Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 212

NOTICE by Google Inc re 198 Sealed Patent Response to Non-Motion,, Google's Objections to Plaintiffs Evidence Submitted with its Reply Claim Construction Brief (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Anderson, Carl)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT A Carl Anderson From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Antonio Sistos Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:20 PM John Lahad; Carl Anderson; Andrea P Roberts; Justin A. Nelson; Shawn Blackburn; Amanda Bonn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan QE-Google-Rockstar; 'Mark Mann'; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com RE: Rockstar v. Google John,    Regarding the impermissibility of construing a claim limitation such that its scope changes over time, I direct you to PC  Connector Solutions LLC v. SmartDisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  In particular:    A claim cannot have different meanings at different times; its meaning must be interpreted as of its effective  filing date. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 986 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc) (“[T]he focus is  on the objective test of what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood  the term to mean.”), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996); see also Kopykake, 264 F.3d at  1383 (“[W]hen a claim term understood to have a narrow meaning when the application is filed later acquires a  broader definition, the literal scope of the term is limited to what it was understood to mean at the time of  filing.”).    Id. at 1363.    Regards,      Antonio Sistos Of Counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-875-6334 Direct 415.875.6600 Main Office Number 415.875.6700 FAX antoniosistos@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com 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.       From: John Lahad [mailto:jlahad@SusmanGodfrey.com] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 9:26 PM To: Carl Anderson; Andrea P Roberts; Justin A. Nelson; Shawn Blackburn; Amanda Bonn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; 'Mark Mann'; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google   Carl,  1 Wednesday at 11 am Pacific works.  Please circulate a dial‐in.      Further, in its 4‐2 disclosures, Google stated that it “may also rely on expert testimony from  one or more experts or persons skilled in the art, including but not limited to Dr. Edward A.  Fox.”  To the extent Google relies on expert testimony from Dr. Fox or any other expert or  witness, Rockstar reserves the right to submit rebuttal expert testimony in response.     Thanks, and talk to you Wednesday.  Best,  John    John P. Lahad Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 713‐653‐7859 (office)  713‐725‐3557 (mobile)  713‐654‐6666 (fax)          From: Carl Anderson [mailto:carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 6:59 PM To: Carl Anderson; John Lahad; Andrea P Roberts; Justin A. Nelson; Shawn Blackburn; Amanda Bonn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; 'Mark Mann'; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google   John,   The parties are required under P.R. 4‐2(c) to meet and confer on claim construction issues.  We propose to start with a  call on Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. Pacific.  Can you please confirm Rockstar is available?  Very truly yours,   Carl       From: Carl Anderson Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:25 PM To: 'John Lahad'; Andrea P Roberts; 'Justin A. Nelson'; 'Shawn Blackburn'; 'Amanda Bonn'; 'Alexander L. Kaplan'; 'jrambin@capshawlaw.com'; 'ederieux@capshawlaw.com'; 'ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com'; 'jw@wsfirm.com'; 'claire@wsfirm.com'; 'Max L. Tribble'; 'Kristin Malone'; 'Parker Folse'; 'Cyndi Obuz'; 'John Dolan' Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; 'Mark Mann'; 'atindel@andytindel.com'; 'blake@themannfirm.com' Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google   John,   Further to our efforts to reduce the number of potential disputes before the court, we also withdraw the following term:  “transmit[ting] the search results together with the at least one advertisement via the [at least one] communications  link to the data processing device.”   As that term was likewise not included in Rockstar’s P.R. 4‐1 submissions, the parties need not exchange proposed  constructions for it.  2 Very truly yours,   Carl       From: John Lahad [mailto:jlahad@SusmanGodfrey.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 10:31 PM To: Carl Anderson; Andrea P Roberts; Justin A. Nelson; Shawn Blackburn; Amanda Bonn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; 'Mark Mann'; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google   Carl,  Thanks for your email.  This confirms Google’s withdrawal of “search engine.”  Again, this in no  way impacts Plaintiffs’ ability to assert claims that include that term.  And thanks for the  clarification on the typo.     As to the “determining whether the advertisement was successful” term, Google can have  more time to complete the tasks you mention if it wishes, provided that it offers a proposed  construction in a timely fashion.  And I’m confident Google won’t object to any necessary  response from our end.     Thanks,  John     John P. Lahad Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 713‐653‐7859 (office)  713‐725‐3557 (mobile)  713‐654‐6666 (fax)          From: Carl Anderson [mailto:carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 8:29 PM To: John Lahad; Andrea P Roberts; Justin A. Nelson; Shawn Blackburn; Amanda Bonn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; 'Mark Mann'; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google   John,   In light of the fact that Rockstar is not asserting ‘969 claim 15 or ‘183 claim 16, we agree that there is no need to  construe “access provider” and “update an access provider webpage.”  Furthermore, we no longer propose to construe  3 the term “search engine.”  As that term was not included in Rockstar’s P.R. 4‐1 submissions, the parties need not  exchange proposed constructions for it.   The term “the selection of an advertisement” should read “the selection of the advertisement.”  I trust that resolves  your question.  Apologies for the typo.    Finally, with regard to Rockstar’s request to add “determining whether the advertisement was successful” to its list of  terms, I note that your request comes just one day before proposed constructions are due.  While we have always made  every effort to cooperate with Rockstar, this does not give Google sufficient time to complete an investigation of  potential claim constructions and gather supporting evidence for this term.  Please confirm that, to the extent Google  requires more time to complete those tasks, Rockstar will not object to timely supplementation by Google for that  term.     Very truly yours,   Carl    Carl Anderson Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-875-6328 Direct 415-875-6600 Main Office Number 415-875-6700 FAX carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com This message was sent by an attorney and may contain confidential information protected by a legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us by phone or e-mail that you have done so.         From: John Lahad [mailto:jlahad@SusmanGodfrey.com] Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 8:47 AM To: Carl Anderson; Andrea P Roberts; Justin A. Nelson; Shawn Blackburn; Amanda Bonn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; 'Mark Mann'; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: RE: Rockstar v. Google   Carl,  This confirms that the parties will not offer constructions for (1) “at least one differing  database,” (2) “based upon user interests selected from the group…,” (3) determining, via  communication with the data processing device that the user does not select the at least one  advertisement,” (4) “providing/provide,” and (5) ‘”user profile database.”  Of course, this in no  way impacts our ability to assert claims containing these terms.      4 This also confirms that Google has added “client” to its list.  Similarly, Plaintiffs add  “determining whether the advertisement was successful” to their list of terms, and intend to  propose a construction for that term.     Finally, two questions for you.  First, we did not assert any of the “access provider” claims.   Google’s 4‐1 disclosures list “access provider” and “update an access provider webpage.”   Does Google intend to seek construction of these terms from unasserted claims?  Please let  me know.  Second, Google’s 4‐1 disclosures include the term “the selection of an  advertisement,” but none of the asserted claims include this term.  There are other “selection”  terms, but I cannot find this particular term in a claim.  Can you point me to the source of this  term, please?      Thanks in advance.  Best,  John       John P. Lahad Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 713‐653‐7859 (office)  713‐725‐3557 (mobile)  713‐654‐6666 (fax)          From: Carl Anderson [mailto:carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 7:14 PM To: Andrea P Roberts; John Lahad; Justin A. Nelson; Shawn Blackburn; Amanda Bonn; Alexander L. Kaplan; jrambin@capshawlaw.com; ederieux@capshawlaw.com; ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com; jw@wsfirm.com; claire@wsfirm.com; Max L. Tribble; Kristin Malone; Parker Folse; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan Cc: QE-Google-Rockstar; 'Mark Mann'; atindel@andytindel.com; blake@themannfirm.com Subject: Rockstar v. Google   Counsel,  Through further review of the 143 asserted claims and the parties’ P.R. 4‐1 submissions, and in an effort to reduce the  number of potential disputes before the court, we withdraw the following terms from consideration for claim  construction:  1.            at least one differing database  2.            based upon user interests selected from the group consisting of social interests, family interests, political  interests, technological interests, geographical interests, environmental interests, and educational interests  3.            determining, via communication with the data processing device that the user does not select the at least one  advertisement  4.            provid[e|ing]  5.            user profile database  5 None of the terms above were included in Rockstar’s P.R. 4‐1 submissions.  Please confirm that Rockstar agrees that  these terms need not be construed, and thus the parties need not exchange proposed constructions for those terms in  their P.R. 4‐2 submissions.   Additionally, we inadvertently omitted the term “client” from our proposals.  We accordingly intend to offer a  construction for “client” in our P.R. 4‐2 exchange.  Please confirm Rockstar will do the same.  Very truly yours,   Carl     Carl Anderson Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-875-6328 Direct 415-875-6600 Main Office Number 415-875-6700 FAX carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com This message was sent by an attorney and may contain confidential information protected by a legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us by phone or e-mail that you have done so.     6

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?