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

Filing 686

Opposition to 293 MOTION to Dismiss all Claims Against AOL Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc. and Target Corporation filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Exhibit 2 

Confidential - Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
L/P ENGINE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
VS.
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
) 2:11-CV-512
AOL, INC., et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
**********************************************
ORAL/VIDEO DEPOSITION OF
STEPHEN L. BECKER, Ph.D.
SEPTEMBER 8, 2012
**********************************************
CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
ORAL DEPOSITION OF STEPHEN L. BECKER, Ph.D.,

16
produced as a witness at the instance of the Defendants,
17
was duly sworn, was taken in the above-styled and
18
numbered cause on the SEPTEMBER 8, 2012, from 8:24 a.m.
19
to 5:54 p.m., before Chris Carpenter, CSR, in and for
20
the State of Texas, reported by machine shorthand, at
21
the offices of ANDREWS & KURTH, 111 Congress Avenue,
22
Suite 1700, Austin, Texas 78701, pursuant to the Federal
23
Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on
24
25

the record or attached hereto.
Job No. CS416513
Veritext Corporate Services
800-567-8658

973-410-4040

Confidential - Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 7
1

A.

No.

2

Q.

The -- what do you understand the accused

3

product to be in this case?

4
5

Not in the room sort of haggling.

MS. ALBERT:
A.

Objection, vague.

It is Google's AdWords product and AdSense for

6

Search.

And then with respect to, you know, AOL,

7

there's some other sort of named pieces of that, AdSense

8

for mobile searches and other accused product that I

9

understand to be accused, and the AOL's Search

10

Marketplace, I think was the name of it, that is the

11

white label version of the Google AdSense that is

12

accused.

13

Q.

(By Mr. Perlson) Have you offered an opinion of

14

an appropriate level of damages against any party other

15

than Google in this case?

16
17

MS. ALBERT:
A.

Objection, vague.

I have -- the opinion that I offered is a

18

royalty structure and rate that would apply to all of

19

the ads serving revenue that goes through the accused

20

Google systems, regardless of whether it is Gannett or

21

IAC or one of the other defendants, and I've set those

22

amounts out separately in my report.

23

Q.

(By Mr. Perlson) Well, if, let's say, the jury

24

only found that Gannett was infringing, is there a

25

number that you could find -- that you could point to in
Veritext Corporate Services
800-567-8658

973-410-4040

Confidential - Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 8
1

your report that would say this is the appropriate

2

amount of the damages against Gannett?

3

MS. ALBERT:

Objection.

4

A.

I believe that number is in there, yes.

5

Q.

(By Mr. Perlson) That's in one of the charts or

6

something?

7

A.

It's in one of the exhibits to the report.

8

Q.

And you would agree that the patents at issue

9

in this case do not cover all aspects of AdWords?

10
11
12
13

MS. ALBERT:
A.

Objection.

I'm sorry your voice tailed off there, I didn't

hear the end of that question.
Q.

(By Mr. Perlson) Sure.

You would agree that

14

the patents at issue in this case do not cover all

15

aspects of AdWords; is that correct?

16

MS. ALBERT:

Objection, vague.

17

A.

I agree.

18

Q.

(By Mr. Perlson) And you would agree there are

19

many aspects of AdWords that Google has provided on its

20

own separate and apart from anything claimed in the

21

patents-in-suit, correct?

22

MS. ALBERT:

23

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

(By Mr. Perlson)

Objection, vague.

25

And are you -- do you know --

are you familiar with the predicted click-through rate?
Veritext Corporate Services
800-567-8658

973-410-4040