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

Filing 512

Declaration re 511 Opposition, of Howard Chen in Support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Daubert Motion, and Fourth Motion in Limine to Exclude Lyle Ungar's New Theory of Invalidity and Opinions Regarding Claim Construction by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (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)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT 5

Jim Grossell
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Joshua Sohn
Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:23 PM
Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
QE-IP Engine; 'Stephen E. Noona'
RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.: Google's Interrogatory No. 13

Charles,
It has now been nearly a full month since Defendants identified their additional prior art and provided their contentions
as to why this prior art invalidates the asserted claims. Yet Plaintiff has still not supplemented its response to
Interrogatory No. 13 to state its contentions as to why this prior art does not invalidate the asserted claims. By way of
comparison, Defendants supplemented their non-infringement contentions more than a week ago. Please confirm
Plaintiff will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 13 by no later than COB this Friday, August 3.
Joshua Sohn
Associate,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6415 Direct
415.875.6600 Main Office Number
415.875.6700 FAX
[e-mail]
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.

From: Monterio, Charles [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:39 PM
To: Joshua Sohn; zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.: Google's Interrogatory No. 13

Josh,
In response to our teleconference of last evening, as Defendants only recently identified the additional prior art,
I/P Engine will provide supplemental responses, to the extent necessary, in due course.
Charles
Confidentiality Statement
This email message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain
material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential
communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other
distribution of this email message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. Dickstein Shapiro reserves the right to monitor any communication that is created,
received, or sent on its network. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message and
permanently delete the original message.
To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to [e-mail]
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
www.DicksteinShapiro.com

1

From: Joshua Sohn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 6:19 PM
To: Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine
Subject: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.: Google's Interrogatory No. 13

Dear Charles,
Google’s Interrogatory No. 13 asks Plaintiff to identify every claim element that Plaintiff contends is not disclosed in the
prior art references cited in Google’s response(s) to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 8, and explain why Plaintiff contends
that such elements are not disclosed by these prior art references. Plaintiff served its response to Interrogatory No. 13
on March 22, 2012.
On July 2, 2012, Google served its Third Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 8, identifying three
additional prior art references that Google contends invalidate the asserted claims. Thus, pursuant to the plain terms of
Interrogatory No. 13, Plaintiff has a duty to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 13 to set forth its contention of
why these new prior art references do not invalidate the asserted claims. To date, we have not received a supplemental
response to Interrogatory No. 13 that addresses these new references.
Given the upcoming expert report deadline, we request that Plaintiff provide a supplemental response to Interrogatory
No. 13 no later than COB this Friday, July 20.
Sincerely,
Josh Sohn

Joshua Sohn
Associate,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6415 Direct
415.875.6600 Main Office Number
415.875.6700 FAX
[e-mail]
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.

2