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

Filing 927

Opposition to 926 MOTION to Expedite and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Expedite the Briefing on Defendants' Renewed Motion to Compel Deposition of Dr. Becker and for Enlargement of Time to Oppose Plaintiff's Motion for Post-Judgment Royalties filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)

Exhibit 5

5

David Perlson
Partner,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6344 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: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:30 PM
To: Margaret P. Kammerud; zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; 'W. Ryan Snow ([e-mail])'; 'Donald C. Schultz ([e-mail])'
Subject: RE: I/P Engine v. Google -- Proposed Schedule for Post-Judgment Damages

Meg, 
It seems that there is a disconnect in what we discussed during our call earlier this week.  We never agreed that 
extending the briefing schedule concerning I/P Engine’s ongoing royalties motion was appropriate.  During the meet and 
confer, we agreed to consider a subsequent proposal from Defendants to address the alleged issues that Defendants 
believe exist based on Google’s future implementation of an allegedly, non‐infringing AdWords system.  While I/P 
Engine does not understand fully why Defendants believe this future AdWords system impacts the ongoing royalties 
briefing other than potentially establishing a sunset date, we were willing to consider your proposal and explanation for 
it.  
Based on your email below, it is unclear as to what type of extension and discovery relating to both the current briefing 
schedule and discovery relating to Google’s claimed design around you are proposing.  
Please clarify so that we can consider and respond. 
Charles  
(202) 420‐5167 

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 proh bited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply email message or
notify our email administrator at [e-mail] 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: Margaret P. Kammerud [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 4:56 PM
To: Monterio, Charles; zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'; 'W. Ryan Snow ([e-mail])'; 'Donald C. Schultz (dschultz@cwm-

2

law.com)'
Subject: I/P Engine v. Google -- Proposed Schedule for Post-Judgment Damages

Charles, 

As discussed on our call this week, the parties are in agreement that some extension to the present briefing schedule 
concerning Plaintiff’s motion for post‐judgment damages is appropriate.   

In order to allow Plaintiff ample time for discovery concerning the launch of a change in the operation of AdWords and 
to allow Defendants ample discovery concerning Plaintiff’s post‐judgment damage theories, we propose the following 
schedule.  Bartholomew Furrow will be traveling outside the country in May and early June, so at this point, June 7 is the 
earliest deposition date we can offer for him 

Please let us know if you are amenable to this schedule, and we will prepare a motion seeking this extension. 

In interim, while you are considering this proposal, can you confirm that Plaintiff will agree to an additional two weeks 
for the Defendants’ opposition brief?  We will obviously reciprocate with your reply. 

Best, 
Meg   

Proposed Schedule: 
∙         May 17 ‐ Source code available for review 
∙         On or before June 7 ‐ Provide Bartholomew Furrow for deposition  
∙         June 21 ‐ Plaintiff to serve any additional expert declaration or revised motion. 
∙         July 2  ‐ Dr. Becker (or any other expert on whom Plaintiff may rely) will be made available for deposition 
by this date.    
∙         Defendants will have two weeks from final expert(s) deposition to file opposition. 
∙         Plaintiff will have two weeks from filing of opposition to file reply. 

Margaret P. Kammerud
Associate,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
415-875-6316 Direct
415.875.6600 Main Office Number
415.875.6700 FAX
[e-mail]
www.quinnemanuel.com
3

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.

4