Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 271

MOTION to Compel Defendants to Disclose Their Noninfringement Contentions by Software Rights Archive, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Kaplan, Lee)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 2 IN T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC v. Civil C a s e No. 2:07-cv-511 ( T J W ) G O O G L E I N C . , YA I I O O ! I N C . , l A C SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., AOL LLC, AND L Y C O S , I N C . D E F E N D A N T G O O G L E I N C . ' S R E S P O N S E S AND O B J E C T I O N S T O P L A I N T I F F ' S F I R S T S E T O F R E O U E S T S F O R A D M I S S I O N ( N O S . I - I 2 ) AND I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S (NOS. 1 - 1 3 ) F o r its o b j e c t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s e s t o P l a i n t i f f S o f t w a r e R i g h t s A r c h i v e , L L C ' s ( " S R A " ) First Set o f Requests for Admission and Interrogatories, Plaintiff G o o g l e Inc. ( " G o o g l e " ) states as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS T h e following objections apply to each and e v e r y R e q u e s t for Admission ("Request") and I n t e r r o g a t o r y p r o p o u n d e d b y SRA. G o o g l e ' s r e s p o n s e s a r e m a d e w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o a n y p o s i t i o n a s t o a d m i s s i b i l i t y a t trial. 1. Google objects to t h e entirety o f S R A ' s discovery requests on t h e grounds t h a t S R A l a c k s s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g t h e c u r r e n t litigation a g a i n s t G o o g l e . 2. Google objects to each Definition, Instruction, Request, and Interrogatory to the extent that it imposes requirements that are inconsistent with o r e x c e e d those specified by the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure, the Local Rules o f the United States District Court for t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s , a n d / o r t h e Rules o f P r a c t i c e for P a t e n t C a s e s b e f o r e t h e E a s t e r n District o f Texas. DEFENDANT G O O G L E INC. ' S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS T O P L A I N T I F F ' S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-12) AND INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1 - 1 3 ) - Page I time, Google identifies the documents marked with Bates numbers GLE0002601-GLE0003877. Discovery in this case has j u s t commenced and G o o g l e ' s investigation is on-going. Therefore, Google reserves the right to modifY or supplement its responses as more infonnation is discovered. INTERROGATORY No.8: Describe in detail all o f t h e bases for Your contention, i f any, that You have not and do not infringe, whether direct, indirect, contributory, or inducement and or whether literal o r under the doctrine o f equivalents t h e ' 3 5 2 , ' 4 9 4 or '571 Patents as well as any documents and facts supporting t h a t contention. RESPONSE T O I N T E R R O G A T O R Y N o . 8 : Google objects to this interrogatory as premature until S R A serves infringement contentions in this case, and the Court issues a claim construction. A requirement t h a t a party provide contentions o f this sort early in t h e litigation is in tension with the established time f r a m e s for d e c l a r i n g claim c o n s t r u c t i o n p o s i t i o n s p r o v i d e d b y t h e P a t e n t R u l e s . See J a c o b s ChuckMfg. Co. v. Shandong Weida Mach., No. 2:05-cv-185 (E.n. Tex. Aug. 1 8 , 2 0 0 6 ) (order denying motion to compel response to contention interrogatory), Google also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks infonnation, documents, o r things protected by t h e attorney·c1ient p r i v i l e g e , t h e a t t o r n e y w o r k - p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e , a n d / o r o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e p r i v i l e g e s or immunities. Google further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome, including because it requires Google to analyze products and/or services which m a y o r may not b e accused o f infringement in this lawsuit, and to speculate as to the alleged manner in which they infringe t h e patents-in-suit. Google additionally objects to this interrogatory a s compound a n d c o n s t i t u t i n g a t least t h r e e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s b y asking questions a b o u t three different p a t e n t s w i t h m a n y d i f f e r e n t c l a i m s . D E F E N D A N T G O O G L E I N C . ' S RESPONSES A N D OBJECTIONS T O P L A I N T I F F ' S F I R S T S E T O F REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-12) AND INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1 - 1 3 ) · Page 28 Dated: October 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 Respectfully submitted, FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: lsi Thomas B. Walsh, IV Juanita R. Brooks· Lead Attorney (CA SBN 75934) E-mail: brooks@fr.com Fish & Richardson P . e . 12390 EI Camino Real S a n Diego, C A 9 2 1 3 0 Telephone: (858) 678-5070 Facsimile: ( 8 5 8 ) 6 7 8 - 5 0 9 9 Thomas B. Walsh, IV T e x a s B a r No. 00785173 E-mail: walsh@fr.com Fish & Richardson P.C. 1717 Main Street Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 7 4 7 - 5 0 7 0 Facsimile: (214) 747-2091 Ramon K. Tabtiang Massachusetts B B O 663,943 E-mail: rkt@fr.com Stephen A. Marshall Massachusetts B B O 6 6 6 , 2 0 0 E-mail: smarshall@fr.com Fish & Richardson P.C. 225 Franklin Street Boston, M A 0 2 1 1 0 - 2 8 0 4 Telephone: (617) 5 4 2 - 5 0 7 0 Facsimile: ( 6 1 7 ) 542-8906 Harry L. Gillam, Jr. Texas Bar No. 07921800 E-mail: gil@gillamsmithlaw.com Melissa R. Smith Texas Bar No. 24001351 E-mail: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com GILLAM & SMITH, L.L.P. 303 South Washington Avenue Marshall, TX 75670 DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC. '8 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1-12) AND INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-13) - Page 36 Telephone: (903) 934-8450 Facsimile: ( 9 0 3 ) 934-9257 C o u n s e l for D e f e n d a n t a n d C o u n t e r - C l a i m a n t GOOGLEINC. DEFENDANT GOOGLE I N C . ' 8 RESPONSES AND O B J E c r I O N S TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF R E Q U E S T S F O R A D M I S S I O N ( N O S . 1-12) A N D I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S ( N O S . 1-13) - P a g e 3 7 CERTIFICATE O F S E R V I C E The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy o f the above and foregoing document has been served to all counsel o f record, as follows, on this 10th day o f October 2008 via u.s. Mail and electronic mail. Lee L. Kaplan Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, L.L.P. Bank o f America Center 700 L o u i s i a n a , S u i t e 2 3 0 0 Houston, T X 77002 Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant S O F T W A R E RlGHTS A R C I l l V E , LLC Richard S. J. Hung Morrison & Foerster, LLP (San Francisco) 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Mark D. Baker Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP Attorneys for DefendantCounterclaimant Y A H O O ! INC. Attorneys for Defendants l A C S E A R C H & M E D I A , INC. a n d L Y C O S , INC. 51 Madison Avenue 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 lsI Thomas B. Walsh. IV Thomas B. Walsh, IV

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?