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 3 

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.
)
__________________________________________)

PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I/P Engine, Inc.
(“I/P Engine”) hereby responds and objects to Google, Inc.’s (“Google”) First Set of
Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”). These responses are based on information reasonably
available to I/P Engine at the present time. I/P Engine reserves the right to supplement these
responses when, and if, additional information becomes available. I/P Engine also reserves the
right to object on any ground at any time to such other or supplemental Interrogatories Google
may propound involving or relating to the subject matter of these Interrogatories.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

I/P Engine objects to the Interrogatories as overly broad and unduly burdensome

to the extent that they purport to require I/P Engine to seek information or documents outside of
I/P Engine’s possession, custody, or control as such information is beyond the permissible scope
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, and would further pose an undue
burden on I/P Engine.

DSMDB-2997481

I/P Engine seeks compensatory damages, past and future, amounting to no less than
reasonable royalties and prejudgment interest to compensate it for Google’s infringement.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
For each of the PATENTS-IN-SUIT state the priority date PLAINTIFF claims for each
claim and identify the portion(s) of the specification in any earlier application that support that
priority date.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff incorporates its general objections and specific objections. I/P Engine objects to
this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, Rule 26(b)(4)(B) immunity, or any other applicable
privilege or immunity. I/P Engine objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal
conclusion. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, I/P Engine responds:
Each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are entitled to a priority date at least as
early as the effective date of the ‘420 patent, i.e., December 3, 1998 (based on the filing date of
the patent application, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/204,149, that issued as the ‘420 patent).
Additionally, each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit may be entitled to an earlier
effective date based on, without limitation, the filing of earlier related patent applications.
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
IDENTIFY and describe in detail all the manners or techniques by which the PATENTSIN-SUIT improved upon the PRIOR ART, added functionality that did not exist in the PRIOR
ART, or provided a variation on or upgrade of the PRIOR ART, and for each such claimed
improvement, added functionality, or variation or upgrade, state whether PLAINTIFF contends it

14
DSMDB-2997481

privilege or immunity. I/P Engine further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information not in I/P Engine’s possession, custody or control. Subject to and without waiving
the foregoing objections, I/P Engine responds:
I/P Engine, under Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, will produce
documents from which information responsive to this Interrogatory may be derived or
ascertained.

Dated: December 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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.

16
DSMDB-2997481

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 7th day of December, 2011, the foregoing PLAINTIFF I/P
ENGINE, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, was served via email, on the following:

Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
[e-mail]
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
[e-mail]
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
[e-mail]

/s/ Armands Chagnon
Senior Paralegal

17
DSMDB-2997481