents related to Rockstar Consortium LLC, Rockstar Consortium Inc., Rockstar
Bidco, Rockstar Consortium US LP, or NetStar Technologies LLC.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to documents related to this litigation.
This request also seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Responsive
documents may be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet
and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed
ESI agreement.
77. All documents related to any meetings between Google and Nortel in 2010.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to any particular subject matter, let
alone issues relevant to Rockstar’s claims. This request also seeks documents protected by the
attorney-client privilege. In addition to other located documents, responsive documents,
18

however, may be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet
and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed
ESI agreement.
78. All documents concerning your knowledge of any of the Patents-in-Suit, including
documents indicating when you first became aware of any of the Patents-in-Suit, and all
documents concerning your knowledge of any patent or patent application held by or assigned to
Rockstar.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the Patents-in-Suit. This request also seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege.
In addition to other located documents, responsive documents, however, may be located in
Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding
custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
79. All correspondence and other documents expressing opinions on or concerning the validity,
invalidity, infringement, non-infringement, enforceability, non-enforceability, or license (either
express of implied) as to any of the Patents-in-Suit or their applications or foreign counterparts –
including parents, divisional, continuation, or continuation-in-part applications, whether or not
they matured into patents.
This request is overbroad to the extent it is not limited to the Patents-in-Suit. This request also
seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. In addition to other located
documents, responsive documents, however, may be located in Google’s searches of custodial
data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms
as contemplated by the proposed ESI agreement.
80. All documents concerning the results of any prior art search directed to, or relating to, or
containing any of the Patents-in-Suit or their applications or foreign counterparts – including
parents, divisional, continuation, or continuation-in-part applications, whether or not they
matured into patents, or any patent or patent application held by or assigned to Rockstar.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to prior art to the Patents-in-Suit.
This request also seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Google produced
prior art to the Patents-in-Suit pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4. To the extent it becomes aware of
any additional prior art, Google will produce it.
81. All documents concerning or relating to any patent, license, royalty, technology transfer, or
authorization-to-use agreement that relates to the Accused Instrumentalities, including appraisals
or valuations, including those performed for tax purposes.
This request is vague and ambiguous, and overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the
functionalities accused of infringement. This request is also vague and ambiguous to the extent
it is directed to any “patent, license, royalty, technology transfer, or authorization-to-use
agreement.” Google will produce relevant patent license agreements related to the technology
in the Patents-in-Suit.

19

82. All documents related to any third party analysis Google has conducted or authorized
regarding the Accused Instrumentalities, including but not limited to any study performed by
Houlihan Lokey.
This request is vague and ambiguous. In particular, Google does not understand what is a
“third party analysis Google has conducted.” This request is also overbroad to the extent that it
is not limited to the functionalities accused of infringement. We should meet and confer
regarding the scope of this request.
83. All documents concerning any acquisition Google has made covering any portion of the
Accused Instrumentalities, including but not limited to the acquisitions of Doubleclick, youtube,
Applied Semantics, or any company related to the provision of search/and advertisements, and
including but not limited to any third party analysis of the acquisition such as any study
performed by Houlihan Lokey.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to acquisitions relating to the
functionalities accused of infringement. Google does not understand the relevance of this broad
request. Please explain.
84. All license agreements concerning or covering all or any part of the Accused
Instrumentalities.
This request appears to be duplicative of prior requests. If it is not, please explain how it differs.
85. All documents concerning your policies or practices concerning patent clearances, right-touse opinions, or other mechanisms to avoid your infringement of patents, including the Patentsin-Suit and the patents and patent applications held by or assigned to Rockstar.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the Patents-in-Suit. We further do not understand the relevance of all documents concerning
Google’s policies and practices concerning “patent clearances, right-to-use opinions, or other
mechanisms to avoid your infringement of patents.” Please explain.
86. All documents concerning your contentions on reasonable royalties pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
284 for any infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
We do not understand the meaning of “concerning” in this request. This request also appears to
seek documents that will be the subject of expert discovery. Nevertheless, Google will produce
documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its production of such
documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order, Local Rules, and
Federal Rules.
87. All documents concerning any analysis, opinion, or inquiry regarding potential infringement
of the claims in each of the Patents-in-Suit, or their applications or foreign counterparts—
including parents, divisional, continuation, or continuation-in-part applications, whether or not
they matured into patents—including, but not limited to any documents concerning or relating to
pre-litigation investigations performed by or on behalf of Google, Google’s partners, Google’s
licensors, Google’s customers, Google’s resellers, and/or Google’s affiliates, relating to the
20

potential infringement by any products or systems made, used, offered for sale, and/or sold by
Google, Google’s partners, Google’s licensors, Google’s customers, Google’s resellers, and/or
Google’s affiliates and any such investigations performed prior to or in conjunction with the
2011 auction of Nortel’s patent assets.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the Patents-in-Suit and appears to ask for documents not within Google’s possession, custody, or
control. We also do not understand what is meant by terms like “Google’s partners, Google’s
licensors, Google’s customers, Google’s resellers, and/or Google’s affiliates.” This request also
seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. To the extent that we do understand
this request, it appears to be duplicative of prior requests. It also appears to seek documents
that are not required to be produced until November 18, 2014. (See Dkt. No. 68.) We should
meet and confer regarding the scope of this request.
88. All documents relating to the 2011 auction of Nortel’s patent assets, including but not limited
to valuations, internal and external communications, non-disclosure agreements, and due
diligence prepared or performed by or on behalf of Google, Google’s partners, Google’s
licensors, Google’s customers, Google’s resellers, and/or Google’s affiliates, relating to the
potential infringement by any products or systems made, used, offered for sale, and/or sold by
Google, Google’s partners, Google’s licensors, Google’s customers, Google’s resellers, and/or
Google’s affiliates.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the Patents-in-Suit and appears to ask for documents not within Google’s possession, custody, or
control. This request further appears to be duplicative of prior requests. To the extent that you
disagree, please explain.
89. All documents relating to any communications concerning any of the Patents-in-Suit, or their
applications or foreign counterparts— including parents, divisional, continuation, or
continuation-in-part applications, whether or not they matured into patents—including but not
limited to communications with Google’s employees, managers, sales force, agents,
representatives, the press, or any news wire.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the Patents-in-Suit. In addition to other located documents, additional documents may also be
located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the parties’ meet and confer
regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by the proposed ESI
agreement.
90. All documents related to any time you have cited or mentioned any of the Patents-in-Suit, or
their applications or foreign counterparts—including parents, divisional, continuation, or
continuation-in-part applications, whether or not they matured into patents, including but not
limited to in any other litigation or in any of your patent filings.
This request is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. This request would
require Google to review every statement it has made in any other litigation or any patent filing

21

to determine if the Patents-in-Suit were cited or mentioned. Moreover, we do not understand the
relevance of this request.
91. All documents relating to any communications concerning Rockstar, including but not
limited to communications with Google’s employees, managers, sales force, agents,
representatives, the press, or any news wire.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
communications concerning this litigation. This request further appears to be duplicative of
prior requests. If Rockstar disagrees, please explain.
92. All documents concerning any patent or patent application you have in search or advertising.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, to the extent that it asks for “all documents
concerning any patent or patent application,” and in broad subject matters. We suggest the
parties meet and confer regarding what Rockstar is looking for.
93. All documents related to and/or produced in any other lawsuit for patent infringement
involving the Accused Instrumentalities including but not limited to any expert report, exhibits
lists, admitted exhibits, documents produced in the case, interrogatory response, deposition, trial
demonstrative, declaration, affidavit, or testimony. Such related litigation includes, but is not
limited to:
a. I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc., et al., No. 2:11cv512 (E.D. Va.);
b. Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 07-cv-00279 (E.D. Tex.);
c. British Telecommunications PLC v. Google, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01249-UNA (D. Del.);
d. Xerox Corp. v. Google, Inc., et al., No. 1:10-cv-00136 (D. Del.);
e. Personalized User Model v. Google, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-525 (D.Del.);
f. Microsoft Corp. et al. v. GeoTag Inc., No. 1:11-cv-00175 (D.Del.);
g. Any lawsuit between Google and Overture Services and/or Yahoo! regarding United States
Patent No. 6,269,361;
h. Bid for Position LLC v. Google, Inc. et al., No. 2:07cv00582 (E.D. Va.);
i. Any lawsuit accusing Google search of infringement in whole or in part; and
j. Any lawsuit accusing Google AdWords, Adwords for Mobile, or Adsense for Search of
infringement in whole or in part.
Google objects to this grossly overly broad and unduly burdensome request for several reasons.
This request seeks irrelevant documents. Initially, some of these cases did not relate to the
functionalities accused of infringement here, such as Function Media and Xerox, in which
AdSense for Content was accused of infringement. This request would also cover documents that
do not relate to the operation of Google’s accused functionalities or damages issues, such as
documents relating to invalidity or other defenses. Further, it is unduly burdensome and a waste
of both parties’ resources for Google to produce all documents produced in any of these other
lawsuits. To the extent there are any documents that are relevant or likely to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, such productions will almost certainly be duplicative of
Google’s production in this case. It is additionally unduly burdensome for Google to produce
expert reports, discovery responses, transcripts, etc., many of which may require redactions
22

pursuant to the protective orders in these other cases. Accordingly, we should meet and confer
regarding the scope of this request.
94. All documents relating or referring to the indemnification or offer to indemnify, or request
for indemnification by any of Google’s customers, prospective customers, or third-parties with
respect to the Patents-in-Suit.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
95. All documents relating or referring to the indemnification or offer to indemnify, or request
for indemnification by any of Google’s customers, prospective customers, or third-parties with
respect to the Accused Instrumentalities.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the functionalities accused of
infringement or the asserted patents. In any event, Google does not understand the relevance of
this request. Please explain.
96. All documents concerning the location of Google’s servers and data centers, both in the
United States and internationally.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
97. All documents concerning how Google serves search results to a user within the United
States.
This request appears to be duplicative of prior requests. If not, please explain what Rockstar is
seeking here.
98. All documents concerning how Google serves search results to a user outside the United
States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
99. All documents concerning how Google serves advertisements to a user within the United
States.
This request appears to be duplicative of prior requests. If not, please explain what Rockstar is
seeking here.
100. All documents concerning how Google serves advertisements to a user outside the United
States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
101. All documents concerning how Google stores information related to the Accused
Instrumentalities for users within the United States.
This request appears to be duplicative of prior requests. If not, please explain what Rockstar is
seeking here.
23

102. All documents concerning how Google stores information related to the Accused
Instrumentalities for users outside the United States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
103. All documents concerning the location of Google’s search index or database for users
within the United States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
104. All documents concerning the location of Google’s search index or database for users
outside the United States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
105. All documents concerning the location of where Google stores AdWords-related
information for users within the United States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain. Nor does Google
understand the meaning of “AdWords-related information for users.”
106. All documents concerning the location of where Google stores AdWords-related
information for users outside the United States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain. Nor does Google
understand the meaning of “AdWords-related information for users.”
107. All documents concerning the location of Google’s SmartASS or any other ad selection or
ad targeting technology for users within the United States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
108. All documents concerning the location of Google’s SmartASS or any other ad selection or
ad targeting technology for users outside the United States.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
109. All documents related to the interaction between Google’s servers and data centers in the
United States and Google’s servers and data centers outside the United States, including all
documents showing any relationship between any “master” server or database and any
subservient or servant servers or databases.
Google does not understand the relevance of this request. Please explain.
110. All documents furnished to or shown to any fact witness contacted, interviewed, or
consulted by Google or its agents or attorneys in connection with this litigation.
Google will produce non-privileged, non-work product documents shown to any fact witness
contacted, interviewed, or consulted by Google in connection with this litigation.
24

111. All communications with non-party witnesses.
This request is vague and ambiguous. We do not understand what Rockstar means by a “nonparty” witness. Is it potential witnesses? Actual deposition or trial witnesses? Please explain
what Rockstar is looking for. Given that it is early in discovery, it is premature to know who all
witnesses may be.
112. All documents concerning any analyses or efforts by Google to design around the Patentsin-Suit.
Google will produce non-privileged, non-work product responsive documents that can be located
after a reasonably diligent search.
113. All documents referring or relating to statements made by Google, including
communications between Google and any prospective customers or business partners, referring
or relating to the actual or contemplated capabilities of the Accused Instrumentalities.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. We should meet and confer to discuss the scope of
what Rockstar is seeking here.
114. All documents sufficient to identify all current and former customers, clients, licensees,
and/or users of the Accused Instrumentalities.
This request is vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms “customers, clients
licensees and/or users.” It is not clear if “customers” refers to any entity with an AdWords
account, or if “users” refers to anyone who uses Google Search. This request thus also appears
to be incredibly overbroad and unduly burdensome. Moreover, we do not understand the
relevance of this request. Please explain what Rockstar is seeking with this request.
115. All documents concerning past sales, research or development, present sales, research,
licenses or development, and projected or contemplated future sales, research, license or
development of any of the Accused Instrumentalities.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Please explain what Rockstar seeks with this
request.
116. All documents sufficient to show all sales, revenue, costs, and profit information for the
Accused Instrumentalities, broken down by quarter, including all documents sufficient to explain
any acronyms or terminology employed by Google’s accounting system. To the extent possible,
this information should be as specific as possible, and at a minimum should be broken down by
Accused Instrumentality and by country from which the revenue is received, since July 1, 2000.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement and that it is not limited to U.S. financial data. We
should meet and confer regarding Google’s production of financial data in summary form.
25

117. All documents that relate to the accounting practices used by Google to account for the
sales, expenses, and income for the Accused Instrumentalities, since July 1, 2000.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Nor does it appear to seek information
relevant to this litigation. Please explain the basis for this request.
118. All documents relating to Google’s market share in the Accused Instrumentalities’ markets
since 1998.
This request is overbroad to the extent that it is not limited to the accused functionalities, and the
request pre-dates the issuance of the patents in suit. This request is also vague and ambiguous
to the extent it is directed to “market share in the Accused Instrumentalities’ markets.” We
should meet and confer to discuss the scope of what Rockstar is seeking here.
119. All documents relating to Google’s policies or practices concerning Google’s entry into
license, royalty, technology transfer, or authorization-to-use agreements since 1998.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it seeks
information dating back to 1998. This request further appears to be duplicative of prior
requests. Please explain what Rockstar seeks in this request.
120. All documents evidencing Google’s licenses, royalties, technology transfers, or
authorization-to-use agreements related to Search.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. It also appears to be duplicative of prior
requests. Please explain what Rockstar is seeking.
121. All documents evidencing Google’s licenses, royalties, technology transfers, or
authorization-to-use agreements related to Ads.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. It also appears to be duplicative of prior
requests. Please explain what Rockstar is seeking.
122. All documents relating to any agreement to enter into a license, royalty, technology transfer,
or authorization-to-use agreement that relates to any Accused Instrumentality.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. It also appears to be duplicative of prior requests.
Please explain what Rockstar is seeking.
123. All documents that refer or relate to any prior art reference that you believe anticipate or
render obvious any of the Patents-in-Suit.
Google produced such documents pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4. To the extent that Google
identifies any additional prior art it will rely on , it will produce it in accordance with applicable
rules for supplementation.

26

124. All documents that refer or relate to any document that Google believes is relevant to the
construction or interpretation of any claim of any of the Patents-in-Suit.
Google will produce any non-privileged, non-work product documents it believes are relevant to
the construction or interpretation of any claim term in an asserted claim that one or more of the
parties identifies as needing to be construed by the Court.
125. All documents that reference Rockstar or any Rockstar employee by name.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
documents that relate to this litigation. This request also appears to be duplicative of prior
requests. Google does not know the names of all of Rockstar’s employees.
126. All documents that reference Nortel or any Nortel employee by name.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
documents that relate to this litigation. This request also appears to be duplicative of prior
requests, such as those relating to the 2011 Nortel patent auction. Further, to the extent that you
contend that it is not duplicative because it covers “Nortel employee[s] by name”, Google does
not know the names of all of Nortel’s employees so it does not have the means to conduct such a
search.
127. All documents that reference Richard Skillen by name.
Responsive documents may be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the
parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by
the proposed ESI agreement.
128. All documents that reference Frederick Livermore by name.
Responsive documents may be located in Google’s searches of custodial data pursuant to the
parties’ meet and confer regarding custodians and electronic search terms as contemplated by
the proposed ESI agreement.
129. All documents that support your contention in Paragraphs 32 and 33 of your Answer that
Google did not wilfully infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
130. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 37 of your Answer that
Google has not infringed, induced the infringement of, or contributed to the infringement of any
of the Patents-in-Suit.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
27

131. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 38 of your Answer that
the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and unenforceable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
132. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 39 of your Answer that
the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and unenforceable under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
133. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 40 of your Answer that
the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and unenforceable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
134. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 41 of your Answer that
the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and unenforceable for failure to satisfy the conditions of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
135. All documents that support or relate to any contention by Google that any of the Patents-inSuit are invalid, were not legally issued, and/or are not enforceable.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
136. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 42 of your Answer that
Plaintiffs’ claims for damages is limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or 288.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
137. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 43 of your Answer that
Plaintiffs’ claim of patent infringement is barred by prosecution history disclaimer.

28

Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
138. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 44 of your Answer that
Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel, laches, disclaimer, patent misuse,
and/or waiver.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
139. All documents that support or relate to your contentions in Paragraphs 45 to 231 of Your
Answer that the Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable by reason of inequitable conduct.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
140. All documents that support or relate to your contention in Paragraph 232 of your Answer
that Plaintiffs’ claim of patent infringement is barred under the doctrine of unclean hands.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
141. All documents that support or relate to any of Google’s affirmative defenses.
Google will produce documents supporting its contentions in this matter, and supplement its
production of such documents, in accordance with the Discovery Order, Docket Control Order,
Local Rules, and Federal Rules.
142. All documents referring or relating to any patents, publications, documents, events,
suggestions, arguments or contentions that have been asserted by any person as prior art or as
affecting the validity or enforceability of any of the Patents-in-Suit or of any foreign counterparts
thereof.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the Patents-in-Suit. Google does not understand what Plaintiff is seeking in this request. Please
explain.
143. All documents that refer or relate to whether any invention disclosed in any of the Patentsin-Suit, or any product that embodies or uses such an invention, has been commercially
successful.
This request appears to seek documents are not likely to be in Google’s possession, custody, or
control, and Google does not know how it could conduct a reasonable search for such
documents. Please explain what Rockstar is seeking.
29

144. All documents that refer or relate to whether any invention encompassed in any of the
Accused Instrumentalities, or any product that embodies or uses such an invention, has been
copied by others.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. Google does not understand what Rockstar is
seeking in this request. Please explain.
145. All documents that refer or relate to whether anyone has praised, criticized, or discussed the
significance of any invention disclosed in any of the Patents-in-Suit, or any product or
instrumentality that embodies or uses any such invention.
This request appears to seek documents are not likely to be in Google’s possession, custody, or
control, and Google does not know how it could conduct a reasonable search for such
documents. Please explain what Rockstar is seeking.
146. All organizational charts for any part of your company engaged in the design, development,
or sale of the Accused Instrumentalities.
We do not understand the relevance of this request. Google served Initial Disclosures
identifying the persons with knowledge relevant to this case. In any event, Google does not
maintain organizational charts in the ordinary course of business.
147. Documents sufficient to show the relationship between the different corporate entities
owned or controlled by Google.
This request is vague and ambiguous and does not appear to seek relevant information. Please
explain what Rockstar is seeking in this request and its relevance.
148. All documents, including past and present organizational charts, that list or identify the
persons who have or had responsibility for the following functions relating to the Accused
Instrumentalities:
(a) conception or implementation;
(b) marketing;
(c) advertising;
(d) sales;
(e) design;
(f) engineering;
(g) research and development;
(h) patent activities;
(i) international operations
(j) licensing of technology; and
(k) acquisition of technology through third party business entities.
We do not understand the relevance of this request, which appears to be duplicative of prior
requests. Google served Initial Disclosures identifying the persons with knowledge relevant to
this case. In any event, Google does not maintain organizational charts in the ordinary course
of business.
30

149. All documents (such as purchase price allocations) that describe or discuss the value of
patents, intellectual property rights, or technology that you acquired through the purchase,
acquisition, or change of control of any third-party business entity, so long as the patent,
intellectual property right, or technology relates to the Accused Instrumentalities.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
the functionalities accused of infringement. This request also appears to be duplicative of prior
requests. Please explain what Rockstar seeks here.
150. All documents related to any Interrogatory served on you or any response you provide to
any Interrogatory.
To the extent any interrogatory served on Google asks Google to identify documents, Google will
identify and produce those documents, subject to its general and specific objections. To the
extent that Google cites to documents pursuant to Rule 33(d) in response to an interrogatory, it
will produce those documents.
151. All documents related to any 30(b)(6) topic.
Google cannot meaningfully respond to this request at this time because Rockstar has not yet
served any 30(b)(6) topics on Google.
152. All document retention policies or any other policies concerning the preservation of
documents, including email and chat transcripts, issued by or on behalf of Google, Google’s
partners, Google’s licensors, Google’s customers, Google’s resellers, and/or Google’s affiliates
in effect from August 1, 2000 to present.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
Google and seeks documents dating back to 2000. This request further appears to seek
documents not in Google’s possession, custody, or control, such as the document retention
policies of “Google’s licensors, Google’s customers, Google’s resellers, and/or Google’s
affiliates.” To the extent that Google maintains written document retention policies pertinent to
relevant documents that are not subject to the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product
protection, they will be produced.
153. All litigation holds or similar documents concerning the preservation of documents,
including email and chat transcripts, issued by or on behalf of Google, Google’s partners,
Google’s licensors, Google’s customers, Google’s resellers, and/or Google’s affiliates in
anticipation of litigation with Rockstar or any related or affiliated entity.
This request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, including to the extent that it is not limited to
Google. Again, this request appears to seek documents not in Google’s possession, custody, or
control, such as the document retention policies of “Google’s licensors, Google’s customers,
Google’s resellers, and/or Google’s affiliates.” This request also seeks attorney-client
privileged and/or work product information.

31

Very truly yours,

Andrea Pallios Roberts
01980.00010/5941107.10
01980.00010/5941107.10

32