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

Filing 106

Declaration re 105 Memorandum in Support of Emily O'Brien by Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W)(Noona, Stephen)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT Q APIRO IC KSTE IN 1825 TCL Eye 202 NW Street March DC 20006-5403 Washington 202 ix 420-2200 LLP 420-2201 dicksteinshapiro.com 2012 Via E-mail Kammerud Esq Margaret Quinn Emanuel LLP Sullivan Urquhart 50 California Street 22nd Floor CA San Francisco Re Googles March 2012 Letter Meg Dear Engine writes I/P 94111 2012 which was correct to received With respect to where contentions that you in the as discussed that of documents aware of additional supplement contentions infringement request to stated you I/P I/P stand on contentions statements of March Brothers answer that to responses collaborative to I/P their I/P that by supplemental not reiterated its response interrogatory to contrary with engage We current infringement are sufficient position that request to accurate further when any that party seasonably Google Google We the ongoing or defenses the party should claims Thus its is and analyze receive to reiterated Engine its contentions its In response substantively That Engine stands on I/P Engine to you point out that filtering contentions Engine continues I/P asked stated and also refused Engine believes relating Plaintiff that Engine did not agree mischaracterization to Ken explain its acknowledged your characterizations I/P non- that Engine did engage Additionally claims letter to your you infringement and explained but offered no further response not refuse to by Defendants facts discovery its contentions Engines continuing is discovery refused I/P As we explained production is we that issue at length this contentions noted infringement any issue related to in 720 p.m EST you think you have pointed stated question you to at Engines I/P included characterizations to declined within statement of the and overgeneralization current infringement its such its contentions to further characterize infringement collaborative that agreed required indeed your statement claims repeatedly the claims contentions is filtering is the call I/P During referred you to the Engine elected language of the of the patents-in-suit beyond and declined to engage in by the its arguments over claim construction I/P Engine also did not refuse IACs Ask Sponsored Los Angeles New York to Listings Orange County supplement any of Consistent Silicon with Valley I/P its contentions Engines Stamford on Google position Washington that Search andlor supplementation was DC DSMDB-3035976 DICKSTEINSHAPIROLLP Kammerud Esq Margaret March 2012 Page party had when appropriate as to contentions infringement new Search the parties of Google Search and regarding Google Search Google to IACs Ask to respect we As contentions Once Google now to move that so I/P discussions in its Sponsored amend Google does review them Search IACs Ask and interrogatory supplement respect responses With response its were only recently the infringement remain accused Listings Sponsored With its the functionality regarding its of supplementing the purposes for supplement Listings may Engine to right most of those technical documents Listings Google IACs Ask and have engaged previously to Engine reserves I/P disclose Search Google Sponsored for to have requested and we continue produced facts products As to threat your basis for such response to supplement regarding To motion their supplement the parties them 2012 for I/P January 24 Engine believes We understand however invalidity to needed If from your defendants were contentions aware of additional letter each term Engines is Google when on March I/P relevant to not in Defendants to have had no meet and confer their to obligated Engine is for Defendants abide by their to have been pled contentions I/P agreement agreement are inadequate contentions e.g relevance Engine proposed I/P defendants more contentions invalidity exchange failure Defendants agreement and are in detail the present and cited litigation fully are standing by their explain on they relying upon defendants prior art related to the asserted please their agreement why we refer the search terms requires any further explanation letter that was done also obligated the and statements relevant nonetheless each of the asserted claims not contentions Defendants I/P in proposed search terms Engines In that letter based upon the infringement Rule 11 contentions to supplement their failing infringement that We 2012 compel to by Googles own documents why document move invalidity contentions from claiming Regarding support where its that do not understand interrogatory agreement by supplement to their supported I/P contention to an agreement to on March contentions invalidity Regarding your reference fully but pursuant we contentions of infringement supplementation Defendants intend Engine agreed precludes The any infringement the extent further infringement compel an interrogatory have breached to to to let you to our explained sample Google know previously supplement believe we identified the prior art reads representation art their that they on are claims DSMDB-3035976 DICKSTEINSHAPI Margaret March ROLLP Kammerud Esq 2012 Page We remain willing Best regards harles 202 discuss to these issues // //// MoiiterkLJr 420-5167 MonterioC@dicksteinshapiro.com CJM/ cc Stephen Noona David Bilsker Kenneth Jeffrey DeAnna Brothers Sherwood Allen DSMDB-3035976

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?