Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 148 PageID 306
`Case 2:12—cv—O2830—JPM—tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 148 Page|D 306
`
`EXHIBIT H
`
`EXHIBIT H
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 2 of 148 PageID 307
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-2830 JPM tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`INITIAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
`ACCOMPANYING INITIAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff” or “B.E.”) hereby submits to Defendant
`
`Google Inc. (“Defendant” or “Google”) its Initial Infringement Contentions and Document
`
`Production Accompanying Initial Infringement Contentions pursuant to Local Patent Rules 3.1
`
`and 3.2.
`
`Plaintiff makes these contentions based upon information reasonably available to it as of
`
`this date. Plaintiff has not completed its preparation of this matter for trial and discovery has not
`
`yet begun. Because Plaintiff’s investigations are ongoing and discovery is not yet complete,
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, modify, supplement, or narrow any portion of its asserted
`
`claims and infringement contentions, including, but not limited to, the identification of the claims
`
`infringed by Defendant and of the products and/or services accused of infringement. In
`
`particular, B.E. reserves the right to supplement its contentions as necessary and in accordance
`
`with this Court’s Local Rules in light of Defendant’s future document production, interrogatory
`
`answers, admissions, disclosures, fact witness testimony expert witness evidence, additional
`
`discovery, future rulings from the Court, any amendments to the pleadings, any additional items
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 148 PageID 308
`
`of evidence, and/or for any other reason authorized by statute, rule, or applicable case law. B.E.
`
`similarly reserves the right to supplement its Initial Infringement Contentions to assert
`
`infringement of claims currently not addressed. B.E. further reserves the right to supplement its
`
`Initial Infringement Contentions and the associated infringement claim charts after Defendant
`
`identifies which claim elements it contends are not present in Defendant’s products and/or
`
`services, and the bases for any such contentions.
`
`I.
`
`L.P.R 3.1: INITIAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS.
`
`A.
`
`Identification Of Asserted Claims.
`
`Based on the information presently known and reasonably available to Plaintiff, Plaintiff
`
`identifies Claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,628,314 (“the ’314 patent”); and
`
`Claims 2-3 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,771,290 (“the ’290 Patent”) to be the Asserted Claims. These
`
`contentions of Asserted Claims are, at this stage in the proceedings, necessarily limited in the
`
`sense that Plaintiff has had limited access to information concerning the structure and function of
`
`Defendant’s products and/or services. Plaintiff therefore reserves the right to supplement these
`
`contentions as it obtains additional information concerning Defendant’s products and/or services
`
`over the course of discovery.
`
`The applicable statutory subsections of 35 U.S.C. § 271 for each of the Asserted Claims
`
`are as follows:
`
`Claims 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 20 of the ’314 Patent: 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a).
`Claims 2-3 of the ’290 Patent: 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a).
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, modify, supplement, or narrow these contentions
`
`pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3.11 as discovery in this case proceeds.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 4 of 148 PageID 309
`
`B.
`
`Identification Of Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., without the benefit of complete
`
`discovery from Defendant, B.E. presently accuses at least (but not limited to) the following of
`
`Defendant’s products and/or services of infringing the Asserted Claims of the ’314 Patent:
`
`Google Display Network (including Adsense, Adwords), Google Offers, Google Offers Mobile
`
`Application, any other products and/or services identified in the attached Appendix A, and all
`
`reasonably similar products and/or services (“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., without the benefit of complete
`
`discovery from Defendant, B.E. presently accuses at least (but not limited to) the following of
`
`Defendant’s products and/or services of infringing the Asserted Claims of the ’290 Patent:
`
`Google Galaxy Nexus, Google Nexus 4, Google Nexus 7, Google Nexus 10, Google Nexus One,
`
`Google Nexus S, any other products and/or services identified in the attached Appendix B, and
`
`all reasonably similar products and/or services (“Accused Instrumentalities”). In addition, B.E.
`
`presently accuses all of Defendant’s products and/or services with the following programs,
`
`features, software, firmware, or applications of infringing the Asserted Claims of the ’290 patent:
`
`Android Market, Google Play (including Play Store, Play Music, Play Books, Play Magazines,
`
`and Play Movies & TV), and YouTube (also, “Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., B.E. contends that the Asserted
`
`Claims of the ’314 Patent and ’290 Patent are infringed by the Accused Instrumentalities. B.E.
`
`believes that discovery will reveal additional Accused Instrumentalities, products, and/or services
`
`that infringe the ’314 Patent and ’290 Patent, and B.E. explicitly reserves the right to amend,
`
`modify, supplement, or narrow its contentions to identify additional Accused Instrumentalities,
`
`products, and/or services pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3.11.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 5 of 148 PageID 310
`
`C.
`
`Claim Chart Identifying Claim Elements Present In Accused
`Instrumentalities.
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., without the benefit of complete
`
`discovery from Defendant, B.E. provides the attached Appendix A (which explains how the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities and other products/services infringe each of the Asserted Claims of
`
`the ’314 Patent) and Appendix B (which explains how the Accused Instrumentalities and other
`
`products/services infringe each of the Asserted Claims of the ’290 Patent). B.E.’s attached
`
`Appendices are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. The infringement
`
`contention charts appended hereto are exemplary and not limiting, and address the Asserted
`
`Claims without the benefit of full discovery. Any citations included in the infringement
`
`contention charts are exemplary only, and should not be construed to be limiting.
`
`In the attached Appendices containing B.E.’s infringement contention charts, B.E. has
`
`subdivided each Asserted Claim to better explain where each claim element may be found with
`
`the respective Accused Instrumentalities and other products/services. The subdivisions in the
`
`appended infringement contention charts should not be taken as an indication of the boundaries
`
`of claim elements with respect to doctrine of equivalents, or any other issue. Additionally, the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities and Defendant’s other products/services may infringe the Asserted
`
`Claims in multiple ways. B.E. reserves the right to provide an alternative claim mapping or
`
`infringement contention.
`
`B.E. reserves the right to amend, modify, supplement, or narrow these contentions
`
`pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3.11 as discovery in this case proceeds.
`
`D.
`
`Identification Of Direct Infringement Underlying Allegations Of Indirect
`Infringement.
`
`B.E. contends that the Asserted Claims of the ’314 Patent and ’290 Patent are directly
`
`infringed by Defendant. Defendant, without B.E.’s authority, directly infringes the Asserted
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 6 of 148 PageID 311
`
`Claims of the ’314 Patent and ’290 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering to
`
`sell, or sell its Accused Instrumentalities and other products/services within the United States, or
`
`imports into the United States its Accused Instrumentalities and other products/services.
`
`B.E. reserves the right to amend, modify, supplement, or narrow these contentions
`
`pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3.11 as discovery in this case proceeds.
`
`E.
`
`Identification Of Elements Present Literally And Present Under The
`Doctrine Of Equivalents.
`
`Based on the information presently available to B.E., B.E. contends that each Asserted
`
`Claim is literally met in the Accused Instrumentalities and/or other Defendant products/services.
`
`At present, B.E. knows of no elements of the Asserted Claims where the doctrine of equivalents
`
`would change the infringement analysis set forth in the attached infringement claim charts.
`
`Without the benefit of the Court’s claim construction, B.E. presently believes that Defendant’s
`
`Accused Instrumentalities and other products/services literally infringe the Asserted Claims of
`
`the ’314 Patent and ’290 Patent.
`
`Regardless, B.E. also contends that each Asserted Claim is met in the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities and/or other Defendant products/services under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Specifically, to the extent a claim element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents because they perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way,
`
`to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent that any differences are alleged to exist
`
`between the Asserted Claims and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities, products and/or
`
`services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`Information regarding the formulations of the Accused Instrumentalities and Defendant’s
`
`products/services, and the processing conditions used to manufacture the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities and Defendant’s products/services, is either confidential or is not publically
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 7 of 148 PageID 312
`
`available. Following discovery regarding Defendant’s products/services, Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, and technical information relating to the Accused Instrumentalities and
`
`Defendant’s products/services, B.E. reserves the right to amend, modify, supplement, or narrow
`
`these contentions pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3.11 as discovery in this case proceeds.
`
`Moreover, because discovery has not yet commenced, B.E. reserves the right to further apply the
`
`doctrine of equivalents to each and every Asserted Claim element after full discovery from
`
`Defendant, or as appropriate in response to the Court’s legal determination of issues, including,
`
`without limitation, the construction of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Should Defendant contend that any element or limitation of the Asserted Claims is absent
`
`in an Accused Instrumentality and/or Defendant’s products/services, B.E. reserves the right to
`
`demonstrate that the allegedly missing element or limitation is present in the Accused
`
`Instrumentality and/or Defendant’s products/services under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`F.
`
`Identification Of Priority Date.
`
`The ’314 patent was filed on October 30, 2000, claiming priority from Division of U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 09/118,351, filed July 17, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,141,010. Thus,
`
`the ’314 Patent and each asserted claim are entitled to a priority date of at least as early as July
`
`17, 1998. The ’290 patent was filed on July 16, 1999, claiming priority from Continuation-in-
`
`Part of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/118,351, filed July 17, 1998, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,141,010. Thus, the ’290 Patent and each asserted claim are entitled to a priority date of at least
`
`as early as July 17, 1998. B.E. reserves the right to present evidence that the ’314 Patent and the
`
`’290 Patent are entitled to an earlier priority date based on an earlier conception of the claimed
`
`inventions and an earlier diligent reduction to practice.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 8 of 148 PageID 313
`
`G. Willful Infringement.
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., without the benefit of complete
`
`discovery from Defendant, B.E. contends that Defendant willfully infringed the ’314 Patent and
`
`’290 Patent beginning no later than September 2012 when B.E. filed its Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement against Defendant. Plaintiff believes that discovery will reveal that Defendant was
`
`aware of the ’314 Patent and the ’290 Patent long before September 2012, but Defendant
`
`nevertheless proceeded with its infringing conduct. At all times when Defendant was aware of
`
`the ’314 Patent and the ’290 Patent, Defendant undertook no efforts to design its
`
`products/services around the ’314 Patent and the ’290 Patent to avoid infringement despite
`
`Defendant’s knowledge and understanding that its products/services infringe these patents.
`
`As such, Defendant proceeded with the infringing conduct with knowledge of the ’314
`
`Patent and the ’290 Patent. Moreover, Defendant proceeded in the face of an unjustifiably high
`
`risk that it was infringing the claims of valid and enforceable ’314 Patent and ’290 Patent.
`
`Moreover, Defendant cannot formulate a credible defense based on non-infringement.
`
`Because Defendant is very familiar with the formulations of the Accused Instrumentalities and
`
`its other products/services, as well as the method of manufacturing the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`and Defendant’s other products/services, Defendant is aware that each and every element of each
`
`Asserted Claim of the ’314 Patent and ’290 Patent is present in the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`and Defendant’s other products/services. Defendant cannot articulate a convincing non-
`
`infringement argument.
`
`Given the facts and circumstances available prior to and during Defendant’s infringing
`
`actions, a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would have appreciated a high likelihood
`
`that acting in Defendant’s manner would infringe the ’314 Patent and the ’290 Patent.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 9 of 148 PageID 314
`
`Furthermore, Defendant knew or should have known of the unjustifiably high risk that it was
`
`infringing the ’314 Patent and the ’290 Patent, each of which is valid and enforceable.
`
`II.
`
`L.P.R. 3.2: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ACCOMPANYING INITIAL
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Disclosure, Transfer, Sale, Offers To Sell Claimed Invention.
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., B.E. is not aware of any responsive,
`
`relevant, non-privileged, non-immune documents that correspond to this category. B.E. reserves
`
`the right to supplement this disclosure if, and as, warranted.
`
`B.
`
`Conception And Reduction To Practice.
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., B.E. refers Defendant to the
`
`documents produced in conjunction with the service of this disclosure and identified by Bates
`
`production numbers BE00000001-BE00002165, BE00002779-BE00002870.
`
`C.
`
`File Histories
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., B.E. refers Defendant to the file
`
`histories produced in conjunction with the service of this disclosure and identified by Bates
`
`production numbers BE00002166-BE00002778.
`
`D.
`
`Ownership
`
`Based on the information presently known to B.E., B.E. refers Defendant to the
`
`assignment records produced in conjunction with the service of this disclosure and identified by
`
`Bates production numbers BE00002871-BE00002873.
`
`Dated: January 7, 2013
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`s/Craig R. Kaufman
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 159458)
`James Lin (CA Bar No. 241472)
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 10 of 148 PageID 315
`
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`Facsimile: (650) 593-6301
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`jlin@ftklaw.com
`qolaniran@ftklaw.com
`
`
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam C. Simpson (TN B.P.R. #24705)
`MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, P.C.
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119-4839
`Telephone: (901) 522-9000
`Facsimile: (901) 527-3746
`rcarter@martintate.com
`asimpson@martintate.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 11 of 148 PageID 316
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 7th day of January, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was
`served upon the following counsel by email:
`
`Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant GOOGLE INC.
`
`s/Elizabeth Kim
`Elizabeth Kim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 12 of 148 PageID 317
`Case 2:12—cv—O2830—JPM—tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 12 of 148 Page|D 317
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 13 of 148 PageID 318
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. US 6,628,314 B1 (Hoyle)
`
`-vs.-
`
`Google Accused Product: Google Display Network (Including AdWords; AdSense)
`
`Accused Product
`The Google Accused Product performs a method of providing demographically-targeted advertising to a computer user.
`
`Claim
`11. A method of
`providing
`demographically-
`targeted advertising to a
`computer user,
`comprising the steps of:
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2404190&topic=1713942&ctx=topic&path=171394
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 14 of 148 PageID 319
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`0-1713940-1710534
`
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1209882&topic=1713942&path=1713940-
`1710534&ctx=leftnav
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 15 of 148 PageID 320
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1209882&topic=1713942&path=1713940-
`1710534&ctx=leftnav
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 16 of 148 PageID 321
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1704368&topic=1713938&ctx=topic&path=171393
`7-1710534
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 17 of 148 PageID 322
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1704368&topic=1713938&ctx=topic&path=171393
`7-1710534
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 18 of 148 PageID 323
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=9712&topic=1319753&ctx=topic
`
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=9714&topic=1319753&ctx=topic
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=76231&topic=1319753&ctx=topic
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 19 of 148 PageID 324
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=48182
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`The Google Accused Product performs providing a server that is accessible via a computer network. For example, the
`Google Accused Product uses at least doubleclick.net and googleadservices.com, which are hosted by servers.
`
`(a) providing a server
`that is accessible
`via a computer
`network,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 20 of 148 PageID 325
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 21 of 148 PageID 326
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 22 of 148 PageID 327
`
`
`
`Accused Product
`The Google Accused Product performs permitting a computer user to access said server via said computer network. For
`example, the Google Accused Product uses at least doubleclick.net and googleadservices.com, which are hosted by
`servers.
`
`Claim
`(b) permitting a
`computer user to
`access said server
`via said computer
`network,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 23 of 148 PageID 328
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 24 of 148 PageID 329
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 25 of 148 PageID 330
`
`
`
`Accused Product
`The Google Accused Product performs acquiring demographic information about the user, said demographic
`information including information specifically provided by the user in response to a request for said demographic
`information. For example, Google acquires demographic information, such as age and gender, specifically provided by
`a user of Google in response to a request by Google for the demographic information.
`
`
`Claim
`(c) acquiring
`demographic
`information about
`the user, said
`demographic
`information
`including
`information
`specifically
`provided by the
`user in response to
`a request for said
`demographic
`information,
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 26 of 148 PageID 331
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`https://accounts.google.com/SignUp?service=mail&continue=https%3A%2F%2Fmail.google.com%2Fmail%2F&ltmpl
`=default&hl=en
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 27 of 148 PageID 332
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 28 of 148 PageID 333
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 29 of 148 PageID 334
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 30 of 148 PageID 335
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1704368&topic=1713938&ctx=topic&path=171393
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 31 of 148 PageID 336
`
`
`
`Accused Product
`7-1710534
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`The Google Accused Product performs providing the user with download access to computer software that, when run
`on a computer, displays advertising content, records computer usage information concerning the user's utilization of the
`computer, and periodically requests additional advertising content.
`
`Claim
`
`(d) providing the user
`with download
`access to
`computer software
`that, when run on
`a computer,
`displays
`advertising
`content, records
`computer usage
`information
`concerning the
`user's utilization
`of the computer,
`and periodically
`requests
`additional
`advertising
`content,
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 32 of 148 PageID 337
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2404190&topic=1713942&ctx=topic&path=171394
`0-1713940-1710534
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 33 of 148 PageID 338
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 34 of 148 PageID 339
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`http://support.google.com/adwords/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1704368&topic=1713938&ctx=topic&path=171393
`7-1710534
`
`
`
`https://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=98155&topic=23413&parent=1320584&rd=1
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 35 of 148 PageID 340
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 36 of 148 PageID 341
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 37 of 148 PageID 342
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 38 of 148 PageID 343
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 39 of 148 PageID 344
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`The Google Accused Product performs transferring a copy of said software to the computer in response to a download
`request by the user.
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`(e) transferring a
`copy of said
`software to the
`computer in
`response to a
`download request
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 40 of 148 PageID 345
`
`Claim
`by the user,
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 41 of 148 PageID 346
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`29
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 42 of 148 PageID 347
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 43 of 148 PageID 348
`
`
`
`Accused Product
`The Google Accused Product performs providing a unique identifier to the computer, wherein said identifier uniquely
`identifies information sent over said computer network from the computer to said server. For example, the Google
`Accused Product provides and stores a cookie that includes a unique identifier to the computer of a Google user.
`
`Claim
`(f) providing a
`unique identifier
`to the computer,
`wherein said
`identifier uniquely
`identifies
`information sent
`over said
`computer network
`from the computer
`to said server,
`
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 44 of 148 PageID 349
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`32
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 45 of 148 PageID 350
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 46 of 148 PageID 351
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`(g) associating said
`unique identifier
`with demographic
`information in a
`database,
`
`Accused Product
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`The Google Accused Product performs associating said unique identifier with demographic information in a database.
`For example, the Google Accused Product associates web history (associated with a unique identifier) with a Google
`Account (associated with demographic information) on Google servers.
`
`
`
`
`34
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 47 of 148 PageID 352
`
`
`
`Accused Product
`http://www.google.com/goodtoknow/data-on-google/web-history/
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`The Google Accused Product performs selecting advertising content for transfer to the computer in accordance with the
`demographic information associated with said unique identifier.
`
`Claim
`
`(h) selecting
`advertising
`content for
`transfer to the
`computer in
`accordance with
`the demographic
`information
`associated with
`said unique
`identifier;
`
`
`
`35
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 48 of 148 PageID 353
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 49 of 148 PageID 354
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`http://support.google.com/adsense/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=140381&topic=23402&ctx=topic
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`The Google Accused Product performs transferring said advertising content from said server to the computer for display
`by said program.
`
`(i) transferring said
`advertising
`content from said
`server to the
`computer for
`display by said
`program,
`
`
`
`37
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 50 of 148 PageID 355
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`38
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 37-4 Filed 01/29/13 Page 51 of 148 PageID 356
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Accused Product
`
`
`To the extent this element is not met literally, it is met under the doctrine of equivalents because Google performs
`substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. To the extent
`that any differences are alleged to exist between the claimed element and Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities,
`products and/or services, such differences are insubstantial.
`
`