Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 842

Opposed MOTION for Attorney Fees Yahoo!'s Motion to Declare this an Exceptional Case and for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to 35 USC Sec. 285 by Yahoo! Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit B. James Decl., #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, #20 Exhibit 19, #21 Exhibit 20, #22 Exhibit 21, #23 Exhibit 22, #24 Exhibit 23, #25 Exhibit 24, #26 Exhibit 25)(Chaikovsky, Yar) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/7/2011: #27 Text of Proposed Order) (mll, ).

EXHIBIT 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
BEDROCK COMPUTER
TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
et al.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 6:09-cv-269-LED
Jury Trial Demanded

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
To:

Defendant, Yahoo! Inc., by and through its attorney of record, Yar R. Chaikovsky,
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, 275 Middlefield Road, Suite 100, Menlo Park,
California 94025.
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), please take notice that

Plaintiff Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Bedrock”), by and through its
counsel, will take the oral deposition of Defendant Yahoo! Inc. (“Defendant” or “Yahoo!”),
commencing August 31, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., and continuing from day to day until completed, at
the offices of McKool Smith P.C., 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500, Dallas, Texas 75201 or such
other location, date, and time mutually agreed upon by the parties.
The deposition will be conducted before an officer authorized to administer oaths. The
deposition will be recorded stenographically and will be videotaped.
Bedrock will examine Yahoo!’s representative on the matters in the numbered paragraphs
set forth below in Schedule A. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6),
Yahoo! is to designate one or more persons to testify on Yahoo!’s behalf with respect to the
matters described in Schedule A and set forth, for each individual designated, the matters on
which the individual will testify, no later than five (5) business days before the depositions.
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 1

Date: July 14, 2010.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jason D. Cassady
Sam F. Baxter
Texas Bar No. 01938000
McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
Email: [e-mail]
104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
Marshall, Texas 75670
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Douglas A. Cawley, Lead Attorney
Texas Bar No. 04035500
Email: [e-mail]
Theodore Stevenson, III
Texas Bar No. 19196650
Email: [e-mail]
Jason D. Cassady
Texas State Bar No. 24045625
Email: [e-mail]
J. Austin Curry
Texas Bar No. 24059636
Email: [e-mail]
McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 214-978-4044
Robert M. Parker
Texas Bar No. 15498000
E-mail: [e-mail]
Robert Christopher Bunt
Texas Bar No. 00787165
E-mail: [e-mail]
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, Texas 75702
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903-533-9687
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
BEDROCK COMPUTER
TECHNOLOGIES LLC

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that, on July 14, 2010, the foregoing document was served on
counsel of record via Electronic Mail.
/s/ Jason D. Cassady
Jason D. Cassady

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 3

SCHEDULE A

Definitions
1.

“Yahoo!,” “Defendant,” “you,” and “your” means Defendant Yahoo! Inc., and

any past or present predecessor, successor, parent, subsidiary, division or affiliate thereto, and all
persons (defined below) acting on their behalf including, without limitation, present and former
officers, directors, employees, attorneys, agents, and representatives thereof.
2.

“Bedrock” means Plaintiff Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC, and their

subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, present and former officers and directors, employees, agents,
and all of those persons (defined below) acting on their behalf.
3.

“Person” means any natural person, corporation, or other business, legal or

governmental entity or association, as well as all officers, directors, employees, agents, and
attorneys thereof.
4.

The term “any” or “each” should be understood to include and encompass “all.”

5.

The terms “and,” “or” and “and/or” shall be construed either conjunctively or

disjunctively so as to include the broadest meaning possible.
6.

The term “’120 patent” or “patent-in-suit” refers to United States Patent No.

5,893,120, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Information Storage and Retrieval Using a
Hashing Technique with External Chaining and On-the-Fly Removal of Expired Data.”
7.

“Accused Version of Linux” means the following Linux kernel versions or

software based on the following Linux kernel versions: 2.4.22.x, 2.4.23.x, 2.4.24.x, 2.4.25.x,
2.4.26.x, 2.4.27.x, 2.4.28.x, 2.4.29.x, 2.4.30.x, 2.4.31.x, 2.4.32.x, 2.4.33.x, 2.4.37.x, 2.6.0.x,
2.6.1.x, 2.6.2.x, 2.6.3.x, 2.6.4.x, 2.6.5.x, 2.6.6.x, 2.6.7.x, 2.6.8.x, 2.6.9.x, 2.6.10.x, 2.6.11.x,
2.6.12.x, 2.6.13.x, 2.6.14.x, 2.6.15.x, 2.6.16.x, 2.6.17.x, 2.6.18.x, 2.6.19.x, 2.6.20.x, 2.6.21.x,
PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 4

2.6.22.x, 2.6.23.x, 2.6.24.x, 2.6.25.x, 2.6.26.x, 2.6.27.x, 2.6.28.x, 2.6.29.x, 2.6.30.x, 2.6.31.x, or
versions beyond 2.6.31.x.
8.

The term “related to” mean anything that constitutes, contains, evidences,

embodies, comprises, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals with, comments on, responds to,
describes, analyzes or is, in any way, relevant to that subject.

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 5

Topics

1.

The design, use, function, operation, structure, code, dimensions, manufacturing,

and processing specifications of any server or network of servers executing any Accused Version
of Linux since 2003.
2.

The design, use, function, operation, structure, code, dimensions, manufacturing,

and processing specifications of any server or network of servers executing any version of Linux
other than an Accused Version of Linux since 2003.
3.

The identity of all persons involved in the design, use, function, operation,

structure, code, dimensions, manufacturing, and processing specifications of any server or
network of servers executing any Accused Version of Linux since 2003.
4.

The identification and location of any server or network of servers executing any

Accused Version of Linux since 2003.
5.

The facts and circumstances surrounding any design changes, considered and/or

implemented, to any server or network of servers executing any Accused Version of Linux.
6.

All technical considerations made as part of any decision to use or not use any

Accused Version of Linux.
7.

The identification of all technologies, including hardware and/or software that

you have implemented to address denial of service attacks and/or server downtime.
8.

The identification of all technologies, including hardware and/or software that

you have implemented where the decision to implement included any consideration of denial of
service attacks and/or server downtime.

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 6

9.

The identification of all technologies, including hardware and/or software, that

you have considered for but decided against implementation where the decision to implement
included any consideration of denial of service attacks and/or server downtime.
10.

All people, technical considerations, and cost considerations involving each and

every identified technology in topics 6 through 9.
11.

The identity of any instance in which you considered employing an asserted prior

art system instead of or as a replacement for your use of an Accused Version of Linux.
12.

The identity of any instance in which you considered implementing the teachings

of an asserted prior art reference instead of or as a replacement for your use of an Accused
Version of Linux.
13.

All people, technical considerations, and cost considerations involving each and

every identified instance in topics 11 and 12.
14.

Your protocol for recovering from a successful denial of service attack on your

servers.
15.

Any instances in which you have been the target of a denial of service attack, and

for each instance: (i) the success of the denial of service attack; (ii) how the denial of service
attack was recognized; (iii) the effects of the denial of service attack; (iv) how you overcame the
denial of service attack; and (v) any estimated cost in terms of dollars of the denial of service
attack.
16.

Any and all activities that require server downtime, including any costs associated

with that downtime.
17.

The identity, content, and context of any communications, written or oral,

between the Defendant and any third-parties (by production number, if produced) regarding

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 7

infringement, validity, and/or enforceability of the patent-in-suit. This includes the identification
and location of third-parties and specific individuals with whom such communications were had.
18.

The identification and location (including address), of any alleged prior art

apparatus/device that Defendant contends constitutes prior art to one or more of the asserted
claims of the patent-in-suit, and the identification and authentication of all documents that
evidence that purportedly supports your contention.
19.

Defendant’s first awareness of Bedrock and/or the patent-in-suit and the

circumstances surrounding same, and the identification of documents and materials (by
production number, if produced) that describe or set forth such information.
20.

The Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories #3, #5, and #6.

21.

The factual and legal bases that support Defendant’s affirmative defense that

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as well as the identity and
location of all witnesses with relevant knowledge regarding this affirmative defense.
22.

The factual and legal bases that support Defendant’s affirmative defense that

Defendant does not infringe and has not infringed, either directly, indirectly, jointly,
contributorily, by inducement, or in any other way, any claim of the ‘120 patent, either literally
or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise, as well as the identity and location of
all witnesses with relevant knowledge regarding this affirmative defense.
23.

The factual and legal bases that support Defendant’s affirmative defense that one

or more claims of the ‘120 patent are invalid, as well as the identity and location of all witnesses
with relevant knowledge regarding this affirmative defense.
24.

The factual and legal bases that support Defendant’s affirmative defense that

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, unclean hands, estoppel, and/or

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 8

waiver, as well as the identity and location of all witnesses with relevant knowledge regarding
this affirmative defense.
25.

The factual and legal bases that support Defendant’s affirmative defense that

Plaintiff’s claims for damages are limited under 35 U.S.C. § 286 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 287, as well
as the identity and location of all witnesses with relevant knowledge regarding this affirmative
defense.
26.

The factual and legal bases that support Defendant’s affirmative defense that

Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is barred, as well as the identity and location of all witnesses
with relevant knowledge regarding this affirmative defense.
27.

The factual and legal bases that support Defendant’s affirmative defense that

Plaintiff lacks standing and/or ownership to bring suit against Defendant on the ‘120 patent, and
has failed to name an indispensable party, as well as the identity and location of all witnesses
with relevant knowledge regarding this affirmative defense.

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION NOTICE TO DEFENDANT YAHOO! INC.
Dallas 305437v1

PAGE 9