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)
EXHIBIT R
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | san francisco
50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL: (415) 875-6600 FAX: (415) 875-6700
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
(415) 875-6316
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
megkammerud@quinnemanuel.com
March 7, 2012
Charles Monterio
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Re:
I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al.
Dear Charles:
I write to regarding your letter dated March 5, 2012.
In compliance with the parties’ November 4, 2011 stipulation, I/P Engine provided initial noninfringement contentions on November 7 and 11 based on publicly available information. You
agreed to supplement these contentions on February 17, 2012. In addition, I/P Engine
incorporated its contentions into its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7, referring to the
contentions as “Pre-Discovery Infringement Contentions.” These disclosures are what we
already met and conferred about and would form the basis of our motion to compel. And while
you now seek to backtrack from your statements and failure to engage on the call, we believe our
summary of the call in our March 2, 2012 letter was accurate.
Google produced technical documents related to Google Search on December 7, 2012, three
months ago. Your failure to review in a timely manner the documents produced in this case does
not excuse your duty to supplement your infringement contentions, particularly in light of the
fact that the documents we have provided show there is no infringement, as your failure to
supplement demonstrates implicitly.
In your letter, you assert that IAC produced technical documents regarding Ask Sponsored
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL (650) 801-5000 FAX (650) 801-5100
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49(0) 621 43298 6000 FAX +49(0) 621 43298 6100
Listings “only recently,” but IAC produced technical documents concerning ASL on January 17,
2012. I/P Engine has had these documents for seven weeks.
As we have indicated, the lack of clarity as to Plaintiff's reading of the patents prevents us from
being able to supplement our invalidity contentions, if needed, based on them. As we have no
further clarity on Plaintiff's contentions, there is no further art for us to identify in our invalidity
contentions at this time, and, accordingly, nothing to compel.
Very truly yours,
Margaret P. Kammerud
01980.51928/4639766.1
2
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?