I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
925
Declaration re 924 Memorandum in Support, (Declaration of David Perlson in Support of Defendants' Renewed Motion to Compel Deposition of Dr. Becker and for Enlargement of Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Post-Judgment Royalties) by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Noona, Stephen)
EXHIBIT 1
Margarette Toban
Subject:
Margaret P. Kammerud
Monday, April 08, 2013 3:18 PM
Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; W. Ryan Snow (wrsnow@cwm-law.com); Donald C.
Schultz (dschultz@cwm-law.com)
RE: I/P Engine v. Google et al.
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Counsel,
On Tuesday’s meet and confer we would like to discuss the briefing schedule for Post‐Judgment royalties.
Initially, as before, we request that Plaintiff provide dates for deposition of Dr. Becker, which we will need at
least 5 days before our opposition is due.
Further, Google will be launching a change in the operation of AdWords that would remove the functionality
that Plaintiff has pointed to for infringement of the filtering step, and would not infringe under Plaintiff’s
theories. In an effort to provide meaningful confirmation and to avoid wasteful, additional motion practice,
we are willing, in good faith, to provide limited discovery into this functionality. We suggest meeting and
conferring on how to proceed and a schedule for doing so.
Because of travel schedules, Google would like to conduct the meet and confer on Tuesday, April 9 at 2:30 pm
PT / 5:30 pm ET. Please let us know you are available, and we will circulate a dial‐in number.
Best,
Meg
From: Monterio, Charles [mailto:MonterioC@dicksteinshapiro.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 1:32 PM
To: Emily O'Brien; zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; W. Ryan Snow (wrsnow@cwm-law.com); Donald C. Schultz (dschultz@cwmlaw.com)
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. Google et al.
Emily,
While I/P Engine cannot blanket agree to staying the execution of its upheld judgment in this case pending final
resolution of all appeals, I/P Engine is willing to discuss the stay issue for purposes of the pending appeal. I/P
Engine would also like to discuss resolution of the ongoing royalties issue in light of Judge Jackson’s rulings.
Because of scheduling, I/P Engine proposes conducting the meet and confer on Tuesday, April 9 at 2 PM ET.
Charles
1
Confidentiality Statement
This email message, including any attachments, is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain privileged
and/or confidential material. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, printing, copying, or other
dissemination of this email message is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message or
notify our email administrator at postmaster@dicksteinshapiro.com and permanently delete and destroy the original message and any and all copies, including
printouts and electronic copies on any computer system.
Dickstein Shapiro LLP
www.DicksteinShapiro.com
From: Emily O'Brien [mailto:emilyobrien@quinnemanuel.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 2:50 PM
To: zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. Google et al.
Counsel,
Given the upcoming deadline, we would like to discuss this issue as soon as possible. Please respond today.
Thank you,
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
emilyobrien@quinnemanuel.com
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: Emily O'Brien
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 10:02 AM
To: zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Subject: I/P Engine v. Google et al.
Counsel,
I write regarding the upcoming deadline for execution of judgment in the I/P Engine v. Google et al. matter. We would
request that Plaintiff agree that execution of judgment be stayed pending final resolution of all appeals in this matter.
Please let us know as soon as possible if Plaintiff is agreeable to the above. If not, please provide a time tomorrow
morning when you would be available to confer.
Thank you,
Emily
2
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
emilyobrien@quinnemanuel.com
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.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?