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 B
Jen Ghaussy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Brothers, Kenneth [BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:51 PM
Margaret P. Kammerud; David Perlson; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; 'Burns, Robert'; 'Courtney, Mary L.'; zz-IPEngine; Sherwood,
Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Meg, this is fine, thanks.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Margaret P. Kammerud [mailto:megkammerud@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 12:05 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; David Perlson; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; 'Burns, Robert'; 'Courtney, Mary L.'; zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood
Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Ken,
Based on the parties' discussions, we made some minor additions to your proposed language
regarding fact witness depositions. Our proposed language is below. Please let us know if
you agree with this proposal.
Thanks,
Meg
B. Fact Witness Depositions
The parties agree that Plaintiff shall have the right to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on
liability issues lasting no longer than 7 hours, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on damages issues
lasting no longer than 7 hours; and the right to depose each fact witness affiliated with a
defendant and who has been disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a) (currently 14 individuals for all
defendants). Defendants have agreed to this expansion of the deposition limitations under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with the express understanding that this will be
substantially all the depositions that plaintiff will take; any additional depositions by
plaintiff must be by leave of Court on motion for good cause shown.
The length of deposition time shall be determined solely by the official court reporter or
videographer. The party requesting the deposition shall be responsible for arranging the
reporter and location, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
C. Depositions of Inventors
Defendants shall have the right to depose each of the named inventors for a total of 14 hours
pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) and/or Rule 30(b)(6). Defendants will designate one attorney for
each inventor that is deposed who will take the lead in asking questions for all Defendants;
provided, that the designation of a lead counsel for the examination will not preclude
counsel for any other Defendant from making a reasonable, non‐duplicative examination, or
from asking reasonable, non‐duplicative follow up questions.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:11 PM
1
To: David Perlson; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Yes, for each defendant, 7 hours of 30b6 on damages and 7 hours of 30b6 on liability. We
will serve separate notices.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Perlson [mailto:davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:49 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
One more question. When you say one 30b6 of each defendant on damages and one for liability,
is that 7 hours of deposition time for each, or do you intend it to mean something else.
Please clarify.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:28 PM
To: David Perlson; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
David:
It's hard to say without knowing your topics. To the extent defendants have topics regarding
the patent, I would expect that an inventor could be a 30(b)(6) designee. If your topics are
about I/P Engine, then Lang may be a designee, especially since you'd probably be asking most
of those questions of them regardless of whether they were designees. Either way, we're not
willing to agree at this point to expose the inventors to more than 14 hours each of Rule
30(b)(1) or 30(b)(6) deposition time, without further court order or agreement of the parties
‐‐ the same conditions that protect Defendants if plaintiff seeks depositions outside of our
proposal.
Ken
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Perlson [mailto:davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Ken, does Plaintiff intend to designate either of the inventors as 30b6 witnesses? We are
concerned that your proposal may be too limiting if, for example, Plaintiff seeks to
designate Mr. Lang on most Rule 30b6 topics.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 11:23 AM
2
To: Brothers, Kenneth; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; David Perlson
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
B. Fact Witness Depositions
The parties agree that Plaintiff shall have the right to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on
liability issues, a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on damages issues; and the right to depose each
fact witness affiliated with a defendant and who has been disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a)
(currently 14 individuals for all defendants).
The length of deposition time shall be determined solely by the official court reporter or
videographer. The party requesting the deposition shall be responsible for arranging the
reporter and location, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
C. Depositions of Inventors
Defendants shall have the right to depose each of the named inventors for a total of 14 hours
pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1) and/or Rule 30(b)(6). Defendants will designate one attorney for
each inventor that is deposed who will take the lead in asking questions for all Defendants;
provided, that the designation of a lead counsel for the examination will not preclude
counsel for any other Defendant from making a reasonable, non‐duplicative examination, or
from asking reasonable, non‐duplicative follow up questions.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:06 PM
To: 'Noona, Stephen E.'; 'David Perlson'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
We're on the call with 4 others ‐ please try again
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Noona, Stephen E. [mailto:senoona@kaufcan.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:03 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; 'David Perlson'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Cannot get in number‐‐busy?
Stephen E. Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510‐1665
T (757) 624.3239
F (757) 624.3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
www.kaufCAN.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:03 PM
To: 'David Perlson'; Noona, Stephen E.
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
3
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Let's speak today at 11 am PT/2 pm ET and see if we can nail this down. Please use this
number:
DIAL IN NUMBER: 888‐839‐7346
PARTICIPANT PASS CODE: 202 420 4128
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Perlson [mailto:davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 12:48 PM
To: Noona, Stephen E.; Brothers, Kenneth
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
I can speak at 11 pacific to address the remaining claim construction dates.
Ken, in response to your email below, the meet and confers really need to happen after we
have provided our claim constructions, not just the terms. Thus, your suggested meet and
confers before we exchange claim constructions don't address the issue.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Noona, Stephen E. [mailto:senoona@kaufcan.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:38 AM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; David Perlson
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert; Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐
IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
The Court's Clerk called this morning. She wants to have our dates as soon as
possible. I indicated to her that we were close, that the Trial, Pretrial and Markman
Hearing dates are agreed to and that we were close to reaching a agreement on the other claim
construction exchange/briefing dates. Could we close ranks and reach a final decision by end
of business today? I understand that we are close,...SEN.
Stephen E. Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510‐1665
T (757) 624.3239
F (757) 624.3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
www.kaufCAN.com
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:44 AM
To: 'David Perlson'
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert;
Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
4
Let's do the initial exchange of terms on 3/16, then have our first meet and confer on 3/19,
another one on 3/21, and another on 3/23 if needed. I'm ok with advancing the exchange of
agreed and disputed constructions to 3/23 (only two days later than your proposal), and
having another meet and confer on 3/26. If further meet and confers are needed, then they
can be scheduled for 3/28 and 3/30.
When are you available to discuss this and the other 16(b) issues by telephone?
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Perlson [mailto:davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 7:49 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert;
Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
That is precisely the problem. We have no time to a series of conferences under your
schedule below. We need to start this process earlier. Otherwise, we will be drafting our
briefs as to a moving target.
Parties to Simultaneously Exchange Terms to be Construed: 3/19 Parties to Simultaneously
Exchange Construction of Agreed and Disputed Terms: 3/28 Parties Simultaneously File Opening
Claim Construction Briefs: 4/11 (no change) Parties Simultaneously File Response Claim
Construction Briefs: 5/3 (no change) Parties File Joint Claim Construction Chart and Hearing
Statement: 5/17 (no change)
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 4:45 PM
To: David Perlson
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert;
Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: Re: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
We should start the meet and confer very soon after disclosure, and continue it as needed
until done. Ive never had resolution on this type of issue in a single conference. Let's
schedule a series ‐ every other day ‐ until we are agreed or at an impasse. I'm happy to
consider your proposals for the meet and confers.
On Feb 6, 2012, at 6:32 PM, "David Perlson" wrote:
So you are suggesting we have one business day to meet and confer? I don't think it is
realistic to think that we could deal with all the issues in only one business day, or that
the parties would even be in a position to meaningfully discuss the issues the next day.
Thus, given how soon after the exchange the briefing comes, there is effectively no time. We
would ask that Plaintiff reconsider this. I think the Court would appreciate and expect that
the parties would take the time needed to narrow the issues.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:26 PM
To: David Perlson
5
Cc: Noona, Stephen E.; David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; Burns, Robert;
Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: Re: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
The next business day
On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:54 PM, "David Perlson" wrote:
Ken, we will not be agreeing to two separate schedules. We need one schedule that we can
rely on and plan for.
Under your second schedule below, when would you envision the parties meet and confer to
narrow issues and perhaps agree on certain terms?
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 12:17 PM
To: David Perlson; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; 'Burns, Robert'; 'Courtney, Mary L.';
zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
David:
Although the parties may disagree on the need for, and the amount of time needed, to analyze
any newly disclosed prior art, given your representations, I think we should be able to reach
an agreement along the following lines:
1. If defendants do not add any prior art between now and their supplementation on 3/2/12,
then the parties will abide by your earlier deadlines for claim construction, e.g.:
Parties to Simultaneously Exchange Terms to be Construed: 3/9 Parties to Simultaneously
Exchange Construction of Agreed and Disputed Terms: 3/21 Parties Simultaneously File Opening
Claim Construction Briefs: 4/11 (your proposed date) Parties Simultaneously File Response
Claim Construction Briefs: 5/3 (your proposed date) Parties File Joint Claim Construction
Chart and Hearing Statement: 5/17 (your proposed date)
2. If, however, defendants assert new prior art between now and 3/2/12, then the deadlines
would be as follows:
Parties to Simultaneously Exchange Terms to be Construed: 3/19 Parties to Simultaneously
Exchange Construction of Agreed and Disputed Terms: 3/28 Parties Simultaneously File Opening
Claim Construction Briefs: 4/11 (no change) Parties Simultaneously File Response Claim
Construction Briefs: 5/3 (no change) Parties File Joint Claim Construction Chart and Hearing
Statement: 5/17 (no change)
3. The parties revert to Noona's originally proposed (later) dates for expert discovery and
close of fact discovery. I believe this is already agreed, but I include for the sake of
clarity.
Assuming this is acceptable, please circulate a proposed submission to the Court. In
addition, aside from these dates, please advise if you have any issues with the proposed
Discovery Plan. I would like to have a meet and confer prior to next Monday's hearing to
address any open items.
6
Ken
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: David Perlson [mailto:davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:24 AM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; 'Burns, Robert'; 'Courtney, Mary L.';
zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Ken, as you know, the reason the supplemental infringement contentions come before the
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. We need to see what
Plaintiff is going to do in this regard now that it has seen Google's technical documents to
determine what, if any, prior art would be appropriately added in any supplementation. Of
course, we are not in a position to do that now. If it helps, I can say we are not presently
holding back on identifying prior art with the intention of identifying it later.
Further, given the anticipatory prior art we have already identified it seems highly unlikely
that any new art we would identify would have any impact on what claim terms Plaintiff
selects.
Moreover, under the schedule Plaintiff has a week after supplemental contentions to pick
terms, but it does not have to identify constructions at that time.
Nevertheless, to the extent that Plaintiff wishes more time to review our supplemental
contentions before proposing claim terms, the easiest way to do that is to provide your
supplemental infringement contentions earlier, which Plaintiff should be able to do given the
length of time it has had Google's technical document production. Other than, however, we
don't see a way to further compress the claim construction schedule to accommodate the
earlier claim construction date we all think makes sense, while still allowing the parties
adequate time to meet and confer regarding each others claim construction to narrow the
issues and provide enough time to craft our briefs with sufficient knowledge of each others
positions on claim construction in mind to address the issues.
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 8:44 AM
To: David Perlson; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; 'Burns, Robert'; Courtney, Mary L.;
zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
David:
Thank you for your willingness to revert on the dates for expert discovery and close of fact
discovery. With regard to the claim construction dates, the main issue for plaintiff is that
we need have sufficient time to analyze defendants' amended invalidity contentions with our
experts prior to identifying the claim terms. Your proposed schedule would allocate only a
week. If defendants do not expect to add additional prior art to their invalidity
contentions, then plaintiff could abide by your proposed changes. If, however, defendants do
7
add more art, then we would need the additional time to analyze it. Let me know if this
would work for defendants.
Ken
________________________________________
From: David Perlson [davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 6:13 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; 'Burns, Robert'; Courtney, Mary L.;
zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Ken, if we reverted to the dates for expert discovery and close of fact discovery from
Steve's chart sent yesterday, would Plaintiff agree to the claim construction dates in the
chart he sent today? If so, I think we can reach agreement.
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:22 PM
To: 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Cc: David Perlson; David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; 'Burns, Robert';
Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Steve:
I do not understand why these changes are being proposed by defendants. In particular, I am
disappointed at the attempt to shorten fact discovery by advancing the cutoff from September
4, 2012 to June 8, 2012. That simply is not enough time, especially given defendants'
ongoing delays in producing documents responsive to plaintiff's November 2011 requests.
During our meet and confer last week, you specifically proposed on behalf of defendants that
the parties agree to September 4 for a mutual cutoff of fact discovery, and I agreed. The
reference in your email to an earlier proposed date was before we had a trial date of October
16, and was based upon the expectation of a trial date in August or September. Please revert
to the agreed‐upon September 4 cutoff.
Likewise, I do not understand the basis for proposing a change to the dates for expert
discovery to be different from either your proposal of last week (which I accepted), or the
court's default discovery plan. This revised proposal would allot only three weeks from the
May 31 claim construction hearing to the submission of opening reports. It is unrealistic
that the court would issue its Markman ruling quickly enough that the parties would be able
to properly prepare and submit opening expert reports by June 22, which would ensure a second
round of reports. This is both unnecessary, and inconsistent with the parties' agreement to
seek an early claim construction. Please revert to the earlier agreed‐upon proposal.
Similarly, I do not understand the reason for the proposed changes to dates for the exchange
of claim construction terms. Plaintiff will require sufficient time to review defendants'
forthcoming document productions, and will need more than a week to analyze defendants'
amended invalidity contentions (due on March 2) before finalizing its list of terms to be
construed; thus, we believe that date should remain March 29, and the rest of the dates
following as set forth in your proposal of yesterday.
I have no objections to your proposed modifications to the dates for the Rule 26(a)(3)
pretrial disclosures, or objections to same.
Please consider plaintiff's objections and advise if we are able to revert, or whether we
need to schedule a meet and confer.
8
Thanks, Ken
________________________________
From: Noona, Stephen E. [mailto:senoona@kaufcan.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:07 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth
Cc: David Perlson; David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; 'Burns, Robert';
Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Hold on. Apparently, as per my voicemail, I did not get a set of changes that David
Perlson sent‐‐my fault. Attached is a New Chart that has a few different dates. Primarily,
the discovery cut off date is earlier and in line with what you originally proposed, the
expert disclosure dates are slightly modified to allow more time to complete expert discovery,
and the claim construction exchange dates are slightly moved to allow more time for the
parties to brief their positions. Please take a look at this chart and let me know if it is
acceptable before I discuss with the Court.
Again, my apologies for the crossed wires,...SEN.
Stephen E. Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510‐1665
T (757) 624.3239
F (757) 624.3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
www.kaufCAN.com
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:03 PM
To: Noona, Stephen E.
Cc: David Perlson; David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; 'Burns, Robert';
Courtney, Mary L.; zz‐IPEngine; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Steve:
Your chart and dates look fine to plaintiff, and may be submitted as such. Thank you.
Enclosed is a revised discovery plan that incorporates all of your dates, and further fleshes
out additional dates consistent with our prior discussions with defendants. I have attempted
to articulate what I believe is our current understanding regarding fact depositions. I ask
that defense counsel please either confirm their agreement with this Discovery Plan, or
advise of any disagreements ASAP, so we can know the issues prior to the Rule 16(b)
conference.
Thanks, Ken
________________________________
From: Noona, Stephen E. [mailto:senoona@kaufcan.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:04 PM
To: Brothers, Kenneth; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'
Cc: David Perlson; David Bilsker; Emily O'Brien; Margaret P. Kammerud; 'Burns, Robert';
Courtney, Mary L.
9
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Ken: Here is the chart that we discussed. I have included the May 31, 2012 date
for the Markman, and the dates preceding it as per our discussions and with the understanding
that the plaintiff is going to supplement to its infringement contentions to detail its
allegations of infringement and to reflect the technical documentation that Google has now
produced. Given the dates for the briefing and exchanging terms and constructions,
Defendants suggest that this supplementation occur by February 17, 2012. Defendants can then
supplement invalidity contentions on March 2. Please confirm that your agreement to this
schedule for supplementation and that the remaining dates are acceptable so I can forward
them to Judge Jackson's Clerk. Thanks,...SEN.
Stephen E. Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510‐1665
T (757) 624.3239
F (757) 624.3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
www.kaufCAN.com
From: Brothers, Kenneth [mailto:BrothersK@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 11:51 AM
To: Noona, Stephen E.
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
Steve:
Have you heard from AOL re the 5/31 date? Would you kindly circulate your proposed set of
dates per our call, so we can fold them into the discovery plan and continue our discussions
with David et al.?
Thanks, Ken
Confidentiality Statement
This e‐mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the
use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by
attorney‐client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or
person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient,
you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding,
printing, copying, or other distribution of this e‐mail message and any attached files is
strictly prohibited. Dickstein Shapiro reserves the right to monitor any communication that
is created, received, or sent on its network. If you have received this confidential
communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e‐mail message and
permanently delete the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to
postmaster@dicksteinshapiro.com
10
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
www.dicksteinshapiro.com
From: Noona, Stephen E. [mailto:senoona@kaufcan.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:26 PM
To: Noona, Stephen E.; David A. Perlson (davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com); 'Margaret P.
Kammerud'; Brothers, Kenneth; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'; 'wrsnow@cwm‐law.com';
'Burns, Robert'; 'Alexander, Cortney'
Subject: RE: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
So far, I understand that The May 31, 2012 date is acceptable to the plaintiffs and
most of the defendants. Bob, Courtney, please confirm that the date works for AOL.
Thanks,...SEN.
Stephen E. Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510‐1665
T (757) 624.3239
F (757) 624.3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
www.kaufCAN.com
From: Noona, Stephen E.
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 11:15 AM
To: David A. Perlson (davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com); Margaret P. Kammerud; Brothers,
Kenneth; Sherwood, Jeffrey; 'Donald C. Schultz'; wrsnow@cwm‐law.com; Burns, Robert; Alexander,
Cortney
Subject: Google/IP Engine Pretrial
I spoke today with the Court's Courtroom Clerk. She indicated that the Court was
changing the pretrial conference time from the morning to 3:30 p.m. ET on 2/13/2012. She
indicated that the Judge would probably make an appearance for a part of the conference. We
talked about a Markman and she said the Judge's calendar was jammed in May. She gave me the
following dates: May 31, 2012, June 7 or June 14, 2012. I indicated that the parties
envisioned one day for the Markman Hearing. The Judge has requested that the Second Claim
Construction Brief needs to be filed between 3 and 4 weeks before the Markman Hearing and the
Joint Hearing Statement 2 weeks before the date. We need to agree on a Markman date quickly
as the dates are filing up. Please let me know. Also, she is unsure whether the Magistrate
or Judge will conduct Final Pretrial (Sometimes the Judge decides to do it) and therefore she
will set it before the Magistrate Judge. She indicted that she understands that the Judge
will most likely allow a consolidation of fact discovery cutoff dates as we discussed so long
as the parties agree. Once we agree upon the Markman date, I will circulate proposed dates
as discussed‐‐we need to get those to her soon. Please call if you have questions,...SEN.
Stephen E. Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510‐1665
11
T (757) 624.3239
F (757) 624.3169
senoona@kaufcan.com
www.kaufCAN.com
________________________________
The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential
under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that
any use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify Kaufman & Canoles at (757) 624‐
3000 or by return e‐mail to helpdesk@kaufcan.com, and purge the communication immediately
without making any copy or distribution.
Disclosure Required by Internal Revenue Service Circular 230: This communication is not a tax
opinion. To the extent it contains tax advice, it is not intended or written by the
practitioner to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding
tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.
________________________________
________________________________
The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential
under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that
any use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify Kaufman & Canoles at (757) 624‐
3000 or by return e‐mail to helpdesk@kaufcan.com, and purge the communication immediately
without making any copy or distribution.
Disclosure Required by Internal Revenue Service Circular 230: This communication is not a tax
opinion. To the extent it contains tax advice, it is not intended or written by the
practitioner to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding
tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.
________________________________
________________________________
The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential
under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that
any use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify Kaufman & Canoles at (757) 624‐
3000 or by return e‐mail to helpdesk@kaufcan.com, and purge the communication immediately
without making any copy or distribution.
Disclosure Required by Internal Revenue Service Circular 230: This communication is not a tax
opinion. To the extent it contains tax advice, it is not intended or written by the
practitioner to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding
tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.
12
________________________________
________________________________
The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential
under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that
any use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify Kaufman & Canoles at (757) 624‐
3000 or by return e‐mail to helpdesk@kaufcan.com, and purge the communication immediately
without making any copy or distribution.
Disclosure Required by Internal Revenue Service Circular 230: This communication is not a tax
opinion. To the extent it contains tax advice, it is not intended or written by the
practitioner to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding
tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.
________________________________
The information contained in this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential
under applicable law, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that
any use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify Kaufman & Canoles at (757) 624‐
3000 or by return e‐mail to helpdesk@kaufcan.com, and purge the communication immediately
without making any copy or distribution.
Disclosure Required by Internal Revenue Service Circular 230: This communication is not a tax
opinion. To the extent it contains tax advice, it is not intended or written by the
13
practitioner to be used, and it cannot be used by the taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding
tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer by the Internal Revenue Service.
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?