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

EXHIBIT C

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

May 22, 2013 William F. Abrams King & Spalding 333 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 400 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 wabrams@kslaw.com Re: Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google, Inc. Case No. 1:10-cv-11571-RWZ BY EMAIL

Dear Bill: This letter responds to your letter of May 1, 2013 to Azra Hadzimehmedovic and the attached draft motion for Rule 11 sanctions. We and Skyhook do not take allegations of sanctionable conduct lightly. We have reviewed your letter and draft motion carefully and do not believe that your allegations are well taken or that the draft motion is meritorious. Accordingly, Skyhook will not agree to dismiss with prejudice its claims of infringement with respect to Skyhook's U.S. Patent No. 8,031,657, as you have demanded. Your allegations and draft motion are based on erroneous legal and factual premises and a misreading of the claims of the 657 patent for at least the following reasons. First, you contend that the Court's construction of the term "arterial bias" in the Skyhook 694 and 988 patents mandates that the claims of the 657 patent require systematic data collection using scanning vehicles, in order to avoid bias. That is clearly not correct, as a review of the Court's Claim Construction Order and a comparison of the claims of the 694, 988, and 657 patents confirms. Rather, the Court construed "arterial bias" in the 694 and 988 patents to mean "[t]he deviation of the calculated position information for a Wi-Fi access point toward heavily trafficked roads and away from the actual geographic location of the access point that occurs when data is collected by scanning vehicles that traverse heavily trafficked roads at the expense of smaller, surrounding streets." Markman Order p. 9. The term "arterial bias" in the 694 and 988 patents was part of the longer phrase "avoid(s) arterial bias." In construing the term "avoid(s) arterial bias" in the 694 and 988 patents a term that does not appear in the claims of the 657 patent the Court rejected Google's attempt to limit those patents to either any algorithm or the complete elimination of arterial bias. The term "avoid(s) arterial bias" in the 694 and 988 patents was thus interpreted to mean simply "reduce(s) significantly the effects of arterial bias." In contrast to the claims of the 694 and 988 patents, the claims of the 657 patent do not require the avoidance of arterial bias, but rather merely the reduction of it. Accordingly, the 657 patent claims then must require something even less than "reduce(s) significantly the effects of arterial bias."

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

William F. Abrams May 22, 2013 Page 2

Second, you contend that the Court's construction of "calculated position information" in the 694 and 988 patents also requires systematic data collection using scanning vehicles. The Court construed "calculated position information" in the 694 and 988 patents to mean "[e]stimated physical location(s) of Wi-Fi access points calculated using characteristics of signals transmitted by such WiFi access points, which Wi-Fi access points have been collected systematically, i.e., in a manner in which all the streets in target area are covered." But while the 694 and 988 claims require that the database include records for "substantially all Wi-Fi access points in the target area," the 657 patent claims only require "a plurality of Wi-Fi access points in the target area." Therefore, there is no logical reason that "calculated position information" in the 657 patent claims would require that WiFi access points be calculated in the manner required by the Court's construction of that term for the 694 and 988 patents. Third, you also contend that statements made by Skyhook's prior counsel at the claim construction tutorial for the 694 and 988 patents stand for the proposition that the claims of the 657 patent relate only to the collection of Wi-Fi access point location data using scanning vehicles and not to access point data collected from user devices. We disagree that the statements made at the tutorial are limiting in the way you contend. Those statements were clearly not made with respect to the 657 patent claims, and in fact, Skyhook's prior counsel expressly limited its tutorial statements, which Google now relies upon, to the 694 and 988 patents by referring repeatedly to "these patents" or "these two patents." See Google's May 1, 2013 Letter at 2; see also, e.g., Hrg. Tr. at 47:16-17 ("THE COURT: But neither patent uses, or maybe the technology doesn't call for it under any circumstances, whatever data may be returned from the user, that is, the person that they're trying to find based on where that person is found. MR. LU: The two, these two patents do not. There are other implementations and Skyhook does in fact use that data.") (emphasis added). The claims of the 657 patent were not at issue during the tutorial or the claim construction hearing on the 694 and 988 patent, and as discussed above, differ in important ways from the claims that were the subject of the then-pending claim construction. In any event, those statements of course are not evidence with respect to the meaning of any claims, were made in a non-adversarial proceeding, and cannot form the basis of a judicial estoppel. Moreover, even if collection of Wi-Fi access point data by user devices was not always systematic something Skyhook does not concede the sheer volume of deployed Android devices now collecting data from Wi-Fi access points (well over 200 million Android smartphones and tablets have now been activated in the US), as well as the establishment of Google's geolocation databases and services through the systematic collection by CityBlock vehicles in the past, makes current collection by those devices systematic, or at a minimum, equivalent to systematic. To be clear, Skyhook contends that the claims of the 657 patent, as well as all other asserted Skyhook patents, were and are infringed by Google, both before and after Google asserts it ceased its CityBlock collection of Wi-Fi access point data.

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

T 650-802-6000

F 650-802-6001

tensegritylawgroup.com

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

William F. Abrams May 22, 2013 Page 3

For at least these reasons, Google's draft Rule 11 motion is without merit and should not be filed. Skyhook reserves all rights if Google nevertheless proceeds to file this motion. Best regards, /s/ Steven S. Cherensky Steven S. Cherensky

cc: Roxane Pada (rpada@kslaw.com) dl.zzmgoogleskyhookext@bingham.com Google_SkyhookK&S@KSLAW.com

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

T 650-802-6000

F 650-802-6001

tensegritylawgroup.com