I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
111
Declaration re 109 Memorandum in Opposition, by Joshua Sohn by 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 10
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) 875-6344
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
joshuasohn@quinnemanuel.com
April 3, 2012
Charles Monterio
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Re:
I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al.: Claim Construction
Dear Charles:
I write in response to your letter of March 29, 2012 regarding claim construction. As Defendants
have repeatedly stated, grouping together terms that provide a common claim construction issue
is the most efficient and practical way to conduct the claim construction process. For this reason,
construing groups of terms is commonly done in patent cases. Defendants disagree with your
position that this technique is improper under the Court’s Scheduling Order.
We also decline your proposal to reduce the terms in Defendants’ list down to isolated words or
phrases taken from larger terms. You propose to reduce all the terms in Defendants’ Group #6
down to the single word “combining”; you propose to reduce all the terms in Group # 1 to
“relevant and “relevance”; and you propose to reduce all the terms in Group #2 to “scanning a
network” and “a scanning system for searching for information.” Simply construing these
isolated words or phrases is not an adequate substitute for construing the larger terms that
contain them. Accordingly, Defendants must reject your proposal.
Regarding the term “informon”, we acknowledge the parties’ agreement that this term is singular
and “informons” is plural. As for the use of the phrase “particular user” in Defendants’
construction of “informon,” Defendants have already explained that this phrase comes directly
from the specification’s own definition of “informon.” See ‘420 Patent at 3:31-33 (“As used
herein, the term ‘informon’ comprehends an information entity of potential or actual interest to a
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
particular user.”)
Regarding the term “collaborative feedback data,” we agree that the parties’ proposed
constructions are similar, but we decline your invitation to adopt Plaintiff’s wording in lieu of
Defendants’.
We note that Plaintiff has still not responded to certain claim construction questions in
Defendants’ prior correspondence. For instance, Plaintiff has still not provided its position on
whether antecedent basis law applies to the term dyads in Defendants’ Group #7, such that the
second term in each dyad must refer back to the first. We have been seeking Plaintiff’s position
on this issue for nearly two weeks and have yet to receive any response. Please provide one.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Joshua L. Sohn
Joshua L. Sohn
01980.51928/4687682.1
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?