Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al

Filing 372

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT of 373 Motion to Strike 354 Prosecution History Estoppel Defense and Arguments Relating to Same in Vonage's Trial Brief by Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company LP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E) (Seitz, Adam) (Document title modified on 9/13/2007 to reflect this is NOT a motion. (mg))

Download PDF

Sprint Communications Company LP v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al Doc. 372 Att. 4 Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 372-5 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ___________________________________________ ) SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 05-2433-JWL ) THE GLOBE.COM, INC., VOICEGLO ) HOLDINGS, INC., VONAGE HOLDINGS ) CORP., and VONAGE AMERICA, INC. ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________ ) DEFENDANT VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant Vonage Holdings Corp. ("Vonage") submits the following Second Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company LP's ("Sprint") First Set of Interrogatories. GENERAL OBJECTIONS Vonage hereby incorporates by reference each General Objection set forth in Vonage's original answers and first supplemental answers to Sprint's First Set of Interrogatories as if those general objections were set forth fully herein. Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 372-5 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 2 of 7 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Describe, in detail, the full factual basis and explanation for Vonage Holdings Corp.'s contention that any acts of infringement have not been willful or intentional. VONAGE'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: This Second Supplemental Response supplements and does not supplant, displace or replace Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 4 or Vonage's First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 4. Moreover, Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 4 and First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 4 are each incorporated by reference into this Second Supplemental Response. Vonage specifically objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity and/or exemption. Subject to and without waiving any of Vonage's general and specific objections, Vonage states that "the necessary actions to investigate Sprint's allegations" of patent infringement were described by Vonage CEO Jeffrey Citron at his deposition on March 22, 2007 at pages 77-87 of the rough draft. Vonage certifies that no additional, nonprivileged information or documents exist. -2- Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 372-5 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 3 of 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Describe, in detail, the full factual basis and explanation for Vonage Holding Corp.'s contention that Sprint's Asserted Patents are invalid, void and/or unenforceable under one or more sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code. VONAGE'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: This Supplemental Response supplements and does not supplant, displace or replace Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 5. Moreover, Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 5 is incorporated by reference into this Supplemental Response. Vonage specifically objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity and/or exemption. Subject to and without waiving any of Vonage's general and specific objections, Vonage incorporates by reference the February 28, 2007 Expert Invalidity Report of Frank R. Koperda and its accompanying exhibits and attachments, which inter alia set forth opinions that each asserted claim of the each of the patents-in-suit is not valid under one of more sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Describe, in detail, the full factual basis and explanation for Vonage Holdings Corp.'s contention that Vonage Holdings Corp. has not infringed any of the Asserted Patents. -3- Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 372-5 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 4 of 7 VONAGE'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: This Second Supplemental Response supplements and does not supplant, displace or replace Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 4 or Vonage's First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 4. Moreover, Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 4 and First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 4 are each incorporated by reference into this Second Supplemental Response. Vonage specifically objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks the disclosure of information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege, immunity and/or exemption. Subject to and without waiving any of Vonage's general and specific objections, Vonage incorporates by reference the February 28, 2007 Expert Non-infringement Report of Joel M. Halpern and its accompanying exhibits and attachments, which inter alia set forth opinions that each asserted claim of the each of the patents-in-suit is not infringed by Vonage, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Respectfully submitted, _/s/ Donald R. McPhail__ Donald R. McPhail Patrick D. McPherson Barry Golob Duane Morris LLP 1667 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1608 202-776-7800 pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com bgolob@duanemorris.com drmcphail@duanemorris.com -4- Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 372-5 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 5 of 7 Don R. Lolli KS Dist. #70236 Patrick J. Kaine KS #15594 Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle P.C. 4420 Madison Avenue Kansas City, Missour 64111 816-931-2700 pkaine@DysartTaylor.com dlolli@DysartTaylor.com Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff Vonage America, Inc. and Vonage Holdings Corp. Dated: April 10, 2007 -5- Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 372-5 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 6 of 7 Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL Document 372-5 Filed 09/11/2007 Page 7 of 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on this 10th day of April, 2007 that a copy of DEFENDANT VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP.'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served by email and First Class Mail, with notice of case activity to be generated and sent electronically by the Clerk of the Court to: B. Trent Webb Adam P. Seitz Erick A. Buresh SHOOK, HARDY & ;BACON LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Fax: (816) 421-5547 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF Respectfully submitted, _/s/ Donald R. McPhail__

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?