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

Filing 942

Declaration re 938 Memorandum in Opposition, by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 (Public Version), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Public Version), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Public Version), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Public Version), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Public Version), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Public Version), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Public Version), # 9 Exhibit 9 (Public Version), # 10 Exhibit 10 (Public Version), # 11 Exhibit 11 (Public Version), # 12 Exhibit 12 (Public Version), # 13 Exhibit 13 (Public Version), # 14 Exhibit 14 (Public Version), # 15 Exhibit 15 (Public Version), # 16 Exhibit 16 (Public Version), # 17 Exhibit 17 (Public Version), # 18 Exhibit 18 (Public Version), # 19 Exhibit 19 (Public Version), # 20 Exhibit 20 (Public Version), # 21 Exhibit 21 (Public Version), # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23, # 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25, # 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27, # 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29, # 30 Exhibit 30)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT 29

From:
Sent:

To:
Cc:
Subject:

David Perlson
Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:59 PM
Monterio, Charles
Emily O'Brien; zz-IPEngine; QE-IP Engine; Noona, Stephen E.; W. Ryan Snow
([e-mail] ); Donald C. Schultz (dschultz@cwm-law. corn)
Re: I/P Engine v. Google

Charles,

Despite the Defendants' good faith efforts, your response once again both mischaracterizes the parties'
discussions and represents a complete change in Plaintiffs position.

Your statement that "Defendants have not offered any substantive information about the alleged, future
change" is flatly untrue. Just as in recent discussions on extending the time to respond to a pending motion,
you distort the plain facts. In an April 8 email, we informed Plaintiff that 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. (See April 8 Email from Kammerud). Then, on
our April 9 call we specifically told you what was changing. I mentioned that Plaintiff accused three
functionalities of infringing its patents—QBB disabling, threshholding, and promotion. I told you that QBB
disabling has already been removed from AdWords. I also told you the accused promotion and thresholding
steps would be removed in the next few weeks. I can provide a further update that we expect these changes
to be code complete early next week, and launched about two weeks after that. Even more, in our April 12
email, we offered to make the source code related to this launch available for inspectionon May 17, and to
make Bartholomew Furrow available for deposition as well. There is no hypothetical or a mere possibility.
Defendants proposed a specific and definite plan for discovery related to these changes that have happened
and will happen.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff rejected this proposal, recanted on its agreed upon extension of briefing in connection
with its motion, and explicitly stated that it believed that no additional discovery was necessary for the parties
to provide responses to I/P Engine's ongoing royalties motion. Your own April 15 e-mail clearly and plainly
stated in no uncertain terms: "[a]nd we reconfirm that I/P Engine does not believe that additional discovery is
necessary for the parties to provide responses to I/P Engine's ongoing royalties motion." This position served
Plaintiff well when it was seeking to prevent the extension of time to respond to the pending motion.

Now that the Court has ordered expedited briefing on Defendants' Renewed Motion to Compel Becker Plaintiff
has strategically changed its tune. You now conveniently ignore your prior statements and are asserting that
you are entitled to, and in fact intend to take discovery into Google's changed system, but that you only intend
to do so once it's in place. There are several problems with this position.

1

First, as we have told you, QBB disabling is already gone. The change has been made. There is no need or
reason to wait for anything should Plaintiff believe, as it now asserts, that discovery into changes is
appropriate. We have offered this, Plaintiff has just refused to take it.  

Further, given that the code for the remaining changes will be available next week, there is no reason why
Plaintiff cannot review this code as well very soon.  

Thus, the only sensible thing to do is to proceed as we proposed in Meg’s April 12 email. But Plaintiff has
instead chosen to put its head in the sand and proceed as if the functionality it accused of meeting the filtering
elements does exist and will continue to exist. That does not reflect reality; your actions are needlessly forcing
a multiplication of litigation costs and smack of gamesmanship. 

We state again that, if Plaintiff continues to reject our proposal, moving forward on its motion for ongoing
royalties that is not based on the facts as they exist and forcing Defendants to respond to that motion without
taking up Defendants offer to Plaintiff of the opportunity to discover the actual facts, then we will oppose any
later attempt by Plaintiff to obtain the same discovery Plaintiff now says it does not need. It is unfair for
Plaintiff to reserve the right to take some unknown additional amount of discovery at some undetermined future
point in time after having stated that such discovery was unnecessary, and after Defendants have already
responded to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Post-Judgment Damages that Defendants have already
informed Plaintiff is based on assumptions that are incorrect.  

Please include this correspondence as an exhibit to its opposition to Defendants’ Renewed Motion should you
include the email to which it responds. It is only fair that you present the Court with a complete picture of our
efforts to resolve this matter. 

David 

On Apr 17, 2013, at 3:30 PM, "Monterio, Charles" <[e-mail]> wrote: 

Emily, 

Defendants notified I/P Engine of the possibility that Google may implement a future AdWords 
system that Google claims will be non‐infringing.  Defendants have not offered any substantive 
information about the alleged, future change, instead only offering a deposition of Mr. Furrow 
in June.  Significant additional discovery will be necessary to the extent that Google claims that 
it has (at some time in the future) launched a design around.  Google's claim that it may, 
sometime in the future launch a non‐infringing system is separate and apart from I/P Engine's 
motion for ongoing royalties.  The ongoing royalties briefing is based on (1) Defendants’ 
ongoing infringement and use of Google’s adjudged infringing system – which is the current 
system, and (2) the jury’s special interrogatory determinations on the verdict form.  Neither is 
2

impacted by a possible future implementation of the AdWords system that was 
not submitted at the time of the verdict; and Defendants have not provided any case law to 
support any position to the contrary.   

Because these two issues are unrelated, I/P Engine cannot agree to an offer to discuss the 
future system based on an unrelated agreement to postpone the ongoing royalties briefing 
schedule.  Defendants' demand that I/P Engine do so is inappropriate.  If Google does launch 
what it claims to be a design around, only then will discovery be appropriate relating to that 
claim.  I/P Engine will seek discovery and other remedies from the Court to the extent that this 
becomes an issue in the future. 

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 prohibited. 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: Emily O'Brien [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:57 PM
To: zz-IPEngine
Cc: QE-IP Engine; 'Noona, Stephen E.'
Subject: I/P Engine v. Google 

Counsel, 

As we informed you on our meet and confers, Defendants will be raising the imminent change to 
Google’s system, which removes the accused functionality for promotion and disabling, as part of their 
opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Post‐Judgment Royalties.   Plaintiff has refused to take 
any discovery as to this change.  Instead, on our call yesterday, Plaintiff indicated that it would address 
this change in some sort of separate proceeding and then would pursue discovery in such a proceeding.  
As we have indicated, a separate proceeding for dealing with this change makes no sense given that the 
change will be in place before the Court rules on Plaintiff’s demand for an on‐going royalty.  In any 
event, as we have indicated and given Plaintiff’s stated position that no discovery at all is warranted in 
connection with Plaintiff’s Motion for Post‐Judgment royalties, Defendants will not provide any 
discovery related to this design around at a later time after they have filed their opposition brief.   

Thank you, 
Emily    

3

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.  

4