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

Filing 606

Response to 206 MOTION to Seal Portions Of Google Inc.s Brief In Support Of Motion To Compel And Various Exhibits To The Declaration Of Jen Ghaussy in Support Thereof Notice of Filing Response to Agreed Order to Maintain Portions of Documents Under Seal filed by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H (Undreacted, Public Form), # 2 Exhibit I (Unredacted, Public Form), # 3 Exhibit L (Unredacted, Public Form), # 4 Exhibit M (Unredacted, Public Form), # 5 Exhibit N (Unredacted, Public Form), # 6 Exhibit P (Unredacted, Public Form), # 7 Exhibit Q (Unredacted, Public Form), # 8 Exhibit R (Unredacted, Public Form), # 9 Exhibit S (Undredacted, Public Form), # 10 Exhibit T (Unredacted, Public Form), # 11 Exhibit U (Unredacted, Public Form))(Noona, Stephen)



EXHIBIT U



Emily O'Brien
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Albert, Dawn Rudenko [[e-mail]]
Thursday, August 09, 2012 7:06 AM
Emily O'Brien
zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; [e-mail]; W. Ryan
Snow; Donald C. Schultz; Monterio, Charles
RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Emily,
I/P Engine's response has been, and continues to be the same, including Charles's and my previous correspondence. I/P
Engine has provided its response on this issue.
Regards,

Dawn Rudenko Albert
Tel [phone]| Fax [phone]
[e-mail]



Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Emily O'Brien [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:50 PM
To: Albert, Dawn Rudenko
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; [e-mail]; W. Ryan Snow; Donald C. Schultz;
Monterio, Charles
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Dawn, 

Contrary to your implication, the statement in your latest email differs from what Plaintiff had said previously.  

In all events, we need an explicit and unequivocal confirmation that your email means that you have searched
for and produced or logged all Dickstein Shapiro documents in the categories covered in my August 1 e-mail
(offers, opinions, valuations, studies, negotiation, due diligence, etc.) and that your statement is not in any way
qualified by Charles' August 6 email.  

Absent such an explicit and unequivocal confirmation, we will proceed with our motion to compel. We have
gone back and forth on this several times now and we cannot keep delaying resolution of this issue with
Plaintiff’s continued semantics.  

Sincerely, 
Emily 

Emily O'Brien
Associate,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6323 Direct
415.875.6600 Main Office Number

1

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: Albert, Dawn Rudenko [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 1:30 PM
To: Emily O'Brien; Monterio, Charles
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; [e-mail]; W. Ryan Snow; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Emily,
We again unambiguously state the following: I/P Engine has produced all responsive, non-privileged
documents that were located after it conducted a reasonable search, and it identified all documents withheld
based upon privilege on its privilege log, subject to the parties' agreements regarding the scope of privilege
logs. Accordingly, there is nothing for Google to compel. If Google does file a motion, we request that it quote
this email (and attach it as an exhibit) as part of the meet and confer certification.
Regards,
Dawn Rudenko Albert
Tel [phone]| Fax [phone]
[e-mail]



Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

From: Emily O'Brien [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 2:39 PM
To: Monterio, Charles
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; [e-mail]; W. Ryan Snow; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Charles,   

There is no legitimate basis for your purported confusion.  We have discussed and put into writing our requests on 
multiple occasions and your efforts to limit or change the requests are transparent.  What we have requested is clear, 
yet you continue to refuse to confirm production of all responsive, non‐privileged documents related to the categories 
outlined in my August 1 email.  Accordingly, we will move forward with our motion to compel.   

Thank you, 
Emily 

Emily O'Brien
Associate,

2

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6323 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: Monday, August 06, 2012 1:18 PM
To: Emily O'Brien
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; [e-mail]; W. Ryan Snow; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Dear Emily, 

As we discussed during the August 2 meet and confer, your August 1 email is unclear as to what specifically is being 
requested.  From our review of the email, it appears that Defendants are seeking the production of documents: (1) 
relating to the “offers and/or negotiations,” including communications and other correspondence, between Lycos and 
Altitude, Hudson Bay (including I/P Engine (fka Smart Search Labs) and/or Eidos; and (2) any due diligence conducted by 
Dickstein Shapiro related to the Lycos patents.  In support of Defendants’ request, you identify RFP 1, 14, 16, 25 and 37.  
As these requests are directed to I/P Engine, your requests related to any of the other parties, to the extent that your 
demand is for documents in their possession, custody or control of other third‐parties, are improper.  Your demand that 
I/P Engine confirm that it “has produced or logged all Dickstein Shapiro documents responsive to these specific 
requests” is also unclear.  I/P Engine, to its best understanding, has produced relevant, non‐privileged documents in its 
possession, custody and control, including any relevant, non‐privileged documents from or to Dickstein Shapiro or the 
other named entities, responsive to Defendants’ RFPs.  To the extent that I/P Engine withheld any documents based 
upon privilege or some other protection or immunity, those documents were identified in its privilege log. 

Charles 

From: Emily O'Brien [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:38 AM
To: Monterio, Charles
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; [e-mail]; W. Ryan Snow; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Dear Charles, 

As we told you during yesterday’s meet and confer, the documents we requested in our August 1 email are responsive 
to a number of our requests for production.  They are responsive to at least RFP 14, which requests documents 
concerning ownership of the patents‐in‐suit, including any proposed conveyance of any interest in the patents; RFP 37, 
which requests documents concerning communications with third parties regarding the patents‐in‐suit; RFP 16, which 
requests all documents concerning any prior art investigations, analyses or searches; RFP 25, which requests all 
documents related to any studies, analyses, opinions or pre‐filing investigations or reports related to patentability, 
validity, enforceability or infringement of the patents‐in‐suit; and RFP 1, which requests documents that refer or relate 
to the patents‐in‐suit.  The topics outlined in our August 1 email are subsumed within these requests.  Please confirm 
3

that Plaintiff has produced or logged all Dickstein Shapiro documents responsive to these specific requests.  If we do not 
receive an affirmative response today, we will consider our meet and confer requirements concluded and seek leave of 
the Court as necessary.   

Thank you. 

Emily O'Brien
Associate,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6323 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, August 02, 2012 8:58 AM
To: Emily O'Brien
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; [e-mail]; W. Ryan Snow; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Emily,
We are available for a meet and confer today at 5 ET. Additionally, we want to discuss Google’s Third
Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.’s Interrogatories, specifically the new prior
art references included.
Charles

From: Emily O'Brien [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Monterio, Charles
Cc: zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; [e-mail]; W. Ryan Snow; Donald C. Schultz
Subject: Re: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Charles, 

We would be available to meet and confer at 5 ET.  Please let us know if that time would work for you. 

Thank you, 
Emily 

On Aug 1, 2012, at 8:53 PM, "Monterio, Charles" <[e-mail]> wrote: 
CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
4

Emily, 

As an initial matter, your email misconstrues the testimony of both Messrs Berger and Blais.
Neither witness testified that Dickstein Shapiro was “actively involved in offers to sell/purchase
Lycos’ patent portfolio.” Indeed, Mr. Blais specifically stated that Dickstein “made the
introductions,” it was not involved in discussions. Mr. Berger also testified that he contacted Mr.
Blais on his own, and was provided a list of patents potentially for sale by and negotiated with
Mr. Blais. Regardless, any investigations, communications or due diligence performed by
Dickstein Shapiro relating to the patents-in-suit are privileged and/or work product. Any
responsive, relevant materials have been identified on the privilege logs. Any responsive, nonprivileged materials have been produced. If there is a specific responsive document that you
believe otherwise exists, which is relevant to a claim or defense in this case, and has not been so
produced or identified, please let us know so that we can further investigate. If you believe we
need to meet and confer on this issue, we are generally available tomorrow afternoon. 

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

From: Emily O'Brien [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:27 PM
To: zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; '[e-mail]'
Subject: I/P Engine v. AOL et al.

Confidential Outside Counsel Only 

Counsel, 

It is apparent from the deposition testimony from Mr. Berger and Mr. Blais that Dickstein Shapiro was 
actively involved in offers to sell/purchase Lycos’ patent portfolio, including but not limited to the ‘420 
and ‘664 patents, at least as early as 2009.  This involvement, which apparently was not limited to work 
done on behalf of Lycos, included offers and/or negotiations between Lycos and at least Altitude Capital, 
Hudson Bay, Smart Search Labs (predecessor to I/P Engine), and Eidos.  It also included due diligence 
5

conducted by Dickstein Shapiro related to Lycos’ patents.  Any such communications, negotiations and 
analyses are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, as well as to damages, or reasonably likely 
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Despite their clear relevance, however, these materials 
have not been produced.  Given the limited timeframe left for discovery in this case, we need these 
documents produced immediately.  Please confirm today that all such documents related to these 
attempts to sell/purchase Lycos’ patents, whether internal or external, will be produced and provide a 
date certain for their production by the end of the day tomorrow.  If Plaintiff is unwilling to do this, 
please provide times for a meet and confer on this issue tomorrow.  Although we would like to work 
with you in having these important documents voluntarily produced, we reserve all rights to approach 
the Court to obtain them in an expeditious manner. 

Emily   

Emily O'Brien
Associate,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6323 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.  

6