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 V

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION

I/P ENGINE, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-512

AOL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT GANNETT CO., INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S FIRST DAMAGES 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

01980.51928/4691364.1

these General Objections, nor admit or concede the appropriateness of any purported topic or any
assumptions contained therein.
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.

01980.51928/4691364.1

6. Gannett objects to each topic to the extent that it is not reasonably limited in time or
scope.
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 "Ad Coverage," "Ad Depth," and "other search advertising systems."

01980.51928/4691364.1

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.
TOPIC 1:
The amount and percentage of Gannett’s gross and net search advertising revenue derived
from:
a. Google AdWords;
b. Google AdSense for Search;
c. systems Gannett intends to rely upon as non-infringing alternatives; and
d. other search advertising systems.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 1:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, including to the extent that it is not limited to the accused
products; (ii) it seeks information that is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

01980.51928/4691364.1

discovery of admissible evidence, including to the extent that it seeks information about "other
search advertising systems"; (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 vague and
ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "derived from" and "other search advertising
systems."
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally
regarding the revenues, costs and profits of its use of the accused aspects of Google AdSense for
Search, to the extent that Gannett understands what is accused based on Plaintiff's infringement
contentions, and to the extent tracked by Gannett.
TOPIC 2:
The actual, budgeted and projected sales/revenues (gross and net), profits and losses,
incremental and marginal profits, and direct and overhead/allocated costs of Gannett’s use of
Google AdWords and Google AdSense for Search including, but not limited to, revenue per
search calculations accounting for AdCoverage, AdDepth, click through rate, and cost per click.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 2:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face, including to the extent that it is not limited to the accused
aspects of AdWords and AdSense for Search; (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 "Ad Coverage," "Ad Depth," "click through
rate," and "cost per click."
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally
regarding the revenues, costs and profits of its use of the accused aspects of Google AdSense for

01980.51928/4691364.1

Search, to the extent that Gannett understands what is accused based on Plaintiff's infringement
contentions, and to the extent tracked by Gannett.
TOPIC 3:
Gannett’s revenue sharing and profit sharing arrangements related to Google AdSense for
Search or Google AdWords with co-defendant Google, Inc.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 3:
Subject to its objections, Gannett will produce a corporate designee to testify generally on
the topic of the revenue Gannett receives as an AdSense partner, to the extent known.
TOPIC 4:
The actual, budgeted and projected sales/revenues (gross and net), profits and losses,
incremental and marginal profits, and direct and overhead/allocated costs of any non-infringing
alternatives Gannett intends to rely upon to support a claim or defense.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 4:
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.

01980.51928/4691364.1

TOPIC 5:
Gannett’s awareness of Google’s pricing (including without limitation revenue sharing)
strategies, Gannett’s evaluations of competitor’s prices and pricing strategies, and Gannett’s
understanding of Google’s determination of prices to charge for allowing Gannett to use Google
AdWords and Google AdSense for Search.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 5:
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 is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with respect to the terms "strategies," "determination of prices," and
"competitors"; and (iv) it seeks information outside the scope of Gannett's knowledge.
Furthermore, this topic is based on the false premise that Google charges Gannett to use
AdWords and AdSense for Search.
TOPIC 6:
Gannett’s awareness of any comparisons and evaluations directed to the differences
between the average revenue per search, gross and net revenue, ad search results quality, and
conversion rates of Google AdWords and Google AdSense for Search, and of the non-infringing
alternatives on which Gannett intends to rely upon to support a claim and defense.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 6:
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 is unintelligible,
particularly as to the phrase "the differences between the average revenue per search, gross and

01980.51928/4691364.1

net revenue, ad search results quality, and conversion rates"; (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; and (v) it seeks information outside the scope of Gannett's knowledge. 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 7:
Any license agreements and/or covenants not to sue known by Gannett that are related to
Google AdWords or Google AdSense for Search including, but not limited to, Google’s
licensing policies and strategies for Google AdWords and Google AdSense for Search.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 7:
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 is vague and
ambiguous, particularly with respect to the term "licensing policies and strategies"; and (iv) it
seeks information outside the scope of Gannett's knowledge.
TOPIC 8:
Agreements to which Gannett is a party relating to search advertising patents or in which
rights in search advertising technologies are granted.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 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

01980.51928/4691364.1

accused products; (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 terms "search advertising patents" and "search advertising technologies."
TOPIC 9:
Google’s indemnification of Gannett in this action, including all communications relating
to indemnification, related to Google AdWords and Google AdSense for Search.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 9:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face; and (ii) it seeks information that is not relevant nor
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 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 10:
The complete and full factual basis for Gannett’s assertion of paragraph 140 of its First
Amended Answer asserting “Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable
doctrines of laches and estoppel.”
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 10:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face; and (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. Gannett
also objects to this topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client

01980.51928/4691364.1

privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest privilege, or any other applicable
privilege or protection.
TOPIC 11:
The complete and full factual basis for Gannett’s assertion of paragraph 141 of its First
Amended Answer asserting “Plaintiff’s ability to recover damages is limited by the provisions of
35 U.S.C. §§ 286-287.”
RESPONSE TO TOPIC 11:
Gannett objects to this topic on the grounds that: (i) it is overly broad, unduly
burdensome and oppressive on its face; and (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. 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.

01980.51928/4691364.1

Dated: April 23, 2012

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.

01980.51928/4691364.1

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

01980.51928/4691364.1

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]