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

Filing 163

NOTICE by Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc. re 106 Declaration,, 161 Order to Show Cause,,, 105 Memorandum in Support of Filing of Certain Unredacted and Further Redacted Materials in Response to Order to Show Cause (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit K, # 4 Exhibit L, # 5 Exhibit M, # 6 Exhibit N)(Noona, Stephen) Modified on 5/18/2012 to indicate that Exhibit 2 was previously removed on 5/11/12 by clerk due to personal identifiers contained therein) (ecav, ).

EXHIBIT N

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers 1 san francisco

50 California Street., 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 1 TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

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

[e-mail]

February 27, 2012
Ken Brothers
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
1825 Eye Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Re:

I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al.: Plaintiff's Supplemental Infringement Contentions

Dear Ken:
I write regarding Plaintiff's Supplemental Infringement Contentions ("Contentions"), served on
February 17, 2012.
First, these Contentions contain several deficiencies, including those as set forth below. We
have set forth these deficiencies with respect to Plaintiff's Contentions against Google AdWords,
but the same deficiencies exist with respect to Plaintiff's Contentions against all the accused
systems in this case.
Claim 10(b) from the '420 Patent requires "a system for scanning a network to make a demand
search for informons relevant to a query from an individual user." While Plaintiff states that
"the search bar on Google's website (www.google.com ) and other 'search network' sites allows
a user to enter a search query and run a demand search," Plaintiff does not identify what in
AdWords that it contends involves "scanning a network."
Claim 10(d) from the '420 Patent requires "a feedback system for receiving collaborative
feedback data from system users relative to informons considered by such users." Plaintiff
alleges that "AdWords includes a system that receives feedback data from system users, the
feedback data being related to the website information returned as results and considered by
users." However, Plaintiff does not identify "collaborative feedback data" received by
AdWords.
quinn emanuel urquhart a seinen% Up
LOS ANGELES I 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Anaeles, California 90017-2543 I TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK I 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor. New York. New York 10010-1601 TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY I 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 511, Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 I TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO I 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 I TEL [phone] - 7400 FAX [phone]
LONDON1 16 Old Bailey. London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom I TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO INI3F Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-eho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011. Japan I TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIMIErzbergerstrale 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany I TEL [phone] 61100 FAX [phone]

REDACTIONS

I previously indicated in my February 6, 2012 letter that the reason we needed Supplemental
Infringement Contentions before serving Supplemental Invalidity Contentions is because "we
first need to look at Plaintiff's infringement allegations to see what they reveal about how
Plaintiff is interpreting the patent. For example, as Plaintiff has likely now been able to
determine given Google's extensive technical document production, the accused products do not
use collaborative filtering. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff is going to continue its case, Plaintiff
would need to interpret the patent in a way to eliminate collaborative filtering." Based on
Plaintiff's Contentions, it seems that Plaintiff has done precisely that. To the extent Plaintiff is
not interpreting the Patent in this manner, Plaintiff needs to make its Contentions more clear to
identify just what it contends meets the collaborative filtering limitation.
Relatedly, the Contentions state that "AdWords includes a system that combines pertaining
feedback data with content data in filtering information to relevance to the query.

Thus, although not clear, it appears Plaintiff contends that a keyword's
clickthrough rate is the "feedback data" recited in '420 Claim 10, that is combined with the "the
content profile data" of the claim, which Plaintiff contends is "the relevance of your ad text,
keyword, and landing page." If this is not correct, please let us know.
Plaintiffs allegations as to the '664 Patent have similar deficiencies as its '420 Patent allegations.
For instance, Claim 1(b) from the '664 Patent requires "a scanning system for searching for
information relevant to a query associated with a first user in a plurality of users." Plaintiff does
not identify any "scanning system" in AdWords.
Claim 1(c) from the '664 Patent requires "a feedback system for receiving information found to
be relevant to the query by other users." Plaintiff alleges that "AdWords includes a system for
receiving information found to be relevant to the query by users of the system," but Plaintiff does
not identify a "feedback system" called for by Claim 1(c).
Claim 1(d) from the '664 Patent requires the limitation of "filtering the combined information for
relevance to at least one of the query and the first user." Plaintiff concludes that AdWords
"filter[s] information for relevance to the query." But Plaintiff does not identify how or through
what in AdWords information is filtered "for relevance to the query."
Claim 1(d) also requires a "content-based filter system for combining the information from the
feedback system with the information from the scanning system." Plaintiff alleges that
"AdWords includes a system for combining information from the feedback system with
information from the scanning system . .
.

Thus, although not clear,
2

REDACTIONS

in appears Plaintiff contends that a keyword's clickthrough rate is the "information from the
feedback system" recited in '664 Claim 1(d),
If this is not correct, please let us know.
Please confirm by noon PST on February 28 that Plaintiff will supplement its Contentions to
provide the requested detail, and indicate when it will do so. As we have indicated, this
information is needed for our Supplemental Invalidity Contentions.
Further, Plaintiff's Contentions include no contentions for Google Search. Please confirm by
noon PST on February 28 that Plaintiff is not accusing Google Search of infringing the '664 or
'420 Patents.
Likewise, Plaintiff's Contentions include no contentions for ASL. Please confirm by noon PST
on February 28 that Plaintiff is not accusing Ask Sponsored Listings of infringing the '664 or
'420 Patents.
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.

Very truly yours,

hi, L/Pm/IA
I

,

David A. Perlson

3