Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-4 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`Exhibit C
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-4 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`2001 ROSS AVENUE
`SUITE 900
`DALLAS, TEXAS
`75201-2980
`
`TEL +1 214.953.6500
`FAX +1 214.953.6503
`BakerBotts.com
`
`AUSTIN
`BRUSSELS
`DALLAS
`DUBAI
`HONG KONG
`HOUSTON
`LONDON
`
`
`MOSCOW
`NEW YORK
`PALO ALTO
`RIYADH
`SAN FRANCISCO
`WASHINGTON
`
`
`
`
`August 6, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA E-MAIL (VRUBINO@FABRICANTLLP.COM)
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`Fabricant LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Ave., Ste. 206 S
`Rye, New York 10580
`
`Bethany Salpietra
`TEL: 2149536765
`FAX: 2146614765
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`
`Re: AGIS Software Development LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Lead Case)
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Lyft, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00024-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Member Case)
`
`Dear Vincent:
`
`I write in response to your July 29, 2021 letter regarding Lyft’s Objections and Responses
`to AGIS’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant (Nos. 1-9) (“Lyft’s Objections and
`Responses”). As an initial matter, Lyft disagrees with AGIS Software Development LLC’s
`(“AGIS” or “You”) characterization that Lyft’s Objections and Responses are deficient in any
`way. As is explained in further detail below, Lyft’s Objections and Responses are both appropriate
`and sufficient in view of the requests presented in each Interrogatory as Lyft understands them and
`as informed by AGIS’s preliminary infringement contentions. Furthermore, despite AGIS’s
`universal complaint that Lyft’s Objections and Responses are deficient, AGIS altogether fails to
`articulate any specific deficiencies with respect to many of Lyft’s responses.
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`We understand AGIS’s complaint regarding Lyft’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 to be that Lyft
`only addressed Lyft products made available via Apple’s app store.1 AGIS’s preliminary
`infringement contentions, however, only properly accuse Lyft’s iOS apps of infringement. Indeed,
`AGIS’s contentions fail to identify any evidence concerning allegedly infringing Android,
`Blackberry, or Windows Mobile apps. To the extent that AGIS is permitted to amend its
`contentions to include any such evidence accusing these additional products, Lyft will supplement
`its response accordingly. Additionally, as made clear in Your letter, Interrogatory No. 1 includes
`nine separate information requests:
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` To the extent AGIS has additional concerns about the sufficiency of Lyft’s response to Interrogatory No. 1, Lyft
`requests AGIS to specifically identify those concerns in writing so that Lyft may consider them.
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-4 Filed 04/15/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`August 6, 2021
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft application or Lyft service,” the identification
`of the name (including internal and external names) and platform for each;
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft application or Lyft service,” the identification
`of each version and revision;
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft application or Lyft service,” the identification
`of the first and last dates of each version and revision;
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft application or Lyft service,” a detailed
`explanation of the timeline of testing for each version and revision;
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft server,” the identification of the internal and
`external name(s) and model number(s);
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft server,” the identification of the physical
`location of each “Lyft server”;
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft server,” the identification of each version and
`revision of each Lyft application or service used with or provided by each “Lyft server”;
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft server,” the identification of each function or
`service carried out by each “Lyft server”; and
`for each “Lyft Accused Product that is a Lyft server,” the identification of each Entity
`and/or Lyft business unit that puts into practice each “Lyft server.”
`
`
`Unless You prefer to withdraw any of the requests embedded in this interrogatory, Lyft will treat
`each of the above requests as a separate interrogatory.
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 2
`
`Your letter fails to identify any specific deficiency with Lyft’s response to Interrogatory No. 2.
`Please identify what You perceive to be deficient about Lyft’s response in order for Lyft to
`consider whether any supplementation is needed.
`
`Interrogatory No. 3
`
`As you are likely aware, FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d) permits a responding party to answer an interrogatory
`by producing business records, and doing so constitutes a response.2 Accordingly, Your assertion
`that Lyft “failed to provide any response to Interrogatory No. 3” is unquestionably false.
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
` “If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing
`a party's business records (including electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining
`the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by: (1) specifying the
`records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as
`readily as the responding party could; and (2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and
`audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.” FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d).
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-4 Filed 04/15/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`Furthermore, Your letter fails to identify any specific deficiency with Lyft’s response to
`Interrogatory No. 3. Please identify what You perceive to be deficient about Lyft’s response in
`order for Lyft to consider whether any supplementation is needed.
`
`August 6, 2021
`
`- 3 -
`
`Interrogatory No. 4
`
`Lyft is currently in the process of identifying documents that include information responsive to
`Interrogatory No. 4. As indicated in Lyft’s response to Interrogatory No. 4, Lyft will produce such
`documents if any are located from a reasonable search.
`
`Interrogatory No. 7
`
`Your letter fails to identify any specific deficiency with Lyft’s response to Interrogatory No. 7.
`Please identify what You perceive to be deficient about Lyft’s response in order for Lyft to
`consider whether any supplementation is needed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lyft reiterates
`that it will—subject to its stated objections—supplement its response if and when any additional
`factual information is discovered.
`
`Interrogatory No. 8
`
`Lyft is currently in the process of confirming the existence of documents that include information
`responsive to Interrogatory No. 8. As indicated in Lyft’s response to this interrogatory, Lyft will
`produce such documents if and when any are located.
`
`Additionally, as You point out in Your July 29, 2021 letter, Interrogatory No. 8 includes nine
`separate information requests:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the number of instances each “Lyft Accused Product” was distributed,
`downloaded, and/or installed on a device;
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the number of unique devices that downloaded and/or installed the “Lyft Accused
`Products”;
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the number of instances each “Lyft Accused Product” was activated or turned on
`after distribution, download, and/or installation;
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the number of unique users or accounts for each “Lyft Accused Product”;
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the daily active users or accounts for each “Lyft Accused Product”;
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-4 Filed 04/15/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`August 6, 2021
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`
`
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the number of instances in which an end user authenticated and/or signed in to
`each “Lyft Accused Product” with a “Lyft account”;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the total number of transactions for each “Lyft Accused Product”;
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the total amount of fees owed (in U.S. Dollars) for completed transactions on the
`“Lyft Accused Products”; and
`
`for each “Lyft Accused Product,” identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to
`present, the total amount of fees collected (in U.S. Dollars) (after reductions for discounts,
`incentives, and other price adjustments).
`
`Unless You prefer to withdraw any of the requests embedded in this interrogatory, Lyft will treat
`each of these requests as a separate interrogatory bringing the total number of interrogatories
`requested by AGIS to twenty-five. Should AGIS choose to maintain each interrogatory in its
`current form (i.e., without withdrawing any sub-parts), it will be Lyft’s understanding that AGIS
`has exhausted its total number of interrogatories allowed under the Court’s discovery order. See
`Dkt. 79.
`
`Interrogatory No. 9
`
`Lyft is currently in the process of confirming the existence of documents that include information
`responsive to Interrogatory No. 9. As indicated in Lyft’s response to this interrogatory, Lyft will
`produce such documents if any are located from a reasonable search.
`
`Although Lyft is willing to meet and confer when an impasse is reached on any and all of the
`above-identified issues, to make any such conference productive, AGIS must first articulate with
`specificity the basis for each of its complaints. We look forward to working with you to resolve
`these issues.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`
`
`Bethany Salpietra
`
`
`
`CC: All counsel of record
`
`
`
`
`
`