I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
218
Declaration re 217 Opposition Of Emily O'Brien In Support Of Defendants' Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Discovery Sanctions by 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)(Noona, Stephen)
EXHIBIT F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.
Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) directs the following Interrogatories to Defendant
Google, Inc. (“Google”) to be answered in accordance with Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Rule 26 of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia. Google is required to answer these Interrogatories separately and fully in
writing, under oath, and to serve a copy of its answers upon counsel for I/P Engine, Dickstein
Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. These Interrogatories are to be
interpreted and answered in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules
of the Court, the Judge’s procedures, the Instructions and Definitions below, and the Stipulation
entered into by the parties on November 4, 2011.
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
In answering these Interrogatories, Google (as defined below) is required to furnish
under oath all information that is in its possession, custody or control, or otherwise available to
DSMDB-2961814
Google (as defined below), including information in the possession of its present and former
attorneys.
2.
Each Interrogatory shall be accorded a separate answer.
3.
Estimates or approximations should be given when, but only when, precise data
cannot be supplied.
4.
The source, sources or derivation of each answer should be separately set forth and
identified with a description sufficient for use in a subpoena duces tecum, unless the person signing
the answers to the Interrogatories under oath knows of his or her personal and direct knowledge of
the facts or information forming the basis of all answers given.
5.
For each document and thing produced in response to these Interrogatories, identify
the individual from whose files the document was produced or, if the identity of the person is not
known, identify the unit, group or department from whose files the document was produced.
6.
If any interrogatory cannot be answered in full, it should be answered to the extent
possible, and accompanied with an explanation as to (a) the nature of the information or
knowledge that cannot be furnished; and (b) why the remainder cannot be answered.
7.
These Interrogatories shall be deemed continuing so as to require supplemental
answers pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8.
Google (as defined below) must comply with all other requirements contained in
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
9.
In answering the following Interrogatories, if privilege or immunity is alleged as to
information or documents, or if an interrogatory is otherwise not answered in full, Google (as
defined below) shall state the specific grounds for not answering in full, identify, as that term is
2
DSMDB-2961814
defined herein, all information or documents for which privilege or immunity is claimed, and shall
answer the interrogatory to the extent to which it is not objected to.
DEFINITIONS
A.
“Defendant Google, Inc.” means the Defendant in this lawsuit, Google, Inc. and
includes its respective predecessors, subsidiaries, divisions, parents or otherwise related entities
and/or divisions thereof, and includes directors, officers, present and former employees, agents,
representatives and attorneys of such entities and/or divisions thereof.
B.
“I/P Engine” means the Plaintiff in this lawsuit, I/P Engine, Inc.
C.
The “‘420 Patent” means U.S. Patent No. 6,314,420.
D.
The “‘664 Patent” means U.S. Patent No. 6,775,664.
E.
“Person” is defined as any natural person or any business, legal, or governmental
entity or association.
F.
“Director,” “officer,” “employee,” “agent,” and “representative” means any
individual serving as such and any individual serving at any relevant time in such capacity, even
though no longer serving in such capacity. Google’s “representatives” refers to and includes
Google’s officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys, and consultants.
G.
“Date” means the exact day, month and year, if ascertainable, or, if not, the best
approximation (including relationship to other events).
H.
The terms “relating to” and “referring to” shall be interpreted so as to encompass
the scope of discovery set forth in Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I.
“Document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the
usage of this term in Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 26 of the
3
DSMDB-2961814
Court. A draft, non-identical copy, or version bearing any annotation or marking is a separate
document within the meaning of this term.
J.
“Identify”, “identification”, “describe”, or “description” mean:
(i) “Identify” (with respect to person) means to give, to the extent known, the
person’s full name, present or last known address, and when referring to a natural person,
additionally, the present or last known place of employment. Once a person has been
identified in accordance with this subparagraph, only the name of that person need be listed
in response to subsequent discovery requesting the identification of that person.
(ii) “Identify” (with respect to a document) means to give, to the extent known,
(a) type of document;
(b) general subject matter;
(c) date of document; and
(d) author(s), addressee(s), and recipient(s),
(e) for documents that have existed but are no longer existing, include the
type of document, the identity of its last known custodian, and the date on and
circumstances under which the document was lost, destroyed, or otherwise became
unavailable;
(f) for documents no longer in your possession, custody or control, or the
possession, custody or control of your agents (including, but not limited to,
attorneys) include the date on and circumstances under which the document was
disposed of, destroyed, surrendered from or otherwise left your possession, custody
or control, the identity of its present (or last known) custodian and the location of
such document, if known; and
4
DSMDB-2961814
(g) in lieu of identification of a document, you may, simultaneously with
the filing of your answers to these Interrogatories, produce such document for
inspection and copying by Plaintiff, at the office of Plaintiff’s counsel, Dickstein
Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, provided that such
document is segregated in such a way as to indicate the particular Interrogatory to
which it is responsive.
(iii) “Identify” (with respect to communications) means to give the date of such
communication, the identification of each party to the communication, the place at which
each party was located, the substance thereof and the method of such communications (e.g.,
in person, by telephone, by electronic mail or otherwise).
(iv) “Identify” (with respect to an oral statement (including a conversation,
conference, or other oral contact)) means to identify all persons making the statement, all
persons to whom such statement was made, and all other persons present at the time of
such statement; state the date of such statement; state the place where such statement was
made, or if by telephone, the person participating in the telephone call, the person making
the call, and the places where the persons participating in the call were located; and state
the substance of such statement.
K.
“Describe” and/or “state” means to set forth fully and unambiguously every fact
relevant to the subject of the Interrogatory, of which you (including your agents and
representatives) have knowledge or information.
L.
“Concerning” means referring to, describing, evidencing, or constituting.
M.
“Communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas,
inquiries, or otherwise).
5
DSMDB-2961814
N.
Whenever an Interrogatory refers to or seeks a description of an act, transaction,
occurrence, dealing or instance, the answer shall state at least:
(i) the date, including year, month and day, when it occurred;
(ii) the place where it occurred;
(iii) the identity of each person participating therein;
(iv) on whose behalf each such person participated or purported to participate;
(v) the nature, subject matter, and circumstances surrounding it;
(vi) the nature and substance of all conversations or oral communications occurring
during, or in connection with it; and
(vii) the identity of all documents concerning it.
O.
Any word written in the singular herein shall be construed as plural or vice versa
when necessary to facilitate the response to any Interrogatory.
P.
“And” as well as “or” shall be construed disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary
in order to bring within the scope of the Interrogatory all responses which otherwise might be
construed to be outside its scope.
Q.
“Search Technology incorporating User Feedback” means any product, service,
method, or system used by, or on behalf of, Google to select search results for display on search
results pages by considering how well search results match the user’s search query and using data
relating to other users’ feedback to the search result (systems including, but not limited to, systems
such as Google’s organic search systems and search advertising systems). In regards to this
definition, Plaintiff seeks responses directed to search systems utilizing a calculation, algorithm,
value or score that uses, in some way, user feedback to determine search results for presentation on
a search results page in response to a user query.
6
DSMDB-2961814
R.
“Publisher” means any past, current or potential member of the Google Network.
S.
“Google Network” means Google’s network of third party customers that use
Google’s advertising systems to deliver relevant advertisements to their own websites.
T.
“Relevance Score” means any variable, score, and/or value that is used to determine
advertisement search results for presentation on a search results page in response to a user query,
and derived from at least the factors of:
(1) the relevance of the content of the search results to the user search query
including, but not limited to, the landing page or the advertisement text to the user search
query, and
(2) data relating to users’ responses to the search result including, but not limited to,
an advertisement’s Click Through Rate.
In regards to this definition, Plaintiff seeks responses directed to systems utilizing a
calculation, algorithm, value or score that uses factors (1) and (2) above to determine
advertisement search results for presentation on a search results page in response to a user query
(e.g., systems including, but not limited to, systems such as Google’s AdWords system and
Google’s AdSense for Search system).
U.
“Click Through Rate” means the rate at which end users click a search result or
advertisement search result, e.g., the number of clicks on a search result divided by the number of
times the search result is shown (impressions), and is typically expressed as a percentage.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Identify, using the specific model number, version number, edition number and/or release
number, as well as internal Google project name and corresponding software release(s), each
7
DSMDB-2961814
Search Technology incorporating User Feedback that from January 1, 2002 to the present was used
(commercially and/or tested), sold, or offered for sale in the United States, imported into the
United States and/or exported out of the United States, or that are intended for use in the United
States, by or on behalf of Google.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2
Identify, using the specific model number, version number, edition number and/or release
number, as well as internal Google project name and corresponding software release(s), each
Google system using a Relevance Score that from January 1, 2002 to the present was used
(commercially and/or tested), sold, or offered for sale in the United States, imported into the
United States and/or exported out of the United States, or that are intended for use in the United
States, by or on behalf of Google.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3
Identify all representatives of Google or other persons or entities on behalf of Google who
have actively marketed or sold, or are currently actively marketing or selling, the use of each
Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, describe
Google’s corporate policy regarding indemnification, its rights and obligations under
indemnification, its corporate policy regarding obtaining insurance for patent infringement, and its
rights and obligations under any obtained insurance agreement regarding patent infringement.
8
DSMDB-2961814
INTERROGATORY NO. 5
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, describe
the algorithm or algorithms used to determine which advertisements are displayed in response to a
user query including, but not limited to, the calculation, algorithm, value or score of “Quality
Score.”
INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Identify and describe each basis for Google’s contention that it is not a direct infringer
including, but not limited to, all facts, documents, communications and/or events which Google
contends are pertinent thereto, and identify the persons having the most knowledge of such facts,
documents, communications and/or events.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7
Identify and describe each basis for Google’s contention that it is not an indirect infringer,
including its contention that it is not liable for infringement by inducement and that it is not a
contributory infringer including, but not limited to, all facts, documents, communications and/or
events which Google contends are pertinent thereto, and identify the persons having the most
knowledge of such facts, documents, communications and/or events.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Identify and describe each basis for Google’s contention that the claims of the ‘420 and
‘664 Patents are invalid including, but not limited to, all facts, dates, documents, communications
and/or events, including prior art, which Google contends are pertinent thereto, and identify the
persons having the most knowledge of such facts, dates, documents, communications and/or
events.
9
DSMDB-2961814
INTERROGATORY NO. 9
Identify any system, and when it was developed, that Google intends to rely upon in this
litigation as a non-infringing alternative to each Google system identified in response to
Interrogatory No. 2 including, but not limited to, all facts, documents, communications and/or
events which Google contends are pertinent thereto, and identify the persons having the most
knowledge of such facts, documents, communications and/or events.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10
Identify when and under what circumstances Google first became aware of the existence of
the ‘420 or ‘664 Patents, and describe what action was taken by Google, including describing any
subsequent reviews, studies, analyses or examinations of the ‘420 or ‘664 Patents, their scope, or
their claims, including the date, author and recipients of such reviews, studies, analyses or
examinations.
Dated: November 7, 2011
By: /s/ Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
DeAnna Allen
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
Richard H. Ottinger
VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP
500 World Trade Center
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: (757) 446-8600
Facsimile: (757) 446-8670
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
10
DSMDB-2961814
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 7th day of November, 2011, the foregoing Plaintiff I/P
Engine, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Google, Inc. was served via email, on the
following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
robert.burns@finnegan.com
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
cortney.alexander@finnegan.com
/s/ Armands Chagnon
Senior Paralegal
DSMDB-2997346v1
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?