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 4

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 BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S
SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO PLAINTIFF
Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Plaintiff Bedrock Computer
Technologies LLC (“Bedrock”) serves its responses to Yahoo! Inc.’s (“Yahoo!”) Second Set of
Requests for Admissions (“Requests”).
Bedrock makes the objections and responses herein (collectively, the “Responses”) based
solely on its current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts and the information
available to it as of the date of the Responses. Additional discovery and investigation may lead
to additions to, changes in, or modifications of these Responses. The Responses, therefore, are
being given without prejudice to Bedrock’s right to produce subsequently discovered
information and to introduce such subsequently discovered information at the time of any
hearing or trial in this action.

PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Dallas 315964v1

PAGE 1

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following general objections apply to, and are incorporated by reference in, every
response to each request for admission. Bedrock’s specific objections to Yahoo!’s requests are
not intended to preclude, override or withdraw any of the general objections to that request.
1.

Bedrock objects to all definitions, instructions and requests to the extent they

attempt to impose obligations extending beyond those imposed or authorized by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules.
2.

Bedrock objects to the Requests to the extent that they call for information

protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other privilege or
protection afforded by state or federal law. Bedrock will provide only responsive information
that is not subject to any such privilege or protection.
3.

Bedrock objects to the Requests to the extent that they call for information that is

not known by or available to Bedrock.
4.

Bedrock objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is a

matter of public record or is equally available or readily ascertainable by Yahoo! from some
other source.
5.

Bedrock objects to the Requests to the extent that they are unreasonably

cumulative, redundant, or duplicative of other Requests, or seek information that is obtainable
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
6.

Bedrock objects to the Requests on the grounds that they are unduly burdensome

and duplicative to the extent that they request information that Bedrock is already obligated to
provide under the Federal Rules and Local Rules. To the extent that the Requests seek such
information, Bedrock will produce the information in accordance with the Court’s Docket
Control and Discovery Orders and the schedule agreed upon by the parties.
PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Dallas 315964v1

PAGE 2

7.

Bedrock objects to all definitions, instructions and requests to the extent they

contain subparts, are compound and conjunctive and are otherwise inconsistent with Rule 36 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
8.

Bedrock objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek information that is

neither relevant to any claim or defense of any party in this action, nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
9.

Bedrock objects to the Requests to the extent that they are overly broad, unduly

burdensome or oppressive, and to the extent that they are vague and ambiguous or fail to
describe the information sought with the required reasonable particularity.
10.

Bedrock objects to the Requests to the extent that they seek to impose upon

Bedrock an obligation to investigate or discover information, materials or documents from third
parties or services that are not within the possession custody or control of Bedrock, regardless of
whether such information, materials or documents are equally accessible to Bedrock.
11.

Bedrock objects to the Requests to the extent they seek disclosure of trade secrets

and other confidential research, development or commercial information, and adequate
protection cannot be afforded by means of a protective order.
12.

Bedrock’s agreement to furnish information in response to Yahoo’s Requests

shall not be deemed to constitute an admission as to their relevancy, nor is it intended to waive
any right to object to its admissibility at trial.
13.

Bedrock incorporates the objections stated above into each and every response as

though fully set forth therein.

PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Dallas 315964v1

PAGE 3

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19
Admit that Bedrock did not inform Yahoo! of the ’120 patent before filing this lawsuit.
RESPONSE:
Subject to the foregoing general objections, Bedrock responds as follows:
Bedrock ADMITS Request No. 19.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20
Admit that the ’120 Patent does not disclose that box 42 of Figure 3 occurs at any time
other than during the same traversal of a linked list in which expired records are identified as
depicted in Figure 3.
RESPONSE:
Subject to the foregoing general objections, Bedrock responds as follows:
Bedrock ADMITS that box 42 of Figure 3 of the ‘120 Patent occurs during the same
traversal of a linked list in which expired records are identified. Bedrock DENIES the remainder
of Request No. 20.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21
Admit that the ’120 Patent does not disclose that the “remove” function in the Search
Table Procedure occurs at any time other than during the same traversal of a linked list in which
expired records are identified.
RESPONSE:
Subject to the foregoing general objections, Bedrock responds as follows:
PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Dallas 315964v1

PAGE 4

Bedrock DENIES Request 21.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22
Admit that the ’120 Patent does not disclose that the “remove” function in the Alternate
Version of Search Table Procedure occurs at any time other than during the same traversal of a
linked list in which expired records are identified.
RESPONSE:
Subject to the foregoing general objections, Bedrock responds as follows:
Bedrock DENIES Request No. 22.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23
Admit that Linux Kernel versions prior to version 2.6.25 do not have the structure of
Figure 3 of the ’120 Patent.
RESPONSE:
Subject to the foregoing general objections, Bedrock responds as follows:
Bedrock DENIES Request No. 23.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24
Admit that Linux Kernel versions prior to version 2.6.25 do not have the structure of the
Search Table Procedure of the ’120 Patent.
RESPONSE:
Subject to the foregoing general objections, Bedrock responds as follows:

PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Dallas 315964v1

PAGE 5

Bedrock DENIES Request No. 24.

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25
Admit that Linux Kernel versions prior to version 2.6.25 do not have the structure of the
Alternate Version of Search Table Procedure of the ’120 Patent.
RESPONSE:
Subject to the foregoing general objections, Bedrock responds as follows:
Bedrock DENIES Request No. 25.

PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Dallas 315964v1

PAGE 6

Date: January 12, 2011.

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]
Scott W. Hejny
Texas Bar No. 24038952
Email: [e-mail]
Jason D. Cassady
Texas 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 BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Dallas 315964v1

PAGE 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was
served on counsel of record via email on January 12, 2011.
/s/ Jason D. Cassady
Jason D. Cassady

PLAINTIFF BEDROCK COMPUTER TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO YAHOO! INC.’S SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
Dallas 315964v1

PAGE 8