Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 373

EXHIBITS re 358 Declaration in Support, /Exhibits F-G to the Declaration of Jane H. Bu in Support of Elan Microelectronics Corporation's Motion to Compel Discovery on Various Issues (Redacted) filed byElan Microelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit G)(Related document(s) 358 ) (Bu, Jane) (Filed on 8/3/2011)

EXHIBIT G

1
2
3

MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795)
[e-mail]
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

JARED BOBROW (Bar No. 133712)
Email: [e-mail]
SONAL N. MEHTA (Bar No. 222086)
Email: [e-mail]
DEREK WALTER (Bar No. 246322)
Email: [e-mail]
NATHAN GREENBLATT (Bar No. 262279)
Email: [e-mail]
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Silicon Valley Office
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff Apple Inc.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17
18

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,

19

Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant,

20
v.
21
APPLE INC.,
22
23

Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff.

24

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)
APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO ELAN
MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION’S FOURTH SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO
DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
[NOS. 100-107]
Hon. Richard Seeborg
Demand for Jury Trial

25
26

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY INFORMATION

27
28

(APPLE CODENAMES ON PAGES 6, 7, AND 8)
APPLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ELAN’S
FOURTH SET OF RPDS

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)

1

because the phrase “relates to the subject matter, embodiments of and/or limitations of any claims

2

of the Elan Patents” is vague and ambiguous. In addition, Apple understands the term “the Multi-

3

Touch technology” to refer to Apple’s Multi-TouchTM branded products.

4

18.

Apple objects to the definition of the term “App(s)” as overly broad,

5

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

6

vague, and ambiguous.

7
8

19.

Apple objects to the definition of the term “related fields” as vague and

20.

Apple objects to Elan’s instruction that, for each document or group of

ambiguous.

9
10

documents produced, Apple indicate the number of each and every request to which it is

11

responsive as overbroad and unduly burdensome because it imposes obligations beyond those

12

imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

13

21.

Apple objects to Elan’s instruction that all documents be produced with

14

their original file folders, file jackets, envelopes or covers, or an accurate reproduction thereof as

15

unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to require Apple to provide information beyond that

16

required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Apple will produce documents in the manner in

17

which they are kept in the usual course of business, as required by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of

18

Civil Procedure and as reasonable under the circumstances.

19

22.

Apple objects to the requested production date and location as

20

unreasonably burdensome. Apple will produce documents at a reasonable time in a reasonable

21

manner.

22
23

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 100:

24

All documents Apple has or intends to rely upon for any claim or defense in this

25

matter, including but not limited to all documents considered by any expert witness retained by

26

Apple or which Apple intends to introduce into evidence.

27
28
APPLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ELAN’S
FOURTH SET OF RPDS

5

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 100:

2

In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this Request to the extent it

3

calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or any other

4

applicable privilege or immunity. Apple objects to this Request as premature to the extent it

5

conflicts with the schedule for expert witness reports and/or the exchange of exhibit lists under

6

the pretrial order. Apple further objects to this Request insofar as it is not currently aware of all

7

documents it intends to rely upon for all claims and defenses in this matter because fact discovery

8

is ongoing and Elan may rely upon unanticipated arguments or evidence. Apple objects to this

9

Request to the extent it seeks publicly available documents or information equally accessible to

10

Elan.

11

Subject to and without waiving its objections and following a reasonable search,

12

Apple will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to the above Request to the

13

extent such documents exist in its possession, custody, or control and have not already been

14

produced.

15

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 101:

16

All documents and things relating to the tools described in APEL0497107,

17

including data or screenshots obtained from the tools.

18

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 101:

19

In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this Request to the extent it

20

calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or any other

21

applicable privilege or immunity. Apple further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and

22

overbroad, including without limitation, with respect to the terms “relating to the tools described

23

in APEL0497107.” Apple objects to this Request as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not

24

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including without

25

limitation, to the extent it seeks information available to Elan through other sources, including

26

through the inspection or testing of the accused products and/or testing tools made available by

27

Apple, and to the extent it seeks documents and things not related to the accused functionalities of

28

the accused products.
APPLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ELAN’S
FOURTH SET OF RPDS

6

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)

1

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 102:

2

All documents and things generated through the use of Apple’s

3
4

, including but not limited to data files and screenshots.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 102:

5

In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this Request to the extent it

6

calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or any other

7

applicable privilege or immunity. Apple further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and

8

overbroad, including without limitation, with respect to the terms “documents and things

9

generated through the use of Apple’s

.” Apple objects to this Request as

10

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

11

admissible evidence, including without limitation, to the extent it seeks information available to

12

Elan through other sources, including through the inspection or testing of the accused products

13

and/or

14

things not related to the accused functionalities of the accused products.

15

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 103:

16

made available by Apple, and to the extent it seeks documents and

All documents and things related to or generated by Apple’s

17

including screenshots.

18

,

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 103:

19

In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this Request to the extent it

20

calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or any other

21

applicable privilege or immunity. Apple further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and

22

overbroad, including without limitation, with respect to the terms “documents and things related

23

to or generated by Apple’s

24

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

25

admissible evidence, including without limitation, to the extent it seeks information available to

26

Elan through other sources, including through the inspection or testing of the accused products

27

and/or testing tool made available by Apple, and to the extent it seeks documents and things not

28

related to the accused functionalities of the accused products.
APPLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ELAN’S
FOURTH SET OF RPDS

, including screenshots.” Apple objects to this Request

7

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)

1
2

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104:
All documents and things generated by the

3

algorithms, e.g.

APEL0497107, APEL0500763, APEL0500875, APEL0501220.

4

or

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 104:

5

In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this Request to the extent it

6

calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or any other

7

applicable privilege or immunity. Apple further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and

8

overbroad, including without limitation, with respect to the terms “documents and things

9

generated by the

or

algorithms.” Apple objects to this Request as overbroad,

10

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

11

including without limitation, to the extent it seeks information available to Elan through other

12

sources, including through the inspection or testing of the accused products and/or

13

made available by Apple, and to the extent it seeks documents and things not related to

14

the accused functionalities of the accused products.

15

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 105:

16

All user interface studies, user studies, feasibility studies, surveys, focus groups,

17

interviews, user testing, or other research regarding multi-touch in Apple’s products.

18

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 105:

19

In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this Request to the extent it

20

calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or any other

21

applicable privilege or immunity. Apple further objects to this Request as overbroad insofar as it

22

seeks documents not related to the accused functionalities of the accused products. Apple objects

23

to this Request to the extent it is duplicative of other Requests. Apple objects to this Request as

24

vague and ambiguous and overbroad, including without limitation, with respect to the phrase “or

25

other research regarding multi-touch.”

26

Subject to and without waiving its objections and following a reasonable search,

27

Apple will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to the above Request

28

sufficient to show Apple’s market research for the relevant functionalities, to the extent such
APPLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ELAN’S
FOURTH SET OF RPDS

8

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)

1

vague and ambiguous and overbroad, including without limitation, with respect to the phrase “or

2

other research regarding the ability of Apple’s products to switch among handwriting, keyboard

3

or mouse input modes.”

4

Subject to and without waiving its objections and following a reasonable search,

5

Apple will produce relevant, non-privileged documents responsive to the above Request

6

sufficient to show Apple’s market research for the relevant functionalities, to the extent such

7

documents exist in its possession, custody, or control and have not already been produced.

8

Dated: July 14, 2011

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

9
10

By:

11

/s/ Nathan Greenblatt
Nathan Greenblatt
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple Inc.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ELAN’S
FOURTH SET OF RPDS

10

Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PVT)