Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.

Filing 158

EXHIBITS B, C, E, L, Q, BB, C in Support re 157 Document E-Filed Under Seal to the Declaration of Scott T. Weingaertner filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit L, # 4 Exhibit Q, # 5 Exhibit BB, # 6 Exhibit CC)(Related document(s) 157 ) (Ezgar, Geoffrey) (Filed on 6/30/2010) Modified on 7/1/2010 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Google Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.

Doc. 158 Att. 6

Exhibit CC

Dockets.Justia.com

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

TIMOTHY T. SCOTT (CA Bar No. 126971/[e-mail]) GEOFFREY M. EZGAR (CA Bar No. 184243/[e-mail]) LEO SPOONER III (CA Bar No. 241541/[e-mail]) KING & SPALDING LLP 33 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (pro hac vice/[e-mail]) ROBERT F. PERRY ([e-mail]) ALLISON ALTERSOHN (pro hac vice/[e-mail]) SUSAN KIM (pro hac vice/[e-mail]) MARK H. FRANCIS (pro hac vice/[e-mail]) DANIEL MILLER (pro hac vice/[e-mail]) King & Spalding LLP 85 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-4003 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (OAKLAND DIVISION) GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff, v. NETLIST, INC., Defendant. Pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Google Inc. ("Google"), through its undersigned counsel, hereby provides its first supplemental responses to Defendant Netlist, Inc. `s (``Netlist'') Request for Admissions, Set No.1, as follows. These responses are based upon information presently available and are therefore made without prejudice to Google's right to use or rely upon subsequently discovered information. As permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these responses may be changed, modified, or supplemented. In responding to Netlist's Requests for Admission, Google does not waive any objections on the grounds of privilege, competency, relevance, materiality, authenticity, or admissibility of the information contained in these responses. Google also expressly reserves the Case No. C 08-04144 SBA PLAINTIFF GOOGLE INC.'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET NO. ONE [NOS. 1-26]

GOOGLE'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

1

CASE NO. C 08-4144 SBA

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

right to object later to the admissibility of any of this information into evidence on any permissible grounds, including grounds not identified herein. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The following responses are given without prejudice to Google's right to produce evidence of any facts which it may later discover. Google reserves the right to supplement the following responses and to change any and all of its responses as additional facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed, contentions are made, or as a result of the Court's legal determination of issues. OBJECTIONS TO THE INSTRUCTIONS Google objects to the Instructions to the extent Netlist seeks to impose obligations on Google that are beyond the scope of or inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and/or the Court's Scheduling Order in this case. Google will respond to the Requests to the extent possible, and subject to its objections set forth herein. Google further objects to the Instructions to the extent they seek to require to Google to produce information not in its possession, custody, or control. Google further objections to the Instructions as vague and ambiguous as to at least the term "investigators." Google will respond to the Requests using information available to it after an investigation that is reasonable under the circumstances. OBJECTIONS TO THE DEFINITIONS Google objects to the definition of the terms "Google," "you," and "your" to the extent these definitions encompass entities other than plaintiff Google Inc. and to the extent Netlist requests, through these definitions, information not within Google's possession, custody, or control. Google responds on its own behalf only. Google's responses to these requests are made without prejudice to Google's right to produce relevant information obtained from third parties in the future.

GOOGLE'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

2

CASE NO. C 08-4144 SBA

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

Google objects to the definitions of "JEDEC Mode C," "JEDEC Mode A," "Mode C," and "Mode A" as vague and ambiguous. Although Netlist professes to use those terms as defined in JEDEC Standard number JESD82-20A, Google objects to their use in these Requests to the extent that use is incompatible or inconsistent with the way the terms are used within that standard. Google objects to the definitions of "Southbound Link," "Rank Select Bit," "Address Bit," "Row Address Bit," "Column Address Bit," "Chip Select Bit," "Command Bit," "Activate Command," "Write Command," "Read Command," "Precharge Command," and "Refresh Command" as vague and ambiguous. Although Netlist professes to use those terms as defined in JEDEC Standards documents, Google objects to their use in these Requests to the extent that use is incompatible or inconsistent with the way the terms are used within those standards. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Google's responses are subject to the following General Objections, which Google incorporates into its responses to each of Netlist's requests, whether or not such General Objection is expressly referenced. The incorporation by reference of any one of these General Objections shall not be construed to exclude the incorporation of any other General Objection. Moreover, Google does not waive its right to amend its objections. 1. Google objects to the requests insofar as they are vague, ambiguous, indefinite, overbroad, unduly burdensome, duplicative, cumulative, indefinite as to time or scope, unintelligible, or otherwise unclear as to the precise information sought. 2. In particular, Google objects to the term "bit," and variants, as used by Netlist in the Requests. While Netlist ostensibly imports the definition of "bit" and related terms ("Rank Select Bit," "Address Bit," etc.) from JEDEC standards documents, these terms are not expressly defined in those documents and instead are only defined, if at all, by contextual use in relation to other terms. In addition, the relation of these terms to disputed claim terms is ambiguous, and even contradictory, as used in the JEDEC standards and in the Requests. For instance, the term "bit" is nowhere expressly defined in either the Requests or in the JEDEC standards, although the term "bit lane" is defined in document JESD206, where it is said to mean "[a] differential pair of

GOOGLE'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

3

CASE NO. C 08-4144 SBA

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

signals in one direction," JESD206 at p. 1, Table 1-1 - which indicates that a bit may be derived from multiple signals. However, as used in the Requests, e.g. where Netlist asks about "Input Command Bits encoding" various commands, it appears that the Requests presume a correspondence between a signal and a series of bits. Because Netlist defines these terms only by reference to ambiguous documents, and further because Netlist clearly implies a connection between these terms and various disputed claim terms, any Request using the term "bit" or any variant is vague, ambiguous, and prematurely calls for a legal conclusion before the disputed claim terms have been construed by the Court. 3. Google objects to the requests insofar as they seek information that is neither relevant to a claim or defense of any party, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 4. Google objects to the requests to the extent that they seek documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or by the work-product doctrine, protected by any other applicable privilege or immunity, prepared in connection with settlement discussions, prepared in anticipation of adversarial proceedings such as litigation or for trial, prepared in connection with any applicable joint defense agreement, or not otherwise within the scope of permissive discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules. 5. Google objects to the requests on the ground and to the extent they call for information that Google is under an obligation to third parties to not disclose. 6. Google objects to the requests on the ground and to the extent they seek to obtain information not in Google's possession, custody, or control. 7. Google objects to the requests as overly burdensome on the ground and to the extent they seek information already in Netlist's possession or information that is a matter of public record or that is otherwise equally available to Netlist. 8. Google objects to the requests to the extent they call for a legal opinion or . conclusion. Google neither expresses nor intends to express any legal opinion or conclusion by responding to Netlist' s requests.

GOOGLE'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

4

CASE NO. C 08-4144 SBA

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

9. Google objects to the requests to the extent that they fail to specify a relevant time period for which information is requested, and/or to the extent the specified period is irrelevant. 10. Google objects to the Requests to the extent that they use terms that are not defined or understood, or are vaguely and/or ambiguously defined, and therefore fail to identify with reasonable particularity the information sought. Google will not speculate as to the meaning to ascribe to such terms. RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1: Google uses 4-Rank Fully Buffered Dual-In-Line Memory Modules in certain of its servers ("Google's 4-Rank FBDIMMs"). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.1: Google incorporates by reference each of the General Objections. Google further objects to this request as vague and ambiguous as to the term "4-Rank Fully Buffered Dual-In-Line Memory Modules," which is not defined in the requests either explicitly or via reference to a standard. Subject to, without waiving, and based upon the foregoing objections, Google responds as follows: as Google understands the term "4-Rank FBDIMM," Google admits that it uses 4-Rank FBDIMMs. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2: The server that Google provided to Netlist for inspection on August 19, 2009 is representative of Google's servers that include Google's 4-Rank FBDIMMs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.2: Google incorporates by reference each of the General Objections. Google further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the term "representative." Subject to, without waiving, and based upon the foregoing objections, Google responds as follows: Google admits that the server presented for inspection on August 19,2009 is functionally representative of servers using the allegedly infringing 4-rank FBDIMM memory modules in

GOOGLE'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

5

CASE NO. C 08-4144 SBA

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

Google's data centers, in that it allowed Netlist to operate the allegedly infringing 4-rank FBDIMM memory module in a manner functionally representative of the memory module as used in servers in Google's data centers. To the extent that Netlist uses the term "representative" in any other sense, Google is unable to admit or deny the remainder of this Request. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3: In certain of Google's servers, Google operates Google's 4-Rank FBDIMMs in JEDEC Mode C. FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.3: Google incorporates by reference each of the General Objections. In addition, insofar as the term "Mode C" has the same meaning as in the JEDEC Standard JESD82-20A, it invokes the terms "chip select signal" by implication, as those terms are in turn used to define "Mode C" in the standards documents. The definitions of "chip select signal" in the context of the patent are currently subject to debate by the parties, as is the relevance of the JEDEC standards in determining this meaning. Google further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the term "Mode C." Subject to, without waiving, and based upon the foregoing objections, Google responds as follows: Google lacks sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny this Request, and therefore denies it. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4: Google's 4-Rank FBDIMMs include a plurality of DRAM chips coupled to a printed circuit board. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.4: Google incorporates by reference each of the General Objections. Google further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the terms "DRAM chips" and "printed circuit board." Subject to, without waiving, and based upon the foregoing objections, Google responds as follows: without acceding to Netlist's definitions of the aforementioned vague, ambiguous, and/or

GOOGLE'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

6

CASE NO. C 08-4144 SBA

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

disputed terms, Google admits that certain of its memory modules include DRAM chips coupled to a printed circuit board. To the extent not admitted, Google lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny this Request, and therefore denies it. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: Google's 4-Rank FBDIMMs include an Advanced Memory Buffer ("Google's AMB"). RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.5: Google incorporates by reference each of the General Objections. Google further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the term "Advanced Memory Buffer" (AMB). Subject to, without waiving, and based upon the foregoing objections, Google responds as follows: without acceding to Netlist's definitions of the aforementioned vague, ambiguous, and/or disputed terms, Google admits that the FBDIMMs used by Google include what it understands to be an Advanced Memory Buffer. To the extent not admitted, Google lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny this Request, and therefore denies it. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6: Certain of Google' s AMBs include a hardware circuit that receives bits as input ("Input Bits") and which performs at least one predefined function on the Input Bits. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.6: Google incorporates by reference each of the General Objections. Google further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to at least the terms "hardware circuit" and "predefined function." Google further specifically objects to this Request on the basis of General Objection No.2, above, concerning the "bit" terms. Subject to, without waiving, and based upon the foregoing objections, Google responds as follows: Google lacks sufficient information to either admit or deny this Request, and therefore denies it. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO.7: Certain of Google's AMBs include a hardware circuit that performs a predefined function on Input Bits to generate output bits.

GOOGLE'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

7

CASE NO. C 08-4144 SBA

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

Subject to, without waiving, and based upon the foregoing objections, Google responds as follows: Google lacks sufficient knowledge and information to either admit or deny this Request, and therefore denies it.

Dated: March 30, 2010

KING & SPALDING LLP By: /s/ Allison Altersohn Allison Altersohn (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiff GOOGLE INC.

GOOGLE'S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO NETLIST'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

16

CASE NO. C 08-4144 SBA