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

Filing 166

Claim Construction Brief Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., I/P Engine, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

I/P ENGINE, INC.
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512

v.
AOL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants AOL, Inc., Google Inc., IAC
Search & Media, Inc., Target Corp., and Gannett Company, Inc. (“Defendants”) collectively
submit this Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. Plaintiff asserts claims 10, 14,
15, 25, 27, and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420 (“the ‘420 Patent”) and claims 1, 5, 6, 21, 22, 26,
28, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664 (“the ‘664 Patent”) against Defendants.
I.

AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
The parties agree on the construction of the following terms or phrases:
Term

Agreed Construction

“informon” (‘420
claims 10, 25)

information entity of potential or actual
interest to the [individual/first] user

“user” (‘420 claims
10, 25; ‘664 claims
1, 26)

an individual in communication with the
network (for the ‘420 claims)
an individual in communication with a
network (for the ‘664 claims)

01980.51928/4759577.1

1

Term

Agreed Construction

“relevance to the
query” (‘420 claims
10, 25)

how well an informon satisfies the individual
user’s information need in the query

“query” (‘420 claims request for search results
10, 25; ‘664 claims
1, 6)

II.

DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
Exhibit A lists the disputed terms or phrases of the asserted claims, Plaintiff’s proposed

constructions, and Defendants’ proposed constructions. The charts attached as Exhibit B and
Exhibit C respectively list Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ proposed constructions for each disputed
term or phrase of the asserted claims and identifies the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence on which
each party relies in support of their proposed constructions. The parties reserve the right to rely
on any evidence cited (or admissions made) by any other party.
III.

ANTICIPATED LENGTH AND ORDER OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
HEARING
A.

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSAL

Plaintiff anticipates that the total time necessary for the claim construction hearing will
be 1.25 hours per side, for a total of 2.5 hours. Plaintiff proposes that the arguments be presented
in the order indicated below, with Plaintiff presenting first for each argument:
1) Technology and patent overview;
2) a. “scan[ning] a network” and
b. “a scanning system;”
3) a. “relevance to at least one of the query and the first user” and
b. “[informons/information] relevant to a query;”
4) “combining;”

01980.51928/4759577.1

2

5) “demand search;”
6) a. “collaborative feedback data” and
b. “[feedback system for] receiving information found to be relevant to the
query by other users;”
7) “individual user” and “first user;”
8) Order of steps;
9) The separateness of the claimed systems;
10) Antecedent basis terms.
See Proposed Order, attached hereto.
B.

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSAL

Defendants anticipate that the total time necessary for the claim construction hearing will
be 1.75 hours per side, for a total of 3.5 hours. Defendants propose that the arguments be
presented in the following order:
1) Technology and patent overview (20 minutes per side); Plaintiff presents first.
2) “[Feedback system for] receiving information found to be relevant to the query by
other users” and “collaborative feedback data;” Defendants present argument first.
3) “Scan[ning] a network” and “a scanning system;” Defendants present argument first.
4) “Combining;” Plaintiff presents argument first.
5) The separateness of the claimed systems; Defendants present argument first.
6) “Relevance to at least one of the query and the first user” and
“[informons/information] relevant to a query;” Plaintiff presents argument first.
7) “Demand search;” Plaintiff presents argument first.
8) “Individual user” and “first user;” Defendants present argument first.
9) Antecedent basis terms; Defendants present argument first.
10) Order of steps; Defendants present argument first.

01980.51928/4759577.1

3

In the alternative, Defendants propose that Plaintiff presents argument first on Issue # 1
above, Defendants present argument first on Issue # 2 above, Plaintiff presents argument first on
Issue #3 above, Defendants present argument first on Issue #4 above, etc., with the parties
alternating who presents argument first for each numbered issue.1 See Proposed Order, attached
hereto.
IV.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WITNESSES
The parties do not anticipate calling any witnesses at the claim construction hearing,

including expert witnesses, either live or by video.

1

In a May 17 email, Plaintiff objected that Defendants’ original proposed ordering of
arguments “would result in Defendants presenting both first and last on the vast majority of the
claim terms. This would be plainly unfair.” In fact, Defendants’ proposed ordering does not
mandate who speaks last on any term – i.e., it does not limit each party’s ability to offer rebuttal
argument. Nonetheless, in an effort to address Plaintiff’s concern that the order of arguments in
Defendants’ proposal was unbalanced, Defendants proposed the alternate ordering listed above,
in which the parties would alternate, issue-by-issue, who presents argument first. Plaintiff
rejected this alternate proposal in another May 17 email, stating without elaboration that it “fails
to address all of Plaintiff’s concerns.” As shown above and in the Proposed Order attached
hereto, Defendants still believe that this alternate proposal would be a fair and equitable way to
conduct the Hearing.

01980.51928/4759577.1

4

V.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PREHEARING CONFERENCE
The parties do not believe that a prehearing conference is necessary prior to the claim

construction hearing.
Dated: May 17, 2012

By: /s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood_________
Jeffrey K. Sherwood (Virginia Bar No. 19222)
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
DeAnna Allen
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.

Dated: May 17, 2012

By: /s/ David Perlson_______________
David Perlson
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
By: /s/ Stephen E. Noona ____________
Stephen E. Noona (Virginia Bar No. 25367)
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street
Post Office Box 3037
Norfolk, VA 23514
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Counsel for Defendants AOL, Inc., Google, Inc., IAC
Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc. and
Target Corporation

01980.51928/4759577.1

5

By: /s/ Robert L. Burns____________
Robert L. Burns
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
By: /s/ Cortney S. Alexander ________
Cortney S. Alexander
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Counsel for Defendant AOL, Inc.

01980.51928/4759577.1

6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of May, 2012, the foregoing JOINT CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT, was served via the Court’s
CM/ECF system, on the following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
[e-mail]
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
[e-mail]
/s/ Jeffrey K. Sherwood