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 23 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

I/P ENGINE, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512

AOL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

GOOGLE INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S
SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant Google Inc. hereby
objects and responds in writing to I/P Engine, Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories as served on
February 17, 2012.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Google hereby incorporates by reference the General Objections previously served and
set forth in Google’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories.
STATEMENT ON SUPPLEMENTATION
Google’s investigation in this action is ongoing, and Google reserves the right to rely on
and introduce information in addition to any information provided herein at the trial of this
matter or in other related proceedings. Google has yet to receive complete discovery responses
from I/P Engine. In addition, I/P Engine has yet to identify in a coherent way how it contends

Google infringes the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Google anticipates that facts it learns
later in the litigation may be responsive to one or more of the interrogatories and Google reserves
its right to supplement these interrogatories at appropriate points throughout this litigation
without prejudice and/or to otherwise make available to I/P Engine such information. Google
also reserves the right to change, modify or enlarge the following responses based on additional
information, further analysis, and/or in light of events in the litigation such as rulings by the
Court. Google reserves the right to rely on or otherwise use any such amended response for
future discovery, trial or otherwise.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
Google expressly incorporates the above objections as though set forth fully in response
to each of the following individual interrogatories, and, to the extent that they are not raised in
the particular response, Google does not waive those objections.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11
Identify each element of each Asserted Claim identified by I/P Engine in its Second
Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions as to Google AdWords
and Google AdSense for Search, served on February 17, 2012 (and any later supplementation or
amendments thereof) that Google contends is not present in Google AdWords and/or Google
AdSense for Search, and set forth in specific detail each fact, opinion, argument, inference and
document that supports Google’s contention (including the name, address, and telephone number
of each person who has firsthand knowledge or possession of each such fact, opinion and
document).

2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Google incorporates here in response to this interrogatory its General Objections above
by this reference. Google objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that: (i) it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome; (ii) it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “each fact, opinion,
argument, inference and document”; and (iii) it seeks information that is irrelevant, immaterial or
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Google further objects
to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks proprietary, trade secret or other confidential or
competitively sensitive business information. Google will only produce such relevant, nonprivileged information subject to adequate protections for Google’s confidential, trade secret
and/or proprietary business or technical information via a protective order entered by the Court
in this action. Google further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature to
the extent it calls for an expert opinion.
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, and despite the fact that Plaintiff
has not adequately supplemented its infringement contentions, including its response to Google’s
Interrogatory No. 7, Google responds that Google does not infringe any claim of the ‘420 or ‘664
Patents. Google further responds that the accused products do not meet at least the following
limitations in the asserted claims:
‘420 Patent, Claim 10:
•

“a system for scanning a network to make a demand search for informons relevant
to a query from an individual user”

•

“a content-based filter system for receiving the informons from the scanning
system and for filtering the informons on the basis of applicable content profile
data for relevance to the query”

•

“a feedback system for receiving collaborative feedback data from system users
relative to informons considered by such users”

3

•

“the filter system combining pertaining feedback data from the feedback system
with the content profile data in filtering each informon for relevance to the query”

‘420 Patent, Claim 14:
•

“The system of claim 10 wherein the collaborative feedback data comprises
passive feedback data”

‘420 Patent, Claim 15:
•

“The system of claim 14 wherein the passive feedback data is obtained by
passively monitoring the actual response to a proposed informon.”

‘420 Patent, Claim 25:
•

“scanning a network to make a demand search for informons relevant to a query
from an individual user”

•

“receiving the informons in a content-based filter system from the scanning
system and filtering the informons on the basis of applicable content profile data
for relevance to the query”

•

“receiving collaborative feedback data from system users relative to informons
considered by such users”

•

“combining pertaining feedback data with the content profile data in filtering each
informon for relevance to the query”

‘420 Patent, Claim 27:
•

“The method of claim 25 wherein the collaborative feedback data provides
passive feedback data”

‘420 Patent, Claim 28:
•

“The method of claim 27 wherein the passive feedback data is obtained by
passively monitoring the actual response to a proposed informon”

‘664 Patent, Claim 1:
•

“a scanning system for searching for information relevant to a query associated
with a first user in a plurality of users”

•

“a feedback system for receiving information found to be relevant to the query by
other users”

4

•

“a content-based filter system for combining the information from the feedback
system with the information from the scanning system and for filtering the
combined information for relevance to at least one of the query and the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 5:
•

“The search system of claim 1 wherein the filtered information is an
advertisement”

‘664 Patent, Claim 6:
•

“The search system of claim 1 further comprising an information delivery system
for delivering the filtered information to the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 21:
•

“The search system of claim 1 wherein the content-based filter system filters the
combined information relevant to both the query and the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 22:
•

“The search system of claim 1 wherein the content-based filter system filters by
extracting features from the information”

‘664 Patent, Claim 26:
•

“searching for information relevant to a query associated with a first user in a
plurality of users”

•

“receiving information found to be relevant to the query by other users”

•

“combining the information found to be relevant to the query by other users with
the searched information”

•

“content-based filtering the combined information for relevance to at least one of
the query and the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 28:
•

“The method of claim 26 further comprising the step of delivering the filtered
information to the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 38:
•

“The method of claim 26 wherein the searching step comprises scanning a
network in response to a demand search for the information relevant to the query
associated with the first user”
5

Google further responds that in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d),
all or part of the non-objectionable discovery sought may be obtained from documents that have
been produced in this litigation. Google reserves its right to supplement its response to this
Interrogatory, including to reference relevant documents to the extent reasonable and during
expert discovery.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, and without admitting that
Google, Google AdWords, or Google AdSense for Search practice any element of any claim of
the ‘420 Patent or the ‘664 Patent, Google incorporates herein its Response, Supplemental
Response, and Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 6. Google
reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12
Set forth in specific detail each fact, opinion, argument, inference and document that
supports any of Google’s non-infringement contentions, if Google so contends, that Google
AdWords and Google AdSense for Search do not Infringe the ‘420 or ‘664 patents as set forth by
I/P Engine in its Second Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
Contentions as to Google AdWords and Google AdSense for Search, served on February 17,
2012 (and any later supplementation or amendments thereof), including the name, address, and
telephone number of each person who has firsthand knowledge or possession of each such fact,
opinion and document.

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Google incorporates here in response to this interrogatory its General Objections above
by this reference. Google objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that: (i) it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome; (ii) it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase “each fact, opinion,
argument, inference and document”; and (iii) it seeks information that is irrelevant, immaterial or
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Google further objects
to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks proprietary, trade secret or other confidential or
competitively sensitive business information. Google will only produce such relevant, nonprivileged information subject to adequate protections for Google’s confidential, trade secret
and/or proprietary business or technical information via a protective order entered by the Court
in this action. Google further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature to
the extent it calls for an expert opinion.
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, and despite the fact that Plaintiff
has not adequately supplemented its infringement contentions, including its response to Google’s
Interrogatory No. 7, Google responds that Google does not infringe any claim of the ‘420 or ‘664
Patents. Google further responds that the accused products do not meet at least the following
limitations in the asserted claims:
‘420 Patent, Claim 10:
•

“a system for scanning a network to make a demand search for informons relevant
to a query from an individual user”

•

“a content-based filter system for receiving the informons from the scanning
system and for filtering the informons on the basis of applicable content profile
data for relevance to the query”

•

“a feedback system for receiving collaborative feedback data from system users
relative to informons considered by such users”

7

•

“the filter system combining pertaining feedback data from the feedback system
with the content profile data in filtering each informon for relevance to the query”

‘420 Patent, Claim 14:
•

“The system of claim 10 wherein the collaborative feedback data comprises
passive feedback data”

‘420 Patent, Claim 15:
•

“The system of claim 14 wherein the passive feedback data is obtained by
passively monitoring the actual response to a proposed informon.”

‘420 Patent, Claim 25:
•

“scanning a network to make a demand search for informons relevant to a query
from an individual user”

•

“receiving the informons in a content-based filter system from the scanning
system and filtering the informons on the basis of applicable content profile data
for relevance to the query”

•

“receiving collaborative feedback data from system users relative to informons
considered by such users”

•

“combining pertaining feedback data with the content profile data in filtering each
informon for relevance to the query”

‘420 Patent, Claim 27:
•

“The method of claim 25 wherein the collaborative feedback data provides
passive feedback data”

‘420 Patent, Claim 28:
•

“The method of claim 27 wherein the passive feedback data is obtained by
passively monitoring the actual response to a proposed informon”

‘664 Patent, Claim 1:
•

“a scanning system for searching for information relevant to a query associated
with a first user in a plurality of users”

•

“a feedback system for receiving information found to be relevant to the query by
other users”

8

•

“a content-based filter system for combining the information from the feedback
system with the information from the scanning system and for filtering the
combined information for relevance to at least one of the query and the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 5:
•

“The search system of claim 1 wherein the filtered information is an
advertisement”

‘664 Patent, Claim 6:
•

“The search system of claim 1 further comprising an information delivery system
for delivering the filtered information to the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 21:
•

“The search system of claim 1 wherein the content-based filter system filters the
combined information relevant to both the query and the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 22:
•

“The search system of claim 1 wherein the content-based filter system filters by
extracting features from the information”

‘664 Patent, Claim 26:
•

“searching for information relevant to a query associated with a first user in a
plurality of users”

•

“receiving information found to be relevant to the query by other users”

•

“combining the information found to be relevant to the query by other users with
the searched information”

•

“content-based filtering the combined information for relevance to at least one of
the query and the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 28:
•

“The method of claim 26 further comprising the step of delivering the filtered
information to the first user”

‘664 Patent, Claim 38:
•

“The method of claim 26 wherein the searching step comprises scanning a
network in response to a demand search for the information relevant to the query
associated with the first user”
9

Google further responds that in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d),
all or part of the non-objectionable discovery sought may be obtained from documents that have
been produced in this litigation. Google reserves its right to supplement its response to this
Interrogatory, including to reference relevant documents to the extent reasonable and during
expert discovery.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, and without admitting that
Google, Google AdWords, or Google AdSense for Search practice any element of any claim of
the ‘420 Patent or the ‘664 Patent, Google incorporates herein its Response, Supplemental
Response, and Second Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 6. Google
reserves the right to supplement its response to this interrogatory.

Dated: March 30, 2012

By: /s/ David A. Perlson_____________________
David A. Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6600
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 30, 2012, I will serve the foregoing by electronic mail to
the following:
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Kenneth W. Brothers
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
Stephen E. Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510-1665
T [phone]
F [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendants
Dated: March 30, 2012

By: /s/ Emily C. O’Brien _____________________
Emily C. O’Brien
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6600
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]