`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
`RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., HOTELS.COM LP,
`HOTELS.COM GP, LLC, HOTWIRE, INC., ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.,
`PRICELINE.COM, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM LP, and YAHOO! INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`METASEARCH SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case CBM2014-00001
`Patent 8,326,924 B1
`______________
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page(s)
`
`METASEARCH’S OBSERVATIONS ARE IMPROPER ............................. 1
`A. Metasearch Delayed Deposing Mr. Liao .............................................. 1
`B.
`Observation #7 Goes Beyond Reply Testimony ................................... 3
`C.
`An Observation Is Not A Motion To Exclude ...................................... 3
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO
`METASEARCH’S OBSERVATIONS ........................................................... 4
`1. Mr. Liao’s Qualifications ...................................................................... 4
`2.
`Personal Experience With E-Commerce Combination ......................... 6
`3.
`Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art ............................................. 8
`4.
`Obviousness Standard ........................................................................... 9
`5. Mr. Liao’s First-Hand Knowledge Broker Experience .......................10
`6. Mr. Liao’s First-Hand Mamma.com Experience ................................11
`7.
`Knowledge Broker Sub-problems .......................................................13
`8.
`Knowledge Broker Searches Web Crawlers .......................................15
`
`
`
`i
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Respironics, Inc. v. ZOLL Medical Corporation,
`IPR2013-00322, Paper 26 (PTAB May 7, 2014) .......................................... 1, 2, 3
`Regulations
`Official Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................. 1, 2, 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner hereby responds to Patent Owner’s (“Metasearch’s”) Motion for
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination of Petitioners’ Reply Witness Mr. Gary Liao.
`
`(Paper 60.) Mr. Liao submitted in this proceeding a first declaration, Exhibit 1009,
`
`in support of the Petition and a supplemental declaration, Exhibit 1042, in support
`
`of Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition (“Petitioner’s
`
`Reply”) (Paper 52) and Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to
`
`Amend (Paper 51). Mr. Liao was deposed on September 26, 2014. The transcript
`
`of this deposition was filed as Exhibit 2043, and an errata sheet of the transcript is
`
`filed herewith as Exhibit 1050.
`
`I. METASEARCH’S OBSERVATIONS ARE IMPROPER
`A. Metasearch Delayed Deposing Mr. Liao
`Motions for observations are intended to address cross-examination that
`
`
`
`must occur after the filing of a party’s final substantive paper on an issue. Official
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48767-8 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Motions for
`
`observations are appropriate “[i]n the event that cross-examination occurs after a
`
`party has filed its last substantive paper on an issue.” (emphasis added)).
`
`Metasearch’s motion is therefore properly limited to cross-examination testimony
`
`directed to issues raised first in Petitioner’s Reply. See Respironics, Inc. v. ZOLL
`
`Medical Corporation, IPR2013-00322, Paper 26, 2-4 (PTAB May 7, 2014).
`
`Although Mr. Liao’s first declaration filed in this proceeding included
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`statements detailing Mr. Liao’s technical experience (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1-3), mapping
`
`the Knowledge Broker and Mamma.com references to claim 1 (id. at 14-17), and
`
`applying his understanding of the level of skill in the art to exhibits in the record
`
`(id. ¶¶ 4, 6 & 20), Metasearch chose not to depose Mr. Liao on this testimony
`
`during the appropriate discovery period. See Respironics, Inc., IPR2013-00322 at
`
`2-3 (describing “two discovery periods for a patent owner” and not authorizing
`
`cross-examination of expert during second discovery period on declaration
`
`submitted with the Petition). Instead, Metasearch delayed deposing Mr. Liao until
`
`after Petitioner had filed its last substantive paper—Petitioner’s Reply—which is
`
`an improper use of a motion for observations. See id. at 4 (recognizing Patent
`
`Owner may have chosen to delay deposing expert and requiring observations be
`
`limited to testimony concerning Petitioner’s Reply). Metasearch’s Observations
`
`consequently raise new issues and are argumentative, which is also improper.
`
`Official Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48768.
`
`
`
`In particular, Observations # 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 relate to issues first presented
`
`by Mr. Liao in his declaration submitted with the Petition (Ex. 1009). These
`
`Observations make new arguments not already in the record and are not limited to
`
`new material presented in Petitioner’s Reply. These Observations are therefore
`
`beyond the proper scope of a motion for observations. For at least these reasons,
`
`the Board should disregard these Observations.
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`B. Observation #7 Goes Beyond Reply Testimony
`Metasearch’s Observation #7 is directed to testimony describing Exhibit
`
`
`
`1045, which was not relied on in Petitioner’s Reply. (See Paper 52.) If
`
`Metasearch wished to present to the Board Mr. Liao’s testimony regarding the
`
`teachings of Exhibit 1045, that argument should have been presented in
`
`Metasearch’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend, which was
`
`filed after Mr. Liao’s deposition. Respironics, Inc., IPR2013-00322 at 3-4
`
`(requiring Patent Owner to “address the testimony of Petitioner’s expert on matters
`
`concerning the substitute claims proposed in the motion to amend in Patent
`
`Owner’s Reply” since cross-examination occurred before Patent Owner’s last
`
`substantive paper on the motion to amend.) Metasearch’s Observation #7 is
`
`therefore improper and should not be considered by the Board.
`
`C. An Observation Is Not A Motion To Exclude
`Metasearch chose not to object to Mr. Liao’s first declaration filed with the
`
`
`
`Petition. Metasearch has filed no motion to exclude either of Mr. Liao’s
`
`declarations. (Motions to exclude were due October 16, 2014. (See Papers 37 &
`
`38.)) Metasearch’s observations purport to challenge Mr. Liao’s qualifications as
`
`an expert and the reliability of his statements and opinions. A motion for
`
`observation on cross-examination is not the proper procedure for objecting to the
`
`admissibility of exhibits or expert testimony. Official Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Reg. at 48768 (“An observation . . . is not an opportunity to . . . pursue
`
`objections.”).
`
`In particular, Observations # 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 challenge Mr. Liao’s expertise
`
`as well as the basis for and reliability of his opinions. Metasearch improperly
`
`attempts to use these Observations to object to the admissibility of Mr. Liao’s
`
`testimony. These Observations are also argumentative and raise new issues. For at
`
`least these reasons, the Board should disregard these Observations.
`
`II. PETITIONER’S RESPONSES TO METASEARCH’S OBSERVATIONS
`1. Mr. Liao’s Qualifications
`Metasearch cites to Mr. Liao’s testimony regarding his experience with
`
`
`
`search and metasearch engines before the year 2000 and contends this testimony
`
`“establishes that Mr. Liao lacks the necessary qualifications to be considered an
`
`expert in the field encompassed in the ’924 patent.”
`
`This observation is improper and should be disregarded by the Board. (See
`
`supra Sections I.A & I.C.) Further, contrary to Metasearch’s contention, Mr.
`
`Liao’s testimony establishes that he possesses the relevant skills, experience, and
`
`training to qualify as an expert in this proceeding and that Mr. Liao had specific
`
`experience prior to the year 2000 with searching and metasearching technologies.
`
`Mr. Liao’s declarations introduce the wide-ranging hands-on experience he
`
`acquired working as a software engineer for several tech companies, including
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Integrated Surgical Systems, Inc., DAT Services, Inc.,
`
`and Intel Corp. (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 1-3; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 1-3.) In addition to his broad-based
`
`training, Mr. Liao has specific experience designing, implementing, testing and
`
`maintaining e-commerce Web sites. (Ex. 1009 ¶ 3; Ex. 1042 ¶ 3; Ex. 2043 at
`
`10:19-11:17; 11:23-12:18.) Mr. Liao participated in the decision-making process
`
`behind the implementation of these e-commerce Web sites, as well as the customer
`
`order processing features of some of these Web sites. (Ex. 2043 at 11:23-12:18.)
`
`Mr. Liao also testified that by the year 2000 he understood the technologies
`
`underlying search engines, metasearch engines, and database querying.
`
`Specifically, Mr. Liao testified that by the year 2000 he had an “understanding of
`
`how search engines operate,” even though he did not work on the search engine
`
`side. (Id. at 12:19-13:3; 78:5-79:8.) Mr. Liao testified that he had experience prior
`
`to 2000 with technologies used to send queries to multiple hosts and to return
`
`results received from those hosts, which is consistent with Metasearch’s proposed
`
`construction of the term “metasearch.” (Id. at 77:3-79:8; Patent Owner’s Resp.
`
`(Paper 45) at 25.) Mr. Liao also testified to his experience with databases and Web
`
`protocols. (Ex. 2043 at 76:15-77:14.)
`
`
`
`Finally, Mr. Liao’s expertise compares favorably to the experience of
`
`Metasearch’s own experts, Dr. Almeroth and Dr. Carbonell. Although Dr.
`
`Carbonell testified to having experience “consulting in support of the launch” of
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`search engine Lycos prior to 2000 (Ex. 2006 ¶ 12), neither Dr. Carbonell nor Dr.
`
`Almeroth testified to having experience “designing and implementing” any
`
`“metasearch engine” prior to 2000.
`
`2. Personal Experience With E-Commerce Combination
`Metasearch argues Mr. Liao’s testimony that “he did not nor was never [sic]
`
`
`
`asked to combine a [sic] either a search engine with an e-commerce site or a
`
`metasearch engine with an e-commerce site” is relevant to “demonstrate that
`
`people in the web development field did not consider combining a metasearch
`
`engine with an e-commerce site as claimed in the challenged claims of the ’924
`
`patent.” Metasearch also argues this testimony is relevant to Mr. Liao’s statements
`
`in his supplemental declaration that Mamma.com and Knowledge Broker each
`
`disclose claim elements (g) and (h) and that a person having ordinary skill in the
`
`art in 1999-2000 would have been motivated to include keyword advertising with
`
`Knowledge Broker. (Petitioner presumes Metasearch intended, despite a
`
`typographical error, to cite to paragraphs 32 through 42 and paragraph 49 of
`
`Exhibit 1042.)
`
`
`
`This observation is both improper (see supra Section I.A), and substantively
`
`irrelevant.
`
`First, the testimony cited by Metasearch is irrelevant because it is directed to
`
`an imagined combination. The challenged claims do not require e-commerce or
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`the capabilities of an e-commerce Web site. (See, e.g., Ex. 1041 at 87:7-23; 83:5-
`
`10; Pet’r’s Reply (Paper 52) 1-3, 8 & 11.) Mr. Liao’s testimony therefore fails to
`
`be relevant to the patentability of the challenged claims or to the cited paragraphs
`
`of Mr. Liao’s supplemental declaration.
`
`Second, Metasearch appears to suggest that whether an expert (or a
`
`particular group of people) personally anticipated the claimed invention can make
`
`the alleged invention more or less likely to be obvious. This is nonsensical and has
`
`no support in the law. Whether Mr. Liao actually experienced the alleged
`
`invention is not relevant to Mr. Liao’s testimony that certain claim elements are
`
`met by the prior art references or that a person having ordinary skill in the art in
`
`1999-2000 would have been motivated to combine prior art teachings to make the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`
`
`Third, Mr. Liao’s testimony does not demonstrate, as Metasearch contends,
`
`that “people in the web development field did not consider combining a
`
`metasearch engine with an e-commerce site as claimed in the challenged claims of
`
`the ’924 patent.” Mr. Liao’s personal experiences with a limited group of
`
`individuals do not necessarily generalize to the entire “web development field.”
`
`Further, Mr. Liao testified to the best of his recollection and that engaging in this
`
`sort of decision-making process “was not [his] role” at that time. (Ex. 2043 at
`
`16:16-18; 15:12-16:12.)
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`3. Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art
` Metasearch argues that Mr. Liao’s testimony regarding the definition of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art that Mr. Liao applied when drafting his first
`
`declaration (Ex. 1009; see also Ex. 2043 at 20:7-10), “demonstrates that Mr. Liao
`
`did not have the qualifications and experiences that he believes one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have.”
`
`
`
`This observation is both improper (see supra Sections I.A & I.C), and
`
`wrong.
`
`Mr. Liao’s testimony regarding the level of skill in the art is consistent with
`
`the definition provided in the Petition. (Compare Corr’d Pet. (Paper 20) 28-29
`
`with Ex. 2043 at 20:11-16.) Mr. Liao testified that the skilled artisan would
`
`understand, among other things, the technologies involved in search engines and
`
`metasearch engines. (Ex. 2043 at 20:17-21:19.) Mr. Liao went on to explain some
`
`of these technologies. Specifically, Mr. Liao testified:
`
`. . . I don’t have the exact construction in front of me, but I recall it’s
`
`from a user sending one or more queries to plural hosts, and then
`
`combining those results and sending them back to a user. Those types
`
`of things is what I’m talking about a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would know.
`
`(Id. at 21:20-22:6.)
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Liao testified that in 2000 he possessed the skills to understand and
`
`implement the technologies underlying search and metasearch engines. (Id. at
`
`12:19-13:3; 77:15-79:8.) Therefore, contrary to Metasearch’s assertion, Mr. Liao’s
`
`testimony establishes that he would have possessed at least the same level of
`
`experience as the person having ordinary skill in the art in 1999-2000.
`
`4. Obviousness Standard
`Metasearch contends Mr. Liao’s testimony regarding the obviousness legal
`
`standard is relevant because “Mr. Liao applied the incorrect standard for
`
`obviousness.” Metasearch also argues this testimony is relevant to “Mr. Liao’s
`
`ultimate opinion that one of skill in the art would combine Knowledge Broker and
`
`Mamma.com to render the challenged claims obvious.” Metasearch cites to
`
`paragraphs in Mr. Liao’s supplemental declaration explaining that Mamma.com
`
`and Knowledge Broker each disclose claim elements (g) and (h) and that a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art in 1999-2000 would have been motivated to include
`
`keyword advertising with Knowledge Broker. (Petitioner presumes Metasearch
`
`intended, despite a typographical error, to cite to paragraphs 32 through 42 and
`
`paragraph 49 of Exhibit 1042.)
`
`
`
`This observation is both improper (see supra Section I.C), and substantively
`
`irrelevant.
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`None of the paragraphs in Mr. Liao’s supplemental declaration cited by
`
`Metasearch include the word “obvious.” Mr. Liao testified in these paragraphs to
`
`the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art in 1999-2000, as well as
`
`the teachings of Knowledge Broker Exhibits 1006 and 1007 and Mamma.com
`
`Exhibit 1005 to that person. These paragraphs are not directed, as Metasearch
`
`contends, to an “ultimate opinion” of obviousness. Mr. Liao’s statements here
`
`relate to the factual findings that form the foundation of an obviousness
`
`determination and are therefore helpful and relevant to the fact finder evaluating
`
`obviousness.
`
`5. Mr. Liao’s First-Hand Knowledge Broker Experience
`Metasearch argues Mr. Liao’s testimony that he “never used Knowledge
`
`
`
`Broker before 2000” and that his understanding of Knowledge Broker was based
`
`on the three exhibits of record (Exhibits 1006, 1007 and 1045) is relevant because
`
`it establishes Mr. Liao did not have “first-hand knowledge of how Knowledge
`
`Broker operated” and Mr. Liao’s “understanding is limited to that disclosed in the
`
`exhibits.”
`
`
`
`This observation is both improper (see supra Sections I.A and I.C), and
`
`substantively irrelevant.
`
`Metasearch appears to argue that first-hand knowledge of a prior art system
`
`described in a prior art reference is required for an expert to testify as to the
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`teachings of that prior art reference. Or, that knowledge of a prior art reference is
`
`somehow an insufficient basis for an expert to testify regarding the teachings of
`
`that reference. These arguments are not supported by the law. Metasearch fails to
`
`provide any support or other reason why first-hand knowledge is relevant to a
`
`validity challenge based, as it is here, on printed publications. Mr. Liao’s expertise
`
`in the areas of software and web development and his experience prior to 2000
`
`with the technologies used to search or query one or more hosts and to receive the
`
`results from those hosts more than qualify him to opine regarding what the
`
`Knowledge Broker references would have taught to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art in 1999-2000.
`
`Metasearch has filed no motions to exclude any of the Knowledge Broker
`
`references, Exhibits 1006, 1007 and 1045. Therefore, it has provided no reason to
`
`doubt the authenticity of these references, nor has it provided any suggestion that
`
`Mr. Liao should not have relied (or was otherwise unreasonable to rely) on these
`
`references for his understanding of Knowledge Broker.
`
`6. Mr. Liao’s First-Hand Mamma.com Experience
`Metasearch argues Mr. Liao’s testimony that he “never used Mamma.com,”
`
`
`
`he “never saw the source code for Mamma.com,” and he “never asked to see the
`
`source code for Mamma.com” is relevant because it establishes that Mr. Liao “did
`
`not have any first-hand knowledge of how Mamma.com operated.”
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`
`
`This observation is both improper (see supra Sections I.A and I.C), and
`
`substantively irrelevant.
`
`As stated above in response to Observation #5, Metasearch appears to argue
`
`that first-hand knowledge of a prior art system described in a prior art reference is
`
`required for an expert to testify as to the teachings of that prior art reference. Or,
`
`that knowledge of a prior art reference is somehow an insufficient basis for an
`
`expert to testify regarding the teachings of that reference. These arguments are not
`
`supported by the law. Metasearch fails to provide any support or other reason why
`
`first-hand knowledge is relevant to a validity challenge based, as it is here, on
`
`printed publications. Mr. Liao’s expertise in the areas of software and web
`
`development and his experience prior to 2000 with the technologies used to search
`
`or query one or more hosts and to receive the results from those hosts more than
`
`qualify him to opine regarding what the Mamma.com reference would have taught
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art in 1999-2000.
`
`Metasearch has filed no motion to exclude the Mamma.com reference,
`
`Exhibit 1005. Therefore, it has provided no reason to doubt the authenticity of this
`
`reference, nor has it provided any suggestion that Mr. Liao should not have relied
`
`(or was otherwise unreasonable to rely) on this reference for his understanding of
`
`Mamma.com.
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Metasearch also misstates the experience of Petitioner’s expert Dr. Etzioni.
`
`Dr. Etzioni was not “involved” in Mamma.com, as Metasearch contends. (See Ex.
`
`1008 ¶¶ 1-9; Ex. 2005 at 22:18-23:2.) Dr. Etzioni was the founder of a different
`
`metasearching Web site, referred to as MetaCrawler. (Ex. 1008 ¶ 2.)
`
`7. Knowledge Broker Sub-problems
`Metasearch argues Mr. Liao’s purported testimony that “Knowledge Broker
`
`
`
`decomposes the original user query into sub-problems that are then sent to
`
`particular external archives” is relevant because “it demonstrates that Knowledge
`
`Broker does not send the user query to the external host, but rather some
`
`decomposed subpart of the query is sent to a specific external database.”
`
`
`
`The cited testimony relates to “Example 2” on pages 779-80 of Exhibit
`
`1045. (Ex. 2043 at 43:10-52:25.) This Observation is improper because
`
`Petitioner’s did not rely on Exhibit 1045 in its Reply. (See supra Section I.B.)
`
`Further, this testimony is irrelevant.
`
`First, Metasearch contends this testimony is relevant to paragraphs 15 and
`
`16 in Mr. Liao’s supplemental declaration (Ex. 1042). In these paragraphs, Mr.
`
`Liao explains the teachings and disclosures of Exhibits 1006 and 1007 to a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art in 1999-2000—these paragraphs do not describe the
`
`teachings of Exhibit 1045. Therefore, Mr. Liao’s testimony regarding Exhibit
`
`1045 is not relevant to these paragraphs.
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Second, the testimony cited by Metasearch does not, as Metasearch
`
`contends, “demonstrate[] that Knowledge Broker does not send the user query to
`
`the external host, but rather some decomposed subpart of the query is sent to a
`
`specific external database.” As Mr. Liao pointed out during his deposition,
`
`Example 2 is one “particular example” of broker processing. (E.g., Ex. 2043 at
`
`52:5-7; 52:18-23; 44:9-15.) It does not describe all broker processing nor does it
`
`necessarily relate to the broker processing of Exhibits 1006 and 1007 (or to the
`
`processing described in paragraphs 15 and 16 of Mr. Liao’s supplemental
`
`declaration). Furthermore, Mr. Liao testified that he was not sure about some of
`
`his answers, requested more time to review the article, but was instead directed by
`
`Metasearch’s Counsel to particular excerpts of Exhibit 1045. (Id. at 49:10-22;
`
`43:10-21.) Finally, Mr. Liao testified that Exhibit 1045 describes decomposing a
`
`request into n sub-problems, where n is the arity and n can be zero. (Id. at 46:10-
`
`20; 44:5-15; 45:7-14; see also Ex. 1045 at 768.) That is, it is possible there may be
`
`no sub-problems and no decomposition is performed. For example, Example 1 of
`
`Exhibit 1045 states “[a]ssume further that the broker need not generate
`
`subproblems to generate a solution . . . . Instead, in order to generate a solution it
`
`searches a backend, in our case, an attached opera database.” (Ex. 1045 at 775.)
`
`Therefore, the cited testimony is irrelevant.
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`8. Knowledge Broker Searches Web Crawlers
`Metasearch argues Mr. Liao’s testimony regarding whether Exhibit 1007
`
`
`
`included text describing “how Knowledge Broker would search web crawlers, or
`
`search engines” is “relevant because it demonstrates that Knowledge Broker was
`
`not a metasearch engine within the meaning of the ’924 patent.”
`
`Metasearch contends this testimony is relevant to paragraphs 6 through 18 of
`
`Mr. Liao’s Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 1042). However, Mr. Liao mentions
`
`“Webcrawlers” only once in these paragraphs, at paragraph 10. Metasearch does
`
`not explain how this testimony relates to Mr. Liao’s testimony that Knowledge
`
`Broker was a metasearch engine. Therefore, it is irrelevant.
`
`Dated: October 23, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`One World Trade Center
`121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`
`
`By /Kristen L. Reichenbach/
` John D. Vandenberg
` Registration No. 31,312
` Kristen L. Reichenbach, Ph.D.
` Registration No. 61,162
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`The undersigned certifies that on October 23, 2014 a true and correct copy
`
`of PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION was served via electronic mail,
`
`per agreement of the parties, on the attorneys of record for the Patent Owner in this
`
`proceeding to the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`Cyrus A. Morton
`CAMorton@rkmc.com
`Ryan M. Schultz
`RMSchultz@rkmc.com
`Bryan J. Mechell
`BJMechell@rkmc.com
`Richard Martinez (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`RMMartinez@rkmc.com
`mmtacheny@rkmc.com
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI LLP
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`One World Trade Center
`121 S.W. Salmon Street, Suite 1600
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`
`
`By /Kristen L. Reichenbach/
` Kristen L. Reichenbach, Ph.D.
` Registration No. 61,162
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
