Receipt date: 07/23/2013
`
`Substitute for form 1449/PTO
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`(Use as many sheets as necessary)
`
`Filing Date
`First Named Inventor
`Art Unit
`
`12754573 - GAU: 3716
`
`PTO/SB/08
`
`Complete if Known
`12/754,573 and 90/011,117
`4/5/2010
`Sheldon F. Goldberg
`3716
`
`
`
`Examiner
`Initials*
`
`Cite
`No.
`
`Document Number
`Number-kind Code 2 “{k1o#")
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Publication Date
`MM-DD-YYYY
`
`Nameof Patentee of
`Applicant of Cited Document
`
`Pages, Columns, Lines, Where
`Relevant Passages or Relevant
`Figures Appear
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Foreign Patent Document
`
`Country Code?; Number’; Kind Code?(if known)
`
`Publication
`Date
`MM-DD-YYYY
`
`Nameof Patentee or
`Applicant of Cited Document
`
`Pages, Columns,
`Lines,
`Where Relevant
`Passagesor
`Relevant Figures
`Appear
`
`NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS
`
`Include name of the author (in CAPITAL LETTERS), title of the article (when appropriate), title of
`the item (book, magazine, journal, serial, symposium, catalog, etc.), date, page(s), volume-issue
`
`DefendantDell Inc.'s Certificate of Financially Interested Entities filed in the United States District
`Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 27, 2012, 2
`
`Declaration of Nicholas A. Schuneman Regarding Travel in Support of Dell's Motion to Sever and
`Transfer Venue filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Sep. 4, 2012, 38 pages
`Notice of Appearance of Counsel for Defendant Demand Mediafiled in the Eastern District of
`Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Nov. 13, 2012, 3 pages
`
`Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Initial and Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims
`and Infringement Contentions Under Local Rule 3-1 filed in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Nov. 16, 2012, 23 pages
`Declaration of Stuart M. Rosenberg in Support of Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Initial
`and Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions Under Local
`Rule 3-1, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Nov. 16, 2012,
`
`Notice of Compliance with the Court's Motion Practice Orderfiled in the Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Nov. 26, 2012, 9 pages
`
`Order Proposing Technical Advisor entered in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division,
`Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Nov. 28, 2012, 1 page
`
`Date
`Examiner
`Considered
`Signature
`*EXAMINER: Initial if reference considered, whether or notcitation is in conformance with MPEP 609. Draw line through citation if,not in conformance and not
`considered. Include copyof this form with next communication to applicant. Applicant’s unique citation designation number(optional). See Kinds Codes of USPTO
`Patent Documents at www. tispto.gov or MPEP 901.04. Enter Office that issued the document, by the two-letter code (WIPO Standard ST.3). For Japanese patent
`documents, the indication of the year of the reign of the Emperor must precede the serial number of the patent document. Kind of document by the appropriate
`symbols as indicated on the document under WIPO Standard ST.16 if possible. Applicant is to place a check mark here if English language Translation is
`attached.
`
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH.
`
`/P.D//
`
`

`

`Receipt date: 07/23/2013
`
`12754573 - GAU: 3716
`
`Substitute for form 1449A/PTO
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`
`
`
`[sreotTTtoeyDocketnumberaor
`
`Notice of Letter in Support of Google's Requestfor Permission to File a Motion for Summary
`Adjudicationfiled in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on
`Nov. 28, 2012, 5 pages
`Plaintiff Beneficial Innovations, Inc.'s Agreed Motion to Modify Briefing Scheduel re: Defendants’
`Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Initial and Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions Under Location Patent Rule 3-1 filed in the Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Nov. 28, 2012, 5 pages
`Plaintiff Beneficial Innovations, Inc.'s Agreed Motion to Modify Briefing Scheduel re: Defendants’
`Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Initial and Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions Under Location Patent Rule 3-1 filed in the Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Nov. 29, 2012, 5
`
`Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions under Local Rule 3- 20
`
`
`
`OYUnopposed Motion for Extension ofTime to File a Reply Letter Brieffiled in the Eastern Districtof|frees Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 3, 2012, 4 pages
`
`12
`
`13.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`17
`
`18
`
`|Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File a Reply Letter Brief entered in
`the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-
`229, on Dec. 4, 2012, 1 page
`|Notice of Compliance with Court's Motion Practice Order filed in the Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 7, 2012, 8 pages
`
`|Order Appointing Technical Advisor entered in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division,
`Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 10, 2012, 2 pages
`
`|Plaintiff Beneficial Innovations, Inc.'s Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Initial
`and Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions under Local
`Rule 3-1 filed in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec.
`10, 2012, 21 pages
`Declaration of David E. Rosen in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Initial and
`
`1 filed in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 10,
`2012, 58 pages
`|Amended Order Appointing Technical Advisor entered in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 10, 2012, 2 pages
`
` |Notice of Compliance with the Court's Motion Practice Orderfiled in the Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 10, 2012, 8 pages
`
`Defendants' Responsive Claim Constructionfiled in the United States District Court, Eastern
`District of Texas, Marshall Division, Case Nos. 2:11-CV-299 (MHS/CMC), on Dec. 10, 2012, 311
`
`‘Affidavit of Engagement filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 11, 2012, 2 pages
`
`Date
`Examiner
`Considered
`Signature
`*EXAMINER: Initial if reference is considered, whether or not citation is in conformance and not considered.
`next communication to applicant.
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH.
`
`Include copyof this form with
`
`/P.D//
`
`

`

`Receipt date: 07/23/2013
`
`12754573 - GAU: 3716
`
`Substitute for form 1449A/PTO
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`
`
`
`[sreotTTtoeyDocketnumberBaste
`
`pages
`
`Plaintiff's Notice of Compliance with the Court's Motion Practice Order filed in the United States
`District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 12,
`
`Google Inc.'s Notice of Compliance with the Court's Motion Practice Order filed in the United
`States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec.
`
`Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Initial and Supplemental Disclosures
`of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions under Local Patent Rule 3-1 filed in the United
`States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec.
`21, 2012, 11 pages
`Plaintiff Beneficial Innovations, Inc.'s Reply to Defendant's Claim Construction Brief filed in the
`United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229,
`on Dec. 21, 2012, 19 pages
`Plaintiff's Notice of Compliance with the Court's Motion Practice Order filed in the United States
`District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 21,
`2012, 6 pages
`Plaintiff Beneficial Innovations, Inc.'s Sur-Reply in Response to Defendants’ Motion to Strike
`Plaintiff's Initial and Supplemental Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`Under Local Rule 3-1 filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Dec. 31, 2012, 7
`Order entered in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Jan.
`2, 2013, 1 page
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chartfiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Jan. 7, 2013, 38 pages
`
`Joint Motion to Dismiss Dell Inc. filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Jan. 10, 2013, 5 pages
`
`Order of Dismissal entered in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-
`229, on Jan. 11, 2013, 1 page
`
`General Order Regarding Pending Case Transfers entered in the Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Jan. 14, 2013, 20 pages
`
`Joint and Unopposed Motion for a New Trial in a Reassigned Casefiled in the United States
`District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Jan. 28,
`2013, 9 pages
`Joint and Unopposed Motion for Entry of a Discovery Order filed in the United States District
`Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Jan. 28, 2013, 16
`
`Date
`Examiner
`Considered
`Signature
`*EXAMINER: Initial if reference is considered, whether or not citation is in conformance and not considered.
`next communication to applicant.
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH.
`
`Include copyof this form with
`
`/P.D//
`
`

`

`Receipt date: 07/23/2013
`
`12754573 - GAU: 3716
`
`Substitute for form 1449A/PTO
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`
`
`
`[sreotTTtoeyDocketnumberBase
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`|Agreed to Motion to Set Briefing Schedule on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on Google
`Inc.'s Complaint for Intervention filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 1, 2013, 6 pages
`|Motion for Summary Judgment that Beneficial Innovations, Inc. is in Breach of its Settlement
`Agreement with Google Inc. and Memorandum in Support Thereoffiled in the United States
`District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 1,
`2013, 361 pages
`|Order Granting Agreed to Motion to Set Briefing Schedule on Cross-Motions for Summary
`Judgment on Google Inc.'s Complaint for Intervention entered in the Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 5, 2013, 2 pages
`{Order re Scheduling Conference entered in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case
`No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 15, 2013, 2 pages
`
`38 Order granting Joint Motion for a New Trial Date entered in the Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 15, 2013, 1 page
`
`
`
`39
`
`40
`
`41
`
`42
`
`43
`
`44
`
`45
`
`46
`
`47
`
` |Motion to Strike Declaration of Dr. Almeroth and Memorandum in Support Thereof by Google Inc.
`filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No.
`2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 21, 2013, 18 pages
`|Declaration of D. Clay Hollowayfiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 21, 2013, 58 pages
`
`|Notice of Firm Name Change filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 22, 2013, 3 pages
`
`{Response and Opposition of Google Inc. to the Motion for Summary Judgmentfiled by Beneficial
`Innovations Inc. (Dkt. 273) filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 22, 2013, 309 pages
` |Defendants Amazon.com Inc., Expedia, Inc., Scripps Networks, LLC, and Viacom Inc.'s Notice
`Regarding Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment by Google and Beneficial Innovationsfiled in
`the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-
`229, on Mar. 25, 2013, 4
`|Agreed Submission of Docket Control Order filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
`District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 29, 2013, 8 pages
`
`|Notice of Firm Name Change filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 29, 2013, 2 pages
`
`{Amended Joint and Unopposed Motion for Entry of a Discovery Order filed in the United States
`District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 29,
`
` |Notice re: Mediatorfiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Mar. 29, 2013, 3 pages
`
`Date
`Examiner
`Considered
`Signature
`*EXAMINER: Initial if reference is considered, whether or not citation is in conformance and not considered.
`next communication to applicant.
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH.
`
`Include copyof this form with
`
`/P.D//
`
`

`

`Receipt date: 07/23/2013
`
`12754573 - GAU: 3716
`
`Substitute for form 1449A/PTO
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`
`
`
`[sreotTStoeyDocketnumberBasTRG
`
`
`
`Discovery Order entered in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 2, 2013, 8 pages
`
`Docket Control Order entered in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 2, 2013, 5 pages
`
`Amended Notice re: Mediatorfiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 2, 2013, 3 pages
`
`Order Appointing Mediator entered in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 3, 2013, 1 page
`
`Sur-Reply of Google Inc. in Opposition to Beneficial Innovations Inc.'s Motion for Summary
`Judgment (Dkt. 273) filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 15, 2013, 8 pages
`Reply of Google Inc. in Support of its Motion to Strike Declaration (Dkt. 279) filed in the United
`States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr.
`
`Joint Motion to Dismiss Demand Media, Inc. filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
`District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 24, 2013, 5 pages
`
`Order of Dismissal entered in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall
`Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 26, 2013, 1 page
`
`Beneficial Innovations, Inc.'s Sur-Reply to Google's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr.
`Almeroth filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division,
`Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 29, 2013, 10 pages
`Declaration of David Rosen in Opposition to Google's Motion to Strike the Declaration of Dr.
`Almeroth filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division,
`Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Apr. 29, 2013, 4
`Notice of Technology Tutorial filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on May 14, 2013, 24 pages
`
`Jury Demand of Third-Party Plaintiff Google Inc. filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
`District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on May 16, 2013, 2 pages
`
`Plaintiff Beneficial Innovations, Inc.'s Jury Demandfiled in the United States District Court,
`Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on May 16, 2013, 2 pages
`
`Order re: Markman hearing entered in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on May 21, 2013, 2 pages
`
`Order on Letter Briefs entered in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on May 21, 2013, 1 page
`
`Date
`Examiner
`Considered
`Signature
`*EXAMINER: Initial if reference is considered, whether or not citation is in conformance and not considered.
`next communication to applicant.
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH.
`
`Include copyof this form with
`
`/P.D//
`
`

`

`Receipt date: 07/23/2013
`
`12754573 - GAU: 3716
`
`Substitute for form 1449A/PTO
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`
`[sreotTTtoreyDocketnumberBasTRG
`
`District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on Jun. 5, 2013, 17 pages
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Statement Regarding Claim Terms for Argment at Markman Hearing Pursuant to Court's
`May 21, 2013 Order [Dkt. 304]filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on May 29, 2013, 10 pages
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness filed in the United States District
`Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division, Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on May 30, 2013, 17
`
`Declaration of Stuart M. Rosenberg in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgmentof
`Indefinitenessfiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division,
`Case No. 2:11-CV-229, on May 30, 2013, 147 pages
`Unopposed Motion for Oral Argument on Pending Motions Regarding Alleged Breachof
`Settlement Agreement [Dkt. Nos. 273 and 275]filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
`
`
`
`Date
`Examiner
`Considered
`Signature
`*EXAMINER: Initial if reference is considered, whether or not citation is in conformance and not considered.
`next communication to applicant.
`ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH.
`
`Include copyof this form with
`
`:
`
`/P.D//
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket