9415 Show Temp 2
User Manual: 9415
Open the PDF directly: View PDF 
.
Page Count: 35
Exhibit 11
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page1 of 10
- 2 -
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540 Filed08/27/13 Page2 of 10
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
Exhibit 12
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page1 of 10
- 2 -
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page2 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 Page3 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 Page4 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 Page5 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 forward-
thinking 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
5'
E es Onl TPLE0571142
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page6 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).
Media Contact
Tom Rigoli
(650)-969-5986
rigoli@mindpik.com
All
other trademarks belong
to
their respective owners.
Hi
hi
Confidential -Attorne 5' E es Onl TPLE0571143
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page7 of 10
Product
Report
10080
N.
Wolfe Road
Suite SW3-190
Cupertino, CA 95014
tel
+1
408-446-4222
fax
+1
408-446-5444
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. Gateway Support -1008488 Gateway E-6S00D SB Computer
RO
Webpage, 20 Mar 06
1.2. Gateway Support -Components list for 1008488 Webpage, 20 Mar 06
1.3. Gateway Support -Specifications Webpage, 20 Mar 06
1.4. Gateway Support -WMEOEMD94SGBIG1 Intel (Big Lake) 94SG Motherboard Webpage,
20 Mar 06
2.0. Gateway Desktop E-4500 -US'336
2.1. Gateway Support -
94SG
Motherboard Specifications, Mar
21
06
2.2. Gateway Support -1008489 Gateway E-4S00D SB Computer
RO
Webpage,
21
Mar 06
2.3. Gateway Support -Components list for 1008489, Mar
21
06
2.4. Gateway Support -WMEOEMD94SGPBG1 Intel (Putton Bay)
94SG
Motherboard
No
CPU, Mar
21
06
3.0. 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. Gateway LCD FPD1960 TFT, IMG_31S0, Mar
2806
4.2. Gateway Support -Front View Webpage, Mar 28 06
4.3. Macronix International Co. Welcome
to
Macronix.com Webpage, Mar
2806
4.4. Microcontrolier -
hq
Webpage, Mar 28
06
4.S.
MX10E80S01
Datasheet, MXIC,Jul
01
OS
4.6. Teardown from Gateway LCD FPD1960 TFT,IMG_3167, Mar
2806
Confidential unpublished work
Subject
to
FRE 408
01-Apr-06
Hi
hi
Confidential -Attorne
5'
E es Onl
Page 1 of 3 © Alliacense 2006
TPLE0571144
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page8 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. Gateway Rack Mount Server 9415 -US'336
7.0a. Gateway Rack Mount Server 9415 -US'584
7.0b. Gateway Rack Mount Server 9415 -EP'730
7.0c. Gateway Rack Mount Server 9415 -JP'085
7.1.
LSI
Logic LSI20320R Product Brief, 2004
7.2.
LSI
Logic LSI53C1020 Technical Manual, Feb 2004
7.3.
LSI
Logic LSI53C1020 Product Brief, 2002
7.4.
IBM
PowerPC User Instruction Set Architecture, 28 Jan 05
7.5.
IBM
PowerPC405 Embedded Processor Core User's Manual, 28 Jan 05
7.6. Gateway Support -WME840000000A AMI MegaRAC G3 Webpage, 16 Mar 06
7.7. Gateway Support -WME840000000A AMI MegaRAC G3 Processor View Webpage, 14
Mar 06
7.8. Gateway Support -WME840000000A AMI MegaRAC G3 Main View Webpage, 16 Mar
06
7.9. Gateway Support -WME869198 Gateway 9415 1 U Rack Mount Server Webpage,
14
Mar 06
7.10. Gateway Support -Components list for WME869198 Webpage, 14 Mar 06
7.11. Gateway Support -5503246 Label Top Portion Webpage,
17
Mar 06
7.12. Gateway Support -5503246300 GB Ultra320 SCSI
HD
Webpage, 17 Mar 06
7.13. Code for Speed -Memory, Iseran Project, 1996-2001
7.14. ARM Powered Products -Enterprise Solutions -Seagate Cheetah
HD
Webpage, 17
Mar 06
Confidential unpublished work
Subject
to
FRE 408
01-Apr-06
Hi hi
Confidential
-
Attorne
5'
E
es
Onl
Page 2 of 3 © Alliacense 2006
TPLE0571145
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page9 of 10
8.0. Gateway Rack Mount Server 9715 -US'336
8.0a. Gateway Rack Mount Server 9715 -US'584
8.0b. Gateway Rack Mount Server 9715 -EP'730
8.0c. Gateway Rack Mount Server 9715 -JP'085
8.1. Gateway 9715 series Server Product Brochure, 2005
8.2. Code for Speed -Memory, Iseran Project, 1996-2001
8.3.
LSI
Logic LSI53C1030 Product Brief, 2002
8.4.
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
01-Apr-06
Hi
hi
Confidential -Attorne
5'
E es Onl
Page 3 of 3 © Alliacense 2006
TPLE0571146
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-1 Filed08/27/13 Page10 of 10
Exhibit 13
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page1 of 15
- 2 -
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page2 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
1
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
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
ACER INC., ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC.
,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No. CV08-00877-HRL
DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGY
PROPERTIES LIMITED’S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
ACER’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
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
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page3 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
2
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
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:
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.
3. 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.
4. 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
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page4 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
3
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
they seek information that exceeds the limitations on electronic discovery and discovery of e-
mail in the Court’s discovery orders in this lawsuit.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
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.
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page5 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
4
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
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.
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
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.
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
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page6 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
5
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
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.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page7 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
6
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
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.
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 and supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 6.
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
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.
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page8 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
7
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
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page9 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
8
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
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
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page10 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
9
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
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.
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:
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.
INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
Separately, for each asserted claim of the patents-in-suit that Defendants contend has
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page11 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
10
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
been willfully infringed by Plaintiffs, identify the complete factual and legal bases for that
contention including without limitation, a detailed explanation of how and when Defendants
contend Plaintiffs were put on notice of Defendants' assertions of infringement for each accused
product, an identification of all documents and things upon which Defendants rely to support
their allegations and an identification of all individuals knowledgeable concerning the factual
and/or legal bases for Defendants' allegation.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 23:
In addition to its general objections, TPL objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that
it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. TPL objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
prematurely seeks expert discovery. TPL further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
calls for the identification or production of information not within TPL' s possession, custody, or
control and instead within Acer's possession, custody, or control. TPL further objects to this
Interrogatory as compound, insofar as it possesses at least three separate and distinct subparts.
TPL further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and other applicable privileges.
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 responses to Interrogatory No. 11. Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33(d), TPL states that the requested information can be derived from
TPL853_01810393 - TPL853_01817636.
INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
Separately, for each of the patents-in-suit for which Defendants are seeking injunctive
relief against Plaintiffs, identify the complete factual and legal bases supporting Defendants'
claims for injunctive relief.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
In addition to its general objections, TPL objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that
it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. TPL objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page12 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
11
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
prematurely seeks expert discovery. TPL further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
calls for the identification or production of information not within TPL' s possession, custody, or
control and instead within Acer's possession, custody, or control. TPL further objects to this
Interrogatory as compound, insofar as it possesses at least three separate and distinct subparts.
TPL further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and other applicable privileges.
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 responses to Interrogatory No. 11.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), TPL states that the requested
information can be derived from TPL853_01810393 - TPL853_01817636.
INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
For each Request for Admission that Plaintiffs have served upon you, and that you have
denied, either in whole or in part, state your full factual and legal bases for so denying.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25:
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. 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.
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page13 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
12
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
Dated: February 8, 2013
/s/ James C. Otteson
James C. Otteson
AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
149 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025
Telephone: (650) 227-4800
TPL853@agilityiplaw.com
Michelle G. Breit
OTTESON LAW GROUP
AGILITY IP LAW, LLP
14350 North 87th Street, Suite 190
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
Telephone: (480) 646-3434
TPL853@agilityiplaw.com
Counsel for Complainants
Technology Properties Limited LLC and
Alliacense Limited
/s/ Charles T. Hoge
Charles T. Hoge
KIRBY NOONAN LANCE & HOGE, LLP
350 Tenth Avenue, Suite 1300
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-8666
choge@knlh.com
Counsel for Complainant Patriot Scientific
Corporation
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page14 of 15
D
EFENDANTS
’
O
BJECTIONS
A
ND
R
ESPONSES
T
O
A
CER
’
S
S
ECOND
S
ET
O
F
I
NTERROGATORIES
CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CV08-00877-HRL
Page
13
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sherri Mills, declare:
I am employed in San Mateo County. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to
the within action. My business address is Agility IP Law, LLP, 149 Commonwealth Drive,
Menlo Park, California 94025.
On this date, I served:
DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO ACER’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
By forwarding the document(s) by electronic transmission on this date to the
Internet email address listed below and via United States Mail:
Timothy Paar Walker
timothy.walker@klgates.com
Jas Dhillon
jas.dhillon@klgates.com
Jeffrey Ratinoff
jeffrey.ratinoff@klgates.com
Harold Davis
harold.davis@klgates.com
K&L GATES LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Attorneys for Acer Inc., Acer
America Corp., and Gateway Inc.
Heidi L. Keefe
hkeefe@cooley.com
Mark R. Weistein
mweinstein@cooley.com
Kyle D. Chen
Kyle.chen@cooley.com
Htc-tpl@cooley.com
COOLEY LLP
Five Palo Alto Square, 4th Floor
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
Attorneys for HTC Corporation and HTC
America, Inc.
I am readily familiar with Agility IP Law’s practice for collection and processing of
documents for delivery according to instructions indicated above. In the ordinary course of
business, documents would be handled accordingly.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Menlo Park, California on February 8, 2013.
/s/ Sherri Mills
Sherri Mills
Case5:08-cv-00877-PSG Document540-2 Filed08/27/13 Page15 of 15
