in the united states district court for the ... no.: 6:14-cv-687-pgb-krs parkervision’s motion to...
TRANSCRIPT
McKool 1105576v3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, DEFENDANTS.
CASE NO.: 6:14-cv-687-PGB-KRS
PARKERVISION’S MOTION TO COMPEL INTERROGATORY ANSWERS
FROM DEFENDANTS QUALCOMM, SAMSUNG, AND HTC
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 37 PageID 5639
i McKool 1105576v3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2
II. LOCAL RULE 3.04(A) STATEMENT ..............................................................................3
A. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 4 Served On February 12, 2015 Is Relevant To Induced And Willful Infringement. .................................................3
B. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 5 Served On February 12, 2015 Is Relevant To Discovering Whether Any (Allegedly) Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives To ParkerVision’s Patents Exist. ...............................6
C. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7, Served On February 12, 2015, Is Relevant To Infringement Of The Accused Products. .........................................9
D. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 8, Served On February 12, 2015, Is Relevant To Identifying Allegedly Comparable Licenses For Use In Determining The Proper Measure Of Damages. ........................................14
III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES..............................................................................15
A. Interrogatory No. 4: Qualcomm Should Be Compelled To Provide A Complete, Non-Evasive Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 Regarding Its Pre-suit Knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit. .....................................15
B. Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7: Defendants May Not Cite an Unreasonable Volume of Material under the Auspices of Rule 33(d), Which Serves To Hide the True Response (If Any Exists in the Mountain of Identified Documents). ................................................................17
1. Defendants’ citation to voluminous, Bates-stamped materials does not provide enough specificity to comply with Rule 33(d). .........................................................................................17
2. In addition to Defendants’ lack of specificity, Defendants cannot rely solely on Rule 33(d) for Interrogatory No. 7 because it concerns Defendants’ contentions. ...........................................20
C. Interrogatory No. 8: HTC Cannot Avoid Substantively Responding with a Bare Citation of Rule 33(d) by Assuring a Response at Some Unspecified Future Date. .............................................................................24
D. Interrogatory No. 4 and 5: Documents created in preparation for this litigation are not an adequate response under Rule 33(d) because they are not “business records.” ...............................................................26
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 37 PageID 5640
ii McKool 1105576v3
E. Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8: Defendants’ Boilerplate and Otherwise Deficient “subject to” or “without waiving” Objections Followed by Deficient Answers Should Be Overruled. .........................................27
IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................29
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 37 PageID 5641
iii McKool 1105576v3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s) Cases
Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Med., No: 2:11-CV-694, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124173 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31, 2012) ........................2
In re Bilzerian, 190 B.R. 964 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1995) ....................................................................................19
Blake Associates v. Omni Spectra, 118 F.R.D. 283 (D. Mass. 1988) ........................................................................................25, 26
Calkins v. Parcel Corporation, No. 3:07-cv00025, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43937 (W.D. Va., June 4, 2008) ...................18, 19
Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729 (11th Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................3
Derson Group, Ltd., v. Right Management Consultants, Inc., 119 F.R.D. 396 (E.D. Ill. 1988) ...............................................................................................19
Hypertherm v. American Torch Tip Company, No. 05–cv–373–JD, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108269 (D.N.H. Dec. 29, 2008)........................18
Jones v. Z.O.E. Enters. of Jax, No. 3:11-cv-377, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104768 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2012) ...........................2
Lesti v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 297 F.R.D. 665 (M.D. Fla. 2014)...............................................................................................3
Mancini v. Ins. Corp., No.07cv1750, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51321 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) ................................23
Mann v. Island Resorts Dev., No. 3:08cv297, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130436 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2009) ......................19, 28
Morock v. Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., No. 8:07-cv-210-T-17-MAP, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88532 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2007) ........................................................................................................................................20
Mulero-Abreu v. Pourto Rico Police Department, 675 F.3d 88 (1st Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................................27
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 37 PageID 5642
iv McKool 1105576v3
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-749-Orl-41TBS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43251 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2015) ..................................................................................................................................28
Oleson v. Kmart Corporation, 175 F.R.D. 560 (D. Kan. 1997)................................................................................................26
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 27 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2014) .....................................................................................21
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 3:11-cv-719-J-37TEM, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2753 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2013) .............. passim
Pepperwood of Naples Condo. Ass’n v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 2:10-cv-753-FtM-36SPC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106624 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2011) ...................................................................................................................24, 28
Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., 168 F.R.D. 295 (D. Kan. 1996)................................................................................................25
Santoro v. Autozoners, LLC, 5:13-cv-242-Oc-10PRL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64985 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2014) ........................................................................................................................................18
Spadaro v. City of Miramar, No. 11-61607-CIV-COHN, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103278 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2012) ..................................................................................................................................18, 19
U.S. S.E.C. v. Elfindepan, S.A., 206 F.R.D. 574 (M.D. N.C. 2002) .....................................................................................20, 27
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (1958) ...................................................................................................................2
Wagner v. Fishing Co. of Alaska, Inc., No. C06-1634RSL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55092 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2008) ........................................................................................................................................23
Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 8:12-CV-557-T-27EAJ, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166377 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2013) ............................................................................................................................26, 27
Woodrow Woods & Marine Exhaust Sys., Inc. v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................22
Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 2010-1478, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2012) ......................................3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 37 PageID 5643
v McKool 1105576v3
Zuckerman v. Vane, 812 A.2d 942 (D.C. 2002) .......................................................................................................25
Other Authorities
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2178 (West 2014) ........................................................................................................................16, 25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 .................................................................................................3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) .............................................................................................3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) ........................................................................................3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) ........................................................................................3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c) ...........................................................................................26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) ................................................................................... passim
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d)(1) ................................................................................17, 25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d)(2) ......................................................................................25
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) .............................................................................................3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4) ......................................................................................17
Local Rule 3.04(a) .......................................................................................................................1, 3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 37 PageID 5644
1 McKool 1105576v3
ParkerVision moves to compel defendant Qualcomm to respond substantively to
Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and 7; Samsung to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7; and HTC to Interrogatory
Nos. 5, 7, and 8. ParkerVision served its Interrogatories over four and a half months ago on
February 12, 2015. Interrogatory No. 4 relates to the mens rea requirements of induced and
willful infringement as plead by ParkerVision in its Complaint. Interrogatory No. 5 relates to
availability of acceptable non-infringing alternatives which is highly relevant to the damages
inquiry. Interrogatory No. 7 is directed to identifying any material differences among the
operation of the accused chips in the Accused Products that are relevant to infringement. And
Interrogatory No. 8 relates to the identification of allegedly comparable licenses that is one of the
sources of evaluating patent damages. The Interrogatories that ParkerVision seeks to compel
responses to are thus highly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case.
Notwithstanding the relevance of these Interrogatories, on March 27, 2015 (and despite
ParkerVision agreeing to give Defendants an extension of time), Defendants responded under the
guise of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) with non-responses consisting almost entirely of assurances of
answers to be provided later and unidentified documents to be produced at an unspecified future
date. See generally Exs. 1-3. ParkerVision sent a letter to Defendants on April 3, 2015 explaining
the deficiencies in Defendants’ responses and requesting that Defendants provide ParkerVision
with substantive interrogatory responses. See Ex. 4.
The parties held a meet and confer on April 9, 2015 during which time ParkerVision
attempted to remedy these deficiencies without Court intervention. ParkerVision followed up the
meet and confer with a letter on April 10, 2015, which summarized the discussion, including
Defendants’ promises to provide meaningful supplementation to address the deficiencies in their
responses. See Ex. 5. On April 24, 2015 (and as set forth in the Local Rule 3.04(a) statement
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 37 PageID 5645
2 McKool 1105576v3
below), ParkerVision received Defendants’ supplemental responses to some (but not all) of the
deficient Interrogatory responses. See Exs. 6-8. ParkerVision continued to refrain from seeking
judicial resolution based on Qualcomm’s second supplementation on May 26, 2015 and
Samsung’s second supplementation on May 26, 2015 and third supplementation on May 29,
2015. See Exs. 9-11. It has now been over a month, however, since Defendants have last
supplemented the interrogatories at issue, and many months since the Interrogatories were
originally served, and thus ParkerVision is forced to seek assistance from the Court to cure
Defendants’ deficient interrogatory responses.
Defendants have not fairly and substantively responded to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories,
despite being afforded ample time to provide fair and substantive responses that adequately
address the subject matter sought in those Interrogatories. Accordingly, Qualcomm should be
compelled to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and 7; Samsung should be
compelled to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7; and HTC should be compelled
to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 7, and 8.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
“The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the disclosure of
all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in any civil action may
be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts, and therefore embody a fair and
just result.” Jones v. Z.O.E. Enters. of Jax, No. 3:11-cv-377, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104768, at
*2 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2012) (citing United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682
(1958)). The Federal Rules provide that when a party serving discovery does not receive an
adequate response, then the serving party may request an order compelling disclosure. Arthrex,
Inc. v. Parcus Med., No. 2:11-cv-694, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124173, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 31,
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 37 PageID 5646
3 McKool 1105576v3
2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Whether to grant the motion to compel is at the discretion of the
trial court. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984).
In deciding whether a motion to compel should be granted, the Court must first decide if
the information sought “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Lesti v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 297
F.R.D. 665, 666 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). “Rule 26(b) provides in
relevant part that ‘[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . . .’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). Rule
26 further “imposes an obligation on parties to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis
of their discovery responses.” Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272, 1279
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (e)(1) and (b)). Moreover, Rule 26 “requires that a
party who ‘responded to an interrogatory . . . supplement or correct its disclosure or response . . .
in a timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
in-complete or incorrect.’” Id. Section I.C.4 of the Discovery Practice Manual for the Middle
District of Florida (the “Discovery Practice Manual”) likewise provides that:
A party responding to a discovery request should make diligent effort to provide a response that (i) fairly meets and complies with the discovery request and (ii) imposes no unnecessary burden or expense on the requesting party.
II. LOCAL RULE 3.04(A) STATEMENT
A. ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 4 Served On February 12, 2015 Is Relevant To Induced And Willful Infringement.
Separately identify and describe how and when You first became aware of each of the Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the person(s) so aware, any documents showing or reflecting Your awareness of each such Patent-in-Suit and any documents or facts showing or reflecting Your belief of infringement or validity of each Patent-in-Suit from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through trial in this matter. Your answer should identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 37 PageID 5647
4 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 37 PageID 5648
This Interrogat01y is relevant to the mens rea requirements of induced and willful
infringement as plead by ParkerVision in its Complaint. See Dkt. 26. Despite ParkerVision
identifying specific instances of Qualcomm's pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit (see, e.g.,
id. at~~ 188, 236 (explaining that Qualcomm's own patents, prosecuted prior to the filing of
ParkerVision's complaint in this case, cite some of the patents-in-suit)), Qualcomm responded to
Intenogat01y No. 4 with cryptic and non-substantive answers that fail to identify who at
Qualcomm had knowledge of the patents, how they came to have that knowledge, and the
documents related thereto. Although Qualcomm supplemented its response on May 26, 2015,
for each of the patents referenced, Qualcomm merely cited to either the patent itself or the
patent's file hist01y (with the exception of the '940 Patent). Qualcomm's fmther lalmdry list of
citations to documents from Parker Vision I regarding infringement and validity fails to provide
5 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 37 PageID 5649
any insight into Qualcomm's pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit including the "who, what,
when, where, why and how" of Qualcomm's admitted pre-suit knowledge and a description of
each person 's then-existing belief in infringement or validity of the patents.
B. ParkerVision's Interrogatory No.5 Served On February 12, 2015 Is Relevant To Discovering Whether Any (Allegedly) Acceptable Non-Infringing Alternatives To ParkerVision's Patents Exist.
Separately for each asse1ied claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and fmancial details) related to any acceptable non-infringing altemative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any documents by Bates number that relate to, supp01i, or refute Your answer.
6 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 37 PageID 5650
7 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 37 PageID 5651
The alleged availability of acceptable non-infringing altematives is highly relevant to the
damages inqui1y--one way to measm e patent infringement damages is to compare the value of
the inventions in the asse1ied claims of the patents-in-suit to the closest acceptable, non
infringing altemative. In their supplemental responses, Qualcomm and HTC point ParkerVision
to more than 250,000 pages of Bates stamped production without specifying where in this sea of
documents infonnation responsive to this Intenogatory may be found. Samsung originally
8 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 37 PageID 5652
responded that it was willing to meet and confer regarding a response. The prui ies conferred on
April 9, 2015 and Srunsung supplemented its responses to other interrogatories on April 24,
2015- without supplementing its response to Interrogatory No. 5. On May 29, 2015, Samsung
then supplemented its response to Interrogat01y No. 5 with a boile1p late response that is nearly
identical to Qualcomm's and HTC's initial responses. The Defendants' asse1iions that "prior rut
methods and apparatus" ru·e non-infringing altem atives and design-arounds fails to specifically
identify what "prior a1t" is a non-infringing altemative or explain why that prior a1t would be
acceptable, specifically whether, for example, it would supp01i all of the relevant bands and
standards, how much power it would use, how big it would be, and other similar factual
considerations that must be specifically evaluated to determine whether an alleged non-
infringing altemative is acceptable.
C. ParkerVision's Interrogatory No. 7, Served On February 12, 2015, Is Relevant To Infringement Of The Accused Products.
Sepru·ately for each asse1ied claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff's infringement allegations, that You may rely upon to supp01i any asse1i ion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-inSuit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers cited in Plaintiff' s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product that you contend is material to plaintiff' s infringement allegations and any differences that You contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, supp01t , or refute Your answer.
9 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 37 PageID 5653
10 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 37 PageID 5654
11 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 37 PageID 5655
ParkerVision reverse engineered and charted two Qualcomm chips in its infringement
contentions at great expense. See Dkt. 122 (ParkerVision 's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to
Su·ike, fmi her explaining that Samslmg has refused to make any schematics for its Samsung
designed products available for inspection). ParkerVision contends that these two chips are
12 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 37 PageID 5656
13 McKool 1105576v3
representative of the operation of each of the other accused chips in each of the Accused
Products. Id. This Interrogatory is therefore relevant to the infringement inquiry—it is directed to
identifying any material differences among the operation of the accused chips in the Accused
Products that are relevant to infringement. This Interrogatory in an attempt to discover if
Defendants are aware of, or will argue about, any alleged differences between the operation of
different accused chips in the Accused Products that are relevant to infringement.
Interrogatory No. 7 is the only interrogatory that all Defendants supplemented their
responses to on April 24, 2015. In doing so, Defendants relied, once again, on Rule 33(d). As is
the case for several prior interrogatories, however, Defendants refer ParkerVision to an
enormous range of documents spanning many hundreds of thousands of pages with no
specification of which documents therein are responsive. Indeed, Qualcomm identifies several
Bates ranges of documents spanning more than 200,000 pages (all of which were identified in
response to a different interrogatory, Interrogatory No. 5 regarding non-infringing alternatives—
a completely different topic); Samsung identifies nearly 30,000 pages; and HTC identifies more
than 200,000 pages. Moreover, Rule 33(d) also requires that the burden in deriving the answer be
at least equal by reference to the documents identified—here, that burden is not equal:
Defendants designed the accused products, Defendants know the accused instrumentalities in
ParkerVision’s infringement contentions, Defendants have access to the native versions of the
schematics for these products, and Defendants are in the best position to identify any material
differences significantly more easily than ParkerVision.1
1 Samsung’s deficient response is particularly troubling based on its Motion to Strike. Dkt.
108. As explained in ParkerVision’s opposition, and in light of Samsung’s apparent belief that its non-Qualcomm chip products do contain material differences from those chips in ParkerVision’s infringement contentions of which ParkerVision is presently unaware, Samsung should be compelled to respond regarding what those differences are. See Dkt. 122. With this information
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 37 PageID 5657
D. ParkerVision's Interrogatory No.8, Served On February 12, 2015, Is Relevant To Identifying Allegedly Comparable Licenses For Use In Determining The Proper Measure Of Damages.
Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses, settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies ("Agreements") entered into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any jmisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set f01th in plaintiff's infringement contentions for each of Yom Accused Products or technology that you contend is similar to the ftmctions and features set f01th in Plaintiff's infringement contentions for each of Yom Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Yom answer.
Defendants' licenses that are either: 1) related to the accused ftmctionality, or 2) allegedly
"comparable" to licenses to the patents-in-suit, are relevant to the damages inqui1y. Indeed,
allegedly comparable licenses are one of the sources of evaluating patent damages discussed in
about alleged differences-which Samsung is apparently ah-eady aware of but has yet to shareParkerVision can, if necessary, reevaluate its infringement contentions to address any alleged differences between Samslmg's Qualcomm and non-Qualcomm products. And if Samsung is unaware of any material differences to infringement, it has in effect conceded that ParkerVision's representative infi:ingement contentions are proper. Samsung crumot have it both ways: either Samslmg needs to answer Interrogat01y No.7 and explain any material differences from ParkerVision's present infringement theories, or Samslmg needs to admit that it (like ParkerVision) is unaware of any such material differences and its Motion to Strike is not wellfounded.
14 McKooll l05576v3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 20 of 37 PageID 5658
15 McKool 1105576v3
recent Federal Circuit case law. Rather than provide a substantive response, HTC promises to
respond at some unspecified time in the future and fails to identify any responsive documents at
all.
III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
A. Interrogatory No. 4: Qualcomm Should Be Compelled To Provide A Complete, Non-Evasive Answer to Interrogatory No. 4 Regarding Its Pre-suit Knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit.
Interrogatory No. 4 requests Qualcomm identify all persons with knowledge of the
patents-in-suit and to provide documents demonstrating that knowledge. See supra Section II.A.
Despite ParkerVision’s request, Qualcomm has responded that “certain individuals employed by
Qualcomm” and “at least one individual in Qualcomm’s legal department” knew of the patents.
Id. Furthermore, Qualcomm provides several document citations but reliance on Rule 33(d) is
improper when the interrogatory requests recollections.2
While Qualcomm knows that “at least one individual in Qualcomm’s legal department”
had knowledge of some of the patents-in-suit, Qualcomm has not provided the identity of that
individual. Furthermore, Qualcomm was able to provide several dates that “certain individuals”
at Qualcomm became aware of the patents-in-suit, but it failed to identify who became aware of
the patents on those dates. ParkerVision pointed out these failures in correspondence months ago
(see Exs. 4-5), but Qualcomm failed to correct these issues in its first supplemental response.
2 Qualcomm’s identification of a single individual who had knowledge of the ’940 Patent
through the document with Bates No. QCPV001390546 (an e-mail from the individual to five e-mail addresses) is insufficient. The response fails to specifically identify the recipients—leaving ParkerVision to guess which Qualcomm personnel correspond to which e-mail address. As Qualcomm itself acknowledges, there are certain individuals (not merely a single individual) who had knowledge of the ’940 Patent on or around the date it issued. Further, Qualcomm’s identification regarding a single individual for the ’940 Patent fails to address the remaining 10 patents-in-suit.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 21 of 37 PageID 5659
16 McKool 1105576v3
In Qualcomm’s supplemental response, it cited voluminous documents to “provide
further support to Qualcomm’s belief that the accused products do not infringe.” Ex. 9. This
response, however, is still deficient. With the exception of one individual regarding the ’940
Patent, Qualcomm has continued to fail to identify who had knowledge of the patents-in-suit or
the circumstances of that knowledge. Qualcomm is the sole party in possession of this
information, and even assuming these individuals appear in the mass of documents Qualcomm
identified under the guise of Rule 33(d), it would be impossible for ParkerVision to hunt through
Qualcomm’s massive document citations looking for individuals employed by Qualcomm when
ParkerVision does not even know who all of Qualcomm’s employees are.
Furthermore, when an interrogatory asks for a recollection, the responding party may not
rely on Rule 33(d). See 8B Wright § 2178. (“For example, if a question calls for the recollections
of parties or their employees or agents, the fact that some pertinent data might also be found in
the records would not warrant use of this option.”). Qualcomm must “identify . . . how and when
[it] first became aware of each of the Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as
one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the person(s) so aware . . . from the time [it] first became
aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through trial in this matter.” Qualcomm has failed to identify
the vast majority of the individuals and neglected to explain when and how these unidentified
individuals became aware of the Patents-in-Suit. Despite the length of Qualcomm’s response to
Interrogatory No. 4 and the additional document citation, Qualcomm’s response, including
supplementation, fails to answer ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 4.
Qualcomm should be compelled to provide a narrative response describing the identity
and recollection of every single individual who was aware of any of the Patents-in-Suit prior to
the filing of ParkerVision’s complaint and support that information with any dates and relevant
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 22 of 37 PageID 5660
17 McKool 1105576v3
document citation. Qualcomm’s current response to Interrogatory No. 4 is incomplete and
evasive; therefore, it should be compelled to respond fully and in good faith because “an evasive
or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or
respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
B. Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7: Defendants May Not Cite an Unreasonable Volume of Material under the Auspices of Rule 33(d), Which Serves To Hide the True Response (If Any Exists in the Mountain of Identified Documents).
In response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7, Qualcomm has identified an
unreasonable mountain of over a quarter million documents with no specification of where in the
mountain ParkerVision is supposed to fairly derive a response to these Interrogatories. See supra
Sections II.B and C. Samsung’s response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7 and HTC’s
responses to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7 follow this same tactic. See id. Because
“hiding” responsive documents (if any) within a sea of documents is not in compliance with Rule
33(d), Defendants should be compelled to provide substantive, narrative responses to these
Interrogatories.
1. Defendants’ citation to voluminous, Bates-stamped materials does not provide enough specificity to comply with Rule 33(d).
Defendants have responded with enormous Bates number ranges that fail to comply with
Rule 33(d)(1)’s requirement of “specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail
to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party
could.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Indeed, Defendants have attempted to avoid answering
ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by directing ParkerVision to a sea of Bates-stamped materials
ranging in size from tens to hundreds of thousands of pages. The advisory notes to Rule 33(d)
address this type of discovery abuse:
The Committee is advised that parties upon whom interrogatories are served have occasionally responded by directing the interrogating party to a mass of business
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 23 of 37 PageID 5661
18 McKool 1105576v3
records or by offering to make all of their records available, justifying the response by the option provided by this subdivision. Such practices are an abuse of the option.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 Advisory Committee Notes.
The specificity requirement “now contained in Rule 33(d)(1) was added in 1980 to
address this problem,” referring to burying the interrogating party with a mountain of responsive
documentation in which the answer may (or may not) be hidden. 8B Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2178 (West 2014). “Indeed, a party may not
merely refer another party to documents hoping that the other party will be able to glean the
requested information.” Santoro v. Autozoners, LLC, 5:13-cv-242, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
64985, at *4-5 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2014). Instead, “[a]t a minimum, Defendant’s answers to the
interrogatories should include specific references to specific Bates numbered documents
correlated with specific interrogatory requests.” Id.
In Hypertherm v. American Torch Tip Company, the interrogatory-serving party
contended that the answering party relied “on Rule 33(d) to answer the interrogatories by a
general reference to thousands of documents produced in discovery [which is] tantamount to not
answering at all.” No. 05–cv–373, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108269, at *3 (D.N.H. Dec. 29, 2008).
The court agreed, observing, “[i]mportantly, Rule 33(d) is not a means for a party to avoid
answering interrogatories by making only a general reference to a mass of documents or
records.” Id. Similarly, in Calkins v. Parcel Corporation, the court explained “[c]learly, a
general reference to a 92-page list of documents, with no indication as to which of the
documents, if any, contain answers to the interrogatory, does not adequately and precisely
specif[y] . . . the actual documents where information will be found.” No. 3:07-cv-00025, 2008
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43937, at *14 (W.D. Va., June 4, 2008) (internal quotations omitted). In
Spadaro v. City of Miramar, the court required that the responding party “either provide a
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 24 of 37 PageID 5662
19 McKool 1105576v3
complete written response for each interrogatory or cite to specific page and paragraphs of each
document he claims is responsive.” No. 11-61607-CIV-COHN, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103278,
at *11 (S.D. Fla. July 25, 2012).3 Given the “very limited circumstances” in which Rule 33(d)
may be invoked, Defendants’ unreasonable citation to voluminous documents does not satisfy
the specificity requirement of Rule 33(d). See Discovery Practice Manual at Section III(A)(10).
As in Hypertherm, Calkins, and Spadaro, Defendants’ general citation to a mass of
documents previously served in this litigation is not in compliance with Rule 33(d) because it
does not adequately specify the records from which ParkerVision may ascertain answers to its
interrogatories. Qualcomm cites over 256,885 pages of documents for Interrogatory No. 5 and
over 220,514 of the same pages for Interrogatory No. 7.4 See supra Section II.C. HTC cites
33,738 pages of documents for Interrogatory No. 5 and 212,859 pages for Interrogatory No. 7.
Id. And Samsung cites 29,221 pages for Interrogatory No. 7. Id. This type of massive document
dump does not comply with Rule 33(d). “[Defendants] may very well have provided documents
responsive to [ParkerVision’s] requests, but the manner in which they did so is not acceptable.”
Mann v. Island Resorts Dev., No. 3:08-cv-297, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130436, at *13 (N.D. Fla.
Feb. 27, 2009).5
3 See also In re Bilzerian, 190 B.R. 964, 965 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1995) (citing Derson Group,
Ltd., v. Right Management Consultants, Inc., 119 F.R.D. 396 (E.D. Ill. 1988)) (“[I]t is clear that a general reference to voluminous documents is not sufficient.”).
4 Qualcomm’s citation to an erroneous range of Bates-stamped pages from “QCPVII00105370 – QCPVII0010953” means that ParkerVision cannot provide the exact number of pages cited by Qualcomm.
5 In contrast to these interrogatories, Qualcomm provides Bates numbers for two documents in response to Interrogatory No. 8 and provides their relevance: “[b]y identifying these documents, Qualcomm does not take any position on whether the licenses are comparable licenses for purposes of the hypothetical negotiation, a determination that is premature at this stage of the litigation and will be the subject of expert discovery.” Samsung also provided Bates numbers for two documents in response to Interrogatory No. 8, but Samsung failed to state their relevance. While ParkerVision does not concede that these responses to Interrogatory No. 8 are
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 25 of 37 PageID 5663
20 McKool 1105576v3
2. In addition to Defendants’ lack of specificity, Defendants cannot rely solely on Rule 33(d) for Interrogatory No. 7 because it concerns Defendants’ contentions.
“Reliance on Rule 33(d) is appropriate when the interrogatory requests objective facts
that are obvious from the specified documents, but is generally inappropriate when the
interrogatory asks a party to state its contentions or to state facts supporting its allegations.”
Morock v. Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., No. 8:07-cv-210-T-17-MAP, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
88532, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2007). Interrogatory No. 7 requests Defendants “identify and
explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each Accused Product that
you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You may rely upon to support
any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter.” See supra Section II.C. As
Interrogatory No. 7 requests Defendants explain any material differences between
ParkerVision’s infringement contentions and Defendants’ understanding of the operation of their
own products, Interrogatory No. 7 calls for a contention that ParkerVision cannot glean from
documents, regardless of how specifically Defendants cite their business records. See Morock,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88532, at *6 (“Only [a party] can identify [their] own contentions and the
burden on [the other party] to try and divine [their] contentions from documents obviously
imposes a greatly unequal burden on [the other party].” (quoting U.S. S.E.C. v. Elfindepan, S.A.,
206 F.R.D. 574, 577 n.5 (M.D. N.C. 2002)).) Accordingly, Defendants should be compelled to
provide a narrative response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7, explaining what differences
(if any) they contend exist between the products charted in ParkerVision’s infringement
contentions and the other accused products. See also Dkt. 122 (explaining ParkerVision’s
complete, Qualcomm’s response was an acceptable specification of documents under Rule 33(d). For each of the other Interrogatories at issue here, Defendants should be required to respond with this same level of specificity if they intend to rely on Rule 33(d).
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 26 of 37 PageID 5664
21 McKool 1105576v3
contention that the representative products that were reverse engineered and charted at great
expense are, to the best of ParkerVision’s present belief, representative of the operation of each
of the accused products in the case, and further explaining why reverse engineering and charting
every single chip in every single accused product is not feasible).
In ParkerVision I, the court declined to order Qualcomm to provide a narrative response
to a contention interrogatory. See ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 3:11-cv-719-J-37TEM,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2753 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2013). Based on ParkerVision’s experience in
ParkerVision I, however, ParkerVision demonstrates why Defendant’s should be compelled to
substantively respond to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7 in this case.
In ParkerVision I, Qualcomm made an eleventh-hour argument that ParkerVision’s
infringement contentions are insufficient based on representative products. ParkerVision, Inc. v.
Qualcomm Inc., 27 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2014). During judgment as a matter of
law briefing in ParkerVision I, Qualcomm argued that ParkerVision’s use of representative
products was insufficient to carry the burden of proving infringement despite Qualcomm’s
failure to cross-examine ParkerVision’s infringement expert on his use of representative products
and relying on representative documents when cross-examining ParkerVision’s expert. Id. The
court rejected Qualcomm’s argument “that JMOL is warranted because ParkerVision failed to
present substantial evidence that the Magellan design is a representative product.” Id. at 1280-81
(internal citations omitted).
Given Qualcomm’s prior allegations of the inadequacy of representative products
argument as late as post-trial, ParkerVision served its Interrogatory No. 7 early in this case to
discern whether ParkerVision’s use of representative products would be at issue in this litigation
and to spare the parties (and the Court) the burden of separately evaluating many products, if, at
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 27 of 37 PageID 5665
22 McKool 1105576v3
the end of the day (and as in ParkerVision I) the Defendants’ would not assert non-infringement
based on any alleged differences among the accused products. Contention interrogatories are
appropriate in the Middle District of Florida: “(1) to target claims, defenses, or contentions that
the propounding attorney reasonably suspects may be the proper subject of early dismissal or
resolution or (2) to identify and narrow the scope of unclear claims, defenses, and contentions.”
Discovery Practice Manual at Section IV(A)(8). In this case, it is critical that Defendants
affirmatively admit or deny that they will be defending against ParkerVision’s infringement
allegations based on material differences between the accused products and narratively explain to
ParkerVision what differences between the accused products they contend are material to narrow
the scope of the case and the burden on the parties (and the Court) in evaluating each of the
products at issue. The Federal Circuit has recognized the utility of contention interrogatories in
the context of narrowing patent litigation issues. See Woodrow Woods & Marine Exhaust Sys.,
Inc. v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., 692 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Contention
interrogatories . . . serve an important purpose in helping to discover facts supporting the theories
of the parties. Answers to contention interrogatories also serve to narrow and sharpen the issues
thereby confining discovery and simplifying trial preparation.”).
Compelling Defendants to narratively respond to Interrogatory No. 7 significantly
narrows the scope of this litigation because utilizing representative products minimizes the
burden on all parties in this litigation. Each of ParkerVision’s infringement contentions is
extensive and represents substantial time expenditure by ParkerVision. If ParkerVision is
required to draft infringement contentions for all of the accused products—because of alleged
material differences between those products—this litigation will be greatly complicated. Rather
than wait (until expert reports or potentially as late as judgment as a matter of law post-trial) to
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 28 of 37 PageID 5666
23 McKool 1105576v3
dispute the adequacy of ParkerVision’s use of representative products, Defendants need to
identify whether they will dispute the use of representative products now and provide
ParkerVision with any facts known to them that support that contention. This will enable
ParkerVision to adequately prepare its expert reports and for trial. Currently, Defendants have
not made any indication whether or not they will argue that there are meaningful differences
among the accused products such that ParkerVision cannot use a representative products
infringement theory in its expert reports and at trial.
For instance, Qualcomm stated in its original response to Interrogatory No. 7 that “[t]he
Accused Products also have many differences that provide additional bases for non-
infringement.” Qualcomm goes on to say “[f]or example, the values that Qualcomm has selected
for the resistors, capacitors, and other components are not identical across all of the Accused
Products.” Qualcomm cannot simply claim “there are many differences” and that “other
components are not identical” but then fail to provide what those differences are and how those
differences are material to Qualcomm’s non-infringement defense, as requested by Interrogatory
No. 7. If Qualcomm has knowledge of material differences between the accused products—and
as the party who designs them, it should know—it should inform ParkerVision of those
differences so that ParkerVision can prepare its expert reports and for trial. Thus, considering the
narrowly construed nature of Rule 33(d)6 and the necessity of ParkerVision knowing
Defendants’ answers to these contentions to narrow the scope of the case, Defendants should be
compelled to provide a substantive, narrative response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7.
6 See Wagner v. Fishing Co. of Alaska, Inc., No. C-06-1634-RSL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
55092, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2008) (“[Rule 33(d)] has been narrowly interpreted.”); see also Mancini v. Ins. Corp., No. 07-cv-1750, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51321, at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow, in strictly limited circumstances, for a party to refer to specific business records in response to an interrogatory . . . .”).
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 29 of 37 PageID 5667
24 McKool 1105576v3
C. Interrogatory No. 8: HTC Cannot Avoid Substantively Responding with a Bare Citation of Rule 33(d) by Assuring a Response at Some Unspecified Future Date.
In response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 8, HTC has failed to provide any
response whatsoever, instead only citing Rule 33(d) and promising to produce documents
responsive to this Interrogatory at some unspecified future date. See supra Section II.D. Because
an assurance to produce unidentified documents at some future date is not in compliance with
Rule 33(d), HTC should be compelled to provide a substantive narrative response to this
Interrogatory.
Rule 33(d) provides a limited alternative to answering interrogatories with a narrative
response when “the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business records (including electronically
stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially
the same for either party . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). The rule further mandates that the
answering party must “(1) specify[] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to
enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could
. . .” Id. Rule 33(d) “is not a procedural device for avoiding the duty to provide information in
response to an interrogatory.” Pepperwood of Naples Condo. Ass’n v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins.
Co., No. 2:10-cv-753-FtM-36SPC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106624, at *16 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20,
2011) (internal citations omitted).
HTC’s response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 8 is deficient because it does not
specify any business records as required by Rule 33(d). See supra Section II.D. Instead, HTC
merely states that at some unspecified time in the future it will produce unidentified documents
that it contends are sufficient to comply with Rule 33(d). Such unaccompanied assurances that
documents will be provided in the future (especially here where months have passed since the
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 30 of 37 PageID 5668
25 McKool 1105576v3
service of the Interrogatory and ParkerVision’s notification to Defendants regarding their
deficient non-responses) are insufficient to meet HTC’s burden to specify relevant business
records. Zuckerman v. Vane, 812 A.2d 942, 946 (D.C. 2002); Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card
Servs., 168 F.R.D. 295, 305 (D. Kan. 1996). “It is clear that a simple offer to produce unspecified
responsive materials is not sufficient designation to satisfy the [Rule 33(d)].” 8B Wright § 2178.
As stated in the Discovery Practice Manual Section III(A)(10), Rule 33(d) is only
available “in very limited circumstances.” If HTC wanted to comply with the “limited
circumstances” of Rule 33(d), at the time HTC served its initial response (i.e., on March 27,
2015), it would have “specif[ied] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable
the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1). The response at issue did not “specif[y]” any documents—it simply said
some unknown and unspecified documents would be produced at some future date. See Section
II.D, supra. And, Rule 33(d)(2) further required HTC to “giv[e] the interrogating party a
reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations,
abstracts, or summaries.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(2). Because HTC did not produce or identify any
specific documents pursuant to Rule 33(d), HTC has not afforded ParkerVision the required
“opportunity to examine and audit the records.” Had HTC wanted to legitimately invoke Rule
33(d), then it was required to comply with both 33(d)(1) and 33(d)(2) at the time their responses
were served—i.e. on March 27, 2015 (or, at the very least, as part of their April 24, 2015 or May
27, 2015 supplementations).
Consistent with the literal language of the Rule, and the guidance from Wright and Miller
set forth above, several courts have held that a promise to respond in the future is insufficient to
satisfy Rule 33(d). For instance, in Blake Associates v. Omni Spectra, the court observed the
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 31 of 37 PageID 5669
26 McKool 1105576v3
interrogatory response at issue “merely states that it ‘. . . . will make available for examination by
counsel documents responsive to this interrogatory.’” 118 F.R.D. 283, 289 (D. Mass. 1988). The
court explained, “this is patently insufficient . . . [a]n even cursory reading of Rule 33(c) [now
Rule 33(d)] would have alerted reasonably competent counsel to the fact that plaintiff’s answers
were wholly deficient.” Id. Similarly, in Oleson v. Kmart Corporation, the court rejected reliance
on Rule 33(d) where the defendant, “under the guise of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d),” referred
generically to an employment record and promised to furnish additional material at a mutually
agreeable date and time. 175 F.R.D. 560, 564 (D. Kan. 1997). The court clarified, “it is not a
proper answer to an interrogatory that information will be produced at a time to be mutually
agreed between the parties.” Id.
ParkerVision requests that the Court compel HTC to respond in full to ParkerVision’s
Interrogatory No. 8 regarding damages, including but not limited to identifying and producing
both: 1) agreements that relate to the accused and similar functionality as described in
ParkerVision’s infringement contentions, and 2) agreements that HTC contends are comparable
to a license the parties would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case.
D. Interrogatory No. 4 and 5: Documents created in preparation for this litigation are not an adequate response under Rule 33(d) because they are not “business records.”
In addition to the non-responsive nature of including Qualcomm’s infringement and
invalidity contentions in its response to Interrogatory No. 4 and the Defendants’ response to
Interrogatory No. 5 generally, the Defendants may not utilize documents prepared for this
litigation (i.e. their invalidity contentions), or during the course of previous litigation, in lieu of
providing a narrative response to Interrogatory Nos. 4 (Qualcomm) and 5 (each of the
Defendants)—Rule 33(d) only allows the use of business records. Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank,
No. 8:12-CV-557-T-27EAJ, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166377, at *21 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2013).
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 32 of 37 PageID 5670
27 McKool 1105576v3
For example, in Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, the responding party offered an expert report under
Rule 33(d). Id. The court held “Rule 33(d) permits a party to answer an interrogatory with
business records . . . an expert report is not a business record.” Id. In Mulero-Abreu v. Pourto
Rico Police Department, the responding party attempted to answer an interrogatory with a
deposition transcript. 675 F.3d 88, 91 (1st Cir. 2012). The court observed that “[a]nswering
interrogatories simply by directing the proponent to rummage through other discovery materials
falls short of the obligations imposed by Rule 33.” Id.; see also SEC v. Elfindepan, 206 F.R.D.
574, 577-78 (M.D.N.C. 2002) (“Pleadings, depositions, exhibits, and affidavits which plaintiff
intends to use are not Rule 33(d) business records.”). Including Qualcomm’s supplemental
response to Interrogatory No. 4, Qualcomm has cited several portions of the trial transcript from
ParkerVision I, a brief before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and its infringement
and invalidity contentions—none of these documents are business records. Likewise, in
responding to Interrogatory No. 5 each of the Defendants incorporate their invalidity contentions
under the guise of Rule 33(d)—these litigation created invalidity contents are not business
records within the meaning of the Rule. This is yet another reason why Qualcomm should be
compelled to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 4 and Defendants should be
compelled to supplement their responses to Interrogatory No. 5.
E. Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8: Defendants’ Boilerplate and Otherwise Deficient “subject to” or “without waiving” Objections Followed by Deficient Answers Should Be Overruled.
Boilerplate objections are insufficient to preserve any meritorious objection that
Defendants may have had with respect to any of ParkerVision’s Interrogatories. Accordingly,
and because their objections are waived, this is an additional reason why Qualcomm should be
compelled to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, and 7; Samsung should be
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 33 of 37 PageID 5671
28 McKool 1105576v3
compelled to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 7; and HTC should be compelled
to respond substantively to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 7, and 8.
Defendants raise a mass of objections to every single interrogatory set forth herein. See
supra Section II.A, B, C, and D. Rather than rely on the alleged objectionable nature of the
interrogatory, however, Defendants answer each such interrogatory (although not sufficiently),
and promise to provide responsive information as discussed in detail above. Courts in the Middle
District of Florida have consistently held that objections preceding an answer constitute waiver
of those objections. See Pepperwood, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96501, at *6-7 (“Even though the
practice has become common here and elsewhere, courts have found that whenever an answer
accompanies an objection, the objection is deemed waived, and the answer, if responsive,
stands.” (emphasis added)). Such objections “preserve[] nothing and waste[] the time and
resources of the parties and the court.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-
749-Orl-41TBS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43251, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2015).
In this case, ParkerVision is not contending that Defendants’ answers should stand—on
the contrary, Defendants’ answers are entirely deficient for the reasons set forth above. However,
and because Defendants agreed to provide information in response to the Interrogatories
discussed herein “subject to” their objections, those objections have been waived. In this District,
Defendants had to choose between abstaining from answering because the interrogatory is
objectionable (and state those objections with particularity) or respond substantively. “[A]
responding party is given only two choices: to answer or to object.” Mann, 2009 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 130436, at *10. “Objecting but answering subject to the objection is not one of the
allowed choices.” Id. Here, Defendants objected with boilerplate objections, then answered
“subject to” those objections, waiving any meritorious objection they may otherwise have had.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 34 of 37 PageID 5672
29 McKool 1105576v3
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, ParkerVision requests that the Court grant its Motion to
Compel Defendants to provide responses to the Interrogatories discussed herein.
LOCAL RULE 3.01(G) CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(g), ParkerVision’s attorneys conferred in good faith with
defendants’ attorneys, who object to the relief sought in this motion.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 35 of 37 PageID 5673
30 McKool 1105576v3
Dated: July 3, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
McKOOL SMITH, P.C. By: /s/ Joshua W. Budwin Douglas A. Cawley Texas State Bar No. 04035500 [email protected] Richard A. Kamprath Texas State Bar No. 24078767 [email protected] 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
Kevin L. Burgess Texas State Bar No. 24006927 [email protected] Joshua W. Budwin Texas State Bar No. 24050347 [email protected] Leah Buratti Texas State Bar No. 24064897 [email protected] Kathy H. Li Texas State Bar No. 24070142 [email protected] Mario Apreotesi Texas State Bar No. 24080772 [email protected] 300 West Sixth Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 SMITH HULSEY & BUSEY Stephen D. Busey James A. Bolling Florida Bar Number 117790 Florida Bar Number 901253 225 Water Street, Suite 1800 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 359-7700 Facsimile: (904) 359-7708 [email protected] ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF PARKERVISION, INC.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 36 of 37 PageID 5674
31 McKool 1105576v3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on July 3, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document and the
notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to the following non-CM/ECF participants: none.
/s/ Kathy H. Li Kathy H. Li
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160 Filed 07/03/15 Page 37 of 37 PageID 5675
EXHIBIT 1
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 41 PageID 5676
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S AND QUALCOMM ATHEROS INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST SET OF COMMON
INTERROGATORIES (1-8) CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the
Middle District of Florida (“Local Rules”), Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros,
Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”) submit the following objections and responses to ParkerVision,
Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants (hereinafter “First Set
of Interrogatories”).
General Responses
Qualcomm states the following general responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories and incorporates them by reference into Qualcomm’s specific objections and
responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 41 PageID 5677
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
2
1. Qualcomm’s discovery and investigation of the facts relevant to this case are
ongoing, and Qualcomm’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories is made to the
best of Qualcomm’s present knowledge, information, and belief. Qualcomm’s response is at all
times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation
may disclose and, while based on the present state of Qualcomm’s recollection, is subject to such
refreshing of recollection, and such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from
Qualcomm’s further discovery or investigation.
2. Qualcomm reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing
and at trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited
to, any such information or documents obtained in discovery herein.
3. To the extent that Qualcomm responds to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by
stating that Qualcomm will provide information and/or documents which Qualcomm or any
other party to this litigation deems to embody material that is private, business confidential,
proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c)(7), or Federal Rule of Evidence 501, Qualcomm will do so only upon execution
of an appropriate confidentiality agreement to protect against the unauthorized use or disclosure
of such information.
4. Qualcomm reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency,
relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or
trial of this or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of Qualcomm’s responses herein and
any document or thing identified or provided in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 41 PageID 5678
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
3
5. Qualcomm reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or
supplemental interrogatories as ParkerVision may at any time propound involving or relating to
the subject matter of these interrogatories.
General Objections
Qualcomm states the following general objections to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories and incorporates them by reference into Qualcomm’s specific objections and
responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
1. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that
they purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of the attorney-
client privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or
is otherwise exempted from discovery. Qualcomm hereby asserts all applicable privileges and
protections, and excludes privileged and protected information from its responses to
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories. Any disclosure of such privileged and/or protected
information is inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.
2. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that
they seek production of Qualcomm’s confidential and proprietary information prior to the parties
entering into a Confidentiality Agreement.
3. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).
4. Qualcomm objects to each of ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the
extent it seeks to require Qualcomm to identify in a response each or any document which may
relate to, reflect or otherwise refer to specified matters on the ground that such requests are
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 41 PageID 5679
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
4
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
5. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 5 for “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks
to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. Qualcomm will limit its responses to the
patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and ParkerVision’s
Infringement Contentions, served January 16, 2015.
6. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 6 for “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents
Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement
Contentions fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the
burden of proof, has failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly
infringe which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not specifically
accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, regardless of whether they
have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects to the blanket inclusion of any product
identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for
alleging infringement.
7. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 7 for “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused
Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions
fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 41 PageID 5680
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
5
burden of proof, has failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly
infringe which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not specifically
accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, regardless of whether they
have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects to the blanket inclusion of any product
identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for
alleging infringement.
8. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 8 for “Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent
Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement
Contentions fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the
burden of proof, has failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly
infringe which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not specifically
accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, regardless of whether they
have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects to the blanket inclusion of any product
identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for
alleging infringement.
9. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 11 for “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” for
the reasons set forth in objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused
Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Protocol
Converter Patents Accused Product(s).”
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 41 PageID 5681
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
6
10. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 12 for “Accused Product(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from Qualcomm regarding
products that it does not design, manufacture or sell, and thus any information about those
products are not within Qualcomm’s possession, custody or control. Qualcomm further
incorporates by reference its objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused
Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Protocol
Converter Patents Accused Product(s).”
11. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 15 for “document(s”) to the extent
ParkerVision seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
34(a). Qualcomm will interpret the term “document(s)” consistent with its use in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 34(a). Qualcomm further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types
of documents and information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.
12. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 16 for “communication(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on Qualcomm an obligation to provide
information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting Qualcomm to undue burden and
expense. Qualcomm further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents
and information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. Qualcomm further notes that the
term “communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories, and thus Qualcomm reserves all rights to further object to the use of this term if
and when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery requests.
13. Qualcomm objects to paragraphs 1-8 of the Instructions to the extent they purport
to require disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 41 PageID 5682
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
7
doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or information that is otherwise
exempted from discovery.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Separately identify each receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and
baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) or cellular telephone, tablet,
or other mobile communication device containing a receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem,
baseband, or baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) made, used,
offered for sale, or sold within the United States or imported into the United States by You or at
Your direction in the six years preceding the filing of the first amended complaint in this matter
and up through trial in this matter. Your answer should include an identification by Bates number
of all documents related to Your answer and use the format of the following exemplary table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 41 PageID 5683
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
8
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify on a monthly and quarterly basis,
for the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter and up through trial
in this matter: (a) the number of units sold, imported into, or licensed in the United States net of
any returns; (b) the revenues associated with the units sold, imported into, or licensed in the
United States net of any returns; (c) all costs relating to units sold, imported into, or licensed in
the United States net of any returns; (d) all other expenses for the units sold, imported into or
licensed in the United States net of any returns; (e) the profit margin before taxes for the units
sold, imported into or licensed in the United States net of any returns; and (f) an identification by
Bates number of all documents related to Your answer. To the extent that You do not track,
maintain, or have the ability to calculate the information separately for each Accused Product,
identify the information at the most granular level at which it is tracked, maintained, or at which
You are able to calculate the information. Your answer should use the format of the following
exemplary table:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 41 PageID 5684
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
9
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 41 PageID 5685
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
10
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)
first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first
importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of
testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary
table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 41 PageID 5686
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
11
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Separately identify and describe how and when You first became aware of each of the
Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the
person(s) so aware, any documents showing or reflecting Your awareness of each such Patent-in-
Suit and any documents or facts showing or reflecting Your belief of infringement or validity of
each Patent-in-Suit from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through
trial in this matter. Your answer should identify by Bates number any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 41 PageID 5687
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
12
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 41 PageID 5688
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
13
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and financial details)
related to any acceptable non-infringing alternative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of
which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for
any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any
documents by Bates number that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 41 PageID 5689
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
14
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Separately for each asserted claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your
Accused Products, identify and describe all facts and documents that support or refute any non-
infringement assertion, argument or contention that You are aware of, that You may rely upon to
negate any finding or assertion of intent to infringe (e.g., for induced or willful infringement),
that You may present in any dispositive or non-dispositive motion brought in this matter, that
You may present at trial in this matter, and/or that You may rely upon for any other purpose in
this matter. Your answer should include an identification of the date you first formed each such
belief, the identity of all persons who have that belief (including the date each such person
formed such belief), and an identification by Bates number of any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 41 PageID 5690
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
15
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 41 PageID 5691
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
16
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each
Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You
may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You
may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-
Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers
cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product
that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You
contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any
other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any
documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 41 PageID 5692
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
17
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses,
settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other
agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies (“Agreements”) entered
into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any
jurisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set forth in plaintiff’s
infringement contentions for each of Your Accused Products or technology that you contend is
similar to the functions and features set forth in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions for each of
Your Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 41 PageID 5693
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
18
would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally
identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 41 PageID 5694
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
19
Dated: March 27, 2015
COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Matthew J. Brigham Stephen C. Neal (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [email protected] Timothy S. Teter (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Matthew J. Brigham (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Jeffrey S. Karr (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Benjamin G. Damstedt (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400
and BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No. 103979 E-mail: [email protected] Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No. 953740 E-mail: [email protected] The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 Counsel for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 20 of 41 PageID 5695
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 21 of 41 PageID 5696
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 22 of 41 PageID 5697
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 23 of 41 PageID 5698
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 24 of 41 PageID 5699
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 25 of 41 PageID 5700
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 26 of 41 PageID 5701
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 27 of 41 PageID 5702
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 28 of 41 PageID 5703
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 29 of 41 PageID 5704
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 30 of 41 PageID 5705
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 31 of 41 PageID 5706
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 32 of 41 PageID 5707
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 33 of 41 PageID 5708
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 34 of 41 PageID 5709
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 35 of 41 PageID 5710
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 36 of 41 PageID 5711
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 37 of 41 PageID 5712
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 38 of 41 PageID 5713
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 39 of 41 PageID 5714
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 40 of 41 PageID 5715
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 27, 2015, I served the foregoing document described below:
Qualcomm Incorporated’s and Qualcomm Atheros Inc.’s Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)
by electronic mail to the following party:
/s/ Matthew J. Brigham Matthew J. Brigham (Admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400 Counsel for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
114085849
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-1 Filed 07/03/15 Page 41 of 41 PageID 5716
EXHIBIT 2
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 23 PageID 5717
WEST\255367560 1
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTION S TO
PARKERVISION’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1 -3 AND 5-8)1
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”),
Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”)
and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”)2 respond
to the first set of interrogatories by Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc. (“ParkerVision”) as follows:
GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
1. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks to impose duties or obligations on Samsung beyond those set forth in the Federal Rules
of Evidence, F.R.C.P. and/or the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District 1 Pursuant to the agreement between Samsung and ParkerVision, Samsung will respond to Interrogatory No. 4 by April 3, 2015. 2 On January 1, 2015, STA merged into SEA. SEA responds to this discovery on behalf of SEA and former STA.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 23 PageID 5718
WEST\255367560 2
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
of Florida, or any other agreement that the parties have or may enter into in this case. In this
regard, to the extent that an interrogatory requires, explicitly or implicitly, the construction of
one or more patent claim terms, a comparison of the asserted claims and the prior art, or
identification of any advice of counsel, such interrogatory is premature in light of the timetable
provided in the Case Management and Scheduling Order.
2. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they
prematurely call for discovery concerning, among other things before the parties have resolved
any ant all deficiencies with ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions.
3. The following responses are based on information available as of the date of these
responses. Discovery is not yet complete, and these responses are therefore subject to revision.
It is anticipated that further discovery, investigation, and analysis may supply additional facts
and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal
contentions, all of which may lead to substantial changes, additions, or variations to the
information set forth herein.
4. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
work product doctrine, joint defense, common interest and/or any other applicable privilege,
protection or doctrine. Nothing contained herein is intended to be or should be construed as a
waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, joint defense,
common interest privilege or other applicable privileges or doctrines. Samsung further objects to
each interrogatory to the extent that it requires Samsung to search for and reveal privileged
information or communications from its or its attorneys’ litigation files pertaining to the case.
5. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential or
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 23 PageID 5719
WEST\255367560 3
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
proprietary information pertaining to Samsung’s business, trade secrets and/or economic
relationships, or to the extent that it seeks confidential information which would impinge upon
any protected right to privacy.
6. Samsung further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information that contains confidential, proprietary or trade secret information of third parties.
Samsung will not provide information in response to such interrogatories until the entry of an
appropriate confidentiality agreement in this case, and all such production will be subject to any
consent required by third parties.
7. These responses are made solely for the purpose of discovery in this action.
Nothing herein is intended to waive the following objections, which are expressly reserved: all
objections as to competency, relevancy, authenticity, propriety, materiality and admissibility of
the subject matter of the interrogatories; all objections on any ground as to the use of any
information provided in response to these interrogatories; all objections on any ground to any
interrogatory for further responses to these or other interrogatories; and any and all other
objections and ground that would or could require or permit the exclusion of any document or
statement therein from evidence, all of which objections and ground are reserved and may be
interposed at the time of trial.
8. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek
irrelevant information concerning products that are not imported into or made, used, offered for
sale, or sold in the United States.
9. Samsung objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 23 PageID 5720
WEST\255367560 4
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
10. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
11. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to impose an
obligation to identify or search for documents or information at any location other than that at
which they would be stored in the ordinary course of business.
12. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is cumulative and
duplicative of other forms of discovery that are more convenient and less burdensome. Samsung
further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to require Samsung to do more
than conduct an examination of those files or sources that reasonably may be expected to yield
responsive information or an inquiry of those persons who reasonably may be expected to
possess responsive information.
13. Samsung objects generally to the temporal scope of the interrogatories as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it does not contain any reasonable or
appropriate temporal limitation. Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to
determine a mutually agreeable relevant time frame for discovery.
14. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek a
legal conclusion or prematurely seek expert opinion.
15. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information already in ParkerVision’s possession or that is equally available to ParkerVision
from public sources.
16. Samsung objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or “Your” as overly
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 23 PageID 5721
WEST\255367560 5
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it includes Samsung’s “past and present officers,
directors, affiliates, brokers, agents, representatives, employees, servants, and all persons acting
directly or indirectly under their control, including any attorney and including each Defendant’s
respective parents, subsidiaries, or affiliated companies, and other related entities, including all
assets or companies that each Defendant has acquired or with respect to which has succeeded to
rights or obligations.” Samsung further objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or
“Your” on the ground that it seeks the production of information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney-work product doctrine in so far as the definition
purports to include attorneys. Samsung will construe these terms to mean SEC and SEA in
responding to each interrogatory.
17. Samsung objects to the definition of “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks to
include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted against Samsung in this case. Samsung will
limit its responses to the patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and
ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, served January 16, 2015.
18. Samsung objects to the definitions of “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused
Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm Protocol Converter
Patent Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” to the extent that they seek
any information from Samsung regarding products that it does not design, manufacture or sell
and thus any information about those products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or
control or can be obtained directly from Qualcomm rather than Samsung.
19. Samsung objects to the definition of “Samsung Accused Product(s)” as overly
broad, unduly burdensome and vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant
and unreleased products. Samsung further objects to this definition to the extent that
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 23 PageID 5722
WEST\255367560 6
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the Court’s Case Management and
Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has
failed to adequately put Samsung on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of
the Patents-in-Suit.
20. Samsung objects to the definition of “Accused Product(s)” as overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and
unreleased products to the extent is seeks any information from Samsung regarding products that
it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those products are not
within Samsung’s possession, custody or control. Samsung further incorporates by reference its
objections to the term “Samsung Accused Product(s).”
21. Samsung objects to the definition of the term “document” to the extent that it
purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the
F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order, or any agreement regarding ESI reached between the parties
and/or endorsed by the Court.
22. Samsung objects to the definition of “communication(s)” to the extent that it
purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the
F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order, or any agreement regarding ESI reached between the parties
and/or endorsed by the Court.
23. Samsung objects to the various definitions of and instructions with respect to the
terms identify,” “identity,” or “identification” on the ground that they render each interrogatory
in which they are used overly broad and unduly burdensome, and to the extent they seek
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 23 PageID 5723
WEST\255367560 7
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Samsung will respond to Interrogatories containing these terms by using a reasonable, plain
meaning interpretation of the terms as best understood by Samsung.
24. Samsung objects to the definition of “Related Patents” as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, vague and ambiguous and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, to the extent that it seeks discovery regarding patents not
asserted against Samsung in this case.
25. The General Statement and Objections shall be deemed to be incorporated in full
into each response set forth below, and any statement of intent to produce information contained
in any such response is subject to the limitations, objections and exceptions set forth herein.
Subject to the foregoing General Statement and Objections, Samsung responds as
follows:
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Separately identify each receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and
baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) or cellular telephone, tablet,
or other mobile communication device containing a receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem,
baseband, or baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) made, used,
offered for sale, or sold within the United States or imported into the United States by You or at
Your direction in the six years preceding the filing of the first amended complaint in this matter
and up through trial in this matter. Your answer should include an identification by Bates number
of all documents related to Your answer and use the format of the following exemplary table:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 23 PageID 5724
WEST\255367560 8
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Defendant Product Type Product Name
Model Number
Wireless Carrier
Internal Name
Relevant Documents
Qualcomm Modem Snapdragon 801 MSM8974 N/A __ __
Samsung Phone Galaxy S5 SM-G900 Verizon __ __
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 23 PageID 5725
WEST\255367560 9
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Product Name Model Number Wireless Carrier
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 23 PageID 5726
WEST\255367560 10
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Product Name Model Number Wireless Carrier
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 23 PageID 5727
WEST\255367560 11
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Product Name Model Number Wireless Carrier
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify on a monthly and quarterly basis,
for the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter and up through trial
in this matter: (a) the number of units sold, imported into, or licensed in the United States net of
any returns; (b) the revenues associated with the units sold, imported into, or licensed in the
United States net of any returns; (c) all costs relating to units sold, imported into, or licensed in
the United States net of any returns; (d) all other expenses for the units sold, imported into or
licensed in the United States net of any returns; (e) the profit margin before taxes for the units
sold, imported into or licensed in the United States net of any returns; and (f) an identification by
Bates number of all documents related to Your answer. To the extent that You do not track,
maintain, or have the ability to calculate the information separately for each Accused Product,
identify the information at the most granular level at which it is tracked, maintained, or at which
You are able to calculate the information. Your answer should use the format of the following
exemplary table:
Defendant Accused Product
No. of Units Revenues Costs Other
Expenses Profit
Margin Documents
Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 (MSM8974)
__ __ __ __ __ __
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 23 PageID 5728
WEST\255367560 12
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 23 PageID 5729
WEST\255367560 13
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)
first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first
importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of
testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary
table:
Defendant Accused Product
First U.S.
release date
First U.S. sale or
offer for sale
First U.S.
public use
First U.S.
manu- facture
First importation into the U.S.
First use in the
Docu- ments
Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 (MSM8974)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 23 PageID 5730
WEST\255367560 14
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and financial details)
related to any acceptable non-infringing alternative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of
which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for
any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any
documents by Bates number that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 23 PageID 5731
WEST\255367560 15
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Separately for each asserted claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your
Accused Products, identify and describe all facts and documents that support or refute any non-
infringement assertion, argument or contention that You are aware of, that You may rely upon to
negate any finding or assertion of intent to infringe (e.g., for induced or willful infringement),
that You may present in any dispositive or non-dispositive motion brought in this matter, that
You may present at trial in this matter, and/or that You may rely upon for any other purpose in
this matter. Your answer should include an identification of the date you first formed each such
belief, the identity of all persons who have that belief (including the date each such person
formed such belief), and an identification by Bates number of any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 23 PageID 5732
WEST\255367560 16
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 23 PageID 5733
WEST\255367560 17
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each
Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You
may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You
may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-
Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers
cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product
that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You
contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any
other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any
documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 23 PageID 5734
WEST\255367560 18
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses,
settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other
agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies (“Agreements”) entered
into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any
jurisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set forth in plaintiff’s
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 23 PageID 5735
WEST\255367560 19
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
infringement contentions for each of Your Accused Products or technology that you contend is
similar to the functions and features set forth in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions for each of
Your Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff
would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally
identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 20 of 23 PageID 5736
WEST\255367560 20
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Samsung will produce non-privileged responsive
documents from which ParkerVision may ascertain relevant information, to the extent that any
exist.
DATED: March 27, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jeremy T. Elman Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 37448 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 T: (305) 423-8500 F: (305) 503-7551 E-Mail: [email protected]
Angela J. Crawford, Esq. Florida Bar No. 43611 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
100 North Tampa, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602-5809 T: (813) 222-5989 F: (813) 371-1116 E-Mail: [email protected]
Mark Fowler, Esq. (Trial Counsel) Pro Hac Vice Erik R. Fuehrer Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 T: (650) 833-2000 F: (650) 833-2001 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
Sean Cunningham, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Ed Sikorski, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Kevin Hamilton, Esq. Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US)
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 21 of 23 PageID 5737
WEST\255367560 21
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Tel: (619) 699-2700 Fax: (619) 699-2701 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Defendants
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 22 of 23 PageID 5738
WEST\255367560 22
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
served this 27th day of March, 2015, by email on counsel for ParkerVision, Inc.
By: /s/ Jeremy T. Elman
Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 37448 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 T: (305) 423-8500 F: (305) 503-7551 E-Mail: [email protected]
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-2 Filed 07/03/15 Page 23 of 23 PageID 5739
EXHIBIT 3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID 5740
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
Defendants.
HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES
(1-8)
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the
Middle District of Florida (“Local Rules”) HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
(collectively “HTC”) submit the following objections and responses to ParkerVision, Inc.’s
(“ParkerVision”) First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants (hereinafter “First Set of
Interrogatories”).
GENERAL RESPONSES
HTC states the following general responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories and
incorporates them by reference into HTC’s specific objections and responses to ParkerVision’s
First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 19 PageID 5741
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
2
1. HTC’s discovery and investigation of the facts relevant to this case are ongoing,
and HTC’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories is made to the best of HTC’s
present knowledge, information, and belief. HTC’s response is at all times subject to such
additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while
based on the present state of HTC’s recollection, is subject to such refreshing of recollection, and
such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from HTC’s further discovery or investigation.
2. HTC reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at
trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories but
discovered subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited to, any such
information or documents obtained in discovery herein.
3. To the extent that HTC responds to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by stating that
HTC will provide information and/or documents which HTC or any other party to this litigation
deems to embody material that is private, business confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or
otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7), or
Federal Rule of Evidence 501, HTC will do so only upon the execution of an appropriate
confidentiality agreement to protect against the unauthorized use or disclosure of such
information.
4. HTC reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance,
materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or trial of this
or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of HTC’s responses herein and any document or
thing identified or provided in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 19 PageID 5742
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
3
5. HTC reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or
supplemental interrogatories as ParkerVision may at any time propound involving or relating to
the subject matter of these interrogatories.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
HTC states the following general objections to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories
and incorporates them by reference into HTC’s specific objections and responses to
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
1. HTC objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that they
purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or is
otherwise exempted from discovery. HTC hereby asserts all applicable privileges and
protections, and excludes privileged and protected information from its responses to
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories. Any disclosure of such privileged and/or protected
information is inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.
2. HTC objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that they
seek production of HTC’s confidential and proprietary information prior to the parties entering
into a Confidentiality Agreement.
3. HTC objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).
4. HTC objects to each of ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent it
seeks to require HTC to identify in a response each or any document which may relate to, reflect
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 19 PageID 5743
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
4
or otherwise refer to specified matters on the ground that such requests are overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
5. HTC objects to Definition No. 5 for “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks to
include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. HTC will limit its responses to the patents
identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and ParkerVision’s Infringement
Contentions, served January 16, 2015.
6. HTC objects to Definition No. 9 for “HTC Accused Product(s)” as vague,
overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply
with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case Management and
Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has
failed to adequately put HTC on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of the
Patents-in-Suit. HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks to bring into the case
any products not specifically accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement
Contentions, regardless of whether they have been released yet or not. HTC also objects to the
blanket inclusion of any product identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since
ParkerVision has provided no basis for alleging infringement.
7. HTC objects to Definition No. 12 for “Accused Product(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from HTC regarding products
that it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those products are not
within HTC’s possession, custody or control. HTC further incorporates by reference its
objections to the term “HTC Accused Product(s).”
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 19 PageID 5744
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
5
8. HTC objects to Definition No 15 for “document(s”) to the extent ParkerVision
seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). HTC will
interpret the term “document(s)” consistent with its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a).
HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and
information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.
9. HTC objects to Definition No. 16 for “communication(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on HTC an obligation to provide
information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting HTC to undue burden and expense.
HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and
information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. HTC further notes that the term
“communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories, and thus HTC reserves all rights to further object to the use of this term if and
when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery requests.
10. HTC objects to paragraphs 1-8 of the Instructions to the extent they purport to
require disclosure of information protected by the attorney client privilege, the work product
doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or information that is otherwise
exempted from discovery.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Separately identify each receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and
baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) or cellular telephone, tablet,
or other mobile communication device containing a receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem,
baseband, or baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) made, used,
offered for sale, or sold within the United States or imported into the United States by You or at
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 19 PageID 5745
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
6
Your direction in the six years preceding the filing of the first amended complaint in this matter
and up through trial in this matter. Your answer should include an identification by Bates number
of all documents related to Your answer and use the format of the following exemplary table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify on a monthly and quarterly basis,
for the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter and up through trial
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 19 PageID 5746
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
7
in this matter: (a) the number of units sold, imported into, or licensed in the United States net of
any returns; (b) the revenues associated with the units sold, imported into, or licensed in the
United States net of any returns; (c) all costs relating to units sold, imported into, or licensed in
the United States net of any returns; (d) all other expenses for the units sold, imported into or
licensed in the United States net of any returns; (e) the profit margin before taxes for the units
sold, imported into or licensed in the United States net of any returns; and (f) an identification by
Bates number of all documents related to Your answer. To the extent that You do not track,
maintain, or have the ability to calculate the information separately for each Accused Product,
identify the information at the most granular level at which it is tracked, maintained, or at which
You are able to calculate the information. Your answer should use the format of the following
exemplary table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 19 PageID 5747
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
8
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)
first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first
importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of
testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary
table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 19 PageID 5748
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
9
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Separately identify and describe how and when You first became aware of each of the
Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the
person(s) so aware, any documents showing or reflecting Your awareness of each such Patent-in-
Suit and any documents or facts showing or reflecting Your belief of infringement or validity of
each Patent-in-Suit from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through
trial in this matter. Your answer should identify by Bates number any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 19 PageID 5749
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
10
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and financial details)
related to any acceptable non-infringing alternative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of
which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for
any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any
documents by Bates number that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 19 PageID 5750
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
11
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Separately for each asserted claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your
Accused Products, identify and describe all facts and documents that support or refute any non-
infringement assertion, argument or contention that You are aware of, that You may rely upon to
negate any finding or assertion of intent to infringe (e.g., for induced or willful infringement),
that You may present in any dispositive or non-dispositive motion brought in this matter, that
You may present at trial in this matter, and/or that You may rely upon for any other purpose in
this matter. Your answer should include an identification of the date you first formed each such
belief, the identity of all persons who have that belief (including the date each such person
formed such belief), and an identification by Bates number of any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 19 PageID 5751
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
12
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each
Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You
may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You
may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-
Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers
cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product
that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You
contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any
other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any
documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 19 PageID 5752
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
13
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses,
settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other
agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies (“Agreements”) entered
into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any
jurisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set forth in plaintiff’s
infringement contentions for each of Your Accused Products or technology that you contend is
similar to the functions and features set forth in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions for each of
Your Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 19 PageID 5753
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
14
would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally
identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 19 PageID 5754
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
15
Dated: March 27, 2015 COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Matthew J. Brigham Stephen C. Neal (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [email protected] Timothy S. Teter (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Matthew J. Brigham (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Jeffrey S. Karr (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Benjamin G. Damstedt (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400
and BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No. 103979 E-mail: [email protected] Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No. 953740 E-mail: [email protected] The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 Counsel for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 19 PageID 5755
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 19 PageID 5756
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 19 PageID 5757
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 27, 2015, I served the foregoing document described below:
HTC Corporation’s and HTC America, Inc.’s Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)
by electronic mail to the following party:
/s/ Matthew J. Brigham
Matthew J. Brigham (Admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400 Counsel for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
114549328
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-3 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 19 PageID 5758
EXHIBIT 4
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-4 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 5759
McKool Smith
A Professional Corporation • Attorneys Austin | Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | Marshall | New York | Silicon Valley | Washington, DC
McKool 1085314v1
Joshua W. Budwin Direct Dial: (512) 692-8727 [email protected]
300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
April 3, 2015
VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3715 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Jeremy T. Elman DLA Piper LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131
RE: ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et al.; Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Dear Matt and Jeremy:
I write in regards to the deficient nature of Defendants’ written discovery responses. No Defendant has sufficiently responded to our written discovery, notwithstanding the extensions we granted the Defendants. Accordingly, please provide a date certain for your supplementation of each deficient response identified herein to provide the full information requested by the Interrogatory. Alternatively, please let us know your availability for a meet and confer so that we may seek relief from the Court. Is each Defendant available on Wednesday, April 7th, at 1:00 pm Central Time? If not, please suggest an alternative time that works for all Defendants collectively.
One global issue herein is the Defendants’ improper reliance on Rule 33(d). Specifically, Rule 33(d)(1) requires a party to “specify[] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” As Defendants attempt to invoke Rule 33(d) without producing or identifying any specific document, the responses discussed herein do not “specify” any documents as required by the Rule. And, Rule 33(d)(2) further requires a party to “giv[e] the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.” By attempting to rely on the Rule for documents that have not been produced or otherwise made available, ParkerVision has not been provided with the required
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-4 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID 5760
April 3, 2015 Page 2
McKool 1085314v1
“opportunity.” Had any Defendant wanted to legitimately invoke Rule 33(d), it was required to comply with both 33(d)(1) and 33(d)(2) at the time of its response.
Interrogatory Nos. 2-3
Qualcomm: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, particularly as updated through the date of Qualcomm’s response to these Interrogatories. Instead, Qualcomm refers to its prior responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9 from the ParkerVision I case and states that it will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).
HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).
Interrogatory No. 4
Qualcomm: Your response fails to identify any individuals or documents related to Qualcomm’s knowledge of the patents-in-suit. Instead, your response refers to “certain individuals” or “one individual in Qualcomm’s legal department” without identifying any of those individuals by name. Your response also fails to identify any documents showing how each individual became aware of the relevant patents or other documentary evidence related to their knowledge of the patents.
Moreover, the Interrogatory asks for information related to each individual’s belief in non-infringement and/or invalidity “from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through trial in this matter.” Yet, Qualcomm’s response refers only to “documents and facts . . . set forth in Qualcomm’s invalidity and non-infringement contentions.” We therefore understand your “invalidity and non-infringement contentions” to reflect the sum total of information relevant to these as-yet unnamed individuals’ knowledge and belief in non-infringement and/or invalidity from the date they first learned of the relevant patent up through the date of your response.
Samsung: Pursuant to the agreed extension, no response has yet been received from Samsung. Please however see the above critique to Qualcomm’s response to this same Interrogatory. We expect Samsung to provide a full and fair response, including the above-identified information missing from Qualcomm’s response.
Interrogatory No. 5
Qualcomm/HTC: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, including the identity of any acceptable, non-infringing alternatives. While we understand your assertion that you do not believe your products accused of infringement in this case (or, for Qualcomm, the ParkerVision I case infringe), pointing to non-infringement of presently accused products does not identify any acceptable, non-infringing alternative to those very same
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-4 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID 5761
April 3, 2015 Page 3
McKool 1085314v1
products—the logic in your response is wholly circular. Non-infringement of the presently accused products and the availability of non-infringing alternatives to those very same accused products are separate questions. That said, if the only available, acceptable, non-infringing alternatives to the presently-accused products that Qualcomm and HTC are aware of or otherwise intend to rely upon in this matter is the (alleged) non-infringement of the accused products themselves, please amend your response to state this more clearly.
Additionally, your response vaguely and generically refers to “the extensive prior art methods and apparatus set forth in Qualcomm’s [and HTC’s] non-infringement and invalidity contentions” without specifically identifying any such non-infringing alternative (e.g. by name or description of its operation). And, your response fails to explain how any alleged alternative is non-infringing and would be an acceptable alternative to the presently accused products (including the “extensive prior art methods and apparatus” referred to your answer).
Samsung: Has provided no response whatsoever, stating only “Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to determine a reasonable scope for a response to this Interrogatory.” Pursuant to our proposals to narrow the number of asserted claims (see February 17 and April 3, 2015 correspondence) and the request for a meet and confer above, we are willing to meet and confer with you regarding this Interrogatory. That said we disagree that the scope of this Interrogatory is too broad so as to prevent you from reasonably identifying any acceptable, non-infringing alternatives. If you are presently unaware of any such alternatives, you should amend your response to clearly provide this information.
Interrogatory No. 7
Qualcomm: While Qualcomm states the “Accused Products are not identical” and that “ParkerVision’s infringement theory as to one product thus does not suffice as to the others,” Qualcomm has not explained why it is making this contention and has not set forth any information that would reasonably permit ParkerVision to evaluate the veracity of this contention. As you know, we have previously asked that you provide a substantive response to this Interrogatory to enable us to undertake a good faith evaluation of the sufficiency of our infringement contentions in light of your complaints about our contentions. See e.g. our February 17 and March 27, 2015 correspondence. We are disappointed that rather than engage with us in good faith—and despite complaining about our infringement contentions—you have failed to substantively answer this Interrogatory.
Setting aside Qualcomm’s non-substantive answer, and even accepting as true that “the values that Qualcomm has selected for the resistors, capacitors, and other components are not identical,” Qualcomm has failed to explain whether any products share the same component values—e.g., do all of the “common design approaches” that your response refers to have the same or different component values? In addition, Qualcomm has wholly failed to explain why it (apparently) “contend[s these different component values are] material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations.” Qualcomm has also failed to explain why it (apparently) “contend[s these different component values] make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any other Accused Product.”
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-4 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID 5762
April 3, 2015 Page 4
McKool 1085314v1
Moreover, Qualcomm has not identified any responsive documents whatsoever, other than saying “Qualcomm will be producing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), the schematics and related documentation for any properly accused product from which the response to this interrogatory can be obtained.” Qualcomm has not therefore complied with either with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2). Please note that the documents requested here also relate to the requests in our October 2014, March 27, 2015 and April 3, 2015 correspondence—each of which asked you to produce or otherwise confirm that schematics and source code for the accused products are available for our inspection.
HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2). As you know, we have previously asked that you provide a substantive response to this Interrogatory to enable us to undertake a good faith evaluation of the sufficiency of our infringement contentions in light of your complaints about the sufficiency of our contentions. See e.g. our February 17, March 3, and March 27, 2015 correspondence. We are disappointed that rather than engage with us in good faith—and despite complaining about our infringement contentions—you have failed to substantively answer this Interrogatory. Please note that the documents requested here relate to the requests in our October 2014, March 27, 2015 and April 3, 2015 correspondence—each of which asked you to produce or otherwise confirm that schematics and source code for the accused products are available for our inspection.
Interrogatory No. 8
Qualcomm: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, particularly as updated through the date of the Interrogatory. Instead, Qualcomm refers generically to the ParkerVision I case (without specifically identifying or incorporating any response from that case) and states that it will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).
HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).
Regards,
Josh W. Budwin
JWB/ksc
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-4 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID 5763
EXHIBIT 5
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 21 PageID 5764
McKool Smith
A Professional Corporation • Attorneys Austin | Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | Marshall | New York | Silicon Valley | Washington, DC
McKool 1087050v1
Joshua W. Budwin Direct Dial: (512) 692-8727 [email protected]
300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
April 10, 2015
VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3715 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Jeremy T. Elman DLA Piper LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131
RE: ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et al.; Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Dear Counsel:
Thank you for the meet and confer yesterday. Below I attempt to summarize the issues and indicate the action we plan to undertake with respect to each:
(1) Defendants’ discovery responses – As stated in my April 3, 2015 letter (attached here) Defendants’ interrogatory responses are deficient. We are particularly concerned by Defendants’ naked reliance on Rule 33(d), without identifying any responsive documents, in response to many of our interrogatories. In my letter, we also requested a date certain for Defendants’ supplementation. Despite that request, Defendants have not yet committed to a date certain for providing substantive responses to our interrogatories. Accordingly, and unless Defendants commit to promptly providing supplemental responses by a reasonable date certain, we intend to file a motion to compel on the following grounds:
(a) Qualcomm – Interrogatory nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 for the reasons set forth in my April 3rd letter.
(b) HTC – Interrogatory nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 for the reasons set forth in my April 3rd letter.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 21 PageID 5765
April 10, 2015 Page 2
McKool 1087050v1
(c) Samsung – Interrogatory nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 for the reasons set forth in my April 3rd letter.
Please let us know by Monday, April 13, 2015, a reasonable date certain for each of the Defendants to provide substantive and meaningful responses to the above-identified interrogatories.
(2) Our case narrowing proposal – Despite complaints in prior correspondence (see e.g. M. Brigham letters from February 4th and February 5, 2015), Defendants refuse to agree to the case narrowing proposal outlined in Kat Li’s February 17, 2015 letter as reiterated in my April 3, 2015 letter (also attached here). Defendants have also not proposed a counter case narrowing proposal. While Defendants have no issue with ParkerVision unilaterally reducing the number of asserted claims, Defendants oppose any bilateral agreement whereby ParkerVision would reduce its asserted claims and Defendants would also reduce the number of prior art assertions. Given the approaching claim construction deadlines, we believe reaching an agreement now is important and further delay is unwarranted. Further, I remind you that we made our claim reduction proposal on February 17, 2015 – before the deadline for Defendants’ invalidity/non-infringement contentions and before any claim construction deadline. We made this proposal in an attempt to address the complaints in Defendants’ prior correspondence and to reduce the burdens on the parties and the Court in claim construction, discovery and the like. Because Defendants are unwilling to agree to a mutual reduction in claim scope, we intend to file an opposed motion that asks the Court to adopt the proposal attached to Kat Li’s February 17, 2015 letter.
(3) Claim terms – The parties identified a large number in excess of the Court’s limit of 10 (and, unfortunately, there is less overlap than we had hoped). In an attempt to reach an agreement in advance of the April 24, 2015 in-person meet and confer, we discussed the following proposal which all parties agreed would be non-limiting and non-binding. The parties will endeavor to exchange preliminary constructions (that are non-binding and will not be used as the basis of any later argument by any party in claim construction or other briefing or argument) on April 17, 2015. The parties will then schedule an informal meet and confer early on the afternoon of April 20, 2015 (we suggest 1pm central – to accommodate the later disclosure), to discuss each other’s preliminary proposals and reach any further agreement or narrowing, before exchanging final proposed preliminary constructions on April 20, 2015. Please confirm your agreement.
(4) Schematic/source code review for at least HTC and Samsung – Counsel for HTC indicated that at this stage of the case, it may not have any relevant source code or schematics to produce, as the relevant source code and schematics would be in Qualcomm’s possession. We agreed to review HTC’s initial document production (served yesterday) and further discovery responses and reserve judgment as to HTC. As to Samsung, we indicated that it is our understanding that several
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 21 PageID 5766
April 10, 2015 Page 3
McKool 1087050v1
Samsung accused products, including at least the Samsung S6, include non-Qualcomm transceivers/basebands made by Samsung. As such, we repeat our request for Samsung to produce the schematics for the relevant Samsung receivers, transmitters, transceivers and basebands, together with any related source code. Despite our several prior requests, including in my April 3, 2015 letter, counsel for Samsung indicated it would “take our request under advisement and discuss with Samsung.” We requested a prompt response (either “yes” or “no” that Samsung will make the relevant Samsung schematics and source code available for our review) so that we may seek prompt resolution from the Court, if needed.
(5) Live witnesses at the technology tutorial – as discussed in the meet and confer, and in the attached email from yesterday, the parties disagree as to the applicability or need to present any live witnesses at the technology tutorial. Accordingly, we plan to file an opposed motion on this issue today.
Thank you.
Regards,
Josh W. Budwin
JWB/ksc Attachments (as described above)
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 21 PageID 5767
McKool Smith
A Professional Corporation • Attorneys Austin | Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | Marshall | New York | Silicon Valley | Washington, DC
McKool 1085314v1
Joshua W. Budwin Direct Dial: (512) 692-8727 [email protected]
300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
April 3, 2015
VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3715 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Jeremy T. Elman DLA Piper LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131
RE: ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et al.; Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Dear Matt and Jeremy:
I write in regards to the deficient nature of Defendants’ written discovery responses. No Defendant has sufficiently responded to our written discovery, notwithstanding the extensions we granted the Defendants. Accordingly, please provide a date certain for your supplementation of each deficient response identified herein to provide the full information requested by the Interrogatory. Alternatively, please let us know your availability for a meet and confer so that we may seek relief from the Court. Is each Defendant available on Wednesday, April 7th, at 1:00 pm Central Time? If not, please suggest an alternative time that works for all Defendants collectively.
One global issue herein is the Defendants’ improper reliance on Rule 33(d). Specifically, Rule 33(d)(1) requires a party to “specify[] the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” As Defendants attempt to invoke Rule 33(d) without producing or identifying any specific document, the responses discussed herein do not “specify” any documents as required by the Rule. And, Rule 33(d)(2) further requires a party to “giv[e] the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.” By attempting to rely on the Rule for documents that have not been produced or otherwise made available, ParkerVision has not been provided with the required
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 21 PageID 5768
April 3, 2015 Page 2
McKool 1085314v1
“opportunity.” Had any Defendant wanted to legitimately invoke Rule 33(d), it was required to comply with both 33(d)(1) and 33(d)(2) at the time of its response.
Interrogatory Nos. 2-3
Qualcomm: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, particularly as updated through the date of Qualcomm’s response to these Interrogatories. Instead, Qualcomm refers to its prior responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 9 from the ParkerVision I case and states that it will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).
HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).
Interrogatory No. 4
Qualcomm: Your response fails to identify any individuals or documents related to Qualcomm’s knowledge of the patents-in-suit. Instead, your response refers to “certain individuals” or “one individual in Qualcomm’s legal department” without identifying any of those individuals by name. Your response also fails to identify any documents showing how each individual became aware of the relevant patents or other documentary evidence related to their knowledge of the patents.
Moreover, the Interrogatory asks for information related to each individual’s belief in non-infringement and/or invalidity “from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through trial in this matter.” Yet, Qualcomm’s response refers only to “documents and facts . . . set forth in Qualcomm’s invalidity and non-infringement contentions.” We therefore understand your “invalidity and non-infringement contentions” to reflect the sum total of information relevant to these as-yet unnamed individuals’ knowledge and belief in non-infringement and/or invalidity from the date they first learned of the relevant patent up through the date of your response.
Samsung: Pursuant to the agreed extension, no response has yet been received from Samsung. Please however see the above critique to Qualcomm’s response to this same Interrogatory. We expect Samsung to provide a full and fair response, including the above-identified information missing from Qualcomm’s response.
Interrogatory No. 5
Qualcomm/HTC: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, including the identity of any acceptable, non-infringing alternatives. While we understand your assertion that you do not believe your products accused of infringement in this case (or, for Qualcomm, the ParkerVision I case infringe), pointing to non-infringement of presently accused products does not identify any acceptable, non-infringing alternative to those very same
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 21 PageID 5769
April 3, 2015 Page 3
McKool 1085314v1
products—the logic in your response is wholly circular. Non-infringement of the presently accused products and the availability of non-infringing alternatives to those very same accused products are separate questions. That said, if the only available, acceptable, non-infringing alternatives to the presently-accused products that Qualcomm and HTC are aware of or otherwise intend to rely upon in this matter is the (alleged) non-infringement of the accused products themselves, please amend your response to state this more clearly.
Additionally, your response vaguely and generically refers to “the extensive prior art methods and apparatus set forth in Qualcomm’s [and HTC’s] non-infringement and invalidity contentions” without specifically identifying any such non-infringing alternative (e.g. by name or description of its operation). And, your response fails to explain how any alleged alternative is non-infringing and would be an acceptable alternative to the presently accused products (including the “extensive prior art methods and apparatus” referred to your answer).
Samsung: Has provided no response whatsoever, stating only “Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to determine a reasonable scope for a response to this Interrogatory.” Pursuant to our proposals to narrow the number of asserted claims (see February 17 and April 3, 2015 correspondence) and the request for a meet and confer above, we are willing to meet and confer with you regarding this Interrogatory. That said we disagree that the scope of this Interrogatory is too broad so as to prevent you from reasonably identifying any acceptable, non-infringing alternatives. If you are presently unaware of any such alternatives, you should amend your response to clearly provide this information.
Interrogatory No. 7
Qualcomm: While Qualcomm states the “Accused Products are not identical” and that “ParkerVision’s infringement theory as to one product thus does not suffice as to the others,” Qualcomm has not explained why it is making this contention and has not set forth any information that would reasonably permit ParkerVision to evaluate the veracity of this contention. As you know, we have previously asked that you provide a substantive response to this Interrogatory to enable us to undertake a good faith evaluation of the sufficiency of our infringement contentions in light of your complaints about our contentions. See e.g. our February 17 and March 27, 2015 correspondence. We are disappointed that rather than engage with us in good faith—and despite complaining about our infringement contentions—you have failed to substantively answer this Interrogatory.
Setting aside Qualcomm’s non-substantive answer, and even accepting as true that “the values that Qualcomm has selected for the resistors, capacitors, and other components are not identical,” Qualcomm has failed to explain whether any products share the same component values—e.g., do all of the “common design approaches” that your response refers to have the same or different component values? In addition, Qualcomm has wholly failed to explain why it (apparently) “contend[s these different component values are] material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations.” Qualcomm has also failed to explain why it (apparently) “contend[s these different component values] make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any other Accused Product.”
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 21 PageID 5770
April 3, 2015 Page 4
McKool 1085314v1
Moreover, Qualcomm has not identified any responsive documents whatsoever, other than saying “Qualcomm will be producing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), the schematics and related documentation for any properly accused product from which the response to this interrogatory can be obtained.” Qualcomm has not therefore complied with either with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2). Please note that the documents requested here also relate to the requests in our October 2014, March 27, 2015 and April 3, 2015 correspondence—each of which asked you to produce or otherwise confirm that schematics and source code for the accused products are available for our inspection.
HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2). As you know, we have previously asked that you provide a substantive response to this Interrogatory to enable us to undertake a good faith evaluation of the sufficiency of our infringement contentions in light of your complaints about the sufficiency of our contentions. See e.g. our February 17, March 3, and March 27, 2015 correspondence. We are disappointed that rather than engage with us in good faith—and despite complaining about our infringement contentions—you have failed to substantively answer this Interrogatory. Please note that the documents requested here relate to the requests in our October 2014, March 27, 2015 and April 3, 2015 correspondence—each of which asked you to produce or otherwise confirm that schematics and source code for the accused products are available for our inspection.
Interrogatory No. 8
Qualcomm: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information, particularly as updated through the date of the Interrogatory. Instead, Qualcomm refers generically to the ParkerVision I case (without specifically identifying or incorporating any response from that case) and states that it will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).
HTC/Samsung: Your response fails to provide any of the requested information. Instead, HTC and Samsung state that they will produce responsive information pursuant to Rule 33(d)—without complying with either Rule 33(d)(1) or (d)(2).
Regards,
Josh W. Budwin
JWB/ksc
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 21 PageID 5771
1
Kim Chambers
From: Teter, Tim <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 4:06 PMTo: Josh Budwin; Brigham, Matthew; Fuehrer, Erik; Elman, Jeremy
([email protected]) ([email protected])Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; [email protected]; John Devault
([email protected]); ParkerVision II - Qualcomm; James A. Bolling ([email protected])
Subject: RE: ParkerVision/Qualcomm - Live Witnesses at the Technology Tutorial
Josh -- Thanks for your email. We had relied on the Court's order and believe that a tutorial presented (not argued) by the attorneys can most efficiently explain and address the relevant foundational technical issues. We do not believe that the tutorial should be an opportunity for Mr. Sorrells to present his controversial theories about electrical engineering, which Qualcomm disputes as being technically inaccurate. In our view, the tutorial in ParkerVision 1 is not a model to be repeated, but rather, shows why Judge Byron's order in this case (presentations by counsel) is the better choice. At the tutorial in ParkerVision 1, Mr. Sorrells presented as scientific fact arguments that were technically incorrect and not generally accepted by the scientific community. Qualcomm highlighted some of Mr. Sorrells' errors during expert discovery, and ParkerVision sought at trial to preclude Qualcomm from questioning Mr. Sorrells on his prior statements to the Court. A technical tutorial should present only relevant, fundamental, foundational issues, not an inventor's contested and disputed theories. Thus, we do not agree with ParkerVision's request to modify the Court's order. At this point, having relied on the Court's order, we do not know whether our potential witnesses could travel to Florida for a hearing on the 15th. But if ParkerVision seeks and obtains leave for Mr. Sorrells or any other witness to speak directly to the Court during the tutorial without cross-examination, Qualcomm will seek to have its fact witnesses and/or experts have the same opportunity. Best regards, Timothy S. Teter Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto CA 94306-2155 Direct: (650) 843-5275 • Fax: (650) 849-7400 • Cell: (650) 714-3176 Bio: www.cooley.com/teterts • Practice: www.cooley.com/litigation -----Original Message----- From: Josh Budwin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:40 AM To: Brigham, Matthew; Fuehrer, Erik; Elman, Jeremy ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; [email protected]; John Devault ([email protected]); ParkerVision II - Qualcomm; James A. Bolling ([email protected]) Subject: RE: ParkerVision/Qualcomm - Live Witnesses at the Technology Tutorial Counsel - It is our understanding from our discussion today, that Qualcomm and HTC oppose the calling of live witnesses at the technology tutorial and would instead prefer attorney-only argument. Qualcomm and HTC indicated that they had not yet reserved availability of any potential witness for the technology tutorial. We suggested that in case the Court does permit the presentation of live witnesses, that you it would make sense to conditionally reserve the availability of any potential witness(es) now.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 21 PageID 5772
2
Counsel for Samsung indicated their feeling was along the same lines as Qualcomm and HTC, but would confirm shortly. We indicated our intention to file an opposed motion to present live witness(es) at the tutorial, for the reasons discussed on the call. Thank you. ________________________________ From: Josh Budwin Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 5:28 PM To: Brigham, Matthew; Fuehrer, Erik; Elman, Jeremy ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; [email protected]; John Devault ([email protected]); ParkerVision II - Qualcomm; James A. Bolling ([email protected]) Subject: RE: ParkerVision/Qualcomm - Live Witnesses at the Technology Tutorial Counsel – Any thoughts on this? Or should we add it as a discussion topic for tomorrow’s call? From: Josh Budwin Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 11:43 AM To: Brigham, Matthew; Fuehrer, Erik; Elman, Jeremy ([email protected]) ([email protected]) Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; [email protected]; John Devault ([email protected]); ParkerVision II - Qualcomm; James A. Bolling ([email protected]) Subject: ParkerVision/Qualcomm - Live Witnesses at the Technology Tutorial Counsel – We have prepared the attached Joint Motion to present live witnesses at the upcoming technology tutorial. This mirrors the one that the parties filed in the ParkerVision I case. Please consider, and let us know if you’ll join our request. Thank you. Josh Budwin McKool Smith Suite 1700 300 West 6th Street Austin, TX 78701 Direct: 512.692.8727 Mobile: 267.251.2874 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and is CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. ________________________________ This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 21 PageID 5773
3
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 21 PageID 5774
McKool Smith
A Professional Corporation • Attorneys Austin | Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | Marshall | New York | Silicon Valley | Washington, DC
McKool 1085297v1
Joshua W. Budwin Direct Dial: (512) 692-8727 [email protected]
300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
April 3, 2015
VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3715 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
Jeremy T. Elman DLA Piper LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131
RE: ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et al.; Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Dear Counsel:
ParkerVision originally sent its plan for claim and prior art reductions to the Defendants on February 17, 2015. I’ve enclosed copies of that correspondence for your convenience. To-date, and despite the passage of six weeks, we’ve yet to receive any response or acknowledgement from any Defendant.
Now that the parties have exchanged infringement, non-infringement and invalidity contentions, as well as identified terms for construction, we believe it prudent to revisit our proposal in advance of the May 1, 2015 filing of the Joint Claim Construction Statement. To that end, please let us know if the Defendants are agreeable to our proposal, have a counter-proposal, or are not interested in jointly pursuing claim and prior art reduction.
Please also let us know if you’d like to discuss further. Thank you.
Regards,
Josh W. Budwin
JWB/ksc Enclosures (as described above)
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 21 PageID 5775
McKool Smith A Professional Corporation • Attorneys
Austin | Dallas | Houston | Los Angeles | Marshall | New York | Silicon Valley | Washington, DC McKool 1076552v2
Kathy H. Li Direct Dial: (512) 692-8721 [email protected]
300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
February 17, 2015
VIA EMAIL Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3715 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
RE: ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et al.; Case No. 6:14-cv-687-Orl-40KRS; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Dear Matt:
I write in response to your February 4, 2015 letter regarding ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions (“your letter”).
In your letter, you reiterate your request that ParkerVision dismiss or procedurally stay the six receiver patents (the ’902, ’836, ’246, ’907, ’177, and ’116 patents). Between the filing of the case and today, nothing has prevented Qualcomm (or any other defendant) from filing an early motion for summary judgment or otherwise asking the court for an early determination of this issue. Indeed, Qualcomm (and the other defendants) failed to file a motion to dismiss or otherwise challenge the propriety of the inclusion of these six patents. And, given the pendency of the appeal of the prior case between ParkerVision and Qualcomm, and as ParkerVision stated when Qualcomm first raised this issue in October 2014, the six receiver patents in this case are different patents with different claims and different elements than in the prior case. To the extent you continue to feel strongly about this issue, we encourage you to seek early resolution of this issue in a way that does not prejudice ParkerVision’s ability to litigate the substantive issues that this case presents.
Your letter fails to articulate why the six receiver patents in this case are not infringed by any of the Qualcomm accused products based on the prior case or why the resolution of the appeal in the prior case has any bearing on the infringement issues in this case. In addition, the Federal Circuit has stated that “a court cannot impose collateral estoppel to bar a claim construction dispute solely because the patents are related. Each case requires a determination that each of the requirements for collateral estoppel are met, including that the issue previously decided is identical to the one sought to be litigated.” e.Digital Corp. v. Futurewei Techs., Inc., 772 F.3d 723, 727 (Nov. 19, 2014). Thus, despite the continuation-in-part relationship between the patents in the first case and the six receiver patents at-issue in this case, ParkerVision believes that it properly continues to assert the six receiver patents in this case.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 21 PageID 5776
February 17, 2015 Page 2
McKool 1076552v2
Second, your letter requests that ParkerVision reduce the number of claims it is asserting. When ParkerVision served its infringement contentions on January 16, 2015, ParkerVision was (and continues to be) unaware of what prior art Qualcomm will rely on in its invalidity contentions. Additionally, the Court has not yet issued claim constructions of the terms in the asserted claims and has yet to formally adopt the parties’ proposed case schedule. As Qualcomm is well aware, its invalidity contentions and the Court’s claim constructions will likely impact the claims that ParkerVision asserts at the later stages of this case. Nonetheless, ParkerVision is willing to work with Qualcomm (and the other defendants) to voluntarily reduce the number of asserted claims as the case progresses. Specifically, ParkerVision suggests the parties agree to a modified version of the Federal Circuit Bar Association’s Model Order that is tailored to the facts of the present case. See http://www.fedcirbar.org/olc/filelib/LVFC/cpages/9008/Library/Final%20Model%20Order%20Limiting%20Excess%20Patent%20Claims%20And%20Prior%20Art%20vdota.pdf. Exhibit A attached to this letter shows ParkerVision’s proposed case-narrowing plan based on the Model Order.
ParkerVision is also amenable to reducing of the number of asserted claims further, if Qualcomm and the other defendants inform ParkerVision whether they will be filing for inter partes review (“IPR”) of any of the patents-in-suit, and if so, which claims of which patents and which specific pieces of prior art will be used to challenge each such claim. As Qualcomm and the other defendants have up to a year from the time the case began to file an IPR on the patents-in-suit, ParkerVision must continue to assert all of the claims that Qualcomm infringes until ParkerVision knows which claims will be involved in any IPR proceeding. Thus, we invite you to share this information with us now, as part of the cooperative efforts of the parties to reduce the scope of this case.
Third, as explained in ParkerVision’s infringement contentions, its infringement theories as to the charted Qualcomm products are equally applicable to the other accused Qualcomm products. See, e.g., ParkerVision U.S. Patent No. 6,091,940 Infringement Contentions to Qualcomm, Exhibit 1-A at fn.1 (Jan. 16, 2015). Additionally, ParkerVision diligently analyzed publicly available information to determine which Qualcomm products infringe ParkerVision’s patents-in-suit. ParkerVision has also served Qualcomm with Interrogatory No. 1 requesting that Qualcomm identify each Qualcomm “receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip).” See ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants at 12. Additionally, in prior correspondence (see Exhibit B, Buratti to Brigham email (Oct. 16, 2014)), ParkerVision requested that Qualcomm make schematics for each of the accused products available in advance of the deadline for ParkerVision’s infringement contentions. Qualcomm never substantively responded to our request and failed to make the schematics available. And, despite the passage of several months, Qualcomm continues to drag its feet regarding the entry of a Confidentiality Agreement that would govern the production of Qualcomm’s schematics and ParkerVision’s review thereof (see Li to Brigham emails (Feb. 13 and 16, 2015); Buratti to Brigham and Fowler email (Nov. 12, 2014)). As you well know, and based on the prior case, the schematics are likely to contain the best evidence regarding Qualcomm’s infringement. To that end, when will Qualcomm make the schematics for the accused products available for inspection? After receiving Qualcomm’s substantive response to Interrogatory No. 1, and after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 21 PageID 5777
February 17, 2015 Page 3
McKool 1076552v2
inspect the schematics for each of the accused products, ParkerVision will evaluate whether it is necessary to amend its infringement contentions.
Further, and as explained in its infringement contentions, based on its good faith investigation to-date, ParkerVision is unaware of any material differences between the accused Qualcomm products. As you know, in the first case, the jury verdict, the court’s opinion on the parties’ motions for judgment as a matter of law, and the parties’ Federal Circuit appeal briefs do not make any distinctions between any of Qualcomm’s products that any party contends matters for infringement. Nonetheless, and to determine if any such differences exist, ParkerVision’s Interrogatory No. 7 requests that Qualcomm identify any differences among the accused products that Qualcomm contends are material to infringement. If Qualcomm identifies material differences between its products, and after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to inspect the schematics for each of the accused products, ParkerVision will evaluate whether it is necessary to amend its infringement contentions. Thus, ParkerVision’s infringement contentions are proper and comply with the parties’ stipulated case management report.
In light of our outstanding requests in Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 7, and the issues raised by your letter, we trust that Qualcomm will use its best efforts to substantively answer these interrogatories now, and not provide objections or other statements designed only to frustrate the discovery of this relevant information by ParkerVision until later in the case. Indeed, having made the statements in your letter—and in the interests of the parties mutually resolving the issues you raise in an expeditious manner without the need for either party to incur any undue cost or expenditure—we trust that you will provide full substantive responses to these Interrogatories now, without further delay.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely, Kat Li
KHL/dp
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 21 PageID 5778
EXHIBIT A
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 21 PageID 5779
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT
ORDER LIMITING THE SCOPE OF PATENT LITIGATION
The Court ORDERS as follows:
1. This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines the
issues in this case to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action, as
provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
Phased Limits on Asserted Claims and Prior Art References
2. Not later than 60 days after the accused infringer completes its production of
documents sufficient to show the operation of the accused instrumentalities (which, in this case
includes the complete production of schematics and source code for the accused products), the
patent claimant shall serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, which shall assert no more
than ten claims from each patent and not more than a total of eighty claims. Not later than 21
days after service of the Preliminary Election of Asserted Claims, the patent defendant shall
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 21 PageID 5780
serve a Preliminary Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall assert no more than ten prior art
references against each patent and not more than a total of eighty references.1
3. Not later than 40 days after the Court issues its Claim Construction Order, the
patent claimant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Claims, which shall identify no more
than five asserted claims per patent from among the ten previously identified claims and no more
than a total of forty claims. Not later than 21 days after service of a Final Election of Asserted
Claims, the patent defendant shall serve a Final Election of Asserted Prior Art, which shall
identify no more than five asserted prior art references per patent from among the ten prior art
references previously identified for that particular patent and no more than a total of forty
references.
Modification of this Order
4. Upon a showing of diligence, and with due consideration for prejudice, a party
may seek to modify this order for good cause shown. Any request to increase the limits
contained in this order must specifically show why the inclusion of additional asserted claims or
prior art references is warranted. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639
F.3d 1202, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A failure to seek such a modification will constitute
acquiescence to the limits contained in this Order.
1 For purposes of this Order, each of the following shall count as one reference: 1) a prior art instrumentality (such as a device or process) and associated references that describe that instrumentality, 2) the closely related work of a single prior artist, and 3) an obviousness combination of two or more prior art references. For the sake of clarity, if a party asserts references A, B, C, D, and the combination of references A and B; A, B, and C; and A, B, C, and D, that party will be deemed to have asserted seven references.
.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 21 PageID 5781
EXHIBIT B
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 21 PageID 5782
1
Donna Phillips
Subject: FW: Parkervision/Qualcomm - Request for telephone conference
From: Brigham, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:35 PM To: Leah B. Buratti; ParkerVision II - Qualcomm Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; John Devault ([email protected]); Courtney Grimm ([email protected]) Subject: RE: Parkervision/Qualcomm - Request for telephone conference
Hi Leah- Yes, I think that time on Monday should work. I’ll give you a call. Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover StreetPalo Alto, CA 94304-1130Direct: (650) 843-5677 • Cell: (408) 203-4649 From: Leah B. Buratti [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:21 AM To: Brigham, Matthew; ParkerVision II - Qualcomm Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; John Devault ([email protected]); Courtney Grimm ([email protected])Subject: RE: Parkervision/Qualcomm - Request for telephone conference
Matt, On the first point, in general we think that it will be most efficient for all of the parties to jointly discuss case management and scheduling proposals. We therefore suggest postponing the case management and scheduling conversation until Samsung and HTC have entered appearances in the case and are available to participate in the conversation. For the second and third points, we’re generally available for a call to discuss on Monday. How’s 3 CST? For the call to be productive, please be prepared to explain Qualcomm’s basis for why the claims of the ‘116, ‘907, ‘902, ‘246, ‘836, and ‘177 patents – different claims from the prior case – are not infringed for the same reasons as adjudicated in the first case, or why the decision on appeal in the first case would have any bearing on the claims in this case. Please also be prepared to explain the basis for Qualcomm’s understanding that the willfulness finding in the first case would have any bearing on this case. In order for us to evaluate Qualcomm’s request that ParkerVision agree to stay the litigation of the ‘116, ‘907, ‘902, ‘246, ‘836, and ‘177 patent, will Qualcomm agree to provide early discovery of certain schematic and technical documents to substantiate that the claims of these patents are not infringed for the same reasons as adjudicated in the first case? Thanks, Leah From: Brigham, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:29 AM To: Leah B. Buratti; ParkerVision II - Qualcomm Cc: z/QC - Parkervision; John Devault ([email protected]); Courtney Grimm ([email protected])Subject: Parkervision/Qualcomm - Request for telephone conference
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 20 of 21 PageID 5783
2
Leah – In an effort to streamline the litigation and avoid potentially unnecessary motions practice, we’d like to have a discussion about the following topics: • The amended complaint does not identify which of the 800+ claims the defendants allegedly infringe. This lack of information makes it difficult to adequately respond and/or have a meaningful dialogue about case management and schedule. As a result, we would like to discuss when Parkervision can provide a list of the claims it is asserting. • We believe the receiver patents (‘116, ‘907, ‘902, ‘246, ‘836, and ‘177) are not infringed for at least the same reasons as adjudicated in the first case. As a result, the receiver patents should be dismissed. If Parkervision is unwilling to dismiss, we would like to discuss staying the proceedings with respect to the receiver patents pending the outcome of the appeal. We believe this would help avoid unnecessary expenditure of the Court’s and parties’ time and effort. • While we believe that the willful and indirect infringement claims in general are without merit, the willful and indirect infringement claims with respect to the receiver patents seem particularly unfounded in light of the jury verdict on willfulness and Judge Dalton’s ruling that the Qualcomm products do not infringe. We request that the willful and indirect infringement allegations with respect to the receiver patents, at a minimum, be dismissed from the complaint. Please let me know when you are available this week to discuss. -Matt Matthew J. Brigham Cooley LLP Physical Address:3175 Hanover StreetPalo Alto, CA 94304-1130Mailing Address:Five Palo Alto Square • 3000 El Camino RealPalo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Direct: (650) 843-5677 • Fax: (650) 857-0663 • Cell: (408) 203-4649 Assistant: Kelli Shanahan • (650) 843-7018 • [email protected]: www.cooley.com/mbrigham • Practice: www.cooley.com/IPLitigation
________________________________
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-5 Filed 07/03/15 Page 21 of 21 PageID 5784
EXHIBIT 6
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 43 PageID 5785
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S AND QUALCOMM ATHEROS INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST
SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES (1-8) CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the
Middle District of Florida (“Local Rules”), Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros,
Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”) submit the following supplemental objections and responses to
ParkerVision, Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants
(hereinafter “First Set of Interrogatories”).
General Responses
Qualcomm states the following general responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories and incorporates them by reference into Qualcomm’s specific objections and
responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 43 PageID 5786
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
2
1. Qualcomm’s discovery and investigation of the facts relevant to this case are
ongoing, and Qualcomm’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories is made to the
best of Qualcomm’s present knowledge, information, and belief. Qualcomm’s response is at all
times subject to such additional or different information that discovery or further investigation
may disclose and, while based on the present state of Qualcomm’s recollection, is subject to such
refreshing of recollection, and such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from
Qualcomm’s further discovery or investigation.
2. Qualcomm reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing
and at trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited
to, any such information or documents obtained in discovery herein.
3. To the extent that Qualcomm responds to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by
stating that Qualcomm will provide information and/or documents which Qualcomm or any
other party to this litigation deems to embody material that is private, business confidential,
proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), or Federal Rule of Evidence 501, Qualcomm will do so only pursuant to
the terms of the Confidentiality Agreement, dated April 7, 2015.
4. Qualcomm reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency,
relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or
trial of this or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of Qualcomm’s responses herein and
any document or thing identified or provided in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 43 PageID 5787
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
3
5. Qualcomm reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or
supplemental interrogatories as ParkerVision may at any time propound involving or relating to
the subject matter of these interrogatories.
General Objections
Qualcomm states the following general objections to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories and incorporates them by reference into Qualcomm’s specific objections and
responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
1. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that
they purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of the attorney-
client privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or
is otherwise exempted from discovery. Qualcomm hereby asserts all applicable privileges and
protections, and excludes privileged and protected information from its responses to
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories. Any disclosure of such privileged and/or protected
information is inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.
2. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).
3. Qualcomm objects to each of ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the
extent it seeks to require Qualcomm to identify in a response each or any document which may
relate to, reflect or otherwise refer to specified matters on the ground that such requests are
overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 43 PageID 5788
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
4
4. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 5 for “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks
to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. Qualcomm will limit its responses to the
patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and ParkerVision’s
Infringement Contentions, served January 16, 2015.
5. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 6 for “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents
Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement
Contentions fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the
burden of proof, has failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly
infringe which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not specifically
accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, regardless of whether they
have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects to the blanket inclusion of any product
identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for
alleging infringement.
6. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 7 for “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused
Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions
fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the
burden of proof, has failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly
infringe which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 43 PageID 5789
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
5
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not specifically
accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, regardless of whether they
have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects to the blanket inclusion of any product
identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for
alleging infringement.
7. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 8 for “Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent
Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement
Contentions fail to comply with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case
Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the
burden of proof, has failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly
infringe which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not specifically
accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, regardless of whether they
have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects to the blanket inclusion of any product
identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for
alleging infringement.
8. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 11 for “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” for
the reasons set forth in objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused
Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Protocol
Converter Patents Accused Product(s).”
9. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 12 for “Accused Product(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from Qualcomm regarding
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 43 PageID 5790
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
6
products that it does not design, manufacture or sell, and thus any information about those
products are not within Qualcomm’s possession, custody or control. Qualcomm further
incorporates by reference its objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused
Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Protocol
Converter Patents Accused Product(s).”
10. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 15 for “document(s”) to the extent
ParkerVision seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
34(a). Qualcomm will interpret the term “document(s)” consistent with its use in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 34(a). Qualcomm further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types
of documents and information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.
11. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 16 for “communication(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on Qualcomm an obligation to provide
information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting Qualcomm to undue burden and
expense. Qualcomm further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents
and information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. Qualcomm further notes that the
term “communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories, and thus Qualcomm reserves all rights to further object to the use of this term if
and when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery requests.
12. Qualcomm objects to paragraphs 1-8 of the Instructions to the extent they purport
to require disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product
doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or information that is otherwise
exempted from discovery.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 43 PageID 5791
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
7
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Separately identify each receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and
baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) or cellular telephone, tablet,
or other mobile communication device containing a receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem,
baseband, or baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) made, used,
offered for sale, or sold within the United States or imported into the United States by You or at
Your direction in the six years preceding the filing of the first amended complaint in this matter
and up through trial in this matter. Your answer should include an identification by Bates number
of all documents related to Your answer and use the format of the following exemplary table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 43 PageID 5792
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
8
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify on a monthly and quarterly basis,
for the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter and up through trial
in this matter: (a) the number of units sold, imported into, or licensed in the United States net of
any returns; (b) the revenues associated with the units sold, imported into, or licensed in the
United States net of any returns; (c) all costs relating to units sold, imported into, or licensed in
the United States net of any returns; (d) all other expenses for the units sold, imported into or
licensed in the United States net of any returns; (e) the profit margin before taxes for the units
sold, imported into or licensed in the United States net of any returns; and (f) an identification by
Bates number of all documents related to Your answer. To the extent that You do not track,
maintain, or have the ability to calculate the information separately for each Accused Product,
identify the information at the most granular level at which it is tracked, maintained, or at which
You are able to calculate the information. Your answer should use the format of the following
exemplary table:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 43 PageID 5793
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
9
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 43 PageID 5794
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
10
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)
first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first
importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of
testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary
table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 43 PageID 5795
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
11
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Separately identify and describe how and when You first became aware of each of the
Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the
person(s) so aware, any documents showing or reflecting Your awareness of each such Patent-in-
Suit and any documents or facts showing or reflecting Your belief of infringement or validity of
each Patent-in-Suit from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through
trial in this matter. Your answer should identify by Bates number any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 43 PageID 5796
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
12
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 43 PageID 5797
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
13
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and financial details)
related to any acceptable non-infringing alternative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of
which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for
any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any
documents by Bates number that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 43 PageID 5798
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
14
.
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Separately for each asserted claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your
Accused Products, identify and describe all facts and documents that support or refute any non-
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 43 PageID 5799
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
15
infringement assertion, argument or contention that You are aware of, that You may rely upon to
negate any finding or assertion of intent to infringe (e.g., for induced or willful infringement),
that You may present in any dispositive or non-dispositive motion brought in this matter, that
You may present at trial in this matter, and/or that You may rely upon for any other purpose in
this matter. Your answer should include an identification of the date you first formed each such
belief, the identity of all persons who have that belief (including the date each such person
formed such belief), and an identification by Bates number of any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 43 PageID 5800
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
16
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each
Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You
may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You
may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-
Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers
cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 43 PageID 5801
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
17
that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You
contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any
other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any
documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 43 PageID 5802
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
18
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses,
settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other
agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies (“Agreements”) entered
into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any
jurisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set forth in plaintiff’s
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 43 PageID 5803
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
19
infringement contentions for each of Your Accused Products or technology that you contend is
similar to the functions and features set forth in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions for each of
Your Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff
would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally
identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 20 of 43 PageID 5804
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
20
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 21 of 43 PageID 5805
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
21
Dated: April 24, 2015
COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Matthew J. Brigham Stephen C. Neal (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [email protected] Timothy S. Teter (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Matthew J. Brigham (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Jeffrey S. Karr (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Benjamin G. Damstedt (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400
and BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No. 103979 E-mail: [email protected] Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No. 953740 E-mail: [email protected] The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 Counsel for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 22 of 43 PageID 5806
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 23 of 43 PageID 5807
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 24 of 43 PageID 5808
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 25 of 43 PageID 5809
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 26 of 43 PageID 5810
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 27 of 43 PageID 5811
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 28 of 43 PageID 5812
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 29 of 43 PageID 5813
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 30 of 43 PageID 5814
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 31 of 43 PageID 5815
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 32 of 43 PageID 5816
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 33 of 43 PageID 5817
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 34 of 43 PageID 5818
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 35 of 43 PageID 5819
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 36 of 43 PageID 5820
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 37 of 43 PageID 5821
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 38 of 43 PageID 5822
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 39 of 43 PageID 5823
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 40 of 43 PageID 5824
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 41 of 43 PageID 5825
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 42 of 43 PageID 5826
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 24, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing document described below:
Qualcomm Incorporated’s and Qualcomm Atheros Inc.’s Supplemental Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)
by electronic mail to the following party:
/s/ Matthew J. Brigham Matthew J. Brigham (Admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400 Counsel for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
115981576
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-6 Filed 07/03/15 Page 43 of 43 PageID 5827
EXHIBIT 7
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 24 PageID 5828
1
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTMIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTCCORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC., and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,LLC,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TOPARKERVISION INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 3 AND 7)
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”),
Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”)
and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”)1 provide
these supplemental responses to the first set of interrogatories by Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.
(“ParkerVision”) as follows:
GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
1. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks to impose duties or obligations on Samsung beyond those set forth in the Federal Rules
1 On January 1, 2015, STA merged into SEA. SEA responds to this discovery on behalf of SEAand former STA.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 24 PageID 5829
2
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
of Evidence, F.R.C.P. and/or the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, or any other agreement that the parties have or may enter into in this case. In this
regard, to the extent that an interrogatory requires, explicitly or implicitly, the construction of
one or more patent claim terms, a comparison of the asserted claims and the prior art, or
identification of any advice of counsel, such interrogatory is premature in light of the timetable
provided in the Case Management and Scheduling Order.
2. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they
prematurely call for discovery concerning ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, which are
deficient and the subject of a motion to strike by Samsung.
3. The following responses are based on information available as of the date of these
responses. Discovery is not yet complete, and these responses are therefore subject to revision.
It is anticipated that further discovery, investigation, and analysis may supply additional facts
and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal
contentions, all of which may lead to substantial changes, additions, or variations to the
information set forth herein.
4. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
work product doctrine, joint defense, common interest and/or any other applicable privilege,
protection or doctrine. Nothing contained herein is intended to be or should be construed as a
waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, joint defense,
common interest privilege or other applicable privileges or doctrines. Samsung further objects to
each interrogatory to the extent that it requires Samsung to search for and reveal privileged
information or communications from its or its attorneys’ litigation files pertaining to the case.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 24 PageID 5830
3
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
5. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential or
proprietary information pertaining to Samsung’s business, trade secrets and/or economic
relationships, or to the extent that it seeks confidential information which would impinge upon
any protected right to privacy.
6. Samsung further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information that contains confidential, proprietary or trade secret information of third parties.
7. These responses are made solely for the purpose of discovery in this action.
Nothing herein is intended to waive the following objections, which are expressly reserved: all
objections as to competency, relevancy, authenticity, propriety, materiality and admissibility of
the subject matter of the interrogatories; all objections on any ground as to the use of any
information provided in response to these interrogatories; all objections on any ground to any
interrogatory for further responses to these or other interrogatories; and any and all other
objections and ground that would or could require or permit the exclusion of any document or
statement therein from evidence, all of which objections and ground are reserved and may be
interposed at the time of trial.
8. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek
irrelevant information concerning products that are not imported into or made, used, offered for
sale, or sold in the United States.
9. Samsung objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).
10. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 24 PageID 5831
4
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
11. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to impose an
obligation to identify or search for documents or information at any location other than that at
which they would be stored in the ordinary course of business.
12. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is cumulative and
duplicative of other forms of discovery that are more convenient and less burdensome. Samsung
further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to require Samsung to do more
than conduct an examination of those files or sources that reasonably may be expected to yield
responsive information or an inquiry of those persons who reasonably may be expected to
possess responsive information.
13. Samsung objects generally to the temporal scope of the interrogatories as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it does not contain any reasonable or
appropriate temporal limitation. Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to
determine a mutually agreeable relevant time frame for discovery.
14. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek a
legal conclusion or prematurely seek expert opinion.
15. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information already in ParkerVision’s possession or that is equally available to ParkerVision
from public sources.
16. Samsung objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or “Your” as overly
broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it includes Samsung’s “past and present officers,
directors, affiliates, brokers, agents, representatives, employees, servants, and all persons acting
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 24 PageID 5832
5
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
directly or indirectly under their control, including any attorney and including each Defendant’s
respective parents, subsidiaries, or affiliated companies, and other related entities, including all
assets or companies that each Defendant has acquired or with respect to which has succeeded to
rights or obligations.” Samsung further objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or
“Your” on the ground that it seeks the production of information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney-work product doctrine in so far as the definition
purports to include attorneys. Samsung will construe these terms to mean SEC and SEA in
responding to each interrogatory.
17. Samsung objects to the definition of “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent that it seeks
to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted against Samsung in this case. Samsung will
limit its responses to the patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and
ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, served on January 16, 2015.
18. Samsung objects to the definitions of “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused
Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm Protocol Converter
Patent Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” to the extent that they seek
any information from Samsung regarding products that it does not design, manufacture or sell
and thus any information about those products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or
control or can be obtained directly from Qualcomm rather than Samsung.
19. Samsung objects to the definition of “Samsung Accused Product(s)” as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and
unreleased products. Samsung further objects to this definition to the extent that ParkerVision’s
Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling
Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has failed to
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 24 PageID 5833
6
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
adequately put Samsung on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of the
Patents-in-Suit.
20. Samsung objects to the definition of “Accused Product(s)” as overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and
unreleased products as well as to the extent it seeks any information from Samsung regarding
products that it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those
products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or control. Samsung further incorporates
by reference its objections to the term “Samsung Accused Product(s).”
21. Samsung objects to the definition of the term “document” to the extent that it
purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the
F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order, or any agreement regarding ESI reached between the parties
and/or endorsed by the Court.
22. Samsung objects to the definition of “communication(s)” to the extent that it
purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the
F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order, or any agreement regarding ESI reached between the parties
and/or endorsed by the Court.
23. Samsung objects to the various definitions of and instructions with respect to the
terms “identify,” “identity,” or “identification” on the ground that they render each interrogatory
in which they are used overly broad and unduly burdensome, and to the extent they seek
information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Samsung will respond to interrogatories containing these terms by using a reasonable, plain
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 24 PageID 5834
7
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
meaning interpretation of the terms as best understood by Samsung.
24. Samsung objects to the definition of “Related Patents” as overly broad, unduly
burdensome, vague and ambiguous and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, to the extent that it seeks discovery regarding patents not
asserted against Samsung in this case.
25. The General Statement and Objections shall be deemed to be incorporated in full
into each response set forth below, and any statement of intent to produce information contained
in any such response is subject to the limitations, objections and exceptions set forth herein.
Subject to the foregoing General Statement and Objections, Samsung responds as
follows:
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Separately identify each receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and
baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) or cellular telephone, tablet,
or other mobile communication device containing a receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem,
baseband, or baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) made, used,
offered for sale, or sold within the United States or imported into the United States by You or at
Your direction in the six years preceding the filing of the first amended complaint in this matter
and up through trial in this matter. Your answer should include an identification by Bates number
of all documents related to Your answer and use the format of the following exemplary table:
DefendantProductType
Product NameModelNumber
WirelessCarrier
InternalName
RelevantDocuments
Qualcomm Modem Snapdragon 801 MSM8974 N/A __ __
Samsung Phone Galaxy S5 SM-G900 Verizon __ __
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 24 PageID 5835
8
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
:
Product Name Model Number Wireless Carrier
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 24 PageID 5836
9
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 24 PageID 5837
10
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 24 PageID 5838
11
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
Product Name Model Number Wireless Carrier
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 24 PageID 5839
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 24 PageID 5840
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 24 PageID 5841
14
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 24 PageID 5842
15
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 24 PageID 5843
16
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)
first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first
importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of
testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary
table:
DefendantAccusedProduct
FirstU.S.
releasedate
First U.S.sale or
offer forsale
FirstU.S.
publicuse
FirstU.S.
manu-facture
Firstimportationinto the U.S.
Firstuseinthe
Docu-ments
QualcommSnapdragon801(MSM8974)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 24 PageID 5844
17
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 24 PageID 5845
18
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each
Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You
may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You
may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-
Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 24 PageID 5846
19
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product
that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You
contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any
other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any
documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 20 of 24 PageID 5847
20
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
.
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 21 of 24 PageID 5848
21
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
DATED: April 24, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jeremy T. ElmanJeremy T. Elman, Esq.Florida Bar No. 37448DLA PIPER LLP (US)200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500Miami, FL 33131T: (305) 423-8500F: (305) 503-7551E-Mail: [email protected]
Angela J. Crawford, Esq.Florida Bar No. 43611DLA PIPER LLP (US)100 North Tampa, Suite 2200
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 22 of 24 PageID 5849
22
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
Tampa, FL 33602-5809T: (813) 222-5989F: (813) 371-1116E-Mail: [email protected]
Mark Fowler, Esq. (Trial Counsel)Pro Hac ViceErik R. FuehrerPro Hac ViceDLA PIPER LLP (US)2000 University AvenueEast Palo Alto, CA 94303T: (650) 833-2000F: (650) 833-2001E-Mail: [email protected]: [email protected]
Sean Cunningham, Esq.Pro Hac ViceEd Sikorski, Esq.Pro Hac ViceKevin Hamilton, Esq.Pro Hac ViceDLA PIPER LLP (US)401 B Street, Suite 1700San Diego, CA 92101-4297Tel: (619) 699-2700Fax: (619) 699-2701Email: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected]
Counsel for DefendantsSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd., SamsungElectronics America, Inc. and SamsungTelecommunications America, LLC
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 23 of 24 PageID 5850
23
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLYWEST\257122012.3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
served this 24th day of April, 2015, by email on counsel for ParkerVision, Inc.
By: /s/ Jeremy T. ElmanJeremy T. Elman, Esq.Florida Bar No. 37448DLA PIPER LLP (US)200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500Miami, FL 33131T: (305) 423-8500F: (305) 503-7551E-Mail: [email protected]
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-7 Filed 07/03/15 Page 24 of 24 PageID 5851
EXHIBIT 8
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 20 PageID 5852
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
Defendants.
HTC CORPORATION’S AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST SET OF COMMON
INTERROGATORIES (1-8)
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the
Middle District of Florida (“Local Rules”) HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
(collectively “HTC”) submit the following supplemental objections and responses to
ParkerVision, Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants
(hereinafter “First Set of Interrogatories”).
GENERAL RESPONSES
HTC states the following general responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories and
incorporates them by reference into HTC’s specific objections and responses to ParkerVision’s
First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 20 PageID 5853
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
2
1. HTC’s discovery and investigation of the facts relevant to this case are ongoing,
and HTC’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories is made to the best of HTC’s
present knowledge, information, and belief. HTC’s response is at all times subject to such
additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while
based on the present state of HTC’s recollection, is subject to such refreshing of recollection, and
such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from HTC’s further discovery or investigation.
2. HTC reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at
trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories but
discovered subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited to, any such
information or documents obtained in discovery herein.
3. To the extent that HTC responds to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by stating that
HTC will provide information and/or documents which HTC or any other party to this litigation
deems to embody material that is private, business confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or
otherwise protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), or
Federal Rule of Evidence 501, HTC will do so only pursuant to the terms of the Confidentiality
Agreement, dated April 7, 2015.
4. HTC reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency, relevance,
materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or trial of this
or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of HTC’s responses herein and any document or
thing identified or provided in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.
5. HTC reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or
supplemental interrogatories as ParkerVision may at any time propound involving or relating to
the subject matter of these interrogatories.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 20 PageID 5854
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
3
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
HTC states the following general objections to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories
and incorporates them by reference into HTC’s specific objections and responses to
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
1. HTC objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that they
purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or is
otherwise exempted from discovery. HTC hereby asserts all applicable privileges and
protections, and excludes privileged and protected information from its responses to
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories. Any disclosure of such privileged and/or protected
information is inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.
2. HTC objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).
3. HTC objects to each of ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent it
seeks to require HTC to identify in a response each or any document which may relate to, reflect
or otherwise refer to specified matters on the ground that such requests are overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4. HTC objects to Definition No. 5 for “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks to
include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. HTC will limit its responses to the patents
identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and ParkerVision’s Infringement
Contentions, served January 16, 2015.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 20 PageID 5855
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
4
5. HTC objects to Definition No. 9 for “HTC Accused Product(s)” as vague,
overbroad, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence to the extent that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply
with the parties’ stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case Management and
Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has
failed to adequately put HTC on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of the
Patents-in-Suit. HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it seeks to bring into the case
any products not specifically accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement
Contentions, regardless of whether they have been released yet or not. HTC also objects to the
blanket inclusion of any product identified in response to Interrogatory Number 1 since
ParkerVision has provided no basis for alleging infringement.
6. HTC objects to Definition No. 12 for “Accused Product(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from HTC regarding products
that it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those products are not
within HTC’s possession, custody or control. HTC further incorporates by reference its
objections to the term “HTC Accused Product(s).”
7. HTC objects to Definition No 15 for “document(s”) to the extent ParkerVision
seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). HTC will
interpret the term “document(s)” consistent with its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a).
HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and
information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.
8. HTC objects to Definition No. 16 for “communication(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on HTC an obligation to provide
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 20 PageID 5856
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
5
information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting HTC to undue burden and expense.
HTC further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and
information not covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. HTC further notes that the term
“communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories, and thus HTC reserves all rights to further object to the use of this term if and
when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery requests.
9. HTC objects to paragraphs 1-8 of the Instructions to the extent they purport to
require disclosure of information protected by the attorney client privilege, the work product
doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or information that is otherwise
exempted from discovery.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Separately identify each receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and
baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) or cellular telephone, tablet,
or other mobile communication device containing a receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem,
baseband, or baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) made, used,
offered for sale, or sold within the United States or imported into the United States by You or at
Your direction in the six years preceding the filing of the first amended complaint in this matter
and up through trial in this matter. Your answer should include an identification by Bates number
of all documents related to Your answer and use the format of the following exemplary table:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 20 PageID 5857
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
6
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify on a monthly and quarterly basis,
for the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter and up through trial
in this matter: (a) the number of units sold, imported into, or licensed in the United States net of
any returns; (b) the revenues associated with the units sold, imported into, or licensed in the
United States net of any returns; (c) all costs relating to units sold, imported into, or licensed in
the United States net of any returns; (d) all other expenses for the units sold, imported into or
licensed in the United States net of any returns; (e) the profit margin before taxes for the units
sold, imported into or licensed in the United States net of any returns; and (f) an identification by
Bates number of all documents related to Your answer. To the extent that You do not track,
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 20 PageID 5858
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
7
maintain, or have the ability to calculate the information separately for each Accused Product,
identify the information at the most granular level at which it is tracked, maintained, or at which
You are able to calculate the information. Your answer should use the format of the following
exemplary table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 20 PageID 5859
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
8
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)
first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first
importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of
testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary
table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 20 PageID 5860
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
9
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Separately identify and describe how and when You first became aware of each of the
Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the
person(s) so aware, any documents showing or reflecting Your awareness of each such Patent-in-
Suit and any documents or facts showing or reflecting Your belief of infringement or validity of
each Patent-in-Suit from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through
trial in this matter. Your answer should identify by Bates number any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 20 PageID 5861
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
10
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and financial details)
related to any acceptable non-infringing alternative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of
which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for
any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any
documents by Bates number that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 20 PageID 5862
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
11
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Separately for each asserted claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your
Accused Products, identify and describe all facts and documents that support or refute any non-
infringement assertion, argument or contention that You are aware of, that You may rely upon to
negate any finding or assertion of intent to infringe (e.g., for induced or willful infringement),
that You may present in any dispositive or non-dispositive motion brought in this matter, that
You may present at trial in this matter, and/or that You may rely upon for any other purpose in
this matter. Your answer should include an identification of the date you first formed each such
belief, the identity of all persons who have that belief (including the date each such person
formed such belief), and an identification by Bates number of any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 20 PageID 5863
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
12
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each
Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You
may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You
may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-
Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers
cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product
that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You
contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any
other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any
documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 20 PageID 5864
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
13
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
.
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 20 PageID 5865
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
14
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses,
settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other
agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies (“Agreements”) entered
into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any
jurisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set forth in plaintiff’s
infringement contentions for each of Your Accused Products or technology that you contend is
similar to the functions and features set forth in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions for each of
Your Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff
would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally
identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 20 PageID 5866
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
15
.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 20 PageID 5867
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
16
Dated: April 24, 2015 COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Matthew J. Brigham Stephen C. Neal (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [email protected] Timothy S. Teter (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Matthew J. Brigham (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Jeffrey S. Karr (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Benjamin G. Damstedt (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400
and BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No. 103979 E-mail: [email protected] Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No. 953740 E-mail: [email protected] The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 Counsel for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 20 PageID 5868
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 20 PageID 5869
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 20 PageID 5870
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 24, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing document described below:
HTC Corporation’s and HTC America, Inc.’s Supplemental Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)
by electronic mail to the following party:
/s/ Matthew J. Brigham
Matthew J. Brigham (Admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400 Counsel for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
116227486
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-8 Filed 07/03/15 Page 20 of 20 PageID 5871
EXHIBIT 9
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 47 PageID 5872
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED’S AND QUALCOMM ATHEROS INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PARKERVISION’S FIRST
SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES (1-8) CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the
Middle District of Florida (“Local Rules”), Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros,
Inc. (collectively “Qualcomm”) submit the following supplemental objections and responses to
ParkerVision, Inc.’s (“ParkerVision”) First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants
(hereinafter “First Set of Interrogatories”).
GENERAL RESPONSES
Qualcomm states the following general responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories and incorporates them by reference into Qualcomm’s specific objections and
responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 47 PageID 5873
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
2
1. Qualcomm’s discovery and investigation of the facts relevant to this case are
ongoing, and Qualcomm’s response to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories
is made to the best of Qualcomm’s present knowledge, information, and belief.
Qualcomm’s response is at all times subject to such additional or different
information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while based
on the present state of Qualcomm’s recollection, is subject to such refreshing of
recollection, and such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from
Qualcomm’s further discovery or investigation.
2. Qualcomm reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing
and at trial, information and/or documents responsive to ParkerVision’s First Set
of Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to the date of this response,
including, but not limited to, any such information or documents obtained in
discovery herein.
3. To the extent that Qualcomm responds to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories by
stating that Qualcomm will provide information and/or documents which
Qualcomm or any other party to this litigation deems to embody material that is
private, business confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise protected
from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), or
Federal Rule of Evidence 501, Qualcomm will do so only pursuant to the terms of
the Confidentiality Agreement, dated April 7, 2015.
4. Qualcomm reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency,
relevance, materiality, privilege or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent
proceeding in or trial of this or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 47 PageID 5874
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
3
Qualcomm’s responses herein and any document or thing identified or provided
in response to ParkerVision’s Interrogatories.
5. Qualcomm reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or
supplemental interrogatories as ParkerVision may at any time propound involving
or relating to the subject matter of these interrogatories.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Qualcomm states the following general objections to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories and incorporates them by reference into Qualcomm’s specific objections and
responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories, where appropriate.
1. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent that
they purport to request disclosure of information that comes within the scope of
the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, any protective order or
confidentiality agreement or is otherwise exempted from discovery. Qualcomm
hereby asserts all applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged
and protected information from its responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of
Interrogatories. Any disclosure of such privileged and/or protected information is
inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.
2. Qualcomm objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt.
92, Section I(C)).
3. Qualcomm objects to each of ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the
extent it seeks to require Qualcomm to identify in a response each or any
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 47 PageID 5875
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
4
document which may relate to, reflect or otherwise refer to specified matters on
the ground that such requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
4. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 5 for “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent it seeks
to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted. Qualcomm will limit its
responses to the patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt.
26) and ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, served January 16, 2015.
5. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 6 for “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents
Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent
that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the parties’
stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling
Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has
failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly infringe
which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not
specifically accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions,
regardless of whether they have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects
to the blanket inclusion of any product identified in response to Interrogatory
Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for alleging infringement.
6. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 7 for “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused
Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 47 PageID 5876
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
5
ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the parties’
stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling
Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has
failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly infringe
which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not
specifically accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions,
regardless of whether they have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects
to the blanket inclusion of any product identified in response to Interrogatory
Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for alleging infringement.
7. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 8 for “Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent
Accused Product(s)” as vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent
that ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the parties’
stipulated procedures (Dkt. 84) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling
Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has
failed to adequately put Qualcomm on notice of which products allegedly infringe
which asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent ParkerVision seeks to bring into the case any products not
specifically accused of infringement in ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions,
regardless of whether they have been released yet or not. Qualcomm also objects
to the blanket inclusion of any product identified in response to Interrogatory
Number 1 since ParkerVision has provided no basis for alleging infringement.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 47 PageID 5877
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
6
8. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 11 for “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” for
the reasons set forth in objections to the terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents
Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and
“Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patents Accused Product(s).”
9. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 12 for “Accused Product(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seeks any information from Qualcomm
regarding products that it does not design, manufacture or sell, and thus any
information about those products are not within Qualcomm’s possession, custody
or control. Qualcomm further incorporates by reference its objections to the
terms “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm
Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Protocol Converter
Patents Accused Product(s).”
10. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 15 for “document(s”) to the extent
ParkerVision seeks to define the term broader than its use in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 34(a). Qualcomm will interpret the term “document(s)” consistent
with its use in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a). Qualcomm further objects
to this definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and information not
covered by the parties’ ESI agreement.
11. Qualcomm objects to Definition No. 16 for “communication(s)” to the extent
ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories seek to impose on Qualcomm an
obligation to provide information that is not reasonably accessible, thus subjecting
Qualcomm to undue burden and expense. Qualcomm further objects to this
definition to the extent it calls for types of documents and information not
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 47 PageID 5878
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
7
covered by the parties’ ESI agreement. Qualcomm further notes that the term
“communication(s)” is not used in any of the Interrogatories in ParkerVision’s
First Set of Interrogatories, and thus Qualcomm reserves all rights to further
object to the use of this term if and when ParkerVision uses it in further discovery
requests.
12. Qualcomm objects to paragraphs 1-8 of the Instructions to the extent they purport
to require disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
work product doctrine, any protective order or confidentiality agreement or
information that is otherwise exempted from discovery.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Separately identify each receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem, baseband, and
baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) or cellular telephone, tablet,
or other mobile communication device containing a receiver, transmitter, transceiver, modem,
baseband, or baseband processor, or combination thereof (e.g., system on a chip) made, used,
offered for sale, or sold within the United States or imported into the United States by You or at
Your direction in the six years preceding the filing of the first amended complaint in this matter
and up through trial in this matter. Your answer should include an identification by Bates number
of all documents related to Your answer and use the format of the following exemplary table:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 47 PageID 5879
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
8
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify on a monthly and quarterly basis,
for the six years preceding the filing of the original complaint in this matter and up through trial
in this matter: (a) the number of units sold, imported into, or licensed in the United States net of
any returns; (b) the revenues associated with the units sold, imported into, or licensed in the
United States net of any returns; (c) all costs relating to units sold, imported into, or licensed in
the United States net of any returns; (d) all other expenses for the units sold, imported into or
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 47 PageID 5880
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
9
licensed in the United States net of any returns; (e) the profit margin before taxes for the units
sold, imported into or licensed in the United States net of any returns; and (f) an identification by
Bates number of all documents related to Your answer. To the extent that You do not track,
maintain, or have the ability to calculate the information separately for each Accused Product,
identify the information at the most granular level at which it is tracked, maintained, or at which
You are able to calculate the information. Your answer should use the format of the following
exemplary table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 47 PageID 5881
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
10
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 47 PageID 5882
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
11
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)
first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 47 PageID 5883
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
12
importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of
testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary
table:
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 47 PageID 5884
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
13
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 47 PageID 5885
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
14
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Separately identify and describe how and when You first became aware of each of the
Patent-in-Suits (or patent application that later issued as one of the Patents-in-Suit), including the
person(s) so aware, any documents showing or reflecting Your awareness of each such Patent-in-
Suit and any documents or facts showing or reflecting Your belief of infringement or validity of
each Patent-in-Suit from the time you first became aware of each such Patent-in-Suit through
trial in this matter. Your answer should identify by Bates number any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 47 PageID 5886
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
15
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 47 PageID 5887
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
16
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 47 PageID 5888
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
17
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and financial details)
related to any acceptable non-infringing alternative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of
which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for
any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any
documents by Bates number that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 47 PageID 5889
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
18
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 19 of 47 PageID 5890
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
19
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Separately for each asserted claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your
Accused Products, identify and describe all facts and documents that support or refute any non-
infringement assertion, argument or contention that You are aware of, that You may rely upon to
negate any finding or assertion of intent to infringe (e.g., for induced or willful infringement),
that You may present in any dispositive or non-dispositive motion brought in this matter, that
You may present at trial in this matter, and/or that You may rely upon for any other purpose in
this matter. Your answer should include an identification of the date you first formed each such
belief, the identity of all persons who have that belief (including the date each such person
formed such belief), and an identification by Bates number of any documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 20 of 47 PageID 5891
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
20
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 21 of 47 PageID 5892
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
21
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each
Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You
may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You
may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-
Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers
cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product
that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You
contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any
other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any
documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 22 of 47 PageID 5893
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
22
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 23 of 47 PageID 5894
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
23
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Separately for each Patent-in-Suit, identify by Bates number and describe all licenses,
settlement agreements, or covenants-not-to-suit, technology transfer agreements or any other
agreements or contracts providing any rights to patents or technologies (“Agreements”) entered
into by You, or of which You are aware, that relate to any patent or patent application (from any
jurisdiction or nationality) that (i) relates to the functions and features set forth in plaintiff’s
infringement contentions for each of Your Accused Products or technology that you contend is
similar to the functions and features set forth in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions for each of
Your Accused Products, or that (ii) You contend is comparable to a license that You and plaintiff
would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation in this case. Your answer should additionally
identify by Bates number any documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 24 of 47 PageID 5895
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
24
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 25 of 47 PageID 5896
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
25
Dated: May 26, 2015
COOLEY LLP By: /s/ Matthew J. Brigham Stephen C. Neal (admitted pro hac vice)
Email: [email protected] Timothy S. Teter (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Matthew J. Brigham (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Jeffrey S. Karr (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] Benjamin G. Damstedt (admitted pro hac vice) Email: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400
and BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No. 103979 E-mail: [email protected] Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No. 953740 E-mail: [email protected] The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Telephone: (904) 353-0211 Facsimile: (904) 353-9307 Counsel for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 26 of 47 PageID 5897
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 27 of 47 PageID 5898
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 28 of 47 PageID 5899
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 29 of 47 PageID 5900
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 30 of 47 PageID 5901
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 31 of 47 PageID 5902
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 32 of 47 PageID 5903
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 33 of 47 PageID 5904
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 34 of 47 PageID 5905
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 35 of 47 PageID 5906
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 36 of 47 PageID 5907
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 37 of 47 PageID 5908
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 38 of 47 PageID 5909
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 39 of 47 PageID 5910
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 40 of 47 PageID 5911
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 41 of 47 PageID 5912
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 42 of 47 PageID 5913
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 43 of 47 PageID 5914
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 44 of 47 PageID 5915
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 45 of 47 PageID 5916
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 46 of 47 PageID 5917
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY MATERIAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 26, 2015, I caused to be served the foregoing document described below:
Qualcomm Incorporated’s and Qualcomm Atheros Inc.’s Second Supplemental Objections and Responses to ParkerVision’s First Set of Common Interrogatories (1-8)
by electronic mail to the following party:
/s/ Matthew J. Brigham Matthew J. Brigham (Admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [email protected] 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: (650) 843-5000 Fax: (650) 849-7400 Counsel for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.
116910261
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-9 Filed 07/03/15 Page 47 of 47 PageID 5918
EXHIBIT 10
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID 5919
1
WEST\258596110.1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICA TIONS
AMERICA, LLC’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PARKERVISION INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (N OS. 3 AND 7)
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”),
Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”)
and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”)1 provide
these supplemental responses to the first set of interrogatories by Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.
(“ParkerVision”) as follows:
GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
1. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks to impose duties or obligations on Samsung beyond those set forth in the Federal Rules
1 On January 1, 2015, STA merged into SEA. SEA responds to this discovery on behalf of SEA and former STA.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 18 PageID 5920
2
WEST\258596110.1
of Evidence, F.R.C.P. and/or the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, or any other agreement that the parties have or may enter into in this case. In this
regard, to the extent that an interrogatory requires, explicitly or implicitly, the construction of
one or more patent claim terms, a comparison of the asserted claims and the prior art, or
identification of any advice of counsel, such interrogatory is premature in light of the timetable
provided in the Case Management and Scheduling Order.
2. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they
prematurely call for discovery concerning ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, which are
deficient and the subject of a motion to strike by Samsung.
3. The following responses are based on information available as of the date of these
responses. Discovery is not yet complete, and these responses are therefore subject to revision.
It is anticipated that further discovery, investigation, and analysis may supply additional facts
and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal
contentions, all of which may lead to substantial changes, additions, or variations to the
information set forth herein.
4. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
work product doctrine, joint defense, common interest and/or any other applicable privilege,
protection or doctrine. Nothing contained herein is intended to be or should be construed as a
waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, joint defense,
common interest privilege or other applicable privileges or doctrines. Samsung further objects to
each interrogatory to the extent that it requires Samsung to search for and reveal privileged
information or communications from its or its attorneys’ litigation files pertaining to the case.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 18 PageID 5921
3
WEST\258596110.1
5. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential or
proprietary information pertaining to Samsung’s business, trade secrets and/or economic
relationships, or to the extent that it seeks confidential information which would impinge upon
any protected right to privacy.
6. Samsung further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information that contains confidential, proprietary or trade secret information of third parties.
7. These responses are made solely for the purpose of discovery in this action.
Nothing herein is intended to waive the following objections, which are expressly reserved: all
objections as to competency, relevancy, authenticity, propriety, materiality and admissibility of
the subject matter of the interrogatories; all objections on any ground as to the use of any
information provided in response to these interrogatories; all objections on any ground to any
interrogatory for further responses to these or other interrogatories; and any and all other
objections and ground that would or could require or permit the exclusion of any document or
statement therein from evidence, all of which objections and ground are reserved and may be
interposed at the time of trial.
8. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek
irrelevant information concerning products that are not imported into or made, used, offered for
sale, or sold in the United States.
9. Samsung objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).
10. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 18 PageID 5922
4
WEST\258596110.1
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
11. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to impose an
obligation to identify or search for documents or information at any location other than that at
which they would be stored in the ordinary course of business.
12. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is cumulative and
duplicative of other forms of discovery that are more convenient and less burdensome. Samsung
further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to require Samsung to do more
than conduct an examination of those files or sources that reasonably may be expected to yield
responsive information or an inquiry of those persons who reasonably may be expected to
possess responsive information.
13. Samsung objects generally to the temporal scope of the interrogatories as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it does not contain any reasonable or
appropriate temporal limitation. Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to
determine a mutually agreeable relevant time frame for discovery.
14. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek a
legal conclusion or prematurely seek expert opinion.
15. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information already in ParkerVision’s possession or that is equally available to ParkerVision
from public sources.
16. Samsung objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or “Your” as overly
broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it includes Samsung’s “past and present officers,
directors, affiliates, brokers, agents, representatives, employees, servants, and all persons acting
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 18 PageID 5923
5
WEST\258596110.1
directly or indirectly under their control, including any attorney and including each Defendant’s
respective parents, subsidiaries, or affiliated companies, and other related entities, including all
assets or companies that each Defendant has acquired or with respect to which has succeeded to
rights or obligations.” Samsung further objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or
“Your” on the ground that it seeks the production of information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney-work product doctrine in so far as the definition
purports to include attorneys. Samsung will construe these terms to mean SEC and SEA in
responding to each interrogatory.
17. Samsung objects to the definition of “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent that it seeks
to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted against Samsung in this case. Samsung will
limit its responses to the patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and
ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, served on January 16, 2015.
18. Samsung objects to the definitions of “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused
Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm Protocol Converter
Patent Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” to the extent that they seek
any information from Samsung regarding products that it does not design, manufacture or sell
and thus any information about those products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or
control or can be obtained directly from Qualcomm rather than Samsung.
19. Samsung objects to the definition of “Samsung Accused Product(s)” as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and
unreleased products. Samsung further objects to this definition to the extent that ParkerVision’s
Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling
Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has failed to
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 18 PageID 5924
6
WEST\258596110.1
adequately put Samsung on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of the
Patents-in-Suit.
20. Samsung objects to the definition of “Accused Product(s)” as overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and
unreleased products as well as to the extent it seeks any information from Samsung regarding
products that it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those
products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or control. Samsung further incorporates
by reference its objections to the term “Samsung Accused Product(s).”
21. Samsung objects to the definition of the term “document” to the extent that it
purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the
F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order, or the Electronic Discovery Protocol.
22. Samsung objects to the definition of “communication(s)” to the extent that it
purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the
F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order, or the Electronic Discovery Protocol.
23. Samsung objects to the various definitions of and instructions with respect to the
terms “identify,” “identity,” or “identification” on the ground that they render each interrogatory
in which they are used overly broad and unduly burdensome, and to the extent they seek
information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Samsung will respond to interrogatories containing these terms by using a reasonable, plain
meaning interpretation of the terms as best understood by Samsung.
24. Samsung objects to the definition of “Related Patents” as overly broad, unduly
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 18 PageID 5925
7
WEST\258596110.1
burdensome, vague and ambiguous and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, to the extent that it seeks discovery regarding patents not
asserted against Samsung in this case.
25. The General Statement and Objections shall be deemed to be incorporated in full
into each response set forth below, and any statement of intent to produce information contained
in any such response is subject to the limitations, objections and exceptions set forth herein.
Subject to the foregoing General Statement and Objections, Samsung responds as
follows:
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately for each of Your Accused Products, identify: (a) the first U.S. release date; (b)
first U.S. sale or offer for sale; (c) first U.S. public use; (d) first U.S. manufacture; (e) first
importation into the U.S.; (f) first use by You or at Your direction in the U.S. (whether by way of
testing or otherwise); and (g) an identification by Bates number of all documents that relate to,
support, or refute Your answer. Your answer should use the format of the following exemplary
table:
Defendant Accused Product
First U.S.
release date
First U.S. sale or
offer for sale
First U.S.
public use
First U.S.
manu- facture
First importation into the U.S.
First use in the U.S.
Docu- ments
Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 (MSM8974)
__ __ __ __ __ __ __
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 18 PageID 5926
8
WEST\258596110.1
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 18 PageID 5927
9
WEST\258596110.1
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 18 PageID 5928
10
WEST\258596110.1
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, identify and explain all facts and documents related to any differences between each
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 18 PageID 5929
11
WEST\258596110.1
Accused Product that you contend is material to Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, that You
may rely upon to support any assertion or finding of non-infringement in this matter, or that You
may rely upon to refute any infringement assertion by Plaintiff in this matter. For each Patent-in-
Suit, your answer should include the identification of any differences between the transceivers
cited in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions and the transceivers used in each Accused Product
that you contend is material to plaintiff’s infringement allegations and any differences that You
contend make it so that any one Accused Product is not representative of the operation of any
other Accused Product. Your answer should additionally identify by Bates number any
documents that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 18 PageID 5930
12
WEST\258596110.1
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 18 PageID 5931
13
WEST\258596110.1
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 14 of 18 PageID 5932
14
WEST\258596110.1
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 15 of 18 PageID 5933
15
WEST\258596110.1
DATED: May 26, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jeremy T. Elman Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 37448 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 T: (305) 423-8500 F: (305) 503-7551 E-Mail: [email protected]
Angela J. Crawford, Esq. Florida Bar No. 43611 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
100 North Tampa, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602-5809 T: (813) 222-5989 F: (813) 371-1116 E-Mail: [email protected]
Mark Fowler, Esq. (Trial Counsel) Pro Hac Vice Erik R. Fuehrer Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 T: (650) 833-2000 F: (650) 833-2001 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
Sean Cunningham, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Ed Sikorski, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Kevin Hamilton, Esq. Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 16 of 18 PageID 5934
16
WEST\258596110.1
San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Tel: (619) 699-2700 Fax: (619) 699-2701 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Defendants
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 17 of 18 PageID 5935
17
WEST\258596110.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
served this 26th day of May, 2015, by email on counsel for ParkerVision, Inc.
By: /s/ Jeremy T. Elman
Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 37448 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 T: (305) 423-8500 F: (305) 503-7551 E-Mail: [email protected]
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-10 Filed 07/03/15 Page 18 of 18 PageID 5936
EXHIBIT 11
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 5937
1
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
PARKERVISION, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,
Defendants.
CASE NO. 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICA TIONS
AMERICA, LLC’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJ ECTIONS TO PARKERVISION INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (N O. 5)
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”),
Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”)
and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”)1 provide
these supplemental responses to the first set of interrogatories by Plaintiff ParkerVision, Inc.
(“ParkerVision”) as follows:
GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
1. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks to impose duties or obligations on Samsung beyond those set forth in the Federal Rules
1 On January 1, 2015, STA merged into SEA. SEA responds to this discovery on behalf of SEA and former STA.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 2 of 13 PageID 5938
2
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
of Evidence, F.R.C.P. and/or the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, or any other agreement that the parties have or may enter into in this case. In this
regard, to the extent that an interrogatory requires, explicitly or implicitly, the construction of
one or more patent claim terms, a comparison of the asserted claims and the prior art, or
identification of any advice of counsel, such interrogatory is premature in light of the timetable
provided in the Case Management and Scheduling Order.
2. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they
prematurely call for discovery concerning ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, which are
deficient and the subject of a motion to strike by Samsung.
3. The following responses are based on information available as of the date of these
responses. Discovery is not yet complete, and these responses are therefore subject to revision.
It is anticipated that further discovery, investigation, and analysis may supply additional facts
and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal
contentions, all of which may lead to substantial changes, additions, or variations to the
information set forth herein.
4. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
work product doctrine, joint defense, common interest and/or any other applicable privilege,
protection or doctrine. Nothing contained herein is intended to be or should be construed as a
waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, joint defense,
common interest privilege or other applicable privileges or doctrines. Samsung further objects to
each interrogatory to the extent that it requires Samsung to search for and reveal privileged
information or communications from its or its attorneys’ litigation files pertaining to the case.
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 3 of 13 PageID 5939
3
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
5. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential or
proprietary information pertaining to Samsung’s business, trade secrets and/or economic
relationships, or to the extent that it seeks confidential information which would impinge upon
any protected right to privacy.
6. Samsung further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information that contains confidential, proprietary or trade secret information of third parties.
7. These responses are made solely for the purpose of discovery in this action.
Nothing herein is intended to waive the following objections, which are expressly reserved: all
objections as to competency, relevancy, authenticity, propriety, materiality and admissibility of
the subject matter of the interrogatories; all objections on any ground as to the use of any
information provided in response to these interrogatories; all objections on any ground to any
interrogatory for further responses to these or other interrogatories; and any and all other
objections and ground that would or could require or permit the exclusion of any document or
statement therein from evidence, all of which objections and ground are reserved and may be
interposed at the time of trial.
8. Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they seek
irrelevant information concerning products that are not imported into or made, used, offered for
sale, or sold in the United States.
9. Samsung objects to ParkerVision’s First Set of Interrogatories to the extent each
interrogatory contains impermissible subparts in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(a) and the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order (Dkt. 92, Section I(C)).
10. Samsung objects to each interrogatory, definition and instruction to the extent that
it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 4 of 13 PageID 5940
4
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence herein.
11. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to impose an
obligation to identify or search for documents or information at any location other than that at
which they would be stored in the ordinary course of business.
12. Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is cumulative and
duplicative of other forms of discovery that are more convenient and less burdensome. Samsung
further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to require Samsung to do more
than conduct an examination of those files or sources that reasonably may be expected to yield
responsive information or an inquiry of those persons who reasonably may be expected to
possess responsive information.
13. Samsung objects generally to the temporal scope of the interrogatories as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it does not contain any reasonable or
appropriate temporal limitation. Samsung is willing to meet and confer with ParkerVision to
determine a mutually agreeable relevant time frame for discovery.
14. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek a
legal conclusion or prematurely seek expert opinion.
15. Samsung objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek
information already in ParkerVision’s possession or that is equally available to ParkerVision
from public sources.
16. Samsung objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or “Your” as overly
broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it includes Samsung’s “past and present officers,
directors, affiliates, brokers, agents, representatives, employees, servants, and all persons acting
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 5 of 13 PageID 5941
5
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
directly or indirectly under their control, including any attorney and including each Defendant’s
respective parents, subsidiaries, or affiliated companies, and other related entities, including all
assets or companies that each Defendant has acquired or with respect to which has succeeded to
rights or obligations.” Samsung further objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” or
“Your” on the ground that it seeks the production of information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney-work product doctrine in so far as the definition
purports to include attorneys. Samsung will construe these terms to mean SEC and SEA in
responding to each interrogatory.
17. Samsung objects to the definition of “Patent(s)-in-Suit” to the extent that it seeks
to include any patents ParkerVision has not asserted against Samsung in this case. Samsung will
limit its responses to the patents identified in ParkerVision’s Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) and
ParkerVision’s Infringement Contentions, served on January 16, 2015.
18. Samsung objects to the definitions of “Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused
Product(s),” “Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Product(s),” “Qualcomm Protocol Converter
Patent Accused Product(s),” and “Qualcomm Accused Product(s)” to the extent that they seek
any information from Samsung regarding products that it does not design, manufacture or sell
and thus any information about those products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or
control or can be obtained directly from Qualcomm rather than Samsung.
19. Samsung objects to the definition of “Samsung Accused Product(s)” as overly
broad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and
unreleased products. Samsung further objects to this definition to the extent that ParkerVision’s
Infringement Contentions fail to comply with the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling
Order (Dkt. 92), and thus ParkerVision, as the party with the burden of proof, has failed to
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 6 of 13 PageID 5942
6
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
adequately put Samsung on notice of which products infringe which asserted claims of the
Patents-in-Suit.
20. Samsung objects to the definition of “Accused Product(s)” as overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and vague and ambiguous to the extent that it encompasses irrelevant and
unreleased products as well as to the extent it seeks any information from Samsung regarding
products that it does not design, manufacture or sell and thus any information about those
products are not within Samsung’s possession, custody or control. Samsung further incorporates
by reference its objections to the term “Samsung Accused Product(s).”
21. Samsung objects to the definition of the term “document” to the extent that it
purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the
F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order, or the Electronic Discovery Protocol.
22. Samsung objects to the definition of “communication(s)” to the extent that it
purports to impose burdens on Samsung greater than, inconsistent with, or not authorized by, the
F.R.C.P., the Civil Local Rules of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Case
Management and Scheduling Order, or the Electronic Discovery Protocol.
23. Samsung objects to the various definitions of and instructions with respect to the
terms “identify,” “identity,” or “identification” on the ground that they render each interrogatory
in which they are used overly broad and unduly burdensome, and to the extent they seek
information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Samsung will respond to interrogatories containing these terms by using a reasonable, plain
meaning interpretation of the terms as best understood by Samsung.
24. Samsung objects to the definition of “Related Patents” as overly broad, unduly
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 7 of 13 PageID 5943
7
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
burdensome, vague and ambiguous and neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence, to the extent that it seeks discovery regarding patents not
asserted against Samsung in this case.
25. The General Statement and Objections shall be deemed to be incorporated in full
into each response set forth below, and any statement of intent to produce information contained
in any such response is subject to the limitations, objections and exceptions set forth herein.
Subject to the foregoing General Statement and Objections, Samsung responds as
follows:
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Separately for each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit and each of Your Accused
Products, please identify and describe all facts (including the technical and financial details)
related to any acceptable non-infringing alternative(s) or design around(s) available to You, of
which You are aware, which You are presently investigating, or which You may rely upon for
any purpose in this case (including at trial). Your answer should additionally identify any
documents by Bates number that relate to, support, or refute Your answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 8 of 13 PageID 5944
8
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 9 of 13 PageID 5945
9
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 10 of 13 PageID 5946
10
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
DATED: May 29, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jeremy T. Elman Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 37448 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 T: (305) 423-8500 F: (305) 503-7551 E-Mail: [email protected]
Angela J. Crawford, Esq. Florida Bar No. 43611 DLA PIPER LLP (US)
100 North Tampa, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL 33602-5809 T: (813) 222-5989 F: (813) 371-1116 E-Mail: [email protected]
Mark Fowler, Esq. (Trial Counsel) Pro Hac Vice Erik R. Fuehrer Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 T: (650) 833-2000 F: (650) 833-2001 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
Sean Cunningham, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Ed Sikorski, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Kevin Hamilton, Esq. Pro Hac Vice DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Tel: (619) 699-2700
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 11 of 13 PageID 5947
11
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
Fax: (619) 699-2701 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Counsel for Defendants
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 12 of 13 PageID 5948
12
OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY WEST\258619521.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
served this 29th day of May, 2015, by email on counsel for ParkerVision, Inc.
By: /s/ Jeremy T. Elman
Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No. 37448 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 T: (305) 423-8500 F: (305) 503-7551 E-Mail: [email protected]
Case 6:14-cv-00687-PGB-KRS Document 160-11 Filed 07/03/15 Page 13 of 13 PageID 5949