Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 288

Declaration of Jane H. Bu in Support of Elan Microelectronics Corporation's Opposition to Apple, Inc.'s Motion to Compel filed byElan Microelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2, # 2 Exhibit 3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 7, # 5 Exhibit 8, # 6 Exhibit 12)(Bu, Jane) (Filed on 6/14/2011)

EXHIBIT 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Yitai Hu (SBN 248085) ([e-mail])
Sean P. DeBruine (SBN 168071) ([e-mail])
Elizabeth Rader (SBN 184963) ([e-mail])
ALSTON + BIRD LLP
Two Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 400
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone:
650-838-2000
Facsimile:
650-838-2001
T. Hunter Jefferson (admitted pro hac vice) ([e-mail])
ALSTON + BIRD LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424
Telephone:
404-881-7333
Facsimile:
404-253-8863
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15
16

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531-RS (PVT)
ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION’S SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO APPLE, INC.’S FIRST
SET OF INTERROGATORIES [NOS. 1-17]

23
24

PROPOUNDING PARTY: APPLE, INC.

25

RESPONDING PARTY:

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION

26

SET NUMBER:

ONE

27
28
ELAN’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531-RS (PVT)

1

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

2

Separately for each of the Elan Patents-in-Suit, state the date on which Elan contends that
Apple’s alleged infringement of that patent began and the date on which Elan first became aware of
such infringement, and explain in detail why Elan did not commence this action against Apple between
the date Elan became so aware and April 2009.

3
4

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
5
Elan incorporates herein by reference each of its foregoing General Objections. Elan objects to
6
this Interrogatory to the extent that it is intended to be treated as one interrogatory, as it contains
7
multiple subparts, and thus will be treated as multiple interrogatories against the maximum permissible.
8
Elan also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Elan further objects to
9
this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
10
privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection.
11
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Elan responds that Elan currently
12
understands that Apple’s infringement began with the introduction of the PowerBook G4 in February
13
2005 which used a method for sensing the contact of multiple fingers on a touchpad. Elan learned of
14
that infringement shortly before contacting Apple on August 27, 2006 about Apple’s infringement.
15
Elan brought this suit after the conclusion of its litigation involving the ‘352 Patent against Synaptics,
16
Inc. and after the parties’ ongoing negotiations failed to conclude with Apple’s purchase of a license
17
from Elan. With respect to the ‘353 Patent, Elan first learned of Apple’s infringement shortly before
18
filing this lawsuit against Apple on April, 7, 2009.
19
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
20
21
22
23
24
25

Separately for each of the Apple Patents-in-Suit, describe in detail the facts and circumstances
relating to Elan’s first awareness of the patent, including inter alia, the date Elan first became aware of
the existence of the patent, the person(s) who first became aware of the patent, the circumstances
surrounding Elan’s first awareness of the patent, the content of any related communications or
documents and any actions taken by you as a result (including documents and persons with
knowledge).
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Elan incorporates herein by reference each of its foregoing General Objections. Elan objects to

26

this Interrogatory to the extent that it is intended to be treated as one interrogatory, as it contains

27

multiple subparts, and thus will be treated as multiple interrogatories against the maximum permissible.

28

Elan also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Elan further objects to
ELAN’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

12

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531-RS (PVT)

1

this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information not relevant to any present claim or defense in this

2

matter and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Elan also objects

3

to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client

4

privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection.

5

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Elan responds that it currently

6

understands that Nick Lin, a patent engineer in Elan’s Legal and IPR department prepared summaries

7

of the ‘218 and ‘659 patents on or about September, 24, 2008 and February 26, 2009, respectively.

8

Nick Lin uploaded the ‘218 patent summary onto Elan’s document management system, and internally

9

circulated the ‘659 patent summary to Chairman Yeh, the legal department and the research and

10

development department. Elan was not aware of Apple’s ‘218 patent or ‘659 patent before Mr. Lin

11

prepared the respective reports.

12

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

13

Identify (by product name, including all trade names and designations, internal names, and
names during development; part number; model; manufacturer; designer; supplier; and dates first sold
or offered for sale) all products or designs of all touch-sensitive input devices or touch pads designed,
marketed, made, used, sold, offered for sale, imported, exported, licensed, or distributed by or for Elan.

14
15

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
16
Elan incorporates herein by reference each of its foregoing General Objections. Elan objects to
17
this Interrogatory to the extent that it is intended to be treated as one interrogatory, as it contains
18
multiple subparts, and thus will be treated as multiple interrogatories against the maximum permissible.
19
Elan also objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome. Elan also objects to this
20
Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information not relevant to any present claim or defense in this
21
matter and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Elan also objects
22
to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
23
privilege, the attorney work product doctrine or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection.
24
Elan further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect to the term “touch25
sensitive input devices” as the term has not been defined and its meaning is not clear on its face.
26
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Elan understands the following products and
27
the products listed in the below table to be touch-sensitive input devices or touchpads:
28
ELAN’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO APPLE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

13

Case No. 5:09-cv-01531-RS (PVT)