I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 295

Declaration re 294 Memorandum in Support, of Margaret P. Kammerud in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against AOL Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc. and Target Corporation by AOL Inc., Gannett Company, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., Target Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Noona, Stephen)

EXHIBIT B

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 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT
IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, I/P Engine, Inc.
(“I/P Engine”) hereby responds and objects to IAC Search & Media Inc.’s (“IAC”) 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 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 IAC may
propound involving or relating to the subject matter of these Interrogatories.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

I/P Engine objects to the Interrogatories as overly broad and unduly burdensome

to the extent that they purport to require I/P Engine to seek information or documents outside of
I/P Engine’s possession, custody, or control as such information is beyond the permissible scope
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable law, and would further pose an undue
burden on I/P Engine.

DSMDB-3090457

submits that its response to this Interrogatory may be derived from those disclosures and
contentions. I/P Engine’s contentions and the Expert Report of Ophir Frieder are based on the
knowledge known at this time, and are subject to change based on ongoing discovery, additional
evidence, and/or further investigation. I/P Engine and its expert Dr. Frieder reserve the right to
amend and/or supplement the infringement contentions or the expert report if and when further
information becomes available.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
If you contend that you are entitled to any monetary recovery as a result of alleged
INFRINGEMENT of the PATENTS-IN-SUIT by IAC, state whether you contend that you are
entitled to lost profits or a reasonable royalty, and state all facts, evidence, and reasons upon
which you rely in support of your contention, such that if you contend you are entitled to an
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 IAC
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 overly burdensome to
the extent that it is duplicative of the expert opinion evidence served in this litigation, which has

8
DSMDB-3090457

been 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 IAC’s infringement. I/P
Engine served the Expert Report of Dr. Stephen L. Becker, Ph.D. on July 25, 2012. I/P Engine
hereby incorporates this disclosure by reference and submits that its response to this
Interrogatory may be further derived from this disclosure. The Expert Report of Dr. Stephen L.
Becker, Ph.D. is based on the knowledge known at this time, and is subject to change based on
ongoing discovery, additional evidence, and/or further investigation. I/P Engine and its expert
Dr. Becker reserve the right to amend and/or supplement the expert report if and when further
information becomes available.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
In reference to IAC’s affirmative defense of laches, state whether YOU contend that any
delay by YOU or the PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST in asserting the PATENTS-IN-SUIT
against IAC was reasonable or excusable, and for any such delay that YOU contend was
reasonable or excusable, IDENTIFY the length of and all reasons or excuses for the delay, all
facts that support any contention that this delay was reasonable or excusable, all DOCUMENTS
that support any such contention, and all PERSONS with knowledge of the facts or the
DOCUMENTS that support such contention.
RESPONSE:
Plaintiff incorporates its general objections and specific objections. I/P Engine objects to
the premise of this Interrogatory, in that it assumes an unsupported legal conclusion, e.g., that

9
DSMDB-3090457