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

Filing 127

Memorandum in Opposition re 104 MOTION to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Infringement Contentions (REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION) filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (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, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Exhibit 16 

DICKSTEI NS HAP I ROLLP
1825 Eye Street NW I Washington, DC 20006-5403
[phone] I FAX [phone] I dicksteinshapiro.com

TEL

March 14,2012

Via E-mail
Emily C. O'Brien, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re:

lIP Engine's Infringement Contentions

Dear Emily:
In your March 13, 2012 letter regarding lIP Engine's infringement contentions, Google claims
that it is "left with no option but to seek intervention from the Court." During yesterday's meet
and confer, however, we discussed the parties' positions with regard to supplementing the
parties' various contentions. To be clear, IIP Engine intends to supplement its infringement
contentions. From IIP Engine's perspective, there is nothing to compel on this issue. If Google
disagrees, please advise, as we remain willing to further meet and confer.

Bm>" :!1J
~tJr

I£harles J.

[phone]
[e-mail]
CJM/

cc:

Stephen E. Noona
David Bilsker
Kenneth W. Brothers
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
DeAnna Allen

Los Angeles

I New York I Orange County I Silicon Valley I Stamford I Washington, DC
DSMDB-3039507