Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 176-4 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 176-4 Filed 06/10/13 Page 2 of 3

King&SpaldingLLP 333TwinDolphinDrive Suite400 RedwoodShores,CA94065 Tel:+16505900700 Fax:+16505901900 www.kslaw.com WilliamF.Abrams DirectDial:+16505900703 wfabrams@kslaw.com

June6,2013 BYELECTRONICMAIL Mr.StevenS.Cherensky TensegrityLawGroupLLP 555TwinDolphinDrive,Suite360 RedwoodShores,CA90067 Re: SkyhookWireless,Inc.v.GoogleInc. USDCDMA1:10cv11571RWZ

DearSteven: WeconsideredyourMay22responsetoGooglesMay1letterattachingadraftRule11motion. GoogleintendstofiletheMotionForRule11SanctionsAgainstSkyhook.YourMay22letterasserting distinctionsbetweentheclaimsofthe657,694,and988patents,doesnotaddressthemore fundamentalpointsintheDraftMotion:(1)thereisexpressdisavowalinthe657Patentspecificationof nonsystematicscanningand(2)SkyhookscounselknewthatGooglestoppedsystematicallycollectingdata usingscanningvehicles.Despiteknowingthosefacts,SkyhookfiledtheAmendedComplaint,assertingthe 657PatentagainstGoogle.ThatviolatesRule11. Thereisanexpressdisavowalofclaimscopeinthespecification,astheCourtrecognizedin construingthetermcalculatedpositioninformationtorequirethatWiFiaccesspointshavebeen collectedsystematically,i.e.,inamannerinwhichallthestreetsinatargetareaarecovered.TheCourt found: [T]hewaytoavoidarterialbiasinthedatasetcollectedistodriveeverysingle streetinthetargetarea.SincetheinventorsdenigratetheRandomModelas introducingarterialbiasintothedatasettheveryproblemwhichthepatentsaim tosolvetheyhavedisavowedtheRandomModelofscanning.Thepatentsinsuit thereforerequirethatthedatabecollectedsystematically,i.e.,bycoveringevery streetinatargetarea. D.I.96at1516(citationomitted).TheCourtalsoconcludedthatdatamustbecollectedinasystematic fashionthroughplannedaudit.Id.at17(citingtheprosecutionhistory).Thedisavowalofclaimscopeis notaltered,andcannotbealtered,bythedifferenceinclaimlanguageyounote(substantiallyallWiFi

Case 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ Document 176-4 Filed 06/10/13 Page 3 of 3

Mr.StevenCherensky June6,2013 Page2 accesspointsinthetargetareausedbythe994and988patentsandapluralityofWiFiaccesspointsin thetargetareausedbythe657patent). Yourletterassertsthatusersubmitteddatacollectionissystematicorequivalenttosystematic datacollection.Thispositionisuntenablebecauseoftheexpressdisavowalofnonsystematicscanning, e.g.,dataselfreportedbyindividualswhoarenotfollowingdesignedscanningroutes.657Patentat 3:2628. ThestatementsmadebySkyhookscounselaboutthe694and988patentsarepersuasiveasto theproperconstructionoftermsinthe657patentbecausethethreepatentsshareacommon specificationandsimilarclaimlanguage.Regardlessofwhatweightthestatementshaveonthemeaningof theclaimterms,theyarehighlyrelevanttoGooglesRule11motion.OnOctober21,2011,Skyhooks counseltoldtheCourtthataccesspointdatacollectedbyusersisnotimplicatedinthesetwopatents, referringtothe694and988patents,whichhaveanidenticalspecificationtothe657patent.Ifthe specificationsforthe694and988patentsdonotimplicateusercollecteddata,thenasamatteroflaw theclaimscopeofthe657patentmaynotincludethatsubjectmatter.OnJanuary3,2012,duringa discoverymeetandconfer,GooglescounselstatedthatGooglestoppedsystematicallycollectingdata usingscanningvehiclesinApril2010.Shortlythereafter,onMarch29,2012,SkyhookfileditsAmended Complaintassertingaclaimforinfringementofthe657Patent.Thesequenceofeventsshowsthat SkyhookscounselknewthatSkyhookhadnolegalorfactualbasistoassertthe657PatentagainstGoogle. Otherdistinctionsyourletterassertsbetweentheclaimsofthe657,694,and988patentsarenot relevanttoclaimscope.Thewordreduceinthe657patentisusedasasubstituteforthewordavoid inthe694and988patents.TheAbstractofthe657patentstates:Thetargetareaistraversedina programmaticroutetoreducearterialbias,whereastheAbstractofthe694and988patentsstate:The targetareaistraversedinaprogrammaticroutetoavoidarterialbias.Thusweseenobasisforyour contentionthatthe657claimtermreducesarterialbiasisdifferentinscopethanthealreadyconstrued termavoid(s)arterialbiasusedinthe694and988patents.Regardless,theonlymethodofreducing arterialbiasdisclosedinthepatentissystematicdatacollectionusingscanningvehicles,amethodnot practicedbyGoogle. Inlightoftheforegoing,werequestthatSkyhookreconsideritsrefusaltowithdrawitsclaimsof infringementofthe657patent,sothatthepartiescanavoidunnecessaryRule11motionpractice.Ifwe donotreceivearesponsefromyouby12pmPSTonMonday,wewillpromptlyfilethemotionwiththe Court. Verytrulyyours, /s/WilliamF.Abrams WilliamF.Abrams