I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 1005

Declaration re 1003 Opposition, (of Joshua L. Sohn) in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Motion to Show Cause and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

I/P ENGINE, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512

AOL INC., et al.,
Defendants.
AGREED ORDER
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) and Counsel for Defendants AOL
Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search and Media, Inc., Target Corporation and Gannett Company, Inc.
(collectively “Defendants”), by their respective signature of approval below, represent to the
Court that they have agreed to resolve I/P Engine’s pending Motion to Show Cause Under Rule
37 for Noncompliance with August 13, 2013 Order (D.I. 978) by agreeing to the following:
1.

By September 13, 2013, Google shall produce all documents, including custodial

documents, “relevant for determining whether New AdWords is not more than a colorable
variation of the adjudicated product.”
2.

By September 11, 2013, I/P Engine shall serve one (1) interrogatory on

Defendants requesting a narrative identifying what features have been modified or removed from
the adjudged infringing systems, identifying and describing the “new” features and/or
functionality that replaced the modified or removed features, providing an overview of how the
New AdWords system having the “new” features generally works (from receiving a user’s
search query to displaying the relevant advertisements), and describing any features that enabled

DSMDB-3194769

the removal of those features or now perform any function(s) of those features. By September
18, 2013, Google shall serve its narrative response, to which it will not assert Rule 33(d), on I/P
Engine.
3.

The parties agreed to extensions of time with respect to the discovery and briefing

schedule set forth in the Court’s August 13 Order. The agreed-upon deadlines are as follows:
Schedule
Google shall produce all documents, including custodial
documents, “relevant for determining whether New AdWords is not
more than a colorable variation of the adjudicated product.”
The parties shall serve Technical Expert Witness Reports.
The parties shall serve Technical Expert Rebuttal Reports.
The parties shall file opening briefs and any supporting evidence,
not to exceed fifteen (15) pages, addressing whether New AdWords
is not more than a colorable variation of the adjudicated product.
The parties may file responsive briefs, not to exceed ten (10) pages.
The parties shall meet and negotiate an appropriate ongoing royalty
rate, using 20.9% of U.S. AdWords revenues as the appropriate
royalty base.
Evidentiary hearing – The Court, if necessary, may schedule an
evidentiary hearing in which the parties may present appropriate
evidence and offer arguments in support.
4.

Agreed-Upon Deadline
September 13, 2013
October 25, 2013
November 15, 2013
December 6, 2013
December 16, 2013
December 20, 2013
N/A

The parties agreed that Mr. Bartholomew Furrow, who was identified by Google

as the most knowledgeable person of New AdWords, shall be deposed for no more than 14
hours, which may be on non-consecutive days. The parties remain limited to three (3)
depositions per side, including expert witnesses.
Having fully been advised thereof, the agreed-upon terms above are hereby ORDERED.

ENTERED this ______ day of

2013:

United States District Court Judge
2
DSMDB-3194769

WE ASK FOR THIS:
By:
Donald C. Schultz (Virginia Bar No. 30531)
W. Ryan Snow (Virginia Bar No. 47423)
CRENSHAW, WARE & MARTIN PLC
150 West Main Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
Jonathan Falkler
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Dawn Rudenko Albert
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.

WE ASK FOR THIS:
By: ____________________________________
Stephen E. Noona, VSB No. 25367
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
David Nelson
David Bilsker
David Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
3
DSMDB-3194769

50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive Reston, VA 20190
Cortney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 94111
Counsel for Defendants AOL, Inc., Google, Inc.,
IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc.
and Target Corporation

4
DSMDB-3194769