Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc
RESPONSE in Opposition re 122 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Patent Rule 3-1 Infringement Contentions filed by NetStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Shawn D. Blackburn, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Rockstar's P.R. 3-1 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Rockstar's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Claim Chart for '065, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Rockstar's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Claim Chart for '969, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Rockstar's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Claim Chart for '245, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Rockstar's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Claim Chart for '970, # 7 Exhibit 6 - Rockstar's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Claim Chart for '178, # 8 Exhibit 7 - Rockstar's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Claim Chart for '183, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Rockstar's P.R. 3-1 Infringement Claim Chart for '883, # 10 Exhibit 9 - 4-14-14 email between counsel, # 11 Exhibit 10 - 4-18-14 email between counsel, # 12 Exhibit 11 - 7-3-14 email between counsel, # 13 Exhibit 12 - 7-8-14 email between counsel, # 14 Exhibit 13 - 7-24-14 email between counsel, # 15 Exhibit 14 - 8-27-14 email between counsel, # 16 Exhibit 15 - 6-23-14 email between counsel, # 17 Text of Proposed Order)(Blackburn, Shawn)
Andrea P Roberts
Thursday, July 03, 2014 5:27 PM
QE-Google-Rockstar; Max L. Tribble; Justin A. Nelson; Alexander L. Kaplan; Shawn
Blackburn; John Lahad; Parker Folse; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
firstname.lastname@example.org; Elizabeth DeRieux; Jeff Rambin; Mark Mann;
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; John Dolan; Cyndi Obuz; Stacy
RE: Rockstar v. Google: Expert Disclosures
Initially, we are still reviewing Rockstar’s disclosure of experts. We have a few follow up questions in that
Jay Bhatia - Can you please confirm that the listed cases on his CV cover all of his work in the last four
years? It is not clear from the title of that section of his CV. Please also confirm that he does not have any
publications in the last 8 years, and is not
an inventor or applicant in any patents or patent applications.
Kevin Almeroth – Can you please confirm that he is not an inventor or applicant on any patents or patent
Vivek Shinde – Can you please confirm that he has no publications in the last 8 years, and that he is not an
inventor or applicant in any patents or patent applications?
Additionally, Dai and Shinde both reside outside of the U.S. As you know, pursuant to paragraph 21 of the
Protective Order “[n]o DESIGNATED MATERIAL may leave the territorial boundaries of the United States of
America. Without limitation, this prohibition extends to DESIGNATED MATERIAL (including copies) in
physical and electronic form. The viewing of DESIGNATED MATERIAL through electronic means outside
the territorial limits of the United States of America is similarly prohibited.” Given Dai and Shinde’s
residences, we are concerned about potential violations of the Protective Order. Can you please explain how
Rockstar anticipates ensuring compliance with this provision of the Protective Order for these two consultants
that do not reside in the U.S.?
As for the request to have Jay Bhatia review source code on July 9-11, 2014, Google is diligently collecting the
relevant source code to make it available for inspection, but it will not be available for inspection by July
9. The deadline for Google to substantially complete its document production is September 16. While Google
is endeavoring to make the relevant source code available for inspection before that, it will not be available by
July 9. We will let Rockstar know when it is available for inspection as soon as it is. We currently anticipate
that, when ready, it will be made available for inspection in Quinn Emanuel’s LA office.
With respect to the source code that Rockstar expects Google to produce, please explain why Rockstar believes
that “all source code relating to functionalities identified in Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions, including but
not limited to source code relating to AdWords, AdSense, Ad Server (release software), GWS (Google Web
Server), GFE (Google Front End), Google Search Request and Google Search Response Objections, Google
and Double-Click cookies, and search ranking, and any other source code relating to functionalities identified in
Plaintiffs’ infringement contentions” is relevant? There is no basis for Rockstar to demand “all” code in these
broad categories. We are collecting the source code for the functionalities accused of infringement based on our
understanding of what is accused as best we can. However, as we have been telling Rockstar since April,
Rockstar’s infringement contentions do not put Google on sufficient notice of what is actually accused. Thus, it
would be beneficial to both parties if Rockstar would supplement its infringement contentions to provide more
specificity; Google would then know which source code to make available for inspection, and that source code
would be made available for inspection by Rockstar without the need for lengthy and costly correspondence
between the parties regarding what should be produced.
As for the review computers, I can confirm that they each have 8 GB of memory. For the review tools, please
provide us with a CD or DVD containing the software tools Rockstar is requesting, as required by paragraph
11(b) of the Protective Order. You can direct the delivery of the CD or DVD(s) to Lance Yang in our LA
Andrea Pallios Roberts
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
650.801.5000 Main Office Number
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?