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 11

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | san francisco

50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

April 5, 2012
Ken Brothers
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Re:

I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al.: Claim Construction and Other Matters

Dear Ken:
I write in response to our meet-and-confer yesterday. Pursuant to the meet-and-confer, we
promised to provide (and hereby provide) Defendants’ proposed constructions for the following
terms:
“scan[ning] a network”: “spidering or crawling a network”
“a scanning system”: “a system used to scan a network”
“collaborative feedback data”: we reviewed Plaintiff’s proposed construction of “information
concerning what informons other users with similar interests or needs found to be relevant,” but
we cannot agree to this construction due to the ambiguous nature of “information concerning
what informons”.
“informon”: we maintain our proposed construction of “information entity of potential or actual
interest to a particular user.” We note again that our construction is a verbatim copy of the
specification’s definition of “informon”, and “informon” is a coined term whose definition must
flow from the specification.
“searching [for information relevant to a query associated with a first user]”: We will agree to
drop this term from construction.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

“relevance” and “relevant” terms: As you know, Defendants proposed a group of four terms
containing the words “relevance” or “relevant.” On the call, we discussed the possibility of
construing just the terms “relevance” and/or “relevant” in lieu of the larger terms. After further
analysis, however, Plaintiff’s proposed construction of “relevance” would lead to grammatical
and definitional problems if dropped into the claims. Defendants therefore maintain their
position to construe the larger terms – i.e., the four terms in Defendants’ Term Group #1.
We will provide a proposed construction for the term “combining” later today. We look forward
to your prompt response.
* * *
On a separate note, we write to address your baseless accusation that Quinn Emanuel may be
engaging in ethical violations through its joint representation of Defenants Google, IAC, Target,
and Gannett. Even though you admitted having no knowledge of Quinn Emanuel’s
correspondence with and among its clients, you nonetheless accused Quinn Emanuel of
breaching its ethical duties by rejecting your proposed stipulation on behalf of Google when the
stipulation could have led to the dismissal of the other Defendants. You further stated that you
were prepared to raise this alleged ethical violation with the Court in advance of trial.
Your allegation is utterly unprofessional, irresponsible, and unfounded. First, because you admit
having no knowledge of Quinn Emanuel’s correspondence with and among its clients, you have
no factual basis to allege that Quinn Emanuel breached its ethical duties. Second, because your
proposed stipulation required the consent of Google, it was perfectly appropriate for Quinn
Emanuel to reject the stipulation on behalf of Google.
Third, to the extent your allegation was made to strong-arm Quinn Emanuel into approving your
proposed stipulation – and we can see no other apparent motive – your allegation was itself an
ethical breach. See Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion No. 1338 (April 20, 1990)
(“Assuming for purposes of this opinion that no basis exists for the attorney's allegations of
dishonesty, crime and ethical improprieties on the part of opposing counsel, the committee is of
the opinion that such allegations may be violative of DR:7-104(A) if made solely in an attempt to
obtain an advantage in a civil matter.”); see also D.C. Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g)
(“It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . (g) Seek or threaten to seek criminal
disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.”)
Very truly yours,
/s/ Joshua L. Sohn
Joshua L. Sohn
01980.51928/4691782.1

2