Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 185

RESPONSE in Opposition re 178 MOTION to Strike Motorola's Supplemental Infringement Contentions filed by Motorola Mobility, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14)(Giuliano, Douglas)

EXHIBIT 4

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

APPLE INC.,
Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC. and
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.,
Counterclaim Defendants.

APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MOTOROLA
MOBILITY AND MOTOROLA’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NO. 6)
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) objects and responds to the
interrogatories served by Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Motorola Mobility, Inc.
(“Motorola Mobility”) and Counterclaim-Defendant Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”)
(collectively, the “Counterclaim-Defendants”) as follows.

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiffs reiterate and incorporate by reference their objections to CounterclaimDefendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, as if specifically stated herein.
FURTHER OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES

INTERROGATORY NO. 6
For each claim of the Apple Asserted Patents that you allege CounterclaimDefendants have infringed or are infringing, describe the complete basis for your
contention that Counterclaim-Defendants are infringing or have infringed that claim by
describing in a claim chart on an element-by-element basis where each element of each
Asserted Claim can be found in each Accused Instrumentality of CounterclaimDefendants that you contend infringes that claim, whether such alleged infringement is
literal or by equivalents, how 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) is satisfied, if applicable, and whether
such alleged infringement is direct (i.e., under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)) or indirect (i.e., under
35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) or (c)).
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6
In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this interrogatory as vague
and ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Apple further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is (a) protected by the attorneyclient privilege or work product doctrine; (b) confidential, proprietary, or trade secret; (c)
subject to Apple’s legal or contractual obligation of nondisclosure or confidentiality to a
third party; and/or (d) public or readily available to Counterclaim-Defendants. Apple
further objects to the extent this interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion. Apple also

2

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

objects to this contention interrogatory as premature because, among other things,
Counterclaim-Defendants have not yet produced documents or information about its
products used to infringe the Apple Asserted Patents. Apple expressly reserves the right
to amend, supplement, and/or correct its response to this interrogatory as additional
information becomes available to Apple during the course of its discovery and
investigation, in response to any claim construction by the Court, or in response to
Counterclaim-Defendants’ responses to Apple’s interrogatories (or any supplement
thereto).
Subject to its General and Specific Objections, Apple responds as follows: Apple
will provide its infringement contentions pursuant to any deadlines the Court may set for
the exchange of infringement contentions and will supplement those contentions as
appropriate. Apple will provide its expert reports regarding infringement of the Apple
Asserted Patents pursuant to any deadlines the Court may set for the exchange of such
reports and will supplement those reports as appropriate and necessary and as permitted
by the Court.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6
Subject to their General and Specific Objections above, Apple hereby provides its
preliminary infringement contentions regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5,583,560 (“the ’560
patent”), 5,594,509 (“the ’509 patent”), 5,621,456 (“the ’456 patent”), 6,282,646 (“the
’646 patent”), 7,380,116 (“the ’116 patent”), and 7,657,849 (“the ’849 patent”). Based
upon presently known information, Apple appends claim charts for each of the
aforementioned Patents-in-Suit as follows:
x

Ex. A: ’560 Patent, claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-16.

3

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

x
x
x
x
x

Ex. B:
63.
Ex. C:
Ex. D:
Ex. E:
Ex. F:

’509 Patent, claims 7-8, 10-11, 14-20, 22-27, 43-52, 54-58, 60’456 Patent, claims 1-2, 4-10.
’646 Patent, claims 1, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 32.
’116 Patent, claims 1, 8-10, 16, 18-20, 27, 33, 36-38, and 42.
’849 Patent, claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-18.

Counterclaim-Defendants infringe or have infringed these claims (collectively,
“the Asserted Claims”) by making, using, selling, offering for sale or importing at least
the following Accused Products: DCT700, DCT2500, DCT3400, DCT3412, DCT3080,
DCT6200, DCT6208, DCT6400, DCT6412, DCX700, DCX3200, DCX3200 P2,
DCX3400, DCH70, DCH100, DCH200, DCH3200, DCH3416, DCH6200, DCH6416,
DTA100, QIP2500, QIP2708, QIP6200, QIP6416, QIP7100, and QIP7216 (collectively
“the Accused Set-Top Boxes”) as well as Bravo, Charm, Citrus, Cliq, Cliq XT, Cliq 2,
Defy, Devour, Droid, Droid 2, Droid 2 Global, Droid X, Droid Pro, BackFlip, Flipout,
Flipside, i1, Atrix 4G, and Xoom (collectively “the Accused Mobile Devices”). As
described in further detail in the appended claim charts, see Exs. A-F, each element of
each of the Asserted Claims is met by one or more of the Accused Products. Where the
basis for infringement is not significantly distinct, Apple has selected a representative
Accused Set-Top Box or Accused Mobile Device, as appropriate.
Counterclaim-Defendants directly and indirectly infringe all of the Asserted
Claims. Counterclaim-Defendants directly infringe these claims by making, using,
offering for sale, or selling the Accused Products within the United States, or by
importing the Accused Products into the United States. In addition, CounterclaimDefendants’ customers directly infringe the Asserted Claims by using the Accused
Products, and Counterclaim-Defendants induce this direct infringement of the Asserted

4

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Claims by selling the Accused Products and by providing manuals and other user guides
encouraging their customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner.
Counterclaim-Defendants further contribute to this direct infringement of the Asserted
Claims by selling the Accused Products, which are specifically designed to practice the
inventions of the Asserted Claims and have no substantial non-infringing uses. Based on
presently known information, Apple contends that the Accused Products made, used,
sold, offered for sale or imported by Counterclaim-Defendants infringe one or more of
the Asserted Claims literally or, in the alternative, under the doctrine of equivalents.
These contentions are preliminary and based at least in part on publicly available
information. Counterclaim-Defendants have not yet provided any discovery in this case
and Apple’s investigation of Defendants’ infringement is ongoing. Accordingly, Apple
may identify additional claims that are infringed and additional accused products,
including products that Defendants may introduce in the future. Apple expressly reserves
the right to amend its response to this Interrogatory to include such products. Also, these
contentions are made based on information ascertained to date, and Apple expressly
reserves the right to modify or amend the contentions contained herein based on the
Court’s claim constructions or to reflect additional information that becomes available to
Apple as discovery proceeds.

Dated: May 18, 2011

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
By:

5

/s/ Jill J. Ho
Jill J. Ho
Attorneys for Apple Inc.

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 18, 2011, I served the foregoing
document via electronic mail on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service
List.

/s/ Joanna Lahtinen
Joanna Lahtinen

6

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

SERVICE LIST
Motorola Mobility, Inc. versus Apple Inc.
Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Edward M. Mullins
Fla. Bar No. 863920
[e-mail]
ASTIGARRAGA DAVIS MULLINS & GROSSMAN, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, 16th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Of Counsel:
Charles K. Verhoeven
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 93111
[phone]
Edward J. DeFranco
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
[phone]
David A. Nelson
[e-mail]
Jennifer A. Bauer
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Motorola Mobility, Inc. and Motorola, Inc.
Electronically served via email

7