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 10 

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

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: [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.
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
[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

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 IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC.

Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) directs the following Interrogatories to Defendant
IAC Search & Media, Inc. (“IAC”) 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. IAC 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, IAC (as defined below) is required to furnish

under oath all information that is in its possession, custody or control, or otherwise available to

DSMDB-2998809

INTERROGATORY NO. 7
Identify and describe each basis for IAC’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 IAC contends are pertinent thereto, and identify the persons
having the most knowledge of such facts, dates, documents, communications and/or events.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8
Identify any system that IAC intends to rely upon in this litigation as a non-infringing
alternative to each system identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 including, but not limited
to: the date such system was developed and the date such system was first put into use; all other
facts, documents, communications and/or events which IAC contends are pertinent thereto; and the
persons having the most knowledge of such development, commercial use, or other facts,
documents, communications and/or events.

9
DSMDB-2998809

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 11th day of November, 2011, the foregoing Plaintiff I/P
Engine, Inc’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant IAC Search & Media, 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