Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 240

STATEMENT re Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement by Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit A-1, #6 Exhibit B-1, #7 Exhibit C-1, #8 Exhibit D-1, #9 Exhibit 1, #10 Exhibit 2, #11 Exhibit 3, #12 Exhibit 4, #13 Exhibit 5, #14 Exhibit 6)(Berry, Matthew)

Exhibit 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
INTERVAL LICENSING LLC,
Case No. 2:10-cv-01385-MJP
Plaintiff,
v.
AOL, INC.; APPLE, INC.; eBAY, INC.;
JURY DEMAND
FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE INC.;
NETFLIX, INC.; OFFICE DEPOT,
INC.; OFFICEMAX INC.; STAPLES,
INC.; YAHOO! INC.; AND
YOUTUBE, LLC,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFF INTERVAL LICENSING LLC’S DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 120 and the Court’s Standing Order for Patent Cases
(Docket No. 26), Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC (“Interval”) hereby provides its Disclosure of
Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions. Interval reserves the right to supplement or alter
its responses herein based on additional information obtained through formal discovery or other
means concerning Defendants’ products and services.
I.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,263,507 (THE ’507 PATENT)
a. Infringed Claims of the ’507 Patent and Infringing Products
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that AOL, Inc. (“AOL”)

directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77,

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

1

and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its websites. Because
AOL operates a significant number of websites that infringe in a substantially identical way,
Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against
specific websites in Exhibits A-1 through A-15. For purposes of brevity, Exhibit A-15 identifies
additional examples of infringement on a variety of additional AOL websites in a more concise
form in which the material portions of the webpages are identified in a single screenshot. The
infringement theories for these summary charts correspond to the theories in the more exhaustive
charts in Exhibits A-1 through A-14. AOL directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of
all websites that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality
identified in Exhibits A-1 through A-15, including at least the following:

AOL Answers,

Asylum, Auto Blog, Aol Autos, Big Download, BlackVoices, The Boombox, The Boot, Cambio,
Cinematical, City’s Best, Comics Alliance, DailyFinance, Engadget, Fanhouse, Flea Flicker,
Gadling, GameDaily, Games.com, AOL Health, Holidash, Housing Watch, AOL Find a Job,
Joystiq, JSYK, Aol Kids, Kitchen Daily, AOL Latino, Lemondrop, AOL Lifestream, AOL Mail,
Marlo Thomas.com, Massively, MMA Fighting.com, Moviefone, AOL Music, My Daily, AOL
News, NoiseCreep, Parent Dish, Patch, Paw Nation, Politics Daily, PopEater, AOL Radio, AOL
Real Estate, Rented Spaces, AOL Seed, ShelterPop, AOL Shopping, Shortcut$, SHOUTcast,
Slashfood, AOL Small Business, Spinner, Stylelist, Switched, AOL Television, Tourtracker,
AOL Travel, Truveo, Tu-Voz, Tuaw, TV Squad, URLesque, AOL Videos, WalletPop, Winamp,
and WOW.com.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that AOL directly infringes
claims 39, 40, 43, 82, 83 and 86 of the ’507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) during the operation

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

2

of its AOL Mail spam filtering system. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against the
AOL Mail spam filtering system are provided in Exhibit A-16.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Apple, Inc. (“Apple”)
directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77,
and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its Apple.com Store,
iTunes, Apple TV, and App Store systems. Because the Apple.com Store, iTunes, Apple TV,
and App Store systems comprise a significant number of pages that operate in a substantially
identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement
assertions against specific pages within those systems. Apple directly infringes the ’507 patent
in the operation of all systems that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the
infringing functionality identified in Exhibits B-1 through B-11.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that eBay, Inc. (“eBay”)
directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77,
and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its websites, including
at least eBay.com and Half.com. Because the eBay websites comprise a significant number of
pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not
exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages within eBay’s websites. eBay
directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of all webpages that contain functionality that
is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibits C-1 through C-4.
Furthermore, Interval has observed that the headings (e.g., “Check out the most watched”) may
change.

Nothing herein should be construed to limit Interval’s infringement assertions to

recommendations that fall under particular headings.

Interval asserts that the underlying

functionality—and not the heading that is used—infringes the ’507 patent.

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

3

Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Facebook, Inc.
(“Facebook”) directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its
Facebook.com website. Because the Facebook website comprises a significant number of pages
that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not
exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages within Facebook’s website.
Facebook directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of all webpages that contain
functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibits D-1
through D-3.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google, Inc.
(“Google”) directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 38, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
70, 71, 74, 77, 80 and 81 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its
websites. Because Google operates a significant number of websites and webpages that infringe
in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed
infringement assertions against specific websites and webpages in Exhibits E-1 through E-13.
Google directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of all websites that contain
functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibits E-1
through E-13, including at least the following: Boutiques.com, Google Products, Gmail, Google
Books, Google Finance, Google Videos, Google Knol, Google Groups, Google Desktop, Google
Maps, Orkut, and Google Search.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google and its third
party premium publishers directly infringe claims 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65,
67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) through the operation of its

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

4

Google AdSense and Google Display Network programs. As described in further detail in
Exhibit E-14, the joint acts of Google and the third party premium publishers result in direct
infringement of the ’507 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 39, 40, 43, 82, 83 and 86 of the ’507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) during the
operation of its Gmail spam filtering system. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against
the Gmail spam filtering system are provided in Exhibit E-15.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 39, 40, 43, 82, 83 and 86 of the ’507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) during the
operation of its Google Books indexing and categorization system.

Interval’s detailed

infringement assertions against the Google Books indexing and categorization system are
provided in Exhibit E-16.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Netflix, Inc.
(“Netflix”) directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70,
71, 74, 77, and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its
Netflix.com website. Because the Netflix website comprises a significant number of pages that
operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive)
detailed infringement assertions against specific pages within Netflix’s website. Netflix directly
infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of all webpages that contain functionality that is
substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit F-1.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Office Depot, Inc.
(“Office Depot”) directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66,
67, 70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

5

websites. Because the Office Depot websites comprise a significant number of pages that operate
in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed
infringement assertions against specific pages within Office Depot’s OfficeDepot.com and
TechDepot.com websites. Office Depot directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of all
websites and webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing
functionality identified in Exhibits G-1 through G-2, including at least OfficeDepot.com and
TechDepot.com. Furthermore, Interval has observed that the headings (e.g., “Customers Who
Viewed This Item Purchased”) may change.

Nothing herein should be construed to limit

Interval’s infringement assertions to recommendations that fall under particular headings.
Interval asserts that the underlying functionality—and not the heading that is used—infringes the
’507 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that OfficeMax, Inc.
(“OfficeMax”) directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its
websites. Because the OfficeMax websites comprise a significant number of pages that operate
in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed
infringement assertions against specific pages within OfficeMax’s OfficeMax.com website.
OfficeMax directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of all websites and webpages that
contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in
Exhibit

H-1,

including

at

least

OfficeMax.com,

MaxBuyer.OfficeMax.com,

Government.OfficeMax.com, and OfficeMaxSolutions.com. Furthermore, Interval has observed
that the headings (e.g., “Also Consider”) may change. Nothing herein should be construed to
limit Interval’s infringement assertions to recommendations that fall under particular headings.

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

6

Interval asserts that the underlying functionality—and not the heading that is used—infringes the
’507 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Staples, Inc.
(“Staples”) directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70,
71, 74, 77, and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its
websites. Because the Staples websites comprise a significant number of pages that operate in a
substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed
infringement assertions against specific pages within Staples’s Staples.com website. Staples
directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of all websites and webpages that contain
functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit I-1,
including at least Staples.com, EWay.com, StaplesLink.com, and Staples4Government.com.
Furthermore, Interval has observed that the headings (e.g., “Recommended For You”) may
change.

Nothing herein should be construed to limit Interval’s infringement assertions to

recommendations that fall under particular headings.

Interval asserts that the underlying

functionality—and not the heading that is used—infringes the ’507 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo, Inc. (“Yahoo”)
directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 74, 77,
and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its websites. Because
Yahoo operates a significant number of websites that infringe in a substantially identical way,
Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against
specific websites in Exhibits J-1 through J-15. For purposes of brevity, Exhibit J-15 identifies
additional examples of infringement on a variety of additional Yahoo websites in a more concise
form in which the material portions of the webpages are identified in a single screenshot. The

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

7

infringement theories for these summary charts correspond to the theories in the more exhaustive
charts in Exhibits J-1 through J-14. Yahoo directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of
all websites that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality
identified in Exhibits J-1 through J-15, including at least the following: Flickr, Hotjobs, Rivals,
Yahoo Advertising, Yahoo Alerts, Yahoo Auto, Yahoo Avatar, Yahoo Biz, Yahoo Bookmarks,
Yahoo Buzz, Yahoo Education, Yahoo Entertainment, Yahoo Events, Yahoo Finance, Yahoo
Games, Yahoo Green, Yahoo Groups, Yahoo Health, Yahoo Kids, Yahoo Lifestyle, Yahoo
Maps, Yahoo Mail, Yahoo Mobile, Yahoo Movies, Yahoo Music, My Yahoo, Yahoo News,
Yahoo OMG!, Yahoo People, Yahoo Pulse, Yahoo Real Estate, Yahoo Shine, Yahoo Shopping,
Yahoo Small Business, Yahoo Sports, Yahoo Travel, Yahoo TV, Yahoo Video, Yahoo Video
Games, Yahoo Weather, Yahoo Widgets, Yahoo Answers, and Yahoo Local.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo and its Yahoo
Partner publishers directly infringe claims 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70,
71, 74, 77, and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) through the operation of its
Content Match for Yahoo Search Marketing and Yahoo Advertising Solutions programs. As
described in further detail in Exhibits J-16 through J-17, the joint acts of Yahoo and its Yahoo
Partner publishers result in direct infringement of the ’507 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo directly
infringes claims 39, 40, 43, 82, 83 and 86 of the ’507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) during the
operation of its Yahoo Mail spam filtering system. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions
against the Yahoo Mail spam filtering system are provided in Exhibit J-18.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that YouTube, LLC
(“YouTube”) directly infringes claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

8

70, 71, 74, 77, and 80 of the ’507 patent under 35 US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its
YouTube.com website. Because the YouTube website comprises a significant number of pages
that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not
exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages within YouTube’s website.
YouTube directly infringes the ’507 patent in the operation of all webpages that contain
functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit K-1.
Interval expressly reserves the right to augment and supplement its identification of
asserted claims and infringing products based on additional information obtained through formal
discovery, including expected discovery of source code for the accused websites.
b. Claim Charts for Literal Infringement of the ’507 Patent
Interval’s detailed infringement assertions with respect to the ’507 patent are contained in
Exhibits A-1 through A-16, B-1 through B-11, C-1 through C-4, D-1 through D-3, E-1 through
E-16, F-1, G-1 through G-2, H-1, I-1, J-1 through J-18, and K-1.
c. Doctrine of Equivalents
Interval contends that Defendants literally infringe the asserted claims of the ’507 patent,
as reflected in the provided claim charts. To the extent Defendants successfully argue any
limitation is not literally present in any accused product, Interval asserts infringement under the
doctrine of equivalents because the differences between any accused product and any claim
limitations are insubstantial.
d. Priority Claim of the ’507 Patent to an Earlier Application
The ’507 patent does not claim priority to any earlier application.
II.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652 (THE ’652 PATENT)
a. Infringed Claims of the ’652 Patent and Infringing Products

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

9

Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that AOL directly infringes
claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using
the AOL Instant Messenger software. AOL directly infringes claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(a) by making and using a server that contains the Instant Messenger software that AOL
makes available to users. When the AOL Instant Messenger software is installed and/or used by
third party users, those users directly infringe claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent.
AOL induces infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement under 35
U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the AOL Instant Messenger software by, e.g., Internet
download. AOL provides the Instant Messenger software knowing that it is especially adapted
for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Instant Messenger software is not capable of
substantial non-infringing use. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against AOL Instant
Messenger are provided in Exhibit A-17.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that AOL directly infringes
claims 4, 5, 8, 11, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the
Lifestream software. AOL directly infringes claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and
using a server that contains the Lifestream software that AOL makes available to users. When
the Lifestream software is installed and/or used by third party users, those users directly infringe
claims 4, 5, 8, 11, and 18 of the ’652 patent. AOL induces infringement and contributes to the
third party users’ direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the
Lifestream software by, e.g., Internet download.

AOL provides the Lifestream software

knowing that it is especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Lifestream
software is not capable of substantial non-infringing use.

Interval’s detailed infringement

assertions against AOL Lifestream are provided in Exhibit A-18.

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

10

Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Apple directly
infringes claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, and 16 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making,
using, selling, and offering to sell Apple computers that contain the Mac OS, Apple Dashboard
software, and the default set of widgets. Apple directly infringes claims 15, 16, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using a server that contains the thousands of widgets that Apple
makes available to users. When third party users use Apple computers with the Mac OS, Apple
Dashboard software, and various widgets (including both the default set of widgets and other
widgets made available by Apple), those users directly infringe claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18
of the ’652 patent. Apple induces infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Apple computers, Mac OS,
Apple Dashboard software, and widget software. Apple provides the Apple Dashboard software
and widgets software knowing that they are especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted
claims. The Apple Dashboard and widgets software is not capable of substantial non-infringing
use. Because Apple provides hundreds of widgets that infringe in a substantially identical way,
Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against
specific widgets in Exhibit B-12. Apple is liable for infringing the ’652 patent by making, using,
and providing the software for all widgets that contain functionality that is substantially similar
to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit B-12.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 4, 5, 11, 15, 16, and 17 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using the Gmail Notifier software. Google directly infringes claims 15, 16, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using a server that contains the Gmail Notifier software that
Google makes available to users. When the Gmail Notifier software is installed and/or used by

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

11

third party users, those users directly infringe claims 4, 5, 11, 15, 16, and 17 of the ’652 patent.
Google induces infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement under
35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Gmail Notifier software by, e.g., Internet download.
Google provides the Gmail Notifier software knowing that it is especially adapted for use in
infringing the asserted claims. The Gmail Notifier software is not capable of substantial noninfringing use. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against Gmail Notifier are provided in
Exhibit E-17.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by
making and using the Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition software. Google directly
infringes claims 15, 16, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using a server that
contains the Google Talk and Google Talks Labs Edition software that Google makes available
to users. When the Google Talk or Google Talk Labs Edition software is installed and/or used
by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the ’652
patent. Google induces infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition
software by, e.g., Internet download. Google provides the Google Talk and Google Talk Labs
Edition software knowing that it is especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted claims.
The Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition software is not capable of substantial noninfringing use. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against Google Talk and Google Talk
Labs Edition are provided in Exhibits E-18 through E-19.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

12

making and using the Google Desktop software and the associated gadgets software. Google
directly infringes claims 15, 16, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using a server that contains the Google Desktop software and associated gadgets software
that Google makes available to users. When the Google Desktop software and associated
gadgets software are installed and/or used by third party users, those users directly infringe
claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 of the ’652 patent. Google induces infringement and
contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by
providing the Google Desktop software and associated gadgets software by, e.g., Internet
download. Google provides the Google Desktop software and associated gadgets software
knowing that they are especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Google
Desktop software and associated gadgets software are not capable of substantial non-infringing
use. Because Google provides hundreds of gadgets that infringe in a substantially identical way,
Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against
specific gadgets in Exhibit E-20. Google is liable for infringing the ’652 patent by making,
using, and providing the software for all gadgets that contain functionality that is substantially
similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit E-20.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 4, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by
making and using the Android Operating System software and associated software including,
e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software. Google directly
infringes claims 4, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by
making, using, selling, and offering to sell devices including, e.g., the Google Nexus One and
Nexus S, that contain the Android Operating System software and associated software including,

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

13

e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software. Google directly
infringes claims 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and
using a server that contains the Android Operating System software and associated software
including, e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software, that Google
makes available to users. When the Android Operating System software and associated software
including, e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software are installed
on devices that are offered for sale or sold, the vendor directly infringes claims 4, 8, 11, 15, 16,
17, and 18 of the ’652 patent. When the Android Operating System software and associated
software including, e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software,
are installed and/or used by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 4, 8, 11, 15, 16,
17, and 18 of the ’652 patent. Google induces infringement and contributes to the vendors’ and
the third party users’ direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the
Android Operating System software and, e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and
Google Talk software. Google provides the Android Operating System software and, e.g., Text
Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software, knowing that they are especially
adapted for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Android Operating System software and,
e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software, are not capable of
substantial non-infringing use. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against the Android
Operating System software and associated software are provided in Exhibit E-21.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo directly
infringes claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using the Yahoo Messenger software. Yahoo directly infringes claims 17 and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using a server that contains the Yahoo Messenger software that

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

14

Yahoo makes available to users. When the Yahoo Messenger software is installed and/or used
by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent.
Yahoo induces infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement under
35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Yahoo Messenger software by, e.g., Internet
download. Yahoo provides the Yahoo Messenger software knowing that it is especially adapted
for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Yahoo Messenger software is not capable of
substantial non-infringing use.

Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against Yahoo

Messenger are provided in Exhibit J-19.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo directly
infringes claims 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by
making and using the Yahoo Widgets software and the associated widgets software. Yahoo
directly infringes claims 15, 16, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using a server that contains the Yahoo Widgets software and associated widgets software
that Yahoo makes available to users. When the Yahoo Widgets software and associated widgets
software are installed and/or used by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 4, 5, 6,
8, 11, 15, 16, and 18 of the ’652 patent. Yahoo induces infringement and contributes to the third
party users’ direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Yahoo
Widgets software and associated widgets software by, e.g., Internet download. Yahoo provides
the Yahoo Widgets software and associated widgets software knowing that they are especially
adapted for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Yahoo Widgets software and associated
widgets software are not capable of substantial non-infringing use. Because Yahoo provides
thousands of widgets that infringe in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided
exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific widgets in

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

15

Exhibit J-20. Yahoo is liable for infringing the ’652 patent by making, using, and providing the
software for all widgets that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing
functionality identified in Exhibit J-20.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo directly
infringes claims 4, 5, and 15 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using
the Yahoo Connected TV software and the associated widgets software.

Yahoo directly

infringes claim 15 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using a server that
contains the Yahoo Widgets software and associated widgets software that Yahoo makes
available to users. When the Yahoo Connected TV software and associated widgets software are
installed on televisions that are offered for sale or sold, the vendor directly infringes claims 4, 5,
and 15 of the ’652 patent. When televisions containing the Yahoo Connected TV software and
associated widgets software are used by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 4,
5, and 15 of the ’652 patent. Yahoo induces infringement and contributes to the infringement of
the vendors and the third party users by providing the Yahoo Connected TV software and
associated widgets software. Yahoo provides the Yahoo Connected TV software and associated
widgets software knowing that they are especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted
claims. The Yahoo Connected TV software and associated widgets software are not capable of
substantial non-infringing use.

Because Yahoo provides many widgets that infringe in a

substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed
infringement assertions against specific widgets in Exhibit J-21. Yahoo is liable for infringing
the ’652 patent by making, using, and providing the software for all widgets that contain
functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit J-21.

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

16

Interval expressly reserves the right to augment and supplement its identification of
asserted claims and infringing products based on additional information obtained through formal
discovery, including expected discovery of source code for the accused products.
b. Claim Charts for Literal Infringement of the ’652 Patent
Interval’s detailed infringement assertions with respect to the ’652 patent are contained in
Exhibits A-17 through A-18, B-12, E-17 through E-21, and J-19 through J-21.
c. Doctrine of Equivalents
Interval contends that Defendants literally infringe the asserted claims of the ’652 patent,
as reflected in the provided claim charts. To the extent Defendants successfully argue any
limitation is not literally present in any accused product, Interval asserts infringement under the
doctrine of equivalents because the differences between any accused product and any claim
limitations are insubstantial.
d. Priority Claim of the ’652 Patent to an Earlier Application
The ’652 patent does not claim priority to any earlier application.
III.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314 (THE ’314 PATENT)
a. Infringed Claims of the ’314 Patent and Infringing Products
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that AOL directly infringes

claims 1 and 3 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the hardware
and software that operate the AOL Instant Messenger system infrastructure. AOL directly
infringes claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using the AOL Instant Messenger software. AOL directly infringes claims 13 and 15 by
making and using a server that contains the Instant Messenger software that AOL makes
available to users. When the AOL Instant Messenger software is installed and/or used by third

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

17

party users, those users directly infringe claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15.

AOL induces

infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement under 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(b) and (c) by providing the AOL Instant Messenger software by, e.g., Internet download.
AOL provides the Instant Messenger software knowing that it is especially adapted for use in
infringing the asserted claims. The Instant Messenger software is not capable of substantial noninfringing use. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against AOL Instant Messenger are
provided in Exhibit A-19.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that AOL directly infringes
claims 1 and 3 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the hardware
and software that operate the AOL Lifestream system infrastructure. AOL directly infringes
claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using
the Lifestream software. AOL directly infringes claims 13 and 15 by making and using a server
that contains the Lifestream software that AOL makes available to users. When the Lifestream
software is installed and/or used by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 7, 9, 10,
12, 13 and 15. AOL induces infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Lifestream software by, e.g.,
Internet download. AOL provides the Lifestream software knowing that it is especially adapted
for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Lifestream software is not capable of substantial
non-infringing use.

Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against AOL Lifestream are

provided in Exhibit A-20.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Apple directly
infringes claims 1 and 3 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the
hardware and software that operate the Apple Dashboard system infrastructure. Apple directly

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

18

infringes claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making,
using, selling, and offering to sell Apple computers that contain the Mac OS, Apple Dashboard
software, and the default set of widgets. Apple directly infringes claims 10 and 12 of the ’314
patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using the Apple Dashboard software and various widgets
(including both the default set of widgets and other widgets made available by Apple). Apple
directly infringes claims 13 and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and
using a server that contains the thousands of widgets that Apple makes available to users. When
third party users use Apple computers with the Mac OS, Apple Dashboard software, and various
widgets (including both the default set of widgets and other widgets made available by Apple),
those users directly infringe claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’314 patent. Apple induces
infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement under 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(b) and (c) by providing the Apple computers, Mac OS, Apple Dashboard software, and
widget software. Apple provides the Apple Dashboard software and widgets software knowing
that they are especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Apple Dashboard
and widgets software is not capable of substantial non-infringing use. Because Apple provides
hundreds of widgets that infringe in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided
exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions in Exhibit B-13. Apple is liable
for infringing the ’314 patent by making, using, and providing Apple Dashboard and widget
software that contains functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality
identified in Exhibit B-13.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 1 and 3 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the
hardware and software that operate the Google Talk and Google Talks Labs Edition systems

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

19

infrastructure. Google directly infringes claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 of the ’314 patent under
35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition
software. Google directly infringes claims 13 and 15 by making and using a server that contains
the Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition software that Google makes available to users.
When the Google Talk or Google Talk Labs Edition software is installed and/or used by third
party users, those users directly infringe claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15. Google induces
infringement and contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement under 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(b) and (c) by providing the Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition software by, e.g.,
Internet download. Google provides the Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition software
knowing that it is especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Google Talk
and Google Talk Labs Edition software is not capable of substantial non-infringing use.
Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against Google Talk and Google Talk Labs Edition
are provided in Exhibits E-22 through E-23.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 1 and 3 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the
hardware and software that operate the Google Desktop system infrastructure. Google directly
infringes claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using the Google Desktop software and the associated gadgets software. Google directly
infringes claims 13 and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using a
server that contains the Google Desktop software and associated gadgets software that Google
makes available to users. When the Google Desktop software and associated gadgets software
are installed and/or used by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13,
and 15 of the ’314 patent. Google induces infringement and contributes to the third party users’

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

20

direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Google Desktop software
and associated gadgets software by, e.g., Internet download.

Google provides the Google

Desktop software and associated gadgets software knowing that they are especially adapted for
use in infringing the asserted claims. The Google Desktop software and associated gadgets
software are not capable of substantial non-infringing use. Because Google provides hundreds of
gadgets that infringe in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not
exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions in Exhibit E-24. Google is liable for infringing the
’314 patent by making, using, and providing Google Desktop and gadget software that contains
functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit E-24.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 1 and 3 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the
hardware and software that operate the Android and Android Market system infrastructure.
Google directly infringes claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(a) by making and using the Android Operating System software and associated software
including, e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software. Google
directly infringes claims 7, 9, 13, and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making,
using, selling, and offering to sell devices including, e.g., the Google Nexus One and Nexus S,
that contain the Android Operating System software and associated software including, e.g., Text
Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software.

Google directly infringes

claims 13 and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using a server that
contains the Android Operating System software and associated software including, e.g., Text
Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software, that Google makes available to
users. When the Android Operating System software and associated software including, e.g.,

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

21

Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software are installed on devices that
are offered for sale or sold, the vendor directly infringes claims 7, 9, 13, and 15 of the ’314
patent. When the Android Operating System software and associated software including, e.g.,
Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software, are installed and/or used
by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’314
patent. Google induces infringement and contributes to the vendors’ and the third party users’
direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Android Operating
System software and, e.g., Text Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software.
Google provides the Android Operating System software and, e.g., Text Messaging, Google
Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software, knowing that they are especially adapted for use in
infringing the asserted claims.

The Android Operating System software and, e.g., Text

Messaging, Google Voice, Calendar, and Google Talk software, are not capable of substantial
non-infringing use. Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against the Android Operating
System software and associated software are provided in Exhibit E-25.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo directly
infringes claims 1 and 3 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the
hardware and software that operate the Yahoo Messenger system infrastructure. Yahoo directly
infringes claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using the Yahoo Messenger software. Yahoo directly infringes claims 13 and 15 by making
and using a server that contains the Yahoo Messenger software that Yahoo makes available to
users. When the Yahoo Messenger software is installed and/or used by third party users, those
users directly infringe claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15.

Yahoo induces infringement and

contributes to the third party users’ direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

22

providing the Yahoo Messenger software by, e.g., Internet download. Yahoo provides the
Yahoo Messenger software knowing that it is especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted
claims.

The Yahoo Messenger software is not capable of substantial non-infringing use.

Interval’s detailed infringement assertions against Yahoo Messenger are provided in Exhibit J22.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo directly
infringes claims 1 and 3 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using the
hardware and software that operate the Yahoo Widgets system infrastructure. Yahoo directly
infringes claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using the Yahoo Widgets software and the associated widgets software. Yahoo directly
infringes claims 13 and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using a
server that contains the Yahoo Widgets software and associated widgets software that Yahoo
makes available to users. When the Yahoo Widgets software and associated widgets software
are installed and/or used by third party users, those users directly infringe claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 13,
and 15 of the ’314 patent. Yahoo induces infringement and contributes to the third party users’
direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Yahoo Widgets software
and associated widgets software by, e.g., Internet download. Yahoo provides the Yahoo Widgets
software and associated widgets software knowing that they are especially adapted for use in
infringing the asserted claims. The Yahoo Widgets software and associated widgets software are
not capable of substantial non-infringing use. Because Yahoo provides thousands of widgets that
infringe in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive)
detailed infringement assertions in Exhibit J-23. Yahoo is liable for infringing the ’314 patent by

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

23

making, using, and providing Yahoo Widgets and widget software that contain functionality that
is substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit J-23.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making and using
the hardware and software that operate the Yahoo Connected TV system infrastructure. Yahoo
directly infringes claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by
making and using the Yahoo Connected TV software and the associated widgets software.
Yahoo directly infringes claims 13 and 14 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making
and using a server that contains the Yahoo Connected TV software and associated widgets
software that Yahoo makes available to users. When the Yahoo Connected TV software and
associated widgets software are installed on televisions that are offered for sale or sold, the
vendor directly infringes claims 7, 8, 13, and 14 of the ’314 patent. When the Yahoo Connected
TV software and associated widgets software are installed and/or used by third party users, those
users directly infringe claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of the ’314 patent. Yahoo induces
infringement and contributes to the vendors’ and third party users’ direct infringement under 35
U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c) by providing the Yahoo Connected TV software and associated widgets
software. Yahoo provides the Yahoo Connected TV software and associated widgets software
knowing that they are especially adapted for use in infringing the asserted claims. The Yahoo
Connected TV software and associated widgets software are not capable of substantial noninfringing use. Because Yahoo provides many widgets that infringe in a substantially identical
way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions in
Exhibit J-24. Yahoo is liable for infringing the ’314 patent by making, using, and providing

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

24

Yahoo Connected TV and widget software that contain functionality that is substantially similar
to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit J-24.
Interval expressly reserves the right to augment and supplement its identification of
asserted claims and infringing products based on additional information obtained through formal
discovery, including expected discovery of source code for the accused products.
b. Claim Charts for Literal Infringement of the ’314 Patent
Interval’s detailed infringement assertions with respect to the ’314 patent are contained in
Exhibits A-19 through A-20, B-13, E-22 through E-25, and J-22 through J-24.
c. Doctrine of Equivalents
Interval contends that Defendants literally infringe the asserted claims of the ’314 patent,
as reflected in the provided claim charts. To the extent Defendants successfully argue any
limitation is not literally present in any accused product, Interval asserts infringement under the
doctrine of equivalents because the differences between any accused product and any claim
limitations are insubstantial.
d. Priority Claim of the ’314 Patent to an Earlier Application
The ’314 patent claims priority to Application No. 08/620,641, filed on March 22, 1996,
which issued as the ’652 patent.
IV.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,757,682 (THE ’682 PATENT)
a. Infringed Claims of the ’682 Patent and Infringing Products
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that AOL directly infringes

claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35 US.C.
§ 271(a) during the operation of its AOL Shopping website. Because the AOL Shopping website
comprises a significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

25

provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages
within the AOL Shopping website. AOL directly infringes the ’682 patent in the operation of all
webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality
identified in Exhibit A-21.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Apple directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
U.S.C. § 271(a) during the operation of iTunes (including iTunes Genius, the iTunes Store, and
Ping), the iPad/iPod/iPhone App Stores, and Apple TV. Because the Apple systems comprise a
significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided
exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages from each
system. Apple directly infringes the ’682 patent in the operation of all pages within the accused
systems that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality
identified in Exhibits B-14 through B-18.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that eBay directly infringes
claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35 US.C.
§ 271(a) during the operation of its websites, including at least eBay.com and Half.com. Because
the eBay websites comprise a significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical
way, Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions
against specific pages within eBay’s websites. eBay directly infringes the ’682 patent in the
operation of all websites and webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to
the infringing functionality identified in Exhibits C-5 through C-6. Furthermore, Interval has
observed that the headings (e.g., “Check out the most watched”) may change. Nothing herein
should be construed to limit Interval’s infringement assertions to recommendations that fall

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

26

under particular headings. Interval asserts that the underlying functionality—and not the heading
that is used—infringes the ’682 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Facebook directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its Facebook.com website. Because the Facebook.com
website comprises a significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way,
Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against
specific pages within Facebook’s website. Facebook directly infringes the ’682 patent in the
operation of all webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing
functionality identified in Exhibits D-4 through D-5.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Google directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
U.S.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its Google Products, Google News, Google Blog Search,
Google Knol, Google Reader, Google Buzz, and Orkut websites. Because the accused Google
websites comprise a significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way,
Interval has provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against
specific pages within the accused websites. Google directly infringes the ’682 patent in the
operation of all websites and webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to
the infringing functionality identified in Exhibits E-26 through E-32.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Netflix directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its Netflix.com website. Because the Netflix website
comprises a significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

27

provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages
within Netflix’s website.

Netflix directly infringes the ’682 patent in the operation of all

webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality
identified in Exhibit F-2.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Office Depot directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its websites. Because the Office Depot websites comprise
a significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided
exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages within
Office Depot’s OfficeDepot.com and TechDepot.com websites. Office Depot directly infringes
the ’682 patent in the operation of all websites and webpages that contain functionality that is
substantially similar to the infringing functionality identified in Exhibits G-3 through G-4,
including at least OfficeDepot.com, and TechDepot.com. Furthermore, Interval has observed
that the headings (e.g., “Customers Who Viewed This Item Purchased”) may change. Nothing
herein should be construed to limit Interval’s infringement assertions to recommendations that
fall under particular headings. Interval asserts that the underlying functionality—and not the
heading that is used—infringes the ’682 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that OfficeMax directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its websites. Because the OfficeMax websites comprise a
significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided
exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages within
OfficeMax’s OfficeMax.com website.

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

OfficeMax directly infringes the ’682 patent in the

28

operation of all websites and webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to
the infringing functionality identified in Exhibit H-2, including at least OfficeMax.com,
MaxBuyer.OfficeMax.com,

Government.OfficeMax.com,

and

OfficeMaxSolutions.com.

Furthermore, Interval has observed that the headings (e.g., “Also Consider”) may change.
Nothing herein should be construed to limit Interval’s infringement assertions to
recommendations that fall under particular headings.

Interval asserts that the underlying

functionality—and not the heading that is used—infringes the ’682 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Staples directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its websites. Because the Staples websites comprise a
significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided
exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages within
Staples’s Staples.com website. Staples directly infringes the ’682 patent in the operation of all
websites and webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing
functionality identified in Exhibit I-2, including at least Staples.com, EWay.com,
StaplesLink.com, and Staples4Government.com. Furthermore, Interval has observed that the
headings (e.g., “Recommended For You”) may change. Nothing herein should be construed to
limit Interval’s infringement assertions to recommendations that fall under particular headings.
Interval asserts that the underlying functionality—and not the heading that is used—infringes the
’682 patent.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that Yahoo directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
U.S.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its Yahoo Shopping, Yahoo Answers, Yahoo Music,

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

29

Yahoo Buzz, Delicious, and Flickr websites. Because the accused Yahoo websites comprise a
significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has provided
exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages within the
accused websites. Yahoo directly infringes the ’682 patent in the operation of all websites and
webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality
identified in Exhibits J-25 through J-30.
Based on information presently available to it, Interval asserts that YouTube directly
infringes claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20 of the ’682 patent under 35
US.C. § 271(a) during the operation of its YouTube.com website. Because the YouTube website
comprises a significant number of pages that operate in a substantially identical way, Interval has
provided exemplary (but not exhaustive) detailed infringement assertions against specific pages
within YouTube’s website. YouTube directly infringes the ’682 patent in the operation of all
webpages that contain functionality that is substantially similar to the infringing functionality
identified in Exhibit K-2.
Interval expressly reserves the right to augment and supplement its identification of
asserted claims and infringing products based on additional information obtained through formal
discovery, including expected discovery of source code for the accused websites.
b. Claim Charts for Literal Infringement of the ’682 Patent
Interval’s detailed infringement assertions with respect to the ’682 patent are contained in
Exhibits A-21, B-14 through B-18, C-5 through C-6, D-4 through D-5, E-26 through E-32, F-2,
G-3 through G-4, H-2, I-2, J-25 through J-30, and K-2.

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

30

c. Doctrine of Equivalents
Interval contends that Defendants literally infringe the asserted claims of the ’682 patent,
as reflected in the provided claim charts. To the extent Defendants successfully argue any
limitation is not literally present in any accused product, Interval asserts infringement under the
doctrine of equivalents because the differences between any accused product and any claim
limitations are insubstantial.
d. Priority Claim of the ’682 Patent to an Earlier Application
The ’682 patent claims priority to Provisional Application No. 60/178,627, filed on
January 28, 2000.
Dated: December 28, 2010

/s/ Justin Nelson______
Justin A. Nelson
WA Bar No. 31864
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Matthew R. Berry
WA Bar No. 37364
E-Mail: [e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Ave, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Max L. Tribble, Jr.
E-Mail: [e-mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Michael F. Heim
E-mail: [e-mail]
Eric J. Enger
E-mail: [e-mail]
Nathan J. Davis
E-mail: [e-mail]
HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P.

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

31

600 Travis, Suite 6710
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for INTERVAL LICENSING LLC

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

32

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 28, 2010, I served the foregoing via electronic mail on
the following counsel of record:
Attorneys for AOL, Inc.
Cortney Alexander
Robert Burns
Elliott Cook
Gerald Ivey
Molly Terwilliger

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Apple, Inc.
David Almeling
Brian Berliner
George Riley
Jeremy Roller
Scott Wilsdon
Neil Yang

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for eBay, Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc. and Staples, Inc.
Chris Carraway
[e-mail]
Kristin Cleveland
[e-mail]
Klaus Hamm
[e-mail]
Jeffrey Love
[e-mail]
Derrick Toddy
[e-mail]
John Vandenberg
[e-mail]
Arthur Harrigan, Jr.
[e-mail]
Christopher Wion
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Facebook, Inc
Christen Dubois
Christopher Durbin
Heidi Keefe
Michael Rhodes
Elizabeth Stameshkin
Mark Weinstein

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Google, Inc. and YouTube, LLC
Aneelah Afzali
[e-mail]
Aaron Chase
[e-mail]
Dimitrios Drivas
[e-mail]
John Handy
[e-mail]
Warren Heit
[e-mail]
Kevin McGann
[e-mail]
Wendi Schepler
[e-mail]
HOUSTON-#11275-v1

33

Scott Johnson
Shannon Jost

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for OfficeMax, Inc.
Kevin Baumgardner
Steven Fogg
John Letchinger
Douglas Rupert
Jeffrey Neumeyer

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Yahoo! Inc.
Francis Ho
Richard S.J. Hung
Michael Jacobs
Matthew Kreeger
Dario Machleidt
Eric Ow
Mark Walters

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

By: __/s/ Eric Enger_______________
Eric Enger

HOUSTON-#11275-v1

34