Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al

Filing 91

RESPONSE in Opposition re 83 MOTION to Compel DISCOVERY INTO NON-ACCUSED TECHNOLOGY filed by Yahoo!, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Lane ISO Opposition to MTC, # 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 Exhibit 18)(Lane, Michael)

Exhibit 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

FUCTION MEDIA LLC
Plaintiff,
vs.

§
§ Civil Action No. 2007-CV-279 § § § § § § §

GOOGLE INC. AN YAHOO!, INC.
Defendants.

§ JUy TRIAL DEMANDED
§ §

YAHOO!, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO YAHOO!, INC.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant and

Counterclaim Plaintiff Yahoo!, Inc. ("Yahoo!") hereby objects and responds as follows to
Plaintiff' s First Set of Interrogatories, served by Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Function
Media, LLC ("Function Media").

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Yahoo! makes the following General Objections to Function Media's First Set of

Interrogatories, which apply to each interrogatory therein regardless of whether a General
Objection is specifically incorporated into the response.

1. Yahoo! objects to each interrogatory, definition, or instruction to the
extent it seeks or purports to impose obligations beyond or inconsistent with those imposed by

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable rules and orders of this Court, or any
stipulation or agreement of the paries in this action.
2. Yahoo! objects to Function Media's definition of "Accused Product" as

vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome, in par because the definition includes products,

systems, technologies, functionalities, and services not specifically disclosed in Function
Media's First Amended P.R. 3-1 Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.
3. Yahoo! objects to Paragraph R of Function Media's "Definitions" because

it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks to compound and add subpars to each and every
interrogatory.

4. Yahoo! objects to each interrogatory, definition, or instruction to the
extent it seeks information that is confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information of a

third pary that is in Yahoo!'s possession subject to an obligation to a third pary. Yahoo! wil
provide such information only to the extent it can do so consistent with its obligations to any
third paries.

5. Yahoo! objects to each interrogatory, definition, or instruction to the
extent it seeks information not within the possession, custody, or control of Yahoo!. Yahoo! wil
only provide relevant, non-privileged information that is within Yahoo!'s present possession,

custody, or control and available to Yahoo! after a reasonable investigation.
6. Yahoo! objects to Function Media's definition of "Defendant," Yahoo,"

you," and "your" because they are overly broad. The definition includes persons and entities not

within Yahoo!'s control, and includes attorneys and/or their agents that have provided legal
advice to Yahoo!. Yahoo! wil respond to these interrogatories with non-privileged information

in its possession, custody or control to the extent such information can be obtained from a
reasonable search.
7. No objection or response made in this document shall be deemed to be an

admission by Yahoo! as to the existence or non-existence of responsive information or
documents, unless specifically so stated.

2

information and belief, the failure of Stone, Dean, and/or their attorneys to disclose information

including but not limited to the Brown patent, the '824 patent, and the Overture technology, to
the USPTO during prosecution of the '025 and '059 patents resulted in the withholding of highly

material information pertaining to the relevant prior ar and was done with the intent to deceive
the USPTO as to the true nature and scope of the prior ar.

The individuals and/or law firms identified in response to this interrogatory are

likely to have information pertaining to the allegations above. Furthermore, discovery in this
case is ongoing, and Yahoo! reserves the right to supplement this response as appropriate.

DATED: October 31,2008

Respectfully submitted,

WEIL, GOTSHAL & M

~

Matthew D. Powers (Bar. No. 104795) matthew. powers (f weil.com Douglas E. Lumish (Bar. No. 183863) doug.lumish (fweil.com WEIL, GOTHAL & MANGES LLP Silicon Valley Offce 201 Redwood Shores Pkwy. Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Tel: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendant Yahoo!, Inc.

15