STC.UNM v. Intel Corporation

Filing 176

DECLARATION re 175 Response in Opposition to Motion,, of Brian L. Ferrall in Support of Intel's Opposition to STC's Motion to Strike and Dismiss Intel's Invalidity Affirmative Defense and Counterclaim by Intel Corporation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K - part 1, # 12 Exhibit K - part 2, # 13 Exhibit L)(Atkinson, Clifford)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
STC.UNM,

Civil No. 1:10-cv-01077-RB-WDS
Plaintiff,

v.
INTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant.
INTEL CORPORATION’S AMENDED RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
STC.UNM’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 1-19
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
Rules of Civil Procedure of this Court, Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) hereby
responds to Plaintiff STC.UNM’s (“Plaintiff”) First Set of Requests for Production Nos.
1-19 (“Requests”).
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Intel’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests shall not constitute an admission by Intel
that any of the Requests, any of Intel’s responses, or any documents or things produced in
connection therewith, are admissible as evidence in any trial or other proceeding. Intel
reserves the right to object on any grounds, at any time, to the admission of any Request
or any objection, response, or any document or thing produced in connection therewith in
any such trial or other proceeding.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Intel hereby incorporates by reference the “General Objections” set forth in

its Responses and Objections to Plaintiff STC.UNM’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 121 to Defendant Intel (“Interrogatories”) and all supplements thereto as if fully set forth
herein.

EXHIBIT A

REQUEST NO. 14:
All analyses of U.S. Patent No. 6,042,998 (“the ‘998 patent”), including, but not
limited to, any analysis of infringement of the ‘998 patent, and any analysis of the
validity of any of the claims contained in that patent.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14:
Intel objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. Intel also objects that this
request seeks is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections, Intel will
produce documents identified in its noninfringement and invalidity contentions.

REQUEST NO. 15:
All prior art upon which you intend to rely in challenging the validity of any claim
contained in the ‘998 patent.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15:
Intel objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. Intel also objects that this
request seeks is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections, Intel will
produce documents identified in its invalidity contentions.

REQUEST NO. 16:
All documents upon which you intend to rely in urging the particular construction
of any limitation of any claim of the ‘998 patent.

-10-

agreements, etc. that may include licenses to patents and other intellectual property. Intel
will not search for or produce such agreements.
Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections and after
receiving any contractually required consents, Intel will produce copies of patent license
agreements executed after January 1, 2000, that are located after a reasonable search.

REQUEST NO. 19:
All opinions of counsel or similar analyses obtained in connection with STC’s
infringement charge of the ‘998 patent upon which you relied in continuing to develop,
manufacture and sell devices with critical dimensions of 45nm or less.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19:
Intel objects to the extent that this request seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. Intel also objects that this
request seeks is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections and after entry of
an appropriate protective order, if Intel decides to rely on any opinions of counsel in this
matter, it will produce copies of such opinions at that time.
Dated: April 1, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
ATKINSON, THAL & BAKER, P.C.
By /s/ Clifford K. Atkinson
Douglas A. Baker
Clifford K. Atkinson
201 Third Street, N.W., Suite 1850
Albuquerque, NM 87102
[phone]
Robert A. Van Nest
Brian L. Ferrall
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
-12-

Chad S. Campbell
Jonathan M. James
Timothy J. Franks
Mark E. Strickland
Jonathan L. McFarland
PERKINS COIE LLP
Attorneys for Defendant
Intel Corporation

-13-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 1, 2011, the foregoing Intel
Corporation’s Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production Nos. 1-19
was send via email to the following:
Rolf O. Stadheim
Joseph A. Grear
George C. Summerfield
Keith A. Vogt
Steven R. Pedersen
STADHEIM & GREAR, LTD.
400 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60611
Deron B. Knoner
KELEHER & MCLEOD P.A.
201 Third Street N.W., 12th Floor
Post Office Box AA
Albuquerque, NM 87103
Attorneys for Plaintiff STC.UNM
[e-mail] (Per Service Agreement)

ATKINSON, THAL & BAKER, P.C.
By /s/ Clifford K. Atkinson
Clifford K. Atkinson
LEGAL20547438.1

-14-