WI-LAN Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. et al

Filing 212

MOTION for Protective Order by Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Wynne, Richard)

EXHIBIT B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
WI-LAN INC.,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.;
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
ERICSSON; ERICSSON INC.; SONY
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB; SONY
MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.;
HTC CORPORATION; HTC AMERICA,
INC.; EXEDEA INC.; LG ELECTRONICS,
INC.; LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
U.S.A., INC.; LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A.,
INC.
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-521-LED
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

WI-LAN’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’
FIRST SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-6)
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Wi-LAN
Inc. (“Wi-LAN”) hereby responds and objects to Defendants’ First Set of Common
Interrogatories (Nos. 1-6).

1

GENERAL OBJECTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
The responses provided herein are submitted on behalf of Wi-LAN and reflect Wi-LAN’s
continuing investigation of facts and discovery of information and documents relating to the
claims and defenses at issue in this litigation. Accordingly, Wi-LAN’s objections and responses
to Defendants’ interrogatories are based only upon Wi-LAN’s current knowledge and reasonable
beliefs. Wi-LAN expressly reserves the right to modify, amend, revise, correct and/or
supplement any and all of its responses herein, and to assert additional objections to these
interrogatories as necessary and/or appropriate.
Nothing in these responses shall be deemed an admission by Wi-LAN regarding the
existence of any information, the relevance or admissibility of any information, for any purpose,
or the truth or accuracy of any statement or characterization contained in any interrogatory.
Wi-LAN makes the following General Objections, whether or not separately set forth in
each response to each instruction, definition, and request made in Defendants’ First Set of
Interrogatories:
1.

Wi-LAN objects to Defendants’ definitions and instructions to the extent they

seek to expand the requirements of, or are inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or the Court’s Local Rules.
2.

Wi-LAN objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is

properly the subject of expert testimony. Wi-LAN will provide expert testimony at the time and
in the manner ordered by the Court.

2

3.

Wi-LAN objects to the interrogatories to the extent they are not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or seek information that is not relevant
to the subject matter of the pending action.
4.

Wi-LAN objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is

just as easily available to Defendants.
5.

Wi-LAN objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is

publicly available.
6.

Wi-LAN objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek information that is

not within Wi-LAN’s possession, custody or control.
7.

Wi-LAN objects to the interrogatories as overly broad, unduly burdensome and

not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent they are
worded to seek “any” and “all” information or persons or “each” or “every” document or person.
8.

Wi-LAN objects to the interrogatories as having multiple sub-parts, such that the

combination of the interrogatories served herewith results in an effective number of
interrogatories exceeding the 15 interrogatories that may be served by Defendants pursuant to the
Court’s Discovery Order.
9.

Wi-LAN objects generally to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks

information protected from discovery by applicable privileges. In particular, Wi-LAN objects to
each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected from discovery by the
attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the or common interest privilege, and/or any
other privilege or exemption from discovery.

3

10.

Wi-LAN objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential

information of Wi-LAN or of a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed, including
confidential technical and/or financial information. Wi-LAN will produce such information only
after any necessary consents have been obtained from any such third party.
11.

Wi-LAN objects to all interrogatories that seek the disclosure of mental

impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of the attorneys or other representatives of
Wi-LAN concerning this litigation.
12.

Wi-LAN objects to all interrogatories to the extent that they prematurely seek

information that is the subject of expert discovery. Wi-LAN will disclose such information at
the time and in the manner contemplated by the Docket Control Order and Discovery Order
entered by the Court in this case.
13.

Wi-LAN objects to the interrogatories as premature to the extent they seek subject

matter dependent on claim construction. The Court has not yet construed any terms of any
claims asserted in this action. Wi-LAN reserves the right to amend its responses to these
interrogatories pursuant to the Court’s claim construction.
14.

Wi-LAN objects to the definition of the terms “you,” “your,” “Wi-LAN,” and/or

“Plaintiff” as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent the definition of these terms
purports to include persons or entities that are not within Wi-LAN’s direction or control. WiLAN will limit its interpretation of the terms “you,” “your,” “Wi-LAN,” and “Plaintiff” to
include only Wi-LAN, and natural persons and entities that are within Wi-LAN’s direction
and/or control.

4

15.

Wi-LAN objects to the definition “identify” when used with respect to a

document as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks to expand upon the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence; to the
extent it purports to seek information that is either publically available and/or not in Wi-LAN’s
possession, custody, or control; and also to the extent that they seek information that is neither
relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this case, nor likely to lead to the discovery of
evidence that is admissible in this case. When Wi-LAN is asked to “identify” a document, as
that term is best understood by Wi-LAN, Wi-LAN will interpret the request as seeking the Bates
number of that document and/or any other reasonable description of that document.
Without waiving or limiting in any manner any of the foregoing statements, responses or
General Objections, but rather incorporating-by-reference each of them into each of the
following responses to the extent possible, Wi-LAN will also state specific objections to the
interrogatories where appropriate, including objections that are not generally applicable to all of
the specific interrogatories. By setting forth such specific objections, Wi-LAN does not intend to
limit or restrict the statements, responses or General Objections set forth above to the extent WiLAN responds to the specific interrogatory. Stated objections are not waived by providing a
response.

5

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
Wi-LAN incorporates by reference its general objections set forth above into the specific
objections set forth below. Wi-LAN may repeat a general objection for emphasis or some other
reason, but the failure to repeat any general objection does not waive any general objection to
that interrogatory.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Separately, for each claim of each Patent-in-Suit, identify all facts and legal bases for
when, where, how, and by whom the subject matter described by that claim was first
conceived, actually reduced to practice, constructively reduced to practice, any alleged
diligence (or lack thereof) from conception to actual reduction to practice, and any alleged
diligence from conception to constructive reduction to practice, and identify all documents
relating to the conception, any diligence to reduce the subject matter to practice, and the actual
and/or constructive reduction to practice, and identify any person who participated in,
contributed to, or witnessed the diligence, actual reduction to practice, or constructive
reduction to practice.
ANSWER:
Wi-LAN incorporates by reference each of its general objections as if fully set forth
herein. Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, common interest doctrine, joint defense
privilege, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Wi-LAN further objects to this
interrogatory to the extent it seeks information in possession of third parties.
Discovery in this matter is ongoing and Wi-LAN has not yet concluded its investigation
and, as such, subject to the objections stated above, Wi-LAN will supplement its responses as
additional facts and documents are discovered.
Subject to these objections, and to the general objections recited above, Wi-LAN
responds: The various inventions disclosed in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,088,326, 6,222,819, and
6,381,211 were conceived and reduced to practice by Martin Lysejko and Paul Struhsaker at
least as early as October 1995 while they were working on an improved wireless
6

communications system capable of efficiently sending different types of data (e.g., fax, voice,
etc.) over a cellular network for a predecessor to Airspan Communications Corporation. The
inventions disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,195,327 were conceived and reduced to practice by
Martin Lysejko, Paul Struhsaker and Joemanne Chi Cheung Yeung at least as early as October
1995 while they were working on an improved wireless communications system capable of
efficiently sending different types of data (e.g., fax, voice, etc.) over a cellular network for a
predecessor to Airspan Communications Corporation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), WiLAN identifies the following documents relating to the conception, diligence to reduction to
practice and from which additional information responsive to this interrogatory can be derived:
AS00001—AS01486.

Wi-LAN also identifies U.S. Patent Nos. 6,088,326, 6,222,819,

6,381,211, and 6,195,327, and their respective publicly-available prosecution histories as further
evidence of conception and/or constructive reduction to practice.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Separately, for each Patent-in-Suit, identify all prior art known or believed by you to be
relevant to the subject matter of the patent, or that has been asserted by any person or entity
(including any patent office) to be relevant to the patent, or any prior art that was located during
a search relating to the Patents-in-Suit (whether or not you contend the results are relevant to the
validity of Patents-in-Suit) and describe when, by whom, and under what circumstances each
such prior art reference was first discovered or identified.
ANSWER:
Wi-LAN incorporates by reference each of its general objections as if fully set forth
herein. Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, or any other applicable
privilege or immunity. Wi-LAN further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
information in possession of third parties.

7

Discovery in this matter is ongoing and Wi-LAN has not yet concluded its investigation
and, as such, subject to the objections stated above, Wi-LAN will supplement its responses as
additional facts and documents are discovered.
Subject to these objections, and to the general objections recited above, a list of
references known to Wi-LAN that have been asserted to be relevant prior art to the Patents-inSuit is provided below. Wi-LAN specifically disputes that certain of these references are: (1)
prior art to the Patents-in-Suit; and (2) relevant to the subject matter of the identified Patents-inSuit. See Wi-LAN’s Response and Objections to Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson’s First Set of
Interrogatories to Plaintiff (identifying references asserted by Defendants that are not prior art to
the inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit).

Wi-LAN also identifies U.S. Patent Nos.

6,088,326, 6,222,819, 6,381,211, and 6,195,327, and their respective publicly-available
prosecution histories as providing further evidence of when, by whom and under what
circumstances prior art references were first discovered or identified.
U.S. Patent No. 6,222,819:















United States, 5471497, Zehavi, Ephraim, Nov. 28, 1995
United States, 5995497, Gerakoulis, D., Nov. 30, 1999
United States, 5559790, Yano, Takashi et al., Sept. 24, 1996
Japan, H8-125604, Sawahashi, Mamoru et al., May 17, 1996
United States, 5956345, Allpress, Stephen et al., Sept. 21, 1999
United States, 5737327, Ling, Fuyun et al., Apr. 7, 1998
United States, 5621723, Walton, Jay et al., Apr. 15, 1997
United States, 5896368, Dahlman, Erik et al., Apr. 20, 1999
United States, 5103459, Gilhousen, Klein et al., Apr. 7, 1992
United States, 5915216, Lysejko, Martin, June 22, 1999
United States, 5966377, Murai, Hideshi, Oct. 12, 1999
United States, 5870378, Huang, Howard et al., Feb. 9, 1999
Jan Eriksen et al., Code Division Multiple Access – Hot Topic in Mobile
Communications, Telenor Telektronikk, 1995
I.W. Band et al., Convolutional Coding Strategies for Code Division Multiple Access
Cellular Communications, IEEE, Aug. 1996

8

























Craig Teuscher et al., Design and Implementation Issues for a Wideband, Indoor, DSCDMA System Providing Multimedia Access, in Proc. 34th Allerton Conf.
Communications, Control, and Computing, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1996, pp. 623-632
Telecommunications Industry Ass’n, TIA/EIA/IS-95-A Interim Standard, May 1995
F. Adachi et al., Coherent Multicode DS-CDMA Mobile Radio Access, IEICE Trans.
Communications, Vol. E79-B, Sept. 9, 1996
Code Time Division Multiple Access: CDMA and TDMA — A Marriage Made in
Heaven?, ETSI STC SMG 2/20, Sophi Antipolis, France, Dec. 16, 1996
FRAMES Multiple Access Scheme Proposal for the UMTS Radio Interface — SMG2
Workshop on UMTS Radio Interface Technologies, ETSI STG SMG 2/20, Sophia
Antipolis, France, Dec. 16, 1996
Qualcomm CDMA systems
U.S. Patent No. 5764630, Natali et al., June 9, 1998
U.S. Patent No. 5603095, Uola, Risto, February 11, 1997
U.S. Patent No. 5239682, Strawcynski, et al., August 24, 1993
U.S. Patent No. 5659598, Byrne, et al., August 19, 1997
United States 5373502, Turban, December 1994
United States 5414728, Zehavi, May 1995
United States 5764630, Natali et al., June 1998
United States 5793759, Rakib et al., August 1998
United States 5956345, Allpress et al., September 1999
EP0633676, Jan. 1995
EP0652650, May. 1995
EP0730356, Sep. 1996
GB2267627, Dec. 1993
GB2301744, Dec. 1996
WO9314588, Jul. 1993
WO9503652, Feb. 1995
WO9637066, Nov. 1996

U.S. Patent No. 6,088,326












European Patent Office, EP0600713A2, Leppanen, Pentti, June 8, 1994
United States, 5533013, Leppanen, Pentti, July 2, 1996
United States, 5402413, Dixon, Robert, March 28, 1995
United States, 6272168, Lomp, Gary et al., Aug. 7, 2001
United States, 6134215, Agrawal, Avneesh et al., Oct. 17, 2000
United States, 6535503, Toskala, Antti et al., Mar. 18, 2003
United States, 5673260, Umeda, Narumi et al., Sept. 30, 1997
United States, 6064662, Gitlin, Richard et al., May 16, 2000
United States, 6018528, Gitlin, Richard et al., Jan. 25, 2000
United States, 6052365, Bhagalia, S. et al., Apr. 18, 2000
United States, 5991627, Honkasalo, Zin-Chun et al., Nov. 23, 1999
9






































Japan, H8-125604, Sawahashi, Mamoru et al., May 17, 1996
Japan, H6-237214, Onishi, Hiroshi et al., Aug. 23, 1994
Japan, H7-336767, Sekine, Kiyoki et al., Dec. 22, 1995
United States, 5896368, Dahlman, Erik et al., Apr. 20, 1999
United States, 6112080, Anderson, Gary et al., Aug. 29, 2000
United States, 5539730, Dent, Paul, July 23, 1996
United States, 5793757, Uddenfeldt, Jan, Aug. 11, 1998
United States, 5103459, Gilhousen, Klein et al., April 7, 1992
United States, 5915216, Lysejko, Martin, June 22, 1999
United States, 5966377, Murai, Hideshi, Oct. 12, 1999
PCT/GB93/00199, Millicom Holdings, Aug. 5, 1993
R. Prasad, et al., Hybrid TDMA/CDMA Multiple Access Protocol for Multi-Media
Communications, IEEE ICPWC’96, 1996
R. Sahota, Feasibility of a Narrow Band DS–CDMA Overlay on a TDMA System, Univ.
of South Australia, Sept. 1996
Telecommunications Industry Ass’n, TIA/EIA/IS-95-A Interim Standard, May 1995
Code Time Division Multiple Access: CDMA and TDMA — A Marriage Made in
Heaven?, ETSI STC SMG 2/20, Sophi Antipolis, France, Dec. 16, 1996
FRAMES Multiple Access Scheme Proposal for the UMTS Radio Interface — SMG2
Workshop on UMTS Radio Interface Technologies, ETSI STG SMG 2/20, Sophia
Antipolis, France, Dec. 16, 1996
FRAMES Detailed Description of Mode 1: Wideband TDMA/CDMA
NEC Technologies (UK) Ltd. and NEC Corporation, Proposed Wide-band Coherent
DSCDMA/ FDD with Time-Slot Structure for UMTS, June 12, 1996, and NEC
Technologies (UK) Ltd., A Wideband Coherent DS-CDMA/FDD with Time-Slot
Structure for UMTS, Dec. 16, 1996
King’s College, Multidimensional PRMA (MD PRMA) – A Versatile Medium Access
Strategy for the UMTS Mobile to Base Station Channel” Centre for Telecommunications
Research, King’s College, Dec. 16, 1996
Qualcomm CDMA systems
U.S. Patent No. 5764630, Natali et al., June 9, 1998
U.S. Patent No. 5603095, Uola, Risto, February 11, 1997
U.S. Patent No. 5239682, Strawcynski, et al., August 24, 1993
U.S. Patent No. 5659598, Byrne, et al., August 19, 1997
United States 4688210, Eizenhoffer et al., August 1987
United States 4799252, Eizenhoffer et al., January 1989
United States 5373502, Turban, December 1994
United States 5592469, Szabo, January 1997
United States 6005854, Xu et al., December 1999
EP0652650, May. 1995
EP0730356, Sep. 1996
GB2301744, Dec. 1996
WO9314590, Jul., 1993
WO9315573, Aug., 1993
10



WO9523464, Aug., 1995

U.S. Patent No. 6,195,327





































United States, 5428818, Meidan, Reuven et al., June 27, 1995
United States, 5295138, Greenberg, A. et al., Mar. 15, 1994
United States, 5864549, Honkasalo, Harry et al., Jan. 26, 1999
United States, 4794635, Hess, Garry et al., Dec. 27, 1988
United States, 4777653, Bonnerot, Georges et al., Oct. 11, 1988
United States, 5056109, Leppanen, Pentti, July 2, 1996
United States, 5093840, Schilling, Donald, Mar. 2, 1992
United States, 4228538, Scharla-Nielsen, Hans et al., Oct. 14, 1980
United States, 5838671, Ishikawa, Y. et al., Nov. 17, 1998
United States, 5734646, I, Chih-Lin et al., Mar. 31, 1998
United States, 7146174, Gardner, William et al., Dec. 5, 2006
United States, 5042082, Dahlin, Jan, Aug. 20, 1991
United States, 5701585, Kallin, Harald et al., Dec. 23, 1997
United States, 5590399, Matsumoto, T. et al., Dec. 31, 1996
United States, 5410737, Jones, J., Apr. 25, 1995
United States, 6018528, Gitlin, Richard et al., Jan. 25, 2000
United States, 5442625, Gitlin, Richard et al., Aug. 15, 1995
WIPO, 1996002979, Andersson, Claes et al., Feb. 1, 1996
WIPO, 1996002980, Andersson, Claes et al., Feb. 1, 1996
Andrea Baiocchi et al., Near-Optimality of Distributed Load-Adaptive Dynamic Channel
Allocation Strategies for Cellular Mobile Network, Wireless Networks 2, 129-42 1996
Branko Bjelajac, CIR Based Dynamic Channel Allocation Schemes and Handover
Strategies for Mobile Satellite Systems, Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE Wireless
Communication System Symposium, Nov. 1995
U.S. Patent No. 5764630, Natali et al., June 9, 1998
U.S. Patent No. 5603095, Uola, Risto, February 11, 1997
U.S. Patent No. 5239682, Strawcynski, et al., August 24, 1993
U.S. Patent No. 5659598, Byrne, et al., August 19, 1997
United States 5148548, Meche et al., September 1992
United States 5471650, Vexler et al., November 1995
United States 5596570, Soliman, January 1997
United States 5697056, Tayloe, December 1997
United States 5761429, Thompson, June 1998
GB2288517, Oct., 1995
GB2300091, Oct., 1996
GB2302481, Jan., 1997
WO9109474, Jun., 1991
WO9526593, Oct., 1995
WO9637054, Nov., 1996
11



SM. Shin, et al., "DS-CDMA Reverse Link Channel Assignment Based on Interference
Measurements", Electronics Letters, vol. 31, No. 22, Oct. 26, 1995, pp. 1897-1899

U.S. Patent No. 6,381,211































European Patent Office, EP0600713A2, Leppanen, Pentti, June 8, 1994
United States, 5533013, Leppanen, Pentti, July 2, 1996
United States, 5402413, Dixon, Robert, March 28, 1995
United States, 6272168, Lomp, Gary et al., Aug. 7, 2001
United States, 6134215, Agrawal, Avneesh et al., Oct. 17, 2000
United States, 6535503, Toskala, Antti et al., Mar. 18, 2003
United States, 5673260, Umeda, Narumi et al., Sept. 30, 1997
United States, 6064662, Gitlin, Richard et al., May 16, 2000
United States, 6018528, Gitlin, Richard et al., Jan. 25, 2000
United States, 6052365, Bhagalia, S. et al., Apr. 18, 2000
United States, 5991627, Honkasalo, Zin-Chun et al., Nov. 23, 1999
Japan, H8-125604, Sawahashi, Mamoru et al., May 17, 1996
Japan, H6-237214, Onishi, Hiroshi et al., Aug. 23, 1994
Japan, H7-336767, Sekine, Kiyoki et al., Dec. 22, 1995
United States, 5896368, Dahlman, Erik et al., Apr. 20, 1999
United States, 6112080, Anderson, Gary et al., Aug. 29, 2000
United States, 5539730, Dent, Paul, July 23, 1996
United States, 5793757, Uddenfeldt, Jan, Aug. 11, 1998
United States, 5103459, Gilhousen, Klein et al., April 7, 1992
United States, 5915216, Lysejko, Martin, June 22, 1999
United States, 5966377, Murai, Hideshi, Oct. 12, 1999
PCT/GB93/00199, Millicom Holdings, Aug. 5, 1993
R. Prasad, et al., Hybrid TDMA/CDMA Multiple Access Protocol for Multi-Media
Communications, IEEE ICPWC’96, 1996
R. Sahota, Feasibility of a Narrow Band DS–CDMA Overlay on a TDMA System, Univ.
of South Australia, Sept. 1996
Telecommunications Industry Ass’n, TIA/EIA/IS-95-A Interim Standard, May 1995
Code Time Division Multiple Access: CDMA and TDMA — A Marriage Made in
Heaven?, ETSI STC SMG 2/20, Sophi Antipolis, France, Dec. 16, 1996
FRAMES Multiple Access Scheme Proposal for the UMTS Radio Interface — SMG2
Workshop on UMTS Radio Interface Technologies, ETSI STG SMG 2/20, Sophia
Antipolis, France, Dec. 16, 1996
FRAMES Detailed Description of Mode 1: Wideband TDMA/CDMA
NEC Technologies (UK) Ltd. and NEC Corporation, Proposed Wide-band Coherent
DSCDMA/ FDD with Time-Slot Structure for UMTS, June 12, 1996, and NEC
Technologies (UK) Ltd., A Wideband Coherent DS-CDMA/FDD with Time-Slot
Structure for UMTS, Dec. 16, 1996

12























King’s College, Multidimensional PRMA (MD PRMA) – A Versatile Medium Access
Strategy for the UMTS Mobile to Base Station Channel” Centre for Telecommunications
Research, King’s College, Dec. 16, 1996
Qualcomm CDMA systems
U.S. Patent No. 5764630, Natali et al., June 9, 1998
U.S. Patent No. 5603095, Uola, Risto, February 11, 1997
U.S. Patent No. 5239682, Strawcynski, et al., August 24, 1993
U.S. Patent No. 5659598, Byrne, et al., August 19, 1997
United States 5373502, Turban, December 1994
United States 5414728, Zehavi, May 1995
United States 5481533, Honing et al., January 1996
United States 5572516, Miya et al., November 1996
United States 5805581, Uchida et al., September 1998
United States 5894473, Dent, April 1999
EP633 676, Jan., 1995
EP652 650, May., 1995
EP730 356, Sep., 1996
GB2 267 627, Dec., 1993
GB2 301 744, Dec., 1996
WO93/14590, Jul., 1993
WO93/15573, Aug., 1993
WO95/23464, Aug., 1995
WO 96/37066, Nov., 1996

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Separately, for each Patent-in-Suit, identify each instrumentality that practices, has ever
practiced, or is contemplated by You for future practice of, any of the Patents-in-Suit (including
without limitation any Wi-LAN or Airspan products or services or any products or services of
any Licensee of the Patents-in-Suit) by product name, trade designation, and any other
description known by You, as well as by manufacturer, licensee, user, and source, specify in
claim charts where each element of each claim is found within such instrumentality, and identify
all persons with knowledge that any such instrumentalities practice any of the Patents-in-Suit and
all documents and things referring or relating to any such instrumentalities.
ANSWER:
Wi-LAN incorporates by reference each of its general objections as if fully set forth
herein. Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and as seeking
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorneyclient privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, or any other applicable privilege
13

or immunity. Wi-LAN further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for expert
testimony to the extent it seeks information regarding Defendants’ infringement. Wi-LAN
further objects to this interrogatory as premature to the extent it seeks expert testimony prior to
the dates set forth in the Court’s Docket Control Order. Wi-LAN will provide its expert reports
according to the schedule set forth in this case by the Court.
Discovery in this matter is ongoing and Wi-LAN has not yet concluded its investigation
and, as such, subject to the objections stated above, Wi-LAN will supplement its responses as
additional facts and documents are discovered.
Subject to these objections, and to the general objections recited above, Wi-LAN
responds: The accused products, as identified in Wi-LAN’s P.R. 3-1 disclosure, practice one or
more of the Patents-in-Suit. Wi-LAN incorporates by reference its P.R. 3-1 disclosure served to
the Defendants on June 13, 2011, and any supplements or amendments thereof. Airspan
Network’s AS-4000 may also practice one or more claims of one or more of the Patents-in-Suit.
Wi-LAN does not sell a product that practices the Patents-in-Suit.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4
Separately, for each Patent-in-Suit, identify all entities and instrumentalities (whether or
not such entities and instrumentalities are involved in this case) that Wi-LAN has asserted,
suggested, or alleged infringe one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit by product name, trade
designation, and other appropriate description, by manufacturer, licensee, user, and source,
specify in claim charts where each element of each claim is allegedly found within such
instrumentality, and identify all persons with knowledge that any such instrumentalities practice
any of the Patents-in-Suit and all documents and things referring or relating to any such
instrumentalities and assertions, suggestions, or allegations.
ANSWER:
Wi-LAN incorporates by reference each of its general objections as if fully set forth
herein. Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome to the extent it
requests claim charts for products that are not accused in this litigation, and as seeking
14

information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorneyclient privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, or any other applicable privilege
or immunity.
Discovery in this matter is ongoing and Wi-LAN has not yet concluded its investigation
and, as such, subject to the objections stated above, Wi-LAN will supplement its responses as
additional facts and documents are discovered.
Subject to these objections, and to the general objections recited above, Wi-LAN
incorporates by reference the claim charts provided with Wi-LAN’s P.R. 3-1 disclosures. WiLAN also identifies the following products as infringing the Patents-in-Suit:
Alcatel-Lucent:

9300 W-CDMA Node B Products, 9311 Macro Node B, 9326

Digital 2U Base Band Unit, 9360 Small Cell, 9926 Digital 2U Node B, and all other products
which are reasonably similar in structure and/or operation. Additional Alcatel-Lucent products
known to Wi-LAN at this time that are similar in structure and/or operation to the aboveidentified products, and therefore also infringe the claims of the Patents-in-Suit asserted in WiLAN’s P.R. 3-1 disclosures, include the: 9764 Metro Cell, 9362 Enterprise Cell 2100, 9362
Enterprise Cell, 9361 Home Cell, 9363 Metro Cell Indoor and 9364 Metro Cell Outdoor.
Ericsson:

RBS-3000; RBS-6000; W30; W35; and all other products which

are reasonably similar in structure and/or operation. Additional Ericsson products known to WiLAN at this time that are similar in structure and/or operation to the above-identified products,
and therefore also infringe the claims of the Patents-in-Suit asserted in Wi-LAN’s P.R. 3-1
disclosures, include the: W37, W40 and L21.

15

Sony Mobile:

Vivaz; Xperia X10; Equinox; W518a; Satio; Xperia X2a; Xperia

Pureness; Aino; Naite; and all other products which are reasonably similar in structure and/or
operation. Additional Sony Mobile products known to Wi-LAN at this time that are similar in
structure and/or operation to the above-identified products, and therefore also infringe the claims
of the Patents-in-Suit asserted in Wi-LAN’s P.R. 3-1 disclosures, include the: Xperia Play 4G,
Live with Walkman, Xperia pro, Xperia neo V, Xperia active, Xperia arc, Xperia ray, Xperia
mini, Xperia mini pro, Aino, Aspen, Cedar, Equinox, G705a, Naite, Satio, T707, Vivaz, Vivaz
Pro, W508, W518a, Xperia arc S, Xperia ion, Xperia neo, Xperia Play, Xperia Pureness, Xperia
X10, Xperia X10 mini, Xperia X10 mini pro, Xperia X2a, Xperia X8, and Yari. 
HTC:

Aria; HD2; Imagio; Pure; Tilt 2; Touch Cruise; G1; G2, myTouch

3G; myTouch 3G Slide; Dash 3G; Freestyle; Inspire 4G; Surround; myTouch 4G; Touch Pro2;
and all other products which are reasonably similar in structure and/or operation. Additional
HTC products known to Wi-LAN at this time that are similar in structure and/or operation to the
above-identified products, and therefore also infringe the claims of the Patents-in-Suit asserted in
Wi-LAN’s P.R. 3-1 disclosures, include the: Amaze 4G, Evo Design 4G, HD7, HD7S, Hero S,
myTouch 4G Slide, One S, Radar, Radar 4G, Sensation, Status, Titan, Vivid, Wildfire S and One
X.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Separately, for each instrumentality identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3, state the
period of time during which each such instrumentality was sold, state whether (and if so, how)
each such instrumentality was marked with the patent number of any of the Patents-in-Suit, state
the period of time during which each such instrumentality, if any, was marked with the patent
number of any of the Patents-in-Suit, and identify all persons most knowledgable thereof and all
documents and things referring or relating thereto.
ANSWER:

16

Wi-LAN incorporates by reference each of its general objections as if fully set forth
herein. Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and as seeking
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to
the extent it requests information on products sold without Wi-LAN’s authorization. Wi-LAN
objects to this interrogatory to the extent it requests information from a third-party. Wi-LAN
will respond only to the extent the products sold were licensed by Wi-LAN. Wi-LAN further
objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for information in the possession of third
party(s).
Discovery in this matter is ongoing and Wi-LAN has not yet concluded its investigation
and, as such, subject to the objections stated above, Wi-LAN will supplement its responses as
additional facts and documents are discovered.
Subject to these objections, and to the general objections recited above, Wi-LAN
responds: The period of time in which each of Defendants’ infringing products has been sold is
known to Defendants. To Wi-LAN’s knowledge, none of Defendants’ infringing products have
been marked with the patent number of the Patents-in-Suit. Discovery into the marking of
Airspan’s AS-4000 product to the extent that product practices one or more of the Patents-in-Suit
is on-going.

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Describe in detail each patent license to which you or Airspan are a party that covers or
relates to the Patents-in-Suit and identify (i) the date of the agreement; (ii) the parties involved;
(iii) the patent(s) involved; (iv) the product(s) covered; (v) the geographic and temporal scope of
the license; (vi) the amount paid and/or consideration exchanged, including any applicable
royalty rate, upfront/lump-sum payments, royalty payments made, or technology/patents
transferred; (vii) the person(s) who are most knowledgeable about each license and the
negotiations leading up to the execution of each license; (viii) each such patent license by
Bates number; and (ixviii) (sic) any documents that support Your answer or to which You
referred in preparing Your answer.

17

ANSWER:
Wi-LAN incorporates by reference each of its general objections as if fully set forth
herein. Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and as seeking
information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Wi-LAN objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorneyclient privilege, work product doctrine, joint defense privilege, or any other applicable privilege
or immunity.
Subject to these objections, and to the general objections recited above, Wi-LAN
identifies Andrew Parolin as the person most knowledgeable about Wi-LAN’s licenses.
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d), Wi-LAN also identifies the following documents from which
information responsive to this interrogatory can be derived:

WIL184772–WIL184799, WIL62732–WIL62752, WIL97617–WIL97628, WIL60206–
WIL60226, WIL54500–WIL54529, WIL168420–WIL168434, WIL168453–WIL168468,
WIL69460–WIL69473,
WIL84546–WIL84565,
WIL154133–WIL154160,
WIL69855–
WIL69871, WIL177424–WIL177440, WIL154207–WIL154215, WIL177594–WIL177611,
WIL177699–WIL177715, WIL63281–WIL63293, WIL174464–WIL174478, WIL70554–
WIL70569, WIL70434–WIL70450, WIL186815–WIL186830, WIL185072–WIL185090,
WIL84447–WIL84465, WIL173784–WIL173798, WIL185224–WIL185234, WIL76503–
WIL76525, WIL179387– WIL179416, WIL79211–WIL79240, WIL185658–WIL185671,
WIL181921–WIL181937, WIL182181–WIL182200, WIL181007–WIL181027, WIL185713–
WIL185715, WIL183862–WIL183878, WIL192859–WIL192877, WIL184737–WIL184741.
Discovery in this matter is ongoing and Wi-LAN has not yet concluded its investigation
and, as such, subject to the objections stated above, Wi-LAN will supplement its responses as
additional facts and documents are discovered.

18

Dated: May 10, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
By:

Johnny Ward
Texas State Bar No. 00794818
Wesley Hill
Texas State Bar No. 24032294
WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
111 W. Tyler Street
Longview, TX 75601
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

/s/ Syed K. Fareed
David B. Weaver – LEAD ATTORNEY
Texas State Bar No. 00798576
Michael A. Valek
Texas State Bar No. 24044028
Avelyn M. Ross
Texas State Bar No. 24027817
Ajeet P. Pai
Texas State Bar No. 24060376
Syed K. Fareed
Texas State Bar No. 24065216
Jeffrey T. Han
Texas State Bar No. 24069870
Seth A. Lindner
Texas State Bar No. 24078862
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100
Austin, TX 78746
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Charles P. Ebertin
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 410
Palo Alto, CA 94301-1918
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Wi-LAN Inc.

19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who are
deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A). Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(d) and (e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have
consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by
email and/or fax, on this the 10th day of May, 2012.

/s/ Syed K. Fareed

Counsel for Defendants:
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
Local Counsel
Michael E. Jones, Lead Attorney
Allen F. Gardner
POTTER MINTON PC
110 N. College, Suite 500
P.O. Box 359
Tyler, TX 75710-0359
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Robert A. Appleby
Gregory S. Arovas
Akshay S. Deoras
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
601 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

20

Ericsson Inc.
Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.
Sony Mobile Communications AB
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Bruce S. Sostek, Lead Attorney
Matthew P. Harper
Richard L. Wynne, Jr.
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201-2533
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
HTC Corporation
HTC America, Inc. and
Exedea Inc.
Local Counsel
Eric Hugh Findlay, Lead Attorney
Brian Craft
FINDLAY CRAFT
6760 Old Jacksonville Hwy, Suite 101
Tyler, TX 75703
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Daniel N. Yannuzzi
Stephen S. Korniczky
Inge Larish
Martin R. Bader
SHEPPARD MULLIN
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130-2006
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

/s/ Syed K. Fareed
Syed K. Fareed

21