I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al
Filing
222
Reply to Motion re 200 MOTION for Sanctions Motion for Discovery Sanctions Regarding Untimely Disclosed Prior Art filed by I/P Engine, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Sherwood, Jeffrey)
Exhibit 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NORFOLK DIVISION
__________________________________________
)
I/P ENGINE, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
Civ. Action No. 2:11-cv-512
)
AOL, INC. et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)
PLAINTIFF I/P ENGINE, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the agreement
of the parties, I/P Engine, Inc. (“I/P Engine”) hereby supplements its responses and objections to
Google, Inc.’s (“Google”) First Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”). These responses are
based on information reasonably available to I/P Engine at the present time. I/P Engine reserves
the right to further supplement these responses when, and if, additional information becomes
available. I/P Engine also reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other or
supplemental Interrogatories Google may propound involving or relating to the subject matter of
these Interrogatories.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
I/P Engine incorporates herein each of the general objections included in its Responses
and Objections to Defendant Google, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories as if fully set forth herein.
DSMDB-3058198
award of lost profits damages, you identify each of your products you allege falls within the
scope of any claim of the PATENTS-IN-SUIT and state the total sales annually in units and
dollars from its introduction to the present, and if you contend you are entitled to an award of
reasonable royalty damages, state what you assert to be a reasonable royalty to be paid by
GOOGLE under 35 U.S.C. Section 284, including the complete factual bases on which you base
your calculation of such royalty rate.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff incorporates its general objections and specific objections. I/P Engine objects to
this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, Rule 26(b)(4)(B) immunity, or any other applicable
privilege or immunity. I/P Engine further objects to this Interrogatory as premature because
discovery in this matter has just begun, and further to the extent that it seeks expert opinion
evidence, which will be provided in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Local Rules of the Court, or the Court’s scheduling orders. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing objections, I/P Engine responds:
I/P Engine seeks compensatory damages, past and future, amounting to no less than
reasonable royalties and prejudgment interest to compensate it for Google’s infringement.
INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
For each of the PATENTS-IN-SUIT state the priority date PLAINTIFF claims for each
claim and identify the portion(s) of the specification in any earlier application that support that
priority date.
15
DSMDB-3058198
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff incorporates its general objections and specific objections. I/P Engine objects to
this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, Rule 26(b)(4)(B) immunity, or any other applicable
privilege or immunity. I/P Engine objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal
conclusion. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, I/P Engine responds:
Each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are entitled to a priority date at least as
early as the effective date of the ‘420 patent, i.e., December 3, 1998 (based on the filing date of
the patent application, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/204,149, that issued as the ‘420 patent).
Additionally, each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit may be entitled to an earlier
effective date based on, without limitation, the filing of earlier related patent applications.
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Plaintiff incorporates its general objections and specific objections. I/P Engine objects to
this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, Rule 26(b)(4)(B) immunity, or any other applicable
privilege or immunity. I/P Engine objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal
conclusion. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, I/P Engine responds:
Each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are entitled to a priority date at least as
early as the effective date of the ‘420 patent, i.e., December 3, 1998 (based on the filing date of
the patent application, U.S. Patent Application No. 09/204,149, that issued as the ‘420 patent).
Additionally, each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit may be entitled to an earlier
effective date based on, without limitation, the filing of earlier related patent applications and
documents produced by third parties. I/P Engine and third parties have produced documents
16
DSMDB-3058198
from which information responsive to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained pursuant
to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See IPEL0000302-305; IPEL0000308314; IPEL0000326-329; IPEL0000418-425; IPEL0000606-608; IPEL0000675-683;
IPEL0001062-1063; IPEL0001212-1242; IPEL0001270-1273; IPEL0001326-1334;
IPEL0001395-1399; IPEL0001422-1424; IPEL0001467-1482; IPEL0001557-1561;
IPEL0001717-1732; IPEL0001924-1926; IPEL0001956-1960; LANG0001048-1051;
LANG0001317-1339; LANG0001473-1479; LANG0006083-6097; LANG0007021-7028;
IPE0000916-2504.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
Plaintiff incorporates its general objections and specific objections. I/P Engine objects to
this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, Rule 26(b)(4)(B) immunity, or any other applicable
privilege or immunity. I/P Engine objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal
conclusion. Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, I/P Engine responds:
Each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are entitled to a priority date of
December 3, 1998 (based on the filing date of the patent application, U.S. Patent Application No.
09/204,149, that issued as the ‘420 patent).
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
IDENTIFY and describe in detail all the manners or techniques by which the PATENTSIN-SUIT improved upon the PRIOR ART, added functionality that did not exist in the PRIOR
ART, or provided a variation on or upgrade of the PRIOR ART, and for each such claimed
improvement, added functionality, or variation or upgrade, state whether PLAINTIFF contends it
17
DSMDB-3058198
privilege or immunity. I/P Engine further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
information not in I/P Engine’s possession, custody or control. Subject to and without waiving
the foregoing objections, I/P Engine responds:
I/P Engine and/or third parties have produced documents from which information
responsive to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See LYCOS0000103-119.
Dated: May 11, 2012
By:
/s/ Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
Jeffrey K. Sherwood
Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
Kenneth W. Brothers
DeAnna Allen
Charles J. Monterio, Jr.
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 420-2200
Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
Counsel for Plaintiff I/P Engine, Inc.
20
DSMDB-3058198
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 11th day of May, 2012, the foregoing PLAINTIFF I/P
ENGINE, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
DEFENDANT GOOGLE, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES, was served via
email, on the following:
Stephen Edward Noona
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 W Main St
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
senoona@kaufcan.com
David Bilsker
David Perlson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
Robert L. Burns
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Two Freedom Square
11955 Freedom Drive
Reston, VA 20190
robert.burns@finnegan.com
Cortney S. Alexander
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
3500 SunTrust Plaza
303 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 94111
cortney.alexander@finnegan.com
/s/ Armands Chagnon
Armands Chagnon
21
DSMDB-3058198
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?