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

Filing 837

Memorandum in Support re 835 MOTION for Judgment under Rule 52(B) and a New Trial under Rule 59 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)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Exhibit 3

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
No. 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-FBS
Plaintiff,
v.

CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
ONLY

AOL, INC., GOOGLE INC., IAC SEARCH &
MEDIA, INC., GANNETT COMPANY,
INC., and TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF I/P
ENGINE, INC.'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 36, Defendant Google Inc. hereby
objects and responds in writing to I/P Engine, Inc.'s First Set of Requests for Admission as
served on August 1, 2012.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following general objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admission are
incorporated by reference into Google's response to each individual request:
1. Google objects to Plaintiff's "Requests for Admission" to the extent that they are
overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and impose burdens beyond those permitted by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. Google objects to Plaintiff’s “Requests for Admission” as exceeding the agreed upon
limit of 35 requests per party in that Plaintiff served a total of 216 “Requests for Admission,”
none of which are properly characterized as requests for authentication of documents.
3. Google objects to the definition of the term "document," on the grounds that it is

1

CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY

objects to this Request for Admission to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other
applicable privilege. Google also objects to this request to the extent it imposes any burden
beyond that allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or any other
applicable rules or orders.

Google further objects to this request to the extent it seeks

information not within the possession, custody, or control of Google.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22:
Subject to and without waiver of the objections above and without admitting
infringement of any asserted claim or limitation therein, Google denies this Request for
Admission.

REQUEST NO. 23:
Admit that Google is indemnifying co-defendants Target Corporation, IAC Search &
Media, Inc., Gannett Company, Inc. and AOL Inc. with respect to their respective use of
Google's AdSense for Search or AOL's Search Marketplace systems in the present litigation.

OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. 23:
Google incorporates each of the foregoing general objections. Google further objects to
this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly as to the
term "indemnifying," and that it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this Request for
Admission on the grounds it seeks the confidential and/or proprietary information of third
parties. Google further objects to this Request for Admission to the extent that it calls for the
disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product

24

CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY

doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Google also objects to this request to the extent it
imposes any burden beyond that allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local
Rules, or any other applicable rules or orders. Google further objects to this request to the extent
it seeks information not within the possession, custody, or control of Google.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23:
Subject to and without waiver of the objections above and without admitting
infringement of any asserted claim or limitation therein, Google responds that on the basis of its
objections, it can neither admit nor deny this Request for Admission.

REQUEST NO. 24:
Admit that AdSense for Search first used pCTR in 2005.

OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST NO. 24:
Google incorporates each of the foregoing general objections. Google further objects to
this Request for Admission on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, particularly as to the
terms “AdSense for Search,” "first used" and "pCTR," and that it calls for a legal conclusion.
Google further objects to this Request for Admission to the extent that it calls for the disclosure
of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or
any other applicable privilege. Google also objects to this request to the extent it imposes any
burden beyond that allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or any
other applicable rules or orders. Google further objects to this request to the extent it seeks
information not within the possession, custody, or control of Google.

25

CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY