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)

EXHIBIT B

Carl Anderson
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Shawn Blackburn [[e-mail]]
Friday, October 17, 2014 6:12 PM
Carl Anderson; Antonio Sistos; Andy Tindel; Charles K Verhoeven; David Perlson; Erik C.
Olson; Eugene Mar; Gregory Blake Thompson; James Mark Mann; Michelle Ernst; QEGoogle-Rockstar; Robert Wilson; Roderick Thompson; Sam Stake; Sean Pak
Alexander L. Kaplan; Amanda Bonn; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; John Lahad; Justin A. Nelson;
Max L. Tribble; Meng Xi; Parker Folse; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio
RE: Activity in Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc
Sealed Document

Carl,  

Thank you for your email. Rockstar was aware of Google’s general position and its proposed construction of “data 
processing device” as of the filing of the JCCS.  I have reviewed your attached correspondence and it has little to do with 
the relevant question of whether Rockstar knew of Exhibits 25‐31. As I explained to your colleague, Mr. Sistos, Rockstar 
complied with P.R. 4‐3(b) by identifying the extrinsic evidence known to Rockstar at the time of filing.  That the web 
pages were potentially accessible via the internet is immaterial to whether they were known to Rockstar. 

As you may be aware, long after the filing of the JCCS, your colleague David Perlson elicited testimony from Richard 
Skillen regarding the existence of tablets and smart phones around the time of the invention in which Mr. Skillen 
confirmed their existence. Following Mr. Skillen’s deposition and the receipt of Google’s responsive brief, which stated 
without support that “tablets and smartphones [] would not be considered ‘conventional hardware/software’ by a 
person of skill in 1997,” Rockstar investigated Mr. Skillen’s assertions and discovered the evidence found in Exhibits 25‐
31. Finally, it appears to be Google’s position that no evidence may be included in the claim construction briefs that was 
not included in the JCCS. There is no such rule.  

Best,  

Shawn 

Shawn D. Blackburn 
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 
[e-mail] 
1000 Louisiana Street 
Suite 5100 
Houston, Texas 77002 
(713) 653‐7822 (Office) 
(610) 209‐7367 (Cell) 

From: Carl Anderson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 8:05 PM
To: Shawn Blackburn; Antonio Sistos; Andy Tindel; Charles K Verhoeven; David Perlson; Erik C. Olson; Eugene Mar;
Gregory Blake Thompson; James Mark Mann; Michelle Ernst; QE-Google-Rockstar; Robert Wilson; Roderick Thompson;
Sam Stake; Sean Pak
Cc: Alexander L. Kaplan; Amanda Bonn; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; John Lahad; Justin A. Nelson; Max L. Tribble; Meng Xi;
1

Parker Folse; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio
Subject: RE: Activity in Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc Sealed Document

Shawn,
Rockstar cannot contend that it was unaware of Google’s position on “data processing device” as of the filing of the 
JCCS.  Not only did we explain that position to Rockstar on the meet and confers, we provided case support for that 
position at Rockstar’s request.  That correspondence is attached.  Nor can Rockstar contend that it did not have access 
to the web pages and documents it attached in Exhibits 25‐31.  Given the above, please explain why Rockstar contends 
that it was unaware of those exhibits.
As Google also mentioned on the meet and confer, to the extent it resolves the parties’ dispute, we are willing to modify 
our construction of “data processing device” to “a desktop computer or laptop, such as a PC or a Macintosh, executing a 
browser.”  While Rockstar previously rejected Google’s compromise construction, we will renew the offer in order to 
avoid unnecessary motion practice.  Please advise by Tuesday, October 14, 2014 whether Rockstar agrees so that we can 
update the joint claim construction chart as needed.
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
[e-mail]
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: Shawn Blackburn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 8:46 AM
To: Antonio Sistos; Andy Tindel; Carl Anderson; Charles K Verhoeven; David Perlson; Erik C. Olson; Eugene Mar; Gregory
Blake Thompson; James Mark Mann; Michelle Ernst; QE-Google-Rockstar; Robert Wilson; Roderick Thompson; Sam
Stake; Sean Pak
Cc: Alexander L. Kaplan; Amanda Bonn; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; John Lahad; Justin A. Nelson; Max L. Tribble; Meng Xi;
Parker Folse; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio
Subject: RE: Activity in Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc Sealed Document

Antonio:  

As you know P.R. 4‐3(b) only requires “an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends 
to rely either to support its proposed construction of the claim or to oppose any other party’s proposed construction of 
the claim.”  We fully complied with that rule.  Exhibits 25 through 31 are properly incorporated to rebut the argument in 
Google’s response that “Rockstar ignores the relevant time period altogether in a bid to capture devices like tablets and 
smartphones that would not be considered ‘conventional hardware/software’ by a person of skill in 1997.”  We will not 
withdraw them.  
2

This confirms that (1) Rockstar will not be asserting claims that depend from claim 11 of the ’883 Patent (i.e, claims 12 – 
19), and (2) that we are amenable to Google’s construction of “the user” for ’970, claim 45. We suggest that the parties 
notify the Court about  these terms as part of the Joint Claim Construction Chart due on October 14. There is no point 
wasting the Court and everyone else’s time with serial filings. 

Best,  

Shawn D. Blackburn 
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 
[e-mail] 
1000 Louisiana Street 
Suite 5100 
Houston, Texas 77002 
(713) 653‐7822 (Office) 
(610) 209‐7367 (Cell) 

From: Antonio Sistos [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 3:25 PM
To: Shawn Blackburn; Andy Tindel; Carl Anderson; Charles K Verhoeven; David Perlson; Erik C. Olson; Eugene Mar;
Gregory Blake Thompson; James Mark Mann; Michelle Ernst; QE-Google-Rockstar; Robert Wilson; Roderick Thompson;
Sam Stake; Sean Pak
Cc: Alexander L. Kaplan; Amanda Bonn; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; John Lahad; Justin A. Nelson; Max L. Tribble; Meng Xi;
Parker Folse; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio
Subject: RE: Activity in Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc Sealed Document

Counsel, 

I write in reference to Rockstar’s reply claim construction brief. 

Exhibits 25 through 31 of Rockstar’s reply brief consist of a series of webpages and other documents that purportedly 
support Rockstar’s construction of “data processing device.”  None of these exhibits were mentioned in Rockstar’s P.R. 
4‐2 disclosures or its P.R. 4‐3 exhibit.  (See, e.g., Dkt. 121‐1 at 4‐5.)  Nor were these documents included in Google’s 
disclosures.  (See, e.g., Dkt. 121‐2 at 12.)  P.R. 4‐3(b) requires “an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the 
party on which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction of the claim or to oppose any other party’s 
proposed construction of the claim.”  As Exhibits 25 through 31 were not included in Rockstar’s mandatory disclosures, 
they should not have been included with or referenced in Rockstar's reply.  Please let us know today whether Plaintiff 
will agree to remove the reference to these exhibits from its brief and withdraw its filing of the same. 

Further, Footnote 1 of Rockstar’s reply asserts that since Rockstar is dropping claim 11 of the ‘883 patent, the 
“interacting.. to create user profile data” term briefed at Rockstar’s opening brief at 27 and Google’s responsive brief at 
17‐18 need not be construed.  As you know, Rockstar has also asserted claims 12 through 19 of the ‘883 patent, all of 
which depend from claim 11.  Please let us know if Rockstar is dropping those claims, and if not, the basis for Rockstar’s 
contention that the “interacting” term need not be construed.   The Court should have a full and accurate picture of the 
terms actually at issue.  Please respond on this point today.   

Finally, as noted in footnote 30 of Google’s responsive brief, Rockstar’s opening brief does not provide any argument for 
“the user” of claim 45 of the ‘970 patent, and Rockstar’s reply brief does not address the term either.  (Reply 16.)  As 
also noted in footnote 30 of Google’s brief, Google proposed a compromise construction of “a person or individual 
3

operating the data processing device” for “the user.”  Please let us know whether Rockstar agrees with Google’s 
proposal, and if not, the basis for its disagreement, as Rockstar’s position is not briefed.  While we do not need an 
answer on this point today, please let us know your position this week.  Again, to the extent we can narrow issues, the 
Court would likely appreciate notice of that sooner rather than later.   

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
[e-mail]
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: Shawn Blackburn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 7:37 PM
To: Andy Tindel; Antonio Sistos; Carl Anderson; Charles K Verhoeven; David Perlson; Erik C. Olson; Eugene Mar; Gregory
Blake Thompson; James Mark Mann; Michelle Ernst; QE-Google-Rockstar; Robert Wilson; Roderick Thompson; Sam
Stake; Sean Pak
Cc: Alexander L. Kaplan; Amanda Bonn; Cyndi Obuz; John Dolan; John Lahad; Justin A. Nelson; Max L. Tribble; Meng Xi;
Parker Folse; Shawn Blackburn; Stacy Schulze; Tammie J. DeNio
Subject: FW: Activity in Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc Sealed Document

Counsel,  

Please see attached.  

Best, 

Shawn D. Blackburn 
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 
[e-mail] 
1000 Louisiana Street 
Suite 5100 
Houston, Texas 77002 
(713) 653‐7822 (Office) 
(610) 209‐7367 (Cell) 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 9:25 PM
4