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

Filing 309

Memorandum in Support re 277 MOTION for Sanctions Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.'s Second Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Discovery Responses 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, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Proposed Order)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Exhibit 1 

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 REQUESTS
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.
Pursuant to Rule 34 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, Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
(“I/P Engine”) requests Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”) respond to the following requests, and
produce the documents sought for inspection and copying at the offices of I/P Engine’s counsel,
Dickstein Shapiro LLP, 1825 Eye Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, or at a place mutually
agreeable to the parties, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the
Court, the Judge’s procedures, and the Stipulation entered into by the parties on
November 4, 2011.
INSTRUCTIONS
1.

These requests are continuing in character, so as to require Google (as defined

below) to produce any further documents called for in accordance with Rule 26(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

DSMDB-2966941

2.

All documents produced pursuant to these requests are to be produced in the form,

order and manner in which they are maintained in Google’s files or shall be organized and labeled
to correspond with the categories in the requests.
3.

If any documents identified in response to these requests are in the possession of a

third party, state the identity and location of the third party.
4.

Unless otherwise specified herein, each reference to a firm or company shall be

deemed to refer to that firm or company, and its parents, subsidiaries, associated, affiliated, related
or controlled companies.
5.

As to each document produced, specify each and every request to which it

responds.
6.

Unless otherwise specified, Plaintiff seeks documents for the period

January 1, 2002 to the present.
7.

If the production of any document is objected to on the ground of privilege or work

product, or for any other reason, with respect to each such document state: (1) the identity of its
author(s) or creator(s); (2) the identity of its recipient(s); (3) its subject matter; (4) the identity of
person(s) to whom the document, or any portion thereof, has already been revealed; (5) the source
of the document; (6) the date of the document; (7) the number of pages in the document; and
(8) the basis upon which it is being withheld, including sufficient facts from which the court and
Opposer can assess and determine the validity of such assertion of privilege, work product, or other
immunity.
8.

The headings and italics explanations associated with each Request are included to

only aid the reader, and should not be interpreted to limit the Request.

2
DSMDB-2966941

DEFINITIONS
A.

“Defendant Google, Inc.” means the Defendant in this lawsuit, Google, Inc. and 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 26.1 of the
Court. A draft, non-identical copy or version bearing any annotation or marking is a separate
document within the meaning of this term.

3
DSMDB-2966941

J.

“Describe” and/or “state” means to set forth fully and unambiguously every fact

relevant to the subject of the Request, of which you (including your agents and representatives)
have knowledge or information.
K.

“Concerning” means referring to, describing, evidencing, or constituting.

L.

“Communication” means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts, ideas,

inquiries, or otherwise).
M.

Any word written in the singular herein shall be construed as plural or vice versa

when necessary to facilitate the response to any Request.
N.

“And” as well as “or” shall be construed disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary

in order to bring within the scope of the Request all responses which otherwise might be construed
to be outside its scope.
O.

“Other Defendant Technology” means any product, service, method, or system

used by, or on behalf of, any other Defendant in this litigation including, but not limited to, AOL,
Inc. and IAC Search & Media, Inc. 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.
P.

“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 documents directed to search systems utilizing a calculation, algorithm,

4
DSMDB-2966941

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.
Q.

“Build” means a process (e.g., manual, automated or a combination of manual and

automated) for creating deliverable software (e.g., executable files, libraries, object code,
executable installation packages) from source code.
R.

“Source Code Maintenance” means the process of designing the appropriate

directory structure for the source code; determining which version control system(s) to use to
manage the source code, configuring a version control system to manage the source code and
providing support for the management of the source code (e.g., within the version control system).
S.

“Publisher” means any past, current or potential member of the Google Network.

T.

“Google Network” means Google’s network of third party customers that use

Google’s advertisement systems to deliver relevant advertisements to their own websites.
U.

“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 documents 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

5
DSMDB-2966941

(e.g., systems including, but not limited to, systems such as Google’s AdWords system and
Google’s AdSense for Search system). See e.g., IPE0000061.
V.

“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.
W.

“Search Partner” means any past, current or potential company or entity that uses

Google’s organic search system to deliver relevant search results to their own websites.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 1:
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE REGARDING PRESENTATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the system architecture used by Google to present advertisements on search
results pages in response to a user query.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents sufficient to show the system architecture used to
implement each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, and how
that architecture operates from the receiving of a user’s search query to the displaying of
advertisements including, but not limited to, the architecture for receiving a search query, the
architecture for processing the search query, the architecture for calculating a Relevance Score,
the architecture for ranking advertisements, and the architecture for displaying the ranked
advertisements.

6
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 2:
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF ADVERTISEMENTS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the system architecture used by Google to receive advertisements from
advertisers.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents sufficient to show the system architecture used to
implement each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, and how
that architecture operates from the receiving of an advertisement from an advertiser to the
advertisement being ready for presentation including, but not limited to, the architecture for
receiving an advertisement, the architecture for processing the advertisement, the architecture for
indexing the advertisement, and the architecture for storing the advertisement.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 3:
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE REGARDING ADVERTISEMENT SELECTION AND
PLACEMENT
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the system architecture used by Google to present advertisements on search
results pages of a Publisher’s website in response to a user query.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents sufficient to show the system architecture used to
implement each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, and how
that architecture operates from the receiving of a user’s search query from a Publisher’s website
to the displaying of advertisements on that Publisher’s website including, but not limited to, the
architecture for receiving a search query from a Publisher’s website, the architecture for
processing the search query, the architecture for calculating a Relevance Score, the architecture
for ranking an advertisement, the architecture for sending the ranked advertisements to the

7
DSMDB-2966941

Publisher’s website and the architecture for displaying the ranked advertisements on that
Publisher’s website.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 4:
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE REGARDING ORGANIC SEARCH RESULTS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1, documents
sufficient to show the system architecture used by Google to present search results on search
results pages in response to a user query.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents sufficient to show the system architecture used to
implement each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1, and how
that architecture operates from the receiving of a user’s search query to the displaying of search
results including, but not limited to, the architecture for receiving a search query, the architecture
for processing the search query, the architecture for ranking a search result, and the architecture
for displaying the ranked search result.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 5:
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE REGARDING SEARCH PARTNER WEBSITES
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1, documents
sufficient to show the system architecture used by Google to present search results on search
results pages of a Search Partner’s website in response to a user query.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents sufficient to show the system architecture used to
implement each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1, and how
that architecture operates from the receiving of a user’s search query from a Search Partner’s
website to the displaying of search results on that Search Partner’s website including, but not
limited to, the architecture for receiving a search query from a Search Partner’s website, the
architecture for processing the search query, the architecture for ranking a search result, the
8
DSMDB-2966941

architecture for sending the ranked search results to the Search Partner’s website and the
architecture for displaying the ranked search results on that Search Partner’s website.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 6:
OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION REGARDING PRESENTATION OF
ADVERTISEMENTS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the function, operation and use of the identified systems to present
advertisements on search results pages in response to a user query.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents (for example, but not limited to, flowcharts or
design specifications) sufficient to show how the identified systems operate from the receiving of a
user’s search query to the displaying of advertisements including, but not limited to, receiving a
search query, processing the search query, calculating a Relevance Score, ranking advertisements,
and displaying the ranked advertisements.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 7:
OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF
ADVERTISEMENTS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the function, operation and use of the identified systems to receive
advertisements from advertisers.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents (for example, but not limited to, flowcharts or
design specifications) sufficient to show how the identified systems operate from receiving an
advertisement from an advertiser to the advertisement being ready for presentation including, but
not limited to, receiving an advertisement, processing the advertisement, indexing the
advertisement, and for storing the advertisement.

9
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 8:
OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION REGARDING ADVERTISEMENT SELECTION
AND PLACEMENT
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the function, operation and use of the identified systems to present
advertisements on search results pages of a Publisher’s website in response to a user query.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents (for example, but not limited to, flowcharts or
design specifications) sufficient to show how the identified systems operate from the receiving of a
user’s search query from a Publisher’s website to the displaying of advertisements on that
Publisher’s website including, but not limited to, receiving a search query from a Publisher’s
website, processing the search query, calculating a Relevance Score, ranking an advertisement,
sending the ranked advertisements to the Publisher’s website and displaying the ranked
advertisements on that Publisher’s website.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 9:
OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION REGARDING ORGANIC SEARCH RESULTS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1, documents
sufficient to show the function, operation and use of the identified systems to present search results
on search results pages in response to a user query.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents (for example, but not limited to, flowcharts or
design specifications) sufficient to show how the identified systems operate from the receiving of a
user’s search query to the displaying of search results including, but not limited to, receiving a
search query, processing the search query, ranking a search result, and displaying the ranked
search result.

10
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 10:
OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION REGARDING SEARCH PARTNER WEBSITES
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1, documents
sufficient to show the function, operation and use of the identified systems to present search results
on search results pages of a Search Partner’s website in response to a user query.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents (for example, but not limited to, flowcharts or
design specifications) sufficient to show how the identified systems operate from the receiving of a
user’s search query from a Search Partner’s website to the displaying of search results on that
Search Partner’s website including, but not limited to, receiving a search query from a Search
Partner’s website, processing the search query, ranking a search result, sending the ranked search
results to the Search Partner’s website and displaying the ranked search results on that Search
Partner’s website.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 11:
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE AND OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION REGARDING
GOOGLE WEBCRAWLER
Documents sufficient to show the system architecture of the Google Webcrawler, and the
function, operation and use of the Google Webcrawler.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 12:
DESCRIPTION OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to identify all of the factors used by Google to determine a Relevance Score including,
but not limited to, the factors advertised as being used by Google to determine Google’s “Quality
Score” including, but not limited to, “the historical clickthrough rate (CTR) of the keyword and the
matched ad on Google; if the ad is appearing on a search network page, its CTR on that search
network partner is also considered[, y]our account history, which is measured by the CTR of all the
11
DSMDB-2966941

ads and keywords in your account[, t]he historical CTR of the display URLs in the ad group[, t]he
relevance of the keyword to the ads in its ad group[, t]he relevance of the keyword and the matched
ad to the search query[, y]our account’s performance in the geographical region where the ad will
be shown[, and o]ther relevance factors” (see e.g., IPE0000061).
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 13:
DESCRIPTION OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Documents sufficient to show the products, services, methods, or systems that are used by
Google in the calculation of a Relevance Score and/or that receive, access or use a value, score or
ranking representing a calculated Relevance Score.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 14:
CONCEPTION OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the conception of each identified system including, but not limited to, documents
sufficient to show who conceived of the system, where they conceived of the system, and when
they conceived of the system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 15:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show any modifications or changes to the Relevance Score used by each identified
system including, but not limited to, any analysis, reports, studies, summaries, commentaries or
notes, and documents sufficient to show the reasons for each such modification or change.

12
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 16:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2,
documents sufficient to show any commercial uses of any modifications or changes to the
Relevance Score used by each identified system including, but not limited to, any analysis, reports,
studies, summaries, commentaries or notes.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 17:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show Google’s research, design, development, engineering, Source Code
Maintenance, Build, manufacture, implementation, testing, quality control, and version control
activities for each identified system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 18:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the person and department, whether within Google or any third party, having the
most knowledge of, and the person and department having supervisory responsibility for, Google’s
research, design, development, engineering, Source Code Maintenance, Build, manufacture,
implementation, testing, quality control, preparation or approval of advertising, sales and
promotional materials, sales, conception or invention, patent filing, patent prosecution, or patent
licensing for each identified system.
In this Request, Plaintiff seeks documents such as organizational charts and phone lists
sufficient to identify the person(s) with the most knowledge of, or who had supervisory
responsibility for, the listed activities for each identified system.

13
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 19:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
All documents that refer to or relate to any Other Defendant Technology including, but not
limited to, comparisons between each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory Nos. 1 or 2 and any Other Defendant Technology, and any evaluations, test results,
analysis, reports, summaries, notes or recommendations of such systems.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 20:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2 that
incorporates technology relating to a Relevance Score that was acquired from a third party,
documents sufficient to identify the acquired technology, the party from which it was acquired, and
the reasons why Google decided to acquire and incorporate the technology.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 21:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
All documents that refer to or relate to Google’s decision to develop and commercially
introduce a paid search advertising system (e.g., systems including, but not limited to, cost per
click advertising systems and cost per impression advertising systems) including, but not limited
to, documents that refer to or relate to internal testing or analysis identifying the advantages or
disadvantages of developing and commercially introducing a paid search advertising system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 22:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
All documents that refer to or relate to Google’s decision to incorporate Click Through
Rate into its paid search advertising system including, but not limited to, documents that refer to or

14
DSMDB-2966941

relate to internal testing or analysis identifying the advantages or disadvantages of incorporating
Click Through Rate into a paid search advertising system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 23:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
All documents that refer to or relate to Google’s decision to incorporate a Relevance Score
into its paid search advertising system incorporating Click Through Rate including, but not limited
to, documents that refer to or relate to internal testing or analysis identifying the advantages or
disadvantages of incorporating a Relevance Score into a paid search advertising system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 24:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Documents sufficient to show the testing of, analysis of, review of, and decisions made
regarding the development and/or incorporation of a Relevance Score into each Google system
identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2 including, but not limited to, comparisons,
evaluations, test results, analysis, reports, summaries, and recommendations.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 25:
DEVELOPMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Documents sufficient to show the problems, shortcomings, limitations, desired or
advantageous features, or functionality relating to the operation, use or marketability of Relevance
Score in each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 26:
MARKETING OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, all
instructions for use, manuals, guides, website materials, training materials, presentations, or other

15
DSMDB-2966941

documents provided to Google employees, agents, contractors, or other third parties relating to the
testing, installation, operation, use, repair or maintenance of the identified systems.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 27:
MARKETING OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
All Google advertisements, sales aids, promotion or marketing materials, or press releases
that use the word “Quality Score.”
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 28:
MARKETING OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the sales, marketing, or promotional materials that depict or describe the
function and operation of the identified systems including, but not limited to, promotional
literature, brochures, order forms, advertisements, awards, specification sheets, and website
materials, whether or not such documents or materials are intended to be distributed to any
Publisher or the public. See e.g., IPE0000004-5; IPE0000028; IPE0000036-38; IPE0000043-45.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 29:
USERS OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Documents sufficient to identify on a periodic basis (e.g., quarterly or yearly) any Publisher
using each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 30:
USERS OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Documents sufficient to identify on a periodic basis (e.g., quarterly or yearly) any Search
Partner using each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1.

16
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 31:
ASSESSMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Documents sufficient to show the manner in which Google determines, analyzes, or
assesses the quality of its organic search results and the conclusions drawn by Google from such
determinations, analyses, and assessments.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 32:
ASSESSMENT OF GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Documents sufficient to show the manner in which Google determines, analyzes, or
assesses the quality of its advertisement search results and the conclusions drawn by Google from
such determinations, analyses, and assessments.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 33:
GOOGLE SYSTEM-RELATED AGREEMENTS
All final assignment, license, revenue sharing and cost sharing agreements between Google
and any other person or company relating to the use of each Google system identified in response
to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2 including, but not limited to, third parties such as Publishers.
In this Request, to the extent that Google uses a standard or form agreement or template in
connection with any such assignment, license, revenue sharing or cost sharing agreement, Plaintiff
seeks a representative agreement for each along with documents sufficient to identify all persons
and companies (e.g., third parties including Publishers) that have executed the agreement.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 34:
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS REGARDING GOOGLE SYSTEMS
All annual reports, proxy statements, reports or messages to shareholders, or other
submissions to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or equivalent foreign regulatory

17
DSMDB-2966941

agency, discussing, concerning or relating to Google’s systems identified in response to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 35:
GOOGLE’S REVENUES AND PROFITS: CLICK-THROUGH RATE
Documents sufficient to show Google’s revenue, related expenses and resulting profits
prior to and after it incorporated Click Through Rate into its paid search advertising system
including, but not limited to, documents that refer to or relate to any increases in revenue after
incorporating Click Through Rate into a paid search advertising system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 36:
GOOGLE’S REVENUES AND PROFITS: RELEVANCE SCORE
Documents sufficient to show Google’s revenue, related expenses and resulting profits
prior to and after it incorporated a Relevance Score into its paid search advertising system
including, but not limited to, documents that refer to or relate to any increases in revenue after
incorporating a Relevance Score into a paid search advertising system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 37:
GOOGLE SYSTEM SEARCH STATISTICS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show periodic (e.g., quarterly or yearly) search statistics including, but not limited to,
statistics related to the number of user search queries, number of users, the average number of user
search queries per user, the average number of advertisement search results per query search result,
and the percentage of user search queries for which advertisement search results are displayed.

18
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38:
GOOGLE’S REVENUE PER SEARCH
Documents sufficient to show how Google determines its revenue per search including, but
not limited to, factors such as the percentage of query search results with advertisements, the
number of advertisements displayed with such results, the click through rate, and the bid amount
and actual cost per click amount, the weighting of such factors, and the calculations used in the
determination of revenue per search.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 39:
RELATIONSHIP OF GOOGLE’S ORGANIC SEARCH RESULTS
Documents sufficient to show the relationships between the quality of Google’s organic
search results and (i) the number of end user search queries received, (ii) the number of end users,
(iii) Google’s revenue per search, (iv) the percentage of search results with advertisements, (v) the
number of advertisements responsive to such search results, (vi) the click through rate, (vii) the bid
amount and actual cost per click amount, and (viii) Google’s revenue.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 40:
RELATIONSHIP OF GOOGLE’S ADVERTISING SEARCH RESULTS
Documents sufficient to show the relationships between the quality of Google’s
advertisement search results and (i) the number of end user search queries received, (ii) the number
of end users, (iii) Google’s revenue per search, (iv) the percentage of search results with
advertisements, (v) the number of advertisements responsive to such search results, (vi) the click
through rate, (vii) the bid amount and actual cost per click amount, and (viii) Google’s revenue.

19
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 41:
FIRST SALE OR USE OF EACH GOOGLE SYSTEM
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the first sale, offer for sale, or use, of any prototype, product, system, or method
that incorporates each identified system including, but not limited to, documents sufficient to show
the date of each first sale, offer for sale, or use, and the function, operation and key components of
each such prototype, product, system, or method sold, offered for sale, or used.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 42:
SALES AND PROFIT FORECASTS FOR GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Regular periodic (e.g., quarterly or yearly) sales forecasts, market forecasts, profit or
revenue forecasts, or sales projections for each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 43:
PRICING DOCUMENTS FOR GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, all price
lists and all documents referring to or relating to prices, pricing strategies, evaluations of
competitors’ prices or consideration of what prices to charge for the services of products, systems,
methods or services that use the identified systems including, but not limited to, documents
sufficient to show the pricing of products, systems, methods and services incorporating such
systems communicated between Google and any Publisher or other third party.

20
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 44:
PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENTS FOR GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show periodic (e.g., quarterly or yearly) costs, revenues, profits, and losses for each
identified system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 45:
SOURCES OF GOOGLE’S REVENUES FOR GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show the source of revenue generated, and how the revenue is generated from
products, systems, and methods using each identified system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 46:
GOOGLE PAYMENTS FOR IP RIGHTS FOR GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show on a periodic basis (e.g., quarterly or yearly) compensation paid to Google, or by
Google to its Publishers, for rights to, access to, or use of any products, systems, and methods
using each identified system.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 47:
PAYMENTS BETWEEN GOOGLE TO OTHER DEFENDANTS REGARDING
GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show on an individual and periodic basis (e.g., quarterly or yearly) compensation paid
to Google by Defendants AOL, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc. and
Target Corporation respectively, or by Google to Defendants AOL, Inc., IAC Search & Media,
Inc., Gannett Company, Inc. and Target Corporation respectively, for rights to, access to, or use of
any products, systems, and methods using each identified system.
21
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 48:
GOOGLE’S CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR GOOGLE SYSTEMS
For each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2, documents
sufficient to show Google’s quarterly or yearly summaries of its capital expenditures for the
identified systems.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 49:
IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER LITIGATION REGARDING GOOGLE SYSTEMS
Documents sufficient to identify every litigation or other legal proceeding including
arbitrations involving any component of Google’s systems identified in response to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 50:
KEY DOCUMENTS FROM OTHER LITIGATION REGARDING GOOGLE
SYSTEMS
All expert reports, contentions, claim construction-related documents, discovery responses,
deposition transcripts, or trial transcripts that were generated in conjunction with in any litigation
or other legal proceeding including arbitrations involving any component of Google’s systems
identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 51:
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS: COMMERCIAL SUCCESS
Documents sufficient to show the commercial success (or lack thereof) of each Google
system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 52:
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS: LONG-FELT NEED
Documents sufficient to show the long felt need of each Google system identified in
response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.

22
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 53:
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS: PRIOR FAILURES
All documents referring to or relating to the failure of others to develop a system similar to
each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2 including, but not
limited to, Google’s failures during development.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 54:
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS: SKEPTICISM
All documents referring to or relating to any skepticism by experts of each Google system
identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 55:
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS: PRAISE
All documents referring to or relating to any praise by others of each Google system
identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 56:
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS: MARKET ACCEPTANCE
All documents referring to or relating to any problems, limitations, desired additional
features, marketplace acceptance, operational needs or marketplace needs for each Google system
identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 57:
SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS: COPYING
All documents referring to or relating to the copying of Google’s systems identified in
response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2 by competitors.

23
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 58:
GOOGLE’S LICENSING POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Documents sufficient to show Google’s policies or practices regarding the seeking,
granting, withholding, or negotiating of licenses.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 59:
LICENSE, SETTLEMENT, OR INSURANCE AGREEMENTS
All final license, settlement, or insurance agreements between Google and any other person
or company relating to any component of each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 2 including, but not limited to, assignments, licenses, and covenants not to sue.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 60:
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTS
All final indemnification agreements between Google and any other person or company
relating to any component of each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory
No. 2.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 61:
ASSERTED PATENT-RELATED DOCUMENTS
Each document that refers to or relates to the ‘420 or ‘664 patents.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 62:
PRIOR INVENTORS OF ASSERTED PATENTS
All documents referring to or relating to any allegation by Google that any person, other
than the named inventors of the ‘420 or ‘664 patents, is a prior inventor of any of the inventions
claimed in the ‘420 or ‘664 patents.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 63:
NAMED INVENTORS OF ASSERTED PATENTS
All documents referring to or relating to the named inventors of the ‘420 or ‘664 patents.
24
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 64:
NON-INFRINGEMENT, INVALIDITY, OR UNENFORCEABILITY OF ASSERTED
PATENTS
Each document that refers to or relates to any non-infringement, invalidity, or
unenforceability review, study, consideration or analysis of the ‘420 or ‘664 patents.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 65:
POTENTIAL DESIGN AROUNDS
All documents referring to or relating to potential design arounds, or methods of modifying
each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2 (e.g., actual or
experimental systems not incorporating Click Through Rate or a Relevance Score).
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 66:
POTENTIAL DESIGN AROUNDS
All documents referring to or relating to potential design arounds, or methods of modifying
each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1 (e.g., actual or
experimental systems not incorporating Click Through Rate).
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 67:
NON-INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Each document that refers to or relates to Google’s contention that it does not directly
infringe any of the claims of the ‘420 and ‘664 Patents either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents including, but not limited to, each document that refers to or relates to Google’s
contention that each Google system identified in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 2 does
not infringe any claim of the ‘420 and ‘664 Patents.

25
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 68:
INDIRECT INDUCEMENT NON-INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Each document that refers to or relates to Google’s contention that it is not liable for
indirect infringement by inducement of infringement.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 69:
INDIRECT CONTRIBUTORY NON-INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Each document that refers to or relates to Google’s contention that it is not liable for
indirect infringement by contributory infringement.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 70:
INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
Each document that refers to or relates to Google’s contention that the claims of the ‘420
and ‘664 Patents are invalid.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 71:
WILLFULNESS CONTENTIONS
Each document that refers to or relates to Google’s contention that if it is found liable for
infringement of any claim of the ‘420 or ‘664 patent, Google’s infringement is not willful.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 72:
NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIONS
Each document on which Google intends to rely upon in this litigation related to a noninfringing alternative.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 73:
PRIOR ART DOCUMENTS
All prior art on which Google may rely to support any claim or defense in this litigation.

26
DSMDB-2966941

DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 74:
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED WHEN ANSWERING INTERROGATORIES
All documents relied upon in answering any of Plaintiff’s Interrogatories.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 75:
DEFENSE OR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE DOCUMENTS
All documents on which Google intends to rely upon to support any claim or defense in
this litigation.
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Richard H. Ottinger
VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP
500 World Trade Center
Norfolk, VA 23510
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.

27
DSMDB-2966941

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 Requests for the Production of Documents 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
[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

DSMDB-2997346v1