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

Filing 222

Reply to Motion re 200 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Disclosed Prior Art filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Exhibit 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512

AOL, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 2-10)
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant Google Inc. hereby
further objects and responds in writing to I/P Engine, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories as served
on November 7, 2011.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Google makes the following general objections to each and every definition, instruction,
and interrogatory made in I/P Engine's First Interrogatories to Google. 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 interrogatories or failing to specifically refer to or specify
any particular General Objection in response to a particular interrogatory, Google does not waive
any of these General Objections, nor admit or concede the appropriateness of any purported
interrogatory or any assumptions contained therein.
1.

Nothing in these responses should be construed as waiving rights or objections

that might otherwise be available to Google nor should Google's responses to any of these

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.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Google incorporates here in response to this interrogatory its General Objections above
by this reference. Google objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that: (i) it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome; (ii) it is vague and ambiguous with respect to the phrase "all facts, dates,
documents, communications and/or events;" (iii) it seeks information that is irrelevant,
immaterial or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Google
further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks proprietary, trade secret or other
confidential or competitively sensitive business information; and (iv) it is compound and/or is
comprised of subparts constituting more than one interrogatory in that it seeks information about
'420 and '664 Patents. Google will only produce such relevant, non-privileged information
subject to adequate protections for Google's confidential, trade secret and/or proprietary business
or technical information via a protective order entered by the Court in this action.
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Google responds that in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), all or part of the non-objectionable
discovery sought may be obtained from documents that will be produced. Google will rely on
documents produced in this action and will identify those documents to the extent reasonable

55

after the time they are produced. Google will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 8 to
reference relevant documents to the extent reasonable.
Google further responds that the following references, either alone or in conjunction with
the knowledge of one of skill in the art, render one or more of the asserted claims invalid:
•

"Content-Based, Collaborative Recommendation" by Balabanovic et al.

•

"Feature-based and Clique-based User Models for Movie Selection: A
Comparative Study" by Alspector et al.

•

"Using Collaborative Filtering to Weave an Information Tapestry" by Goldberg et
al.

•

“Architecting Personalized Delivery of Multimedia Information” by Loeb

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,794,237 to Gore

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,835,087 to Herz

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,855,015 to Shoham

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,202,058 to Rose

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,724,567 to Rose et al.

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,006,218 to Breese et al.

•

U.S. Patent No. 6,421,675 to Ryan et al.

•

U.S. Patent No. 5,963,940 to Liddy et al.

Google further asserts that the asserted claims of the ‘420 and ‘664 patent, as apparently
interpreted by Plaintiff, are invalid for lack of enablement and written description. In particular,
neither patent describes or enables using collaborative filtering or any other form of feedback on
a demand search. Rather, the patents only describe and enable using collaborative filtering with
persistent or “wire” search results.
Google reserves its right to supplement, revise or render more specific its responses to
Interrogatory No. 8, including during expert discovery.

56

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Google identifies the following
documents previously produced by Google as showing that the asserted claims from the ‘420 and
‘664 patents are invalid: G-IPE-0217615 - G-IPE-0217641, G-IPE-0217642 - G-IPE-0217648,
G-IPE-0217649 - G-IPE-0217672, G-IPE-0217673 - G-IPE-0217683, G-IPE-0217684 - G-IPE0217693, G-IPE-0217694 - G-IPE-0217708, G-IPE-0217709 - G-IPE-0217756, G-IPE-0217757
- G-IPE-0217770, G-IPE-0217771 - G-IPE-0217780, G-IPE-0217781 - G-IPE-0217796, G-IPE0217797 - G-IPE-0217813, G-IPE-0217814 - G-IPE-0217870, G-IPE-0217871 - G-IPE0217956, G-IPE-0217957 - G-IPE-0217999, and G-IPE-0218000 - G-IPE-0218013.
Google served its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on January 24, 2012. Google
hereby incorporates those Contentions by reference and submits that its response to this
Interrogatory also may be derived from those disclosures. Google reserves the right to amend
and/or supplement its invalidity contentions if and when further information becomes available.
Google reserves its right to supplement, revise or render more specific its responses to
Interrogatory No. 8, including during expert discovery.

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.

57