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

Filing 180

Declaration re 179 Opposition, of Jennifer Ghaussy in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Take 30(b)(1) Depositions by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (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)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT S

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512

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

DEFENDANT GANNETT CO., INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S FIRST LIABILITY RULE 30(b)(6) NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 30, Defendant Gannett Co., Inc.
("Gannett") hereby objects and responds in writing to Plaintiff's First Liability Rule 30(b)(6)
Notice of Deposition of Gannett.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Gannett makes the following general objections to each and every definition, instruction,
and interrogatory made in Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s ("I/P Engine") First Liability Rule
30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition of Gannett, dated April 2, 2012. Each of these objections is
incorporated into the Specific Objections set forth below, whether or not separately set forth
therein. By responding to any of the topics or failing to specifically refer to or specify any
particular General Objection in response to a particular topic, Gannett does not waive any of
these General Objections, nor admit or concede the appropriateness of any purported topic or any
assumptions contained therein.

01980.51928/4691399.1

1. Gannett objects to the date and location set in the notice for the deposition. Plaintiff
has acknowledged that the date and location set in the notice are placeholders only.
2. Nothing in these responses should be construed as waiving rights or objections that
might otherwise be available to Gannett nor should Gannett's responses to any of these topics be
deemed an admission of relevancy, materiality, or admissibility in evidence of the topic or the
response thereto.
3. Gannett objects to each topic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or
any other applicable privilege or protection as provided by law. Gannett will not produce such
privileged or protected information, and any inadvertent disclosure of any privileged or protected
information shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege. Gannett will not be including on its
privilege log information created after the filing date of this action.
4. Gannett objects to each topic, and to the definitions and instructions included
therewith, to the extent it purports to impose upon Gannett obligations broader than, or
inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules and Orders of this
Court.
5. Gannett objects to each topic to the extent that it seeks information not relevant to this
litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically,
Gannett objects to each of the topics to the extent they seek information about products not
accused of infringing the patents-in-issue.
6. Gannett objects to each topic to the extent that it is not reasonably limited in time or
scope.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-2-

7. Gannett objects to each topic on the ground that it seeks information protected by
privacy law and/or policy.
8. Gannett objects to each topic and to the definitions and instructions included
therewith pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(i) to the extent that they
purport to require the disclosure of information that is more readily available and/or more
appropriately obtainable through other means of discovery.
9. Gannett objects to each topic to the extent that such topic prematurely seeks the
production of information and documents in advance of the dates set by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, the Docket Control Order entered in this case, the Discovery
Order entered in this case, and any other relevant discovery orders entered in this case.
10. Gannett objects to each topic as unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information
about aspects of the accused technology that are not related to this case. The burden and expense
associated with producing such information grossly outweighs its benefit and relevance.
11. Gannett objects to I/P Engine's definition of "Defendant Gannett Company, Inc." as
overly broad and unduly burdensome, to the extent that includes related entities or divisions of
Gannett, directors, officers, present and former employees, agents, representatives, and attorneys
of such entities. Gannett will not respond concerning any defendant other than Gannett.
12. Gannett objects to each topic to the extent that the words and phrases used therein are
vague, ambiguous, misleading and/or overbroad. Gannett specifically objects to the definitions
of the terms "Quality Score," "LPQ Score," "QBB pCTR," relevance," "keyword spam score,"
"disabling," "Ad Shards," "Ad Quality Score," "Click Through Rate," "CTR," "SmartASS," and
"DumbASS." Gannett further objects to Plaintiff's definition of the term "relevance" as meaning

01980.51928/4691399.1

-3-

the "Relevance score" referenced in IPE 0000079, because the term "Relevance score" is not
referenced in IPE 0000079.
13. Gannett responds to these topics based upon its current understanding and reserves
the right to supplement its responses if any additional information is identified at a later time and
to make any additional objections that may become apparent.
14. By responding to these topics, Gannett does not waive or intend to waive, but
expressly reserves, all of its statements, reservations, and objections, both general and specific,
set forth in these responses, even though Gannett may in some instances disclose information
over the statements, reservations, and objections contained herein.
STATEMENT ON SUPPLEMENTATION
Gannett's investigation in this action is ongoing, and Gannett reserves the right to rely on
and introduce information in addition to any information provided in response to this notice at
the trial of this matter or in other related proceedings. Responses to Plaintiff’s topics are also
limited by the vagueness and insufficiency of Plaintiff’s infringement contentions.
RESPONSES TO TOPICS

TOPIC NO. 1:
Gannett’s decision to use Google AdSense for Search including, without limitation, any
analysis of Google AdSense for Search performed by Gannett and any comparison of Google
AdSense for Search with any other comparable products performed by Gannett.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the

01980.51928/4691399.1

-4-

aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (iii) it is
vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "analysis," "comparison," and
"comparable products."
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally as
to Gannett's use of Google AdSense for Search.

TOPIC NO. 2:
Information provided by Google, and representations made by Google, regarding Google
AdSense for Search prior to Gannett’s decision to use Google AdSense for Search including,
without limitation, the technical operation of Google AdSense for Search and the advantages of
Google AdSense for Search over competitors’ products.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 2:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (iii) it is
vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "technical operation," "advantages,"
and "competitors' products."
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally as
to Gannett's use of Google AdSense for Search.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-5-

TOPIC NO. 3:
Information provided by Google, and representations made by Google, during Gannett’s
use of Google AdSense for Search including, without limitation, any changes to the technical
operation of Google AdSense for Search and the advantages of Google AdSense for Search over
competitors’ products.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 3:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (iii) it is
vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "during Gannett's use," "changes to
the technical operation," "advantages," and "competitors' products."
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally as
to Gannett's communications with Google concerning AdSense for Search, to the extent this
information exists.

TOPIC NO. 4:
Gannett’s knowledge regarding Google’s marketing and promotion materials related to or
referring to Quality Score.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 4:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the

01980.51928/4691399.1

-6-

aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (iii) it is
vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the definition of "Quality Score."
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally as
to Gannett's use of Google AdSense for Search.

TOPIC NO. 5:
The conception, development, testing, and use of Gannett’s system using Google
AdSense for Search.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 5:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly to
the extent that Plaintiff seeks information about "conception"; and (iii) it is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "conception, development, testing" and
"Gannett's system using Google AdSense for Search."
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally as
to Gannett's use of Google AdSense for Search.

TOPIC NO. 6:
Gannett’s participation in any decisions related to its use of Google AdSense for Search.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-7-

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 6:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (iii) it is
vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the term "participation in any decisions."
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally as
to Gannett's use of Google AdSense for Search.

TOPIC NO. 7:
The technical and functional changes or other differences, if any, between Gannett’s
implementation of Google AdSense for Search and any other version of Google AdSense for
Search.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 7:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including to
the extent it seeks information about "any other version of Google AdSense for Search"; (iii) it is
vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "technical and functional changes"
and "any other version of Google AdSense for Search"; and (iv) it is beyond the scope of
Gannett's knowledge.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-8-

Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally as
to Gannett's use of Google AdSense for Search. Gannett does not have knowledge regarding the
technical and functional changes or other differences, if any, between Gannett's implementation
of Google AdSense for Search and any other version of Google AdSense for Search.

TOPIC NO. 8:
Gannett’s awareness of the technical and functional differences, if any, between Google
AdWords and Google AdSense for Search.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 8:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdWords and AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks
information that is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence; (iii) it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the term "technical and
functional differences"; and (iv) whether there are technical and functional differences between
these two Google products is beyond the scope of Gannett's knowledge.
Subject to its objections, Gannett states that it does not have knowledge regarding the
technical and functional differences, if any, between Google AdWords and Google AdSense for
Search.

TOPIC NO. 9:
Gannett’s awareness of improvements, modifications or changes to Google AdWords and
Google AdSense for Search since January 1, 2005.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-9-

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 9:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdWords and AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks
information that is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence, including to the extent it seeks information about Gannett's awareness of AdWords;
(iii) it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "improvements,
modifications or changes"; and (iv) modifications, if any, to these two Google products are
beyond the scope of Gannett's knowledge.

TOPIC NO. 10:
Gannett’s knowledge, if any, of the conception, development, testing and use of Quality
Score and each of its components (including Landing Page, CTR and Relevance) as Quality
Score was sold, or offered for sale or used in the United States, as well as the use of Quality
Score by or on behalf of Gannett from January 1, 2005 to the present.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 10:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in particular
because it seeks information relevant to a patent rather than an accused product and Google's
products are accused products; (iii) it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the

01980.51928/4691399.1

-10-

definitions of "Quality Score," "Landing Page," "CTR," and "Relevance"; and (iv) it seeks
information outside the scope of Gannett's knowledge.
Subject to its objections, Gannett states that it does not have knowledge as to this topic.

TOPIC NO. 11:
Gannett’s knowledge, if any, of the research, design and development efforts related to
Google AdSense for Search including without limitation the use of Quality Score in Google
AdSense for Search, including why the work was undertaken, the desired goals, the resources
committed to the project, the forecast or expectations for Quality Score, and any analysis of
Quality Score including, but not limited to, research, design and development efforts related to
each component of Quality Score including Landing Page, CTR and Relevance.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 11:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (iii) it is
vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the definitions of "Quality Score," "Landing
Page," "CTR," and "Relevance" and the terms "research, design and development efforts,"
"desired goals," and "expectations"; and (iv) it requests information outside the scope of
Gannett's knowledge.
Subject to its objections, Gannett states that it does not have knowledge as to this topic.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-11-

TOPIC NO. 12:
Gannett’s knowledge, if any, of the system architecture and operational/functional
descriptions of Google AdSense for Search including without limitation the use of Quality Score,
e.g., how it is calculated, how it is represented, how it is used in the Google AdSense for Search
system, and how it is discussed at Google including, but not limited to, the system architecture
and operational/functional descriptions of each component of Quality Score including Landing
Page, CTR and Relevance.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 12:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information that is not
relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (iii) it is
vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the definitions of "Quality Score," "Landing
Page," "CTR," and "Relevance" and the terms "system architecture" and "operational/functional
descriptions"; and (iv) it requests information outside the scope of Gannett's knowledge.
Subject to its objections, Gannett states that it does not have knowledge as to this topic.

TOPIC NO. 13:
Gannett’s awareness of when Quality Score was first introduced into Google AdWords
and Google AdSense for Search and how the use of Quality Score in Google AdWords and
Google AdSense for Search has changed since the introduction of Quality Score.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-12-

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 13:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, particularly to the extent that it is not limited to the
aspects of AdWords or AdSense for Search that are at issue in this case; (ii) it seeks information
that is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (iii)
it is vague and ambiguous, particularly with respect to the definition of "Quality Score"; and (iv)
it seeks information outside the scope of Gannett's knowledge.
Subject to its objections, Gannett states that it does not have knowledge as to this topic.

TOPIC NO. 14:
The reasons, including all factual bases, for Gannett’s contention that it is not a direct
infringer including, but not limited to, Gannett’s contention that Gannett’s systems “using
Google’s AdSense for Search system do not incorporate collaborative filtering.”

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 14:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face; (ii) it seeks information that is properly the subject of a
contention interrogatory, not the subject of a request for a 30(b)(6) witness topic; and (iii) it is
duplicative of other discovery already served and responded to in this matter. Gannett also
objects to this topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
the work product doctrine, the common interest privilege, or any other applicable privilege or
protection.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-13-

TOPIC NO. 15:
Identification and technical explanation of any and all non-infringing alternatives on
which Gannett intends to rely upon to support a claim and defense.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 15:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face; (ii) it seeks information that is not relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and (iii) it seeks
information that is properly the subject of a contention interrogatory, not the subject of a request
for a 30(b)(6) witness topic. Gannett also objects to this topic to the extent it seeks information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest
privilege, or any other applicable privilege or protection.

TOPIC NO. 16:
The complete and full factual basis for Gannett’s assertion of paragraph 138 of its First
Amended Answer asserting “Gannett has not infringed, and is not infringing, any valid claim of
the ‘420 patent or the ‘664 patent.”

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 16:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face; (ii) it seeks information that is not relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including to the extent that
it is not limited to the products that are at issue in this case; (iii) it is vague and ambiguous,
particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficiently detailed

01980.51928/4691399.1

-14-

infringement contentions; and (iv) it seeks information that is properly the subject of a contention
interrogatory, not the subject of a request for a 30(b)(6) witness topic. Gannett also objects to
this topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, the common interest privilege, or any other applicable privilege or protection.

TOPIC NO. 17:
The complete and full factual basis for Gannett’s assertion of paragraph 139 of its First
Amended Answer asserting “[t]he claims of the I/P Engine patents are invalid for failure to
satisfy one or more conditions of patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code,
including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112.”

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 17:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face; (ii) it seeks information that is not relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (iii) it seeks information
that is properly the subject of a contention interrogatory, not the subject of a request for a
30(b)(6) witness topic; and (iv) it is duplicative of other discovery already served and responded
to in this matter. Gannett also objects to this topic to the extent it seeks information protected by
the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest privilege, or any
other applicable privilege or protection.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-15-

DATED: April 23, 2012

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

By: /s/ David A. Perlson
David A. 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
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
150 West Main Street
Post Office Box 3037
Norfolk, VA 23514
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Defendant Gannett Co., Inc.

01980.51928/4691399.1

-16-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that April 23, 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: April 23, 2012

01980.51928/4691399.1

By: /s/ Jennifer Ghaussy_________________
Jennifer Ghaussy
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6600
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

-17-