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))

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

Doc. 372 Att. 5

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 372-6

Filed 09/11/2007

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ___________________________________________ SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 05-2433-JWL ) VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP. ) AND VONAGE AMERICA, INC. ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________ )

DEFENDANT VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP.'S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Defendant Vonage Holdings Corp. ("Vonage") submits the following Third Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiff Sprint Communications Co. L.P.'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 372-6

Filed 09/11/2007

Page 2 of 5

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Describe, in detail, the full factual basis and explanation for Vonage Holdings 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 or Vonage's First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 5. Moreover, Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 5 and Vonage's First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 5 are each 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 April 27, 2007 Supplement to the Expert Invalidity Report of Frank R. Koperda and its accompanying exhibits and attachments, which inter alia set forth opinions that each asserted claim of each of the patents-in-suit is not valid under one or more sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code.

-2-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 372-6

Filed 09/11/2007

Page 3 of 5

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.

VONAGE'S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: This Third Supplemental Response supplements and does not supplant, displace, or replace Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 7; Vonage's First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 7; or Vonage's Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 7. Moreover, Vonage's Response to Interrogatory No. 7; Vonage's First Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 7; and Vonage's Second Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 7 are each incorporated by reference into this Third 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 April 27, 2007 Supplement to the Expert NonInfringement Report of Joel M. Halpern and its accompanying exhibits and attachments, which inter alia set forth opinions that each asserted claim of each of the patents-in-suit is not infringed by Vonage, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. -3-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 372-6

Filed 09/11/2007

Page 4 of 5

Dated: May 15, 2007

_/s/ Donald R. McPhail__ Patrick D. McPherson Barry Golob Donald R. McPhail Patrick C. Muldoon Duane Morris LLP 1667 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1608 202-776-7800 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Don R. Lolli KS Dist. #70236 Patrick J. Kaine KS #15594 Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle P.C. 4420 Madison Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64111 816-931-2700 [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs Vonage Holdings Corp and Vonage America, Inc.

-4-

Case 2:05-cv-02433-JWL

Document 372-6

Filed 09/11/2007

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on May 15, 2007, that a copy of DEFENDANT VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP.'s THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES was served by electronic mail on: B. Trent Webb Adam P. Seitz Eric A. Buresh Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company L.P. Respectfully submitted, _/s/ Donald R. McPhail__

DM3\513936.1