Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 225

MOTION to Compel Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7 and 12 Regarding Products Embodying Motorola's Asserted Patents and Accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support by Apple, Inc.. Responses due by 2/16/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Elena Dimuzio, # 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, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Text of Proposed Order)(Pace, Christopher)

EXHIBIT 3

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.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.’S RESPONSES TO
APPLE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Mobility”) responds to Defendant and CounterclaimPlaintiff Apple Inc’s (“Apple”) Interrogatories Nos. 1-10 (“Interrogatories”).

1

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
For each asserted claim of each of the Motorola Mobility Patents-in-Suit, describe all
facts and circumstances relating to the first manufacture of the claimed invention, the first use of
23

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
the claimed invention, the first public use of the claimed invention, the first offer for sale of the
claimed invention, the first sale of the claimed invention, or the first offer for sale of the claimed
invention for inclusion in a product to be sold in the United States, including without limitation:
the date on which each such event occurred; the identity of each person with knowledge of any
of the foregoing; the price of any such offers for sale or sales; and an identification of each
document, electronically stored information, thing, or person that Motorola Mobility relies on in
support of its answer.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Mobility incorporates its Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth above
as though set forth fully herein. Mobility objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to
elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney workproduct doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other
applicable privilege or immunity. Mobility further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
calls for a legal conclusion or presents a question of law. Additionally, Mobility objects to the
extent that this interrogatory seeks information and/or documents that are outside of Mobility’s
possession, custody or control. To the extent this interrogatory calls for expert testimony or
opinion, Mobility objects that this interrogatory is premature in light of the parties’ December
29, 2010 Joint Planning and Scheduling Report in which the parties request that the Court set
deadlines for expert disclosures. Similarly, to the extent this interrogatory calls for Mobility to
identify asserted claims, Mobility objects that this interrogatory is premature because the parties
have requested that the Court set dates for the exchange of such information in the December 29,
2010 Joint Planning and Scheduling Report. Mobility further objects that this interrogatory is
overly broad, unduly burdensome and not relevant to the claims of defenses of any party to the

24

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
extent it is not limited to asserted claims. Mobility also objects that this interrogatory is unduly
burdensome because it comprises at least four distinct interrogatories.
Mobility is still investigating the claims and defenses at issue in this case and will
provide responses regarding its asserted claims at the time set by the Court, pursuant to the
parties’ request in the December 29, 2010 Joint Planning and Scheduling Report. Pursuant to that
request, Mobility is not yet required to identify the claims it asserts in this action or its
infringement contentions regarding the Apple Accused Products, yet this interrogatory asks
Mobility to reach legal conclusions regarding the practice of the Mobility Patents-in-Suit.

25

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on January 31, 2010, I served the foregoing document via
electronic mail on all counsel of record identified on the attached Service List.

/s/ Mark D. Baker
Mark D. Baker

31