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

Filing 147

Declaration re 145 Opposition (of Emily O'Brien) in Support of Google Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Google's Custodial Document Production by Google 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, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y)(Noona, Stephen)

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | san francisco

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

March 16, 2012

Charles Monterio
[e-mail]

Re:

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

Dear Charles:
I write in response to your March 9, 2012 letter regarding search terms. We continue to disagree
regarding the relevance of many of the terms that you propose, as well as the likelihood that the
documents collected by those terms will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However,
in the interest of compromise and to resolve this issue and move forward with document
production in the case, we propose the following:
As you know, Google has agreed to many search terms, as outlined in our letters of January 23,
February 13, and March 7. In addition to the terms that Google has already agreed to, Google
agrees to the following terms:
“QBB” w/5 “pCTR”
“Keyword spam score”
“Ad Shard”
“Empirical Media”
“Virtuous Circle”
“Relevance” and “holy grail”
“revenue per search”
Additionally, Google ran searches on the following terms and determined that the following
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES |

865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
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]
WASHINGTON, DC | 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Mollstraße 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK |

terms are too broad or otherwise problematic:
(“LPQ” or “Landing Page Quality”) and “score”
Disabling and Ads
“Relevance score” or (Relevance and (Inventory or Ads Coverage))
We would propose modifying the terms as follows:
(“LPQ” or “Landing Page Quality”) w/3 “score”
“Disabling” w/3 “Ads”
(“Relevance” or “Relevance Score”) w/5 (“Inventory” or “Ads Coverage”)
We reserve our rights as to these terms, and all terms that Google has agreed to, in the event that
they later result in burdensome numbers of hits for any custodian. Please confirm that Plaintiff is
agreeable to these minor modifications to these terms. Please also confirm that you agree to
withdraw the terms MEU and MBU in light of Google’s agreement to the terms as outlined
above.
Finally, we note that Plaintiff’s request for the term “conversion rate” is without merit. In your
request to include the term “conversion rate,” you point to a Google document regarding
“Improving your conversion rate.” As outlined in that document, conversion tracking is a
method for the advertiser to determine the amount of people clicking on its ads that actually
purchase a product. In other words, the advertiser’s ability to track its conversion of clicks on its
ad to actual sales. This feature of AdWords has not been accused of infringement, and is
unrelated to those elements of AdWords that have been accused. We therefore will not include
this term in the search list.
As always, we remain willing to meet and confer to resolve any discovery issues, and hope that
you similarly remain willing to work together on these issues in a timely and efficient manner.
Sincerely,

Emily C. O’Brien
cc:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
01980.51928/4656405.1

2