9415 Show Temp 2

User Manual: 9415

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 35

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page1 of 10

Exhibit 11

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page2 of 10

-2-

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page3 of 10

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page4 of 10

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page5 of 10

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page6 of 10

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page7 of 10

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page8 of 10

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page9 of 10

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page10 of 10

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page1 of 10

Exhibit 12

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page2 of 10

-2-

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page3 of 10

10080 N. Wolfe Road, Su ite SW3-190
Cupertino, CA 95014
tel +1 408-446-4222
fax +1 408-446-5444

05 APR 06
Mr. Wayne R. Inouye
President, CEO and Director
Gateway Inc.
7565 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA 92618

RE: GATEWAY - TPL: MMP PORTFOLIO LICENSING OPPORTUNITY

Dear Mr. Inouye,
I have attached a Press Release announcing that Fujitsu has now joined Casio and
Hewlett Packard in purchasing MMP Portfolio licenses.
All three of the companies studied the issues intensely. All three of these licenses cover
all products made by these companies (including disc drives) that contain
microprocessors. Such products range from very simple products to very sophisticated
products. The MMP Portfolio technology is a de facto standard in today's
microprocessor-based products.
We believe Gateway's products also require an MMP License.
Our technical experts, legal experts and business analysts have launched investigations
into the technical and economic detail of Gateway's products businesses.
Some early findings are:
•

Effected business segments include Desktop, Mobile, and Servers and Other.

•

Gateway products including Desktops (E-6500, E-4500, GT5032), LCD Monitors
(FPD1960), Notebooks (M250, M280), and Servers (9415, 9715) have been
examined and found to rely extensively on the use of property protected by the
MMP Portfolio patents. We should emphasize that this set of Gateway Products is
exemplary only; and is essentially a random sampling representing Products on

London Office: (v) +441784431 100 (f) +441784431 144

Hi hi Confidential - Attorne s' E es Onl

TPLE0571139

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page4 of 10
Mr. Inouye
05 APR 06
Page 2
which technical information was most conveniently available. Indications are that
virtually all Gateway products utilizing microprocessors may be affected.
•

A Preliminary Economic Analysis has been completed, and the analysis indicates
Gateway's exposure under the MMP Portfolio to be in the range of between
$440m and $2.45bn, depending on the various assumptions including growth
rates, and consumer/commercial product mix, etc.

The MMP Portfolio Licensing Program is focused on ready-to-use, end-user, final
products. It is these final products on which MMP Portfolio royalties are collected. We
also provide chip manufacturers with access to optional, royalty-free MMP Portfolio
licenses.
As we indicated on 29 AUG 05, the MMP Portfolio Licensing Program will reward first
movers in their industry sectors with dramatic discounts. By design, this structure
enables nimble and forward-thinking companies to disadvantage their competitors. For
example, Hewlett-Packard was quick to take advantage of our incentive plan early in
2006.
Said another way, to the extent Gateway can break the traditional pattern of "legal"
communications by focusing instead on "business," progress will be accelerated, and the
rewards are likely to be financially and strategically significant for Gateway Management
and Gateway Shareholders.
In the computing sector, today an MMP Portfolio license costs two times what it did 60
days ago. In the computer peripherals sector, a 1st round berth is still available.
There is an extremely low price available today for Gateway that will not be available
after the next manufacturer in Gateway's industry sectors purchases an MMP Portfolio
license.
We are ready to assist Gateway in developing the proper evaluation of the MMP Portfolio
sufficient to enable Gateway to make a business decision.
We would very much value Gateway as an early licensee.
We will most likely be available in the US during the weeks of 10 and 17 APR, and we
believe that a meeting could produce a win-win at this early stage in our Licensing
Program.
The sooner we hear from you, the more likely we will be able to accommodate your
schedule.

Hi hi Confidential - Attorne s' E es Onl

TPLE0571140

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page5 of 10
Mr. Inouye
05 APR 06
Page 3

Sincerely,

Mac Leckrone
President

cc:

Mike Tyler, Chief Legal and Administrative Officer

end:

Gateway MMP Portfolio Product Report v.1
25 FEB 06 Alliacense Press Release re Fujitsu

Hi hi Confidential - Attorne s' E es Onl

TPLE0571141

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page6 of 10

Fujitsu Purchases License to Intellectual Property Protected by
Moore Microprocessor PatenPM Portfolio
Fujitsu joins expanding roster of global giants, including Hewlett-Packard and Casio
Computer, to secure licensing rights to ubiquitous MMP Portfolio technologies

CUPERTINO, Calif. - March 1, 2006 - Alliacense today announced that Fujitsu Limited has
purchased a license to the intellectual property protected by the Moore Microprocessor
PatentTM (MMP) Portfolio. Fujitsu joins an expanding roster of global system manufacturers,
including Hewlett-Packard and Casio Computer, who have become MMP Portfolio licensees.
Specific terms of the license were not disclosed.
According to Mac Leckrone, Alliacense president, the spectrum of system-level digital
products exploiting MMP design techniques is very extensive. He noted that products
ranging from televisions, digital cameras and portable music players to servers, medical
equipment, and even automotive electronics systems are all designed with multiple
semiconductor devices that use MMP Portfolio technologies.
"Our Licensing Program rewards first movers in their industry sectors with substantial
discounts," said Leckrone "By design, our licensing structure enables nimble and forwardthinking system manufacturers to disadvantage their competitors." He confirmed that
Alliacense has contacted hundreds of system manufacturers around the globe, and that
competition for early-round licensing berths in key market sectors has become intense.
"Once digital hardware vendors recognize their broad reliance on the intellectual property
protected by the MMP Portfolio, they appreciate the critical need to secure continued access
to the fundamental MMP technologies," said Leckrone "System-level coverage is essential to
maintaining product design freedom and avoiding supply-chain disruptions." He noted that
Alliacense also offers simple, royalty-free licenses to all semiconductor sector operations,
worldwide.

About The MMpTM Portfolio
Named after legendary inventor Charles "Chuck" Moore, the Moore Microprocessor PatentTM
Portfolio encompasses seven US patents as well as their European and Japanese
counterparts. Protected through year of 2015, these patents protect techniques used in
designing microprocessors, microcontrollers, Digital Signal Processor (DSPs), embedded
processors and System-on-Chip (SoC) implementations.
In light of the early validation of MMP Portfolio by marquee chip-makers Intel and AMD in
2005, MMP licensing efforts are now focused on global system manufacturers.

About Alliacense
Alliacense is a TPL Group Enterprise executing best-in-class design and implementation of
intellectual property licensing programs. As a cadre of IP licensing strategists, experienced
business development and project management executives, and technology experts,

Hi hi Confidential - Attorne

E es Onl

TPLE0571142

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page7 of 10
Alliacense focuses on expanding the awareness and value of TPL's intellectual property
portfolios. The TPL Group is an intellectual property development and management firm
founded in 1989. For more information, visit www.alliacense.com.

# # #
Alliacense, Moore Microprocessor Patent, and MMP are trademarks of Technology Properties Limited (TPL).
All other trademarks belong to their respective owners.

Media Contact
Tom Rigoli
(650)-969-5986
rigoli@mindpik.com

Hi hi Confidential - Attorne 5' E es Onl

TPLE0571143

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page8 of 10
10080 N. Wolfe Road
Suite SW3-190
Cupertino, CA 95014
tel +1 408-446-4222
fax +1 408-446-5444

Product Report
Gateway Inc. - TPL MMP Portfolio v.1
Table of Contents with Links
(click the item to link to it)

Consumer Products
Desktops
1.0.

Gateway Desktop E-6500 - US'336
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.

2.0.

Gateway Support - 1008488 Gateway E-6S00D SB Computer RO Webpage, 20 Mar 06
Gateway Support - Components list for 1008488 Webpage, 20 Mar 06
Gateway Support - Specifications Webpage, 20 Mar 06
Gateway Support - WMEOEMD94SGBIG1 Intel (Big Lake) 94SG Motherboard Webpage,
20 Mar 06

Gateway Desktop E-4500 - US'336
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.

3.0.

Gateway Support Gateway Support Gateway Support Gateway Support CPU, Mar 21 06

94SG Motherboard Specifications, Mar 21 06
1008489 Gateway E-4S00D SB Computer RO Webpage, 21 Mar 06
Components list for 1008489, Mar 21 06
WMEOEMD94SGPBG1 Intel (Putton Bay) 94SG Motherboard No

Gateway Desktop GT5032 - US'336
3.1. Alcor Micro UA9368 Technical Reference Manual, July 200S
3.2. Gateway Desktop GTS032 Teardown, 9 March 2006

LCD Monitors
4.0.

Gateway LCD Monitor FPD1960 - US'336
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.S.
4.6.

Gateway LCD FPD1960 TFT, IMG_31S0, Mar 2806
Gateway Support - Front View Webpage, Mar 28 06
Macronix International Co. Welcome to Macronix.com Webpage, Mar 2806
Microcontrolier - hq Webpage, Mar 28 06
MX10E80S01 Datasheet, MXIC,Jul 01 OS
Teardown from Gateway LCD FPD1960 TFT,IMG_3167, Mar 2806

Confidential unpublished work
Subject to FRE 408

Page 1 of 3

01-Apr-06

Hi hi Confidential - Attorne

E es Onl

TPLE0571144

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page9 of 10

Notebooks
5.0. Gateway Notebook M250, BCM5752 - US'336
5.0a. Gateway Notebook M250, BCM5789 - US'336
5.1. Broadcom BCM5752 Product Brief, 13 Apr 05
5.2. Broadcom BCM5789 Product Brief, 10 May 05
5.3. Gateway Support - 2900782_Gateway M250 Notebook, 14 Mar 06

6.0.

Gateway Convertible Notebook M280 - US'336
6.1. Broadcom BCM5789 Product Brief, 10 May 05
6.2. Gateway Support - 1008547 Gateway M280 Convertible Notebook Webpage, 14 Mar
06
6.3. Gateway Support - Ethernet LAN Specifications, 14 Mar 06

Commerical Products
Rack Mount Servers
7.0.
7.0a.
7.0b.
7.0c.

Gateway
Gateway
Gateway
Gateway
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
7.4.
7.5.
7.6.
7.7.
7.8.
7.9.
7.10.
7.11.
7.12.
7.13.
7.14.

Rack
Rack
Rack
Rack

Mount
Mount
Mount
Mount

Server 9415 - US'336
Server 9415 - US'584
Server 9415 - EP'730
Server 9415 - JP'085

LSI Logic LSI20320R Product Brief, 2004
LSI Logic LSI53C1020 Technical Manual, Feb 2004
LSI Logic LSI53C1020 Product Brief, 2002
IBM PowerPC User Instruction Set Architecture, 28 Jan 05
IBM PowerPC405 Embedded Processor Core User's Manual, 28 Jan 05
Gateway Support - WME840000000A AMI MegaRAC G3 Webpage, 16 Mar 06
Gateway Support - WME840000000A AMI MegaRAC G3 Processor View Webpage, 14
Mar 06
Gateway Support - WME840000000A AMI MegaRAC G3 Main View Webpage, 16 Mar
06
Gateway Support - WME869198 Gateway 9415 1U Rack Mount Server Webpage, 14
Mar 06
Gateway Support - Components list for WME869198 Webpage, 14 Mar 06
Gateway Support - 5503246 Label Top Portion Webpage, 17 Mar 06
Gateway Support - 5503246300 GB Ultra320 SCSI HD Webpage, 17 Mar 06
Code for Speed - Memory, Iseran Project, 1996-2001
ARM Powered Products - Enterprise Solutions - Seagate Cheetah HD Webpage, 17
Mar 06

Confidential unpublished work
Subject to FRE 408

Page 2 of 3

01-Apr-06

Hi hi Confidential - Attorne 5' E es Onl

TPLE0571145

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page10 of 10

8.0.
8.0a.
8.0b.
8.0c.

Gateway
Gateway
Gateway
Gateway
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
8.4.

Rack
Rack
Rack
Rack

Mount
Mount
Mount
Mount

Server 9715 - US'336
Server 9715 - US'584
Server 9715 - EP'730
Server 9715 - JP'085

Gateway 9715 series Server Product Brochure, 2005
Code for Speed - Memory, Iseran Project, 1996-2001
LSI Logic LSI53C1030 Product Brief, 2002
LSI Logic LSI53C1030 Technical Manual, September 2003

Common References:
1. Process & Environmental Variation Impacts on ASIC Timing, Zuchowski, et aI., IEEE, 04
2. A 7-MHz Process, Temperature and Supply Compensated Clock Oscillator in 0.251..lm
CMOS, Sundaresan, et aI., Georgia Institute of Technology, 2002
3. Broadcom BCM5752 Product Brief, 13 Apr 05

Confidential unpublished work
Subject to FRE 408

Page 3 of 3

01-Apr-06

Hi hi Confidential - Attorne

E es Onl

TPLE0571146

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page1 of 15

Exhibit 13

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page2 of 15

-2-

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page3 of 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

JAMES C. OTTESON, State Bar No. 157781
jim@agilityiplaw.com
MICHELLE G. BREIT, State Bar No. 133143
mbreit@agilityiplaw.com
AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
149 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 227-4800
Facsimile: (650) 318-3483
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ACER INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,

Case No. CV08-00877-HRL
DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGY
PROPERTIES LIMITED’S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

Defendants.

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

Plaintiff ACER INC.

RESPONDING PARTY:

Defendants TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
LIMITED, PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, AND ALLIACENSE LIMITED

ANSWER SET NO.:

TWO (2) NOS. 17-25

23
24
25
26
27
28

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CV08-00877-HRL
Page 1

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page4 of 15

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants

Technology Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation (“PTSC”), and

Alliacense Limited (“Alliacense”) (collectively, “TPL” or “Defendants”) hereby submit their

objections and responses to Plaintiff Acer Inc.’s (“Acer”) Second Set of Interrogatories, as

follows:

6
7
8
9

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Defendants object to these Requests as not timely served on Defendants with

sufficient time prior to the deadline for fact discovery. See Civil L.R. 37-3.
2.

These responses are made only for the purposes of discovery in this action. Each

response is subject to all appropriate objects as to competence, relevance, materiality, and any

and all other objections and grounds which would require the exclusion of documents contained

therein if such documents were offered at court. All such objections are expressly reserved and

may be interposed at the time of trial or at any other time.

TPL objects to each Definition and Request and as unduly burdensome and

oppressive to the extent that it purports to require TPL to search TPL facilities and inquire of

TPL employees other than those facilities and employees that would reasonably be expected to

have responsive information. TPL’s responses are based upon: (1) a reasonable search, given the

time allocated to TPL to respond to the requests, of facilities and files that could reasonably be

expected to contain responsive information; and (2) inquiries of TPL’s employees and/or

representatives who could reasonably be expected to possess responsive information. The subject

matter of these requests is under continuing investigation. TPL expressly reserves the right to use

or rely upon documents not produced in response to these requests, if such documents are

uncovered during the course of its ongoing investigation.

TPL objects to each Definition and Request to the extent that it purports to impose

any requirement or discovery obligation on TPL other than those set forth by the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the Northern District of California and the Court’s

discovery orders. TPL especially and specifically objects to these Requests to the extent that

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CV08-00877-HRL
Page 2

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page5 of 15

they seek information that exceeds the limitations on electronic discovery and discovery of e-

mail in the Court’s discovery orders in this lawsuit.

TPL objects to each Definition and Request to the extent that it seeks information

protected from discovery by applicable privileges, including but not limited to the attorney client

privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege and/or any other

applicable privilege or immunity. Any disclosure of such protected or privileged information is

inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.

8
9

TPL objects to each Definition and Request to the extent that it seeks confidential

business information and/or trade secrets. TPL will only provide responses calling for

confidential or trade secret information subject to a protective order entered by the Court in this

lawsuit.

TPL objects to each Request to the extent that it purports to require TPL to

produce electronically stored information (“ESI”) outside the scope of an e-discovery plan

approved by the Court in this lawsuit.

TPL objects to each Request to the extent that it purports to require TPL to

produce documents in violation of a legal or contractual obligation of nondisclosure to a third

party. TPL will not produce such documents without either the consent of the relevant third party

or an order in this lawsuit compelling production.

TPL objects to these Requests to the extent that they seek information that is

available from public sources, more conveniently or less expensively obtained from another

source, or that is otherwise as available to Acer as it is to TPL.

22
23
24

10.

TPL objects to these Requests to the extent that they seek information that is not

known to TPL and outside of TPL’s possession, custody, and control.
11.

TPL objects to each Definition and Request to the extent it is overly broad,

unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence, or seeks information that is not related to any claim or defense or the

subject matter involved in this lawsuit.

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CV08-00877-HRL
Page 3

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page6 of 15

12.

TPL objects to these Requests as vague, overly broad and unduly burdensome to

the extent that they fail to specify a relevant time period, or specify a time period beyond the

scope of this lawsuit.

4
5
6

13.

TPL objects to these Requests as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the

extent that more than one Request seeks the same documents and information.
14.

TPL will respond to these Requests with current knowledge and reserves the right

to supplement these responses if any additional information is identified at a later time and to

make any additional objections that may become apparent. TPL also reserves the right to make

any use of, or introduce at any hearing, any documents or information not known or thought to

10
11

be responsive at the time of this response.
15.

TPL objects to each Definition and Request as premature to the extent that it

seeks materials regarding matters that will be the subject of expert testimony.

TPL objects to each Definition and Request to the extent that it calls for a legal conclusion or to

the extent that it seeks to elicit a response that would require TPL to implicate the mental

impressions of counsel in order to make a proper response. No response by TPL shall be

construed as providing a legal conclusion regarding the meaning or application of any terms or

phrases used in Acer’s Definitions and Requests.

18
19
20

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
1.

TPL objects to the definition of the terms “Defendants,” “you,” and “your” as

overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. TPL further objects to the definition of “Defendants,” “you,” and “your” to

the extent that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client-privilege, the work-

product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. TPL further objects to the

definition of “Defendants,” “you,” and “your” to the extent that it seeks information that is

outside of TPL’s possession, custody and control. TPL will respond on behalf of Technology

Properties Limited (“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corporation (“PTSC”), and Alliacense Limited

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CV08-00877-HRL
Page 4

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page7 of 15

1
2

only.
2.

TPL objects to the definition of the term “documents” as overbroad, unduly

burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TPL

will construe the term consistently with the Federal Rules of Procedure.

TPL objects to the definition of the terms “[p]erson” or “persons” as overbroad,

unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence. TPL will construe the term consistently with the Federal Rules of Procedure.

TPL objects to the definition of the terms “Defendants’ patents-in-suit” and

“patents-in-suit” as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. TPL will interpret the term “Defendants’ patents-in-Suit” and

“patents-in-suit” to mean U.S. Patent Nos. 5,440,749 (the ’749 Patent), 6,598,148 (the ’148

Patent), 5,809,336 (the ’336 Patent), and/or 5,530,890 (the ’890 Patent).

TPL objects to the definition of the terms “related patents” and “related patent

applications” as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

TPL objects to the definition of the terms “concerning,” “relate,” “refer,” and

“reflect” as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

19
20
21
22
23

TPL hereby incorporates each of the above general objections into each of the

specific responses below.
RESPONESS TO INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
Please identify all products manufactured, offered for sale, sold or imported by

Defendants that practice any claim of the patents-in-suit.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:

In addition to the foregoing general and specific objections, TPL objects to this

interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CV08-00877-HRL
Page 5

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page8 of 15

1
2

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TPL further objects to
this interrogatory on the grounds that the claims have not been construed by the Court. TPL

reserves the right to supplement this interrogatory response based on subsequent claim

construction. TPL also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks expert

discovery. Fact and expert discovery are ongoing and TPL reserves the right to amend or

supplement its response.

7
8
9
10

11
12

INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

For any products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 17, please identify all

documents, including, but not limited to, presentation materials, slide presentations, press

releases, customer success stories, reference account testimonials, analyst reports, notes and

handouts, used in the introduction, launch, sales, marketing, and/or promotion of those products.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:

In addition to the foregoing general and specific objections, TPL objects to this

interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TPL further objects to

this interrogatory on the grounds that the claims have not been construed by the Court. TPL

22
23
24
25
26

reserves the right to supplement this interrogatory response based on subsequent claim
construction. TPL also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks expert
discovery. Fact and expert discovery are ongoing and TPL reserves the right to amend or
supplement its response.

27
28

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CV08-00877-HRL
Page 6

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page9 of 15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, and while expressly reserving
the right to amend or supplement its response, TPL responds as follows: TPL incorporates by
reference its response to Interrogatory No. 17.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
Please identify all products sold by Defendants in the United States that have been
marked with a patent notice or patent label identifying any of the patents-in-suit, and identify the
product, its model number, the patent notice or patent label used with the product, when the
product was first marked with the patent notice or patent label, and the time period( s) during
which Defendants marked the product with the patent notice or patent label.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
In addition to its general objections, TPL objects to this interrogatory on the ground that
it creates many distinct subparts that violate the number limitation for interrogatories in this
action. TPL further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous, including with respect
to the term “circumstances.” TPL further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and seeking information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. TPL further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the
joint defense privilege, or other applicable protection. TPL will not disclose any such
information.
Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, and while expressly reserving
the right to amend or supplement its response, TPL responds as follows: pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 33(d), TPL states that the requested information can be derived from the
following previously produced documents: TPL853_01428752 - TPL853_01430596.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
For each asserted claim of the patents-in-suit, state the complete factual basis for
Defendants' allegation that Plaintiffs' alleged infringement has caused injury and damages to
Defendants and the method by which Defendants intend to calculate monetary damages to which
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CV08-00877-HRL
Page 7

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page10 of 15

they claim they are entitled, including, but not limited to whether Defendants claim a reasonable

royalty, lost profits, or any other measure of damages, as well as the way any such damages

would be calculated, the date any such damages would begin, and the amount of damages

attributable to each infringing product.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:

In addition to its general objections, TPL objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

prematurely seeks expert discovery. TPL also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

creates many distinct subparts that violate the number limitation for interrogatories in this action.

TPL further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. TPL further objects to this

interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TPL further objects to this

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client

privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, or other applicable

protection. TPL will not disclose any such information.

Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, and while expressly reserving

the right to amend or supplement its response, TPL responds as follows: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §

284, Defendants are entitled to no less than a reasonable royalty. Although it may be entitled to

lost profits damages, TPL intends to seek a reasonable royalty in an amount to be proven at trial

through expert testimony and opinion.

INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

Please state what you contend is a reasonable royalty for practicing each and every

alleged invention claimed in the patents-in-suit and state all facts that support your contention.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:

In addition to its general objections, TPL objects to this interrogatory to the extent it

prematurely seeks expert discovery. TPL also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it

creates many distinct subparts that violate the number limitation for interrogatories in this action.

TPL further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. TPL further objects to this

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CV08-00877-HRL
Page 8

Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page11 of 15

interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. TPL further objects to this

interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from discovery by the attorney-client

privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, or other applicable

protection. TPL will not disclose any such information.

6
7
8
9

INTERROGATORY NO. 22:
Describe in detail the basis for the amount of any reasonable royalty claimed for any
infringement charged in this action, including describing and providing the date on which

calculations are based, specific licenses that should be considered in determining the royalty, and

the method of calculation, identifying the facts and documents supporting or relating to the

calculations (specifying how and where such documents support or relate to the calculations),

and identifying persons who performed such calculations or who have knowledge upon which

the calculations are based (together with a summary of their knowledge).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22: