Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 12
`
`Exhibit E
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`October 5, 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 regarding Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS” or “You”)
`responses to Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s (“Lyft”) First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-12) (“Lyft’s First
`Set of Interrogatories”) and in response to your September 22, 2021 letter regarding Lyft’s
`responses to AGIS’s First Set of Interrogatories.
`I. AGIS’s Deficient Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories
`
`As an initial matter, Lyft disagrees with the basis for AGIS’s objection that the defined
`terms in paragraph 4 of the Definitions section of Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories (i.e., “‘AGIS,’
`‘Plaintiff,’ ‘You,’ ‘Your’”) should be limited to include only AGIS Software Development LLC.
`AGIS contends that extending the defined terms to cover AGIS affiliates such as Advanced
`Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”) and AGIS Holdings, Inc. is “overly burdensome,
`not proportional to the needs of the case and not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses because
`they include persons and entities outside of AGIS and who are not under the control of AGIS”
`(emphasis added). AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories at 3.
`This objection, however, is inconsistent with other positions or actions that AGIS has taken during
`the course of this litigation. For example, in Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions, AGIS represents that AGIS’s “own” products practice claims of the
`Asserted Patents. See Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions at
`§ I(F). As another example, AGIS produced nearly 200 pages of AGIS, Inc.’s documents, some
`of which have been designated as confidential under the Court’s Protective Order (Dkt. 96). See,
`e.g., AGISSOFTWARE_0007815; AGISSOFTWARE_0007754; AGISSOFTWARE_0000027.
`As yet another example, AGIS recently gave Defendants notice that it was “making available its
`source code” (emphasis added), which Defendants understand to be AGIS, Inc.’s code for the
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`- 2 -
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`allegedly practicing LifeRing product. E. Iturralde’s 8/13/21 Email. These examples cut against
`AGIS’s representation that other AGIS-affiliates “include person and entities outside of AGIS []
`who are not under the control of AGIS.” It would be improper for AGIS to use its corporate
`structure to selectively produce information from AGIS, Inc. that AGIS would like to rely on in
`this case while refusing to provide relevant information to Lyft from AGIS, Inc. If AGIS refuses
`to fully comply with Lyft’s discovery requests with respect to AGIS, Inc., Lyft will move to
`preclude AGIS from relying at trial on any information from AGIS, Inc.—including information
`about AGIS, Inc.’s products, its history, or testimony from its employees.
`
`In addition to AGIS’s responses being deficient for the reason described above, AGIS’s
`Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories are insufficient due to AGIS’s
`excessive and meritless objections and for reasons set forth below.
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`The request propounded by Lyft’s Interrogatory No. 1 is straightforward—“Identify all Persons
`who would financially benefit from a recovery by AGIS in this lawsuit.” Instead of answering this
`question, AGIS provides (as the only substantive portion of its response) a summary of its
`allegations against Lyft:
`
`“Lyft has infringed, contributed to the infringement, and/or induced the
`infringement of the Asserted Patents by making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`distributing, exporting to/from the United States, and/or importing into the United
`States the Accused Products which are covered by the Asserted Claims of the
`Asserted Patents. AGIS hereby incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein,
`AGIS’s Complaint and AGIS’s Infringement Contentions, any amendments to
`AGIS’s Infringement Contentions, and any expert reports served in this case
`regarding damages and infringement to be served in accordance with the Court’s
`Third Amended Docket Control Order. AGIS has not licensed or otherwise
`authorized Lyft to make, use, sell, offer for sale, distribute, export, and/or import
`into the United States the Accused Products. Lyft has had knowledge and notice of
`the Asserted Patents at least since the filing of the Complaint in this action. Lyft’s
`infringement has been and continues to be willful. AGIS has suffered damages as
`a result of Lyft’s direct and/or indirect infringement of the Asserted Patents in an
`amount to be proved at trial. In addition to these damages, which will be determined
`at trial, AGIS is entitled to recover an award of treble damages, reasonable
`attorneys’ fees, and costs in bringing this action.”
`
`AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 7–8. Nothing in AGIS’s
`above-reproduced answer is responsive to the propounded request. Specifically, AGIS’s response
`fails to identify any “Person” having the potential to financially benefit from a recovery by AGIS
`in this lawsuit.
`
`AGIS’s supplemental response, served on September 19, 2021, fails to remedy this
`
`deficiency. In particular, AGIS’s supplemental response provides citations to documents spanning
`over seven thousand pages. It is entirely unclear which Persons identified within these documents
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`- 3 -
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`is one who would financially benefit from a recovery by AGIS in this lawsuit. AGIS’s response,
`therefore, improperly applies FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d), which states that a responding party may
`answer an interrogatory by specifying the records that must be reviewed if the burden of deriving
`or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. The burden on the parties
`is not the same in this instance; AGIS knows the answer to this interrogatory and can provide the
`requested information with minimal effort. Notwithstanding the fact that AGIS failed to properly
`respond to this interrogatory under FED. R. CIV. P. 33(d), Lyft submits that a response invoking
`this section is both unnecessary and unreasonable. This interrogatory may be answered by simply
`providing an identification of Persons in a narrative response. Lyft expects AGIS will supplement
`its response to Interrogatory No. 1 to provide such narrative response.
`
`Interrogatory No. 2
`
`Interrogatory No. 2 seeks an identification and description of “any Communications with Third
`Parties You have had regarding any Asserted Patents or Related Patents.” AGIS objects to this
`interrogatory for various reasons, including because it allegedly (1) includes “multiple subparts,”
`(2) allegedly “seeks information subject to the (sic) any e-discovery and/or ESI orders,” and (3) is
`allegedly “unclear, vague, and ambiguous” due to its recitation of “any Communications . . .
`regarding any Asserted Patents or Related Patents.” See AGIS’s Objections and Responses to
`Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 9. First, regarding AGIS’s “multiple subparts” objection,
`Lyft respectfully disagrees. An identification of a communication necessarily includes a
`description of that communication.1 This interrogatory, therefore, properly propounds only a
`single request.
`
`Second, regarding AGIS’s objection regarding Court orders, Lyft submits that it is unaware of any
`rule or Court order that prohibits Lyft from seeking the identification and description of third
`parties to whom AGIS has communicated, electronic or otherwise, concerning the asserted patents.
`To the extent AGIS intends to maintain this objection, please identify the rule and/or Court order
`upon which You are relying.
`
`Third, regarding AGIS’s clarity objection, AGIS has failed to identify anything in particular that
`it contends is “unclear,” “vague,” or “ambiguous” about the “any Communications . . . regarding
`any Asserted Patents or Related Patents” phrase. The majority of the words used in this phrase are
`terms that Lyft has explicitly defined in the definitions section of Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories.
`See Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 3–5. Accordingly, without more, this objection should
`not stand.
`
`Lyft expects that AGIS’s “reasonable investigation” will yield non-privileged information
`responsive
`to
`this
`interrogatory, and
`therefore Lyft anticipates AGIS’s forthcoming
`supplementation of this response.
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` See Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 6 (stating that “‘identify’ means to provide a description of the event, the
`date of the event, the location of the event, and any participants in the event.”).
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 3
`
`- 4 -
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`Interrogatory No. 3 seeks an identification and description of “all facts that support or contradict
`Your contention that You are entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.” AGIS
`objects to this interrogatory for various reasons, including because it allegedly includes “multiple
`subparts.” See AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 11. Lyft
`respectfully disagrees. An identification of a fact necessarily includes a description of that fact.1
`Accordingly, this interrogatory properly propounds only a single request. To the extent AGIS
`intends to rely on any facts supporting its claim for costs and attorneys’ fees, they must be provided
`in response to this interrogatory.
`
`Interrogatory No. 4
`
`Interrogatory No. 4 seeks an identification and description of “all facts that support or contradict
`the earliest priority date You contend that each Asserted Claim is entitled to.” AGIS objects to
`this interrogatory for various reasons, including because it allegedly includes “multiple subparts.”
`See AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 12. Lyft respectfully
`disagrees. An identification of a fact necessarily includes a description of that fact.1 Accordingly,
`this interrogatory properly propounds only a single request.
`
`Interrogatory No. 5
`
`Interrogatory No. 5 seeks an identification and description of “all facts that support or contradict
`Your contention that each Asserted Patent is valid.” AGIS objects to this interrogatory for various
`reasons, including because it allegedly includes “multiple subparts,” and because the phrases “facts
`supporting or contradicting subject matter eligibility or definiteness,” and “all facts that support or
`contradict any secondary considerations of non- obviousness” are allegedly unclear, vague, and/or
`ambiguous. See AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 14.
`Lyft respectfully disagrees. Regarding AGIS’s “multiple subparts” objection, an identification of
`a fact necessarily includes a description of that fact.1 This interrogatory, therefore, properly
`propounds only a single request. Regarding AGIS’s clarity objections, AGIS fails to identify what
`about the complained-of phrases is unclear, vague, and/or ambiguous. Lyft submits that each of
`“subject matter eligibility,” “definiteness,” and “secondary considerations of non-obviousness” are
`terms of art that are readily understood by patent holders, as each relates to a patentability
`requirement.
`
`Additionally, AGIS’s substantive response to Lyft’s Interrogatory No. 5 is deficient at least
`because it provides mere conclusions without factual underpinning for each statement:
`
`“Each of the Patents-in-Suit is valid and non-obvious in view of the prior art. Both
`AGIS and Defendant, as well as others in the field including, but not limited to,
`defendants from prior litigations, have distributed and sold products meeting each
`of the limitations of the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents, and have been
`commercially successful in doing so. These products have also been commercially
`praised. In addition, before the conception of the inventions of the Asserted Patents,
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`
`there was a significant, long-felt, latent need for the inventions embodied in these
`products. Others failed to develop inventions that would fulfill this need.”
`
`Id. at 14–15. In support of its conclusory statements, AGIS only identifies ambiguous collections
`of documents: “AGIS directs Defendant to the publicly available file histories of the Patents-in-
`Suit” and “AGIS directs Defendant to its own financial documents and positive reviews of the
`Accused Products . . .” Id. at 15. Even if AGIS’s vague identification of the file histories were an
`appropriate response to this interrogatory (which Lyft asserts that it is not under F.R.C.P. 33(d)),
`the file histories do not address the patentability of the Asserted Claims in view of prior art not
`considered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For example, AGIS’s response to
`Interrogatory No. 5 altogether fails to contemplate the patentability of the Asserted Claims in view
`of each piece of prior art identified by accused infringers in previous litigation and/or
`communications. Additionally, AGIS fails to recite or otherwise identify any facts to support its
`statement that “defendants from prior litigations[] have distributed and sold products meeting each
`of the limitations of the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents, and have been commercially
`successful in doing so. These products have also been commercially praised.”
`
`To the extent AGIS intends to rely on any facts to defend against Lyft’s claim that the asserted
`patents are invalid, they must be provided in response to this interrogatory.
`
`Interrogatory No. 6
`
`Interrogatory No. 6 seeks an identification and description of “all actual or potential licensing of
`any Asserted Patent, Related Patent or product or service practicing at least one claim of an
`Asserted Patent or Related Patent.” AGIS objects to this interrogatory for various reasons,
`including because it allegedly includes “multiple subparts.” AGIS’s Objections and Responses to
`Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 16. Lyft respectfully disagrees. An identification of an event
`(e.g., actual or potential licensing) necessarily includes a description of that event.1 This
`interrogatory, therefore, properly propounds only a single request.
`
`Lyft confirms receipt of several documents produced by AGIS on August 6, 2021 production that
`include information responsive to Lyft’s Interrogatory No. 6 (i.e., those documents bearing Bates-
`labels AGISSOFTWARE_0007902 – AGISSOFTWARE_0007990). This production, however,
`appears to be incomplete as it does not include documents that Lyft expected to see. And, to the
`extent AGIS does not intend to rely exclusively on business records pursuant to F.R.C.P. 33(d) in
`answering Interrogatory No. 6, AGIS’s response to this interrogatory is incomplete. Specifically,
`Lyft understands that AGIS also has information regarding actual and potential licenses involving
`the LifeRing product, which AGIS contends practices at least one claim of an Asserted Patent and
`has not identified any information concerning a license with WhatsApp. See Plaintiff’s Disclosure
`of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions at § I(F); Advanced Ground Information Sys.,
`Inc. v. Life360, Inc., Case No. 14-80651, Day 1 Trial Tr. at 119:13 (recognizing, by named inventor
`Malcom K. Beyer, the existence of evidence that “the product” was licensed).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 7
`
`- 6 -
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`Interrogatory No. 7 seeks an identification and description of “all facts that support or contradict
`Your contention that AGIS has suffered damages as a result of Lyft’s alleged infringement.” AGIS
`objects to this interrogatory for various reasons, including because it (1) allegedly includes
`“multiple subparts,” (2) is allegedly “unclear, vague, and ambiguous” due to its inclusion of the
`phrase “Your methods of computation,” and (3) seeks information that is allegedly “not relevant
`to the parties’ claims or defenses” and is “not proportional to the needs of the case.” AGIS’s
`Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 18. Lyft respectfully disagrees.
`First, with respect to AGIS’s “multiple subparts” objection, an identification of a fact necessarily
`includes a description of that fact.1 This interrogatory, therefore, properly propounds only a single
`request.
`
`Second, regarding AGIS’s clarity objection, Interrogatory No. 7 does not include the complained-
`of phrase (i.e., “Your methods of computation”) and thus such objection is moot.
`
`Third, regarding AGIS’s relevance and proportionality objection, such objection cannot be
`sustained. AGIS directly put the issue of relief at-issue in this case, including damages, by
`pleading that AGIS has suffered damages as a result of Lyft’s alleged infringement. See AGIS
`Software Development LLC v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00024 (January 29, 2021), Dkt. 1
`(“Complaint”) at ¶¶ 36, 52, 67, 84, & 101. Thus, the information requested by Interrogatory No.
`10 is both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`In its original response, AGIS seemingly blames Lyft for its deficient response to Interrogatory
`No. 7. See Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC’s First Supplemental Objections and
`Responses to Defendant Lyft, Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-12) to Plaintiff (“AGIS’s
`First Supplemental Objections and Responses”) at 39-40 (“Defendant has not yet provided
`interrogatory responses or a complete document production related to damages”). This criticism,
`however, is not well taken as Lyft has indeed provided a fulsome response to the only interrogatory
`that AGIS cites to in support of this accusation (i.e., AGIS’s Interrogatory No. 3).2 AGIS’s
`supplemental response again reiterates that Lyft’s allegedly deficient discovery responses have
`“hampered and continue to hamper [AGIS’s] ability to obtain discovery relevant to damages. Id.
`at 40-41. This time, however, AGIS accuses Lyft of “not providing discovery on the full scope of
`the T-Mobile Accused Products.” Id. at 40. As this response appears to confuse the allegations
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
` AGIS’s correspondence dated September 22, 2021 (“Rubino Letter dated 9/22/21”) does not alter Lyft’s position
`that it has provided a fulsome response to AGIS’s Interrogatory No. 3. Specifically, in the Rubino Letter dated
`9/22/21, AGIS complains that Lyft’s response to Interrogatory No. 3 is deficient because the documents cited pursuant
`to Fed. R. Civ. P 33(d) allegedly do not “address the full scope of this Interrogatory because they do not provide an
`average cost per unit and do not address from 2019 to present.” Rubino Letter dated 9/22/21 at 2. First, as made clear
`by Lyft’s objection to the “average cost per unit” phrase recited in Interrogatory No. 3, Lyft does not understand what
`information is sought by AGIS in its use of this phrase. Second, Lyft has provided financial information from 2019
`through 2021, and will supplement its response to include through current. See LYFT-AGIS_0000270; LYFT-
`AGIS_0000797; LYFT-AGIS_0000444; LYFT-AGIS_0000113; LYFT-AGIS_0000934; LYFT-AGIS_0000193;
`LYFT-AGIS_0000003; LYFT-AGIS_0000564; LYFT-AGIS_0000660.
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`against the various defendants consolidated in the above case, Lyft does not understand this portion
`of AGIS’s response to apply to Lyft.
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`- 7 -
`
`Interrogatory No. 8
`
`Interrogatory No. 8 seeks an identification and description of “when the [invention claimed in each
`Asserted Claim], in whole or in part, was publicly disclosed, demonstrated, used, sold, given away,
`or offered for sale.” AGIS objects to this interrogatory for various reasons, including because it
`allegedly includes “multiple subparts.” AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of
`Interrogatories, at 21. Lyft respectfully disagrees. An identification of an event necessarily
`includes a description of that event.1 This interrogatory, therefore, properly propounds only a
`single request.
`
`In its supplemental response dated September 19, 2021, AGIS incorporates its response to
`Interrogatory No. 4. As an initial matter, the narrative portion of AGIS’s response to Interrogatory
`No. 4 does not appear to provide responsive information to Interrogatory No. 8. In particular,
`AGIS’s narrative response to Interrogatory No. 4 does not provide an identification or description
`of when the invention claimed in each Asserted Claim was publicly disclosed, demonstrated, used,
`sold, given away, or offered for sale. See AGIS’ First Supplemental Objections and Responses at
`13-24. Additionally, to the extent AGIS contends that responsive information is contained in one
`or more of the documents cited by AGIS in its response to Interrogatory No. 4, Lyft submits that
`such response is an improper 33(d) response as AGIS has failed to provide the necessary specificity
`for Lyft to locate answer(s) to this interrogatory from among the numerous documents cited in
`AGIS’s response.3 Lyft expects AGIS will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 8 to
`remedy these deficiencies.
`
`Interrogatory No. 9
`
`Interrogatory No. 9 seeks an identification and description of all “investigative activities performed
`by You in preparation for or in furtherance of this lawsuit.” AGIS objects to this interrogatory for
`various reasons, including because it allegedly includes “multiple subparts.” AGIS’s Objections
`and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 22. Lyft respectfully disagrees. An
`identification of an event (e.g., an investigative activity) necessarily includes a description of that
`event.1 This interrogatory, therefore, properly propounds only a single request.
`
`At the very least, AGIS learned about the accused Lyft products at some time prior to preparation
`of the lawsuit, and an explanation of that timeline, and when AGIS first learned about Lyft’s
`application, is expected in response to this interrogatory.
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
` See Fed. R. Civ. P. § 33(d) (stating “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 . . . 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 . . .” (emphasis added)).
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 10
`
`- 8 -
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`Interrogatory No. 10 seeks an identification and description of “all facts that support or contradict
`Your claim for injunctive relief.” AGIS objects to this interrogatory for various reasons, including
`because it seeks information that is allegedly is “not relevant to the parties’ claims or defenses”
`and is “not proportional to the needs of the case.” AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s
`First Set of Interrogatories, at 24. Lyft respectfully disagrees. Such objection cannot be sustained.
`AGIS directly put the issue of relief at-issue in this case, including injunctive relief, by pleading
`that Lyft’s alleged infringement should be enjoined by the Court. See AGIS Software Development
`LLC v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00024 (January 29, 2021), Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”) at ¶¶ 37, 53,
`68, 85, & 102. Thus, the information requested by Interrogatory No. 10 is both relevant and
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`To the extent AGIS intends to rely on any facts to support its claim for injunctive relief, they must
`be provided in response to this interrogatory.
`
`Interrogatory No. 11
`
`Interrogatory No. 11 seeks a description of “Your efforts for preserving, retaining, and disposing
`of Documents and things . . . since the first lawsuit alleging infringement of an Asserted Patent or
`Related Patent.” AGIS objects to this interrogatory for various reasons, including because it
`allegedly includes “multiple subparts.” AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of
`Interrogatories, at 26. Lyft respectfully disagrees. This interrogatory is generally directed to
`AGIS’s document preservation procedures (or lack thereof). By virtue of its definition,
`preservation encompasses retention and does not contemplate disposal. In other words, the
`disposal of Documents and things would cut against AGIS’s efforts for preserving and retaining
`those same items. This request, therefore, properly propounds only a single request.
`
`To the extent AGIS intends to rely on any facts to show that it did not spoliate evidence relevant
`to this lawsuit, they must be provided in response to this interrogatory.
`
`Interrogatory No. 12
`
`Interrogatory No. 12 seeks an identification and description of “the reasons for and circumstances
`surrounding the formation of AGIS Software Development LLC.” Although AGIS includes other
`details in its response, the only responsive portion of AGIS’s response is: “AGIS was organized
`after a corporate restructuring plan that begin in 2013.”4 AGIS’s Objections and Responses to
`Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories, at 29. Notably, this response does not include an identification
`or description of the reasons for AGIS’s formation; at most, this response identifies—without
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
` In its response to Lyft’s Interrogatory No. 12, AGIS also states that “AGIS identifies Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr. as a
`person having knowledge responsive to this Interrogatory.” Lyft respectfully requests that AGIS provide a fulsome,
`narrative response to this interrogatory rather than needlessly drawing out the discovery process and Lyft’s access to
`this information.
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`providing any description—a “corporate restructuring plan” as the circumstances surrounding the
`formation.
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`- 9 -
`
`To the extent AGIS intends to rely on any facts, evidence, or employees related to AGIS, Inc. to
`support its case, an explanation of AGIS’s corporate structure and why it exists must be provided.
`The deficiencies identified herein do not comprise an exhaustive list and are merely meant to
`illustrate that AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Lyft’s First Set of Interrogatories are replete
`with groundless objections and deficient responses. Lyft hereby requests that AGIS provide
`supplementation to each and every one of Lyft’s interrogatories. Please confirm that AGIS will
`supplement its responses by October 8, 2021, or provide Your availability for a lead and local
`meet-and-confer pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h).
`
`
`II. Lyft’s Responses to AGIS’s First Set of Interrogatories
`
`On August 6, 2021, Lyft responded to AGIS’s initial letter raising concerns about Lyft
`discovery responses, asking AGIS to provide clarity on what it believes is missing from Lyft’s
`discovery responses. AGIS’s September 22, 2021 letter similarly lacks clarity on what AGIS
`believes to be deficient in Lyft’s discovery responses and fails to address the questions and
`concerns raised by Lyft in its August 6 response. See B. Salpietra 08/06/21 Letter to V. Rubino.
`To the extent AGIS seeks a different response from Lyft regarding Lyft’s responses, please address
`the various concerns raised in Lyft’s responsive letter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lyft
`reiterates and provides the following responses to each of AGIS’s complaints (as best Lyft
`understands them).
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`To date, AGIS has only properly accused Lyft’s iOS products of infringement. Lyft’s response to
`Interrogatory No. 1—which addresses Lyft’s iOS products—is therefore sufficient in view of
`Lyft’s present understanding of this case. Should AGIS be permitted to amend its contentions to
`include evidence accusing any additional products, Lyft will supplement its response to
`Interrogatory No. 1. To the extent AGIS’s concerns regarding Lyft’s response to Interrogatory
`No. 1 extend beyond the accused products at issue in this case, please specifically identify those
`in writing so that Lyft may consider them.
`
`Regarding Your accusation that Lyft has not produced operative specification documents or
`technical documents for the accused products, such statement is incorrect. As You know, Lyft’s
`source code has been available for inspection for many months, and such code shows the operation
`of all the accused functionality.
`
`Finally, as stated in both Lyft’s objections to AGIS’s First Set of Interrogatories and my August
`6, 2021 letter, AGIS’s Interrogatory No. 1 includes nine separate information requests. Lyft will
`be treating each of these separate requests as its own interrogatory unless AGIS informs Lyft that
`it will be withdrawing any of the embedded requests.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-6 Filed 04/15/22 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 2
`
`- 10 -
`
`October 5, 2021
`
`Your letter fails to specifically identify any alleged deficiency in 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
`
`Lyft understands that AGIS’s concerns regarding Lyft’s responses to AGIS’s Interrogatory No. 3
`to be that Lyft has not provided an “average cost per unit” and do not “address from 2019 through
`the present.”5 As discussed above in reference to Lyft’s Interrogatory No. 7, Lyft does not
`understand what information AGIS seeks in its use of the “average cost per unit” phrase. Lyft
`makes its Lyft and Lyft Driver apps available for download for free, and thus any “cost per unit”
`would be $0. To the extent AGIS intended this phrase to be interpreted differently, please explain
`such interpretation to Lyft and Lyft will consider whether any supplementation of its response is
`needed.
`
`Furthermore, contrary to that asserted by AGIS, Lyft has produced documents from 2019 through
`2021. See LYFT-AGIS_0000270; LYFT-AGIS_0000797; LYFT-AGIS_0000444; LYFT-
`AGIS_0000113; LYFT-AGIS_0000934; LYFT-AGIS_0000193; LYFT-AGIS_0000003; LYFT-
`AGIS_0000564; LYFT-AGIS_0000660. Lyft will supplement its response to include information
`through the present.
`
`Interrogatory No. 4
`
`Lyft confirms that it has produced agreements that include information responsive to Interrogatory
`No. 4. Lyft will supplement its response to identify those agreements.
`
`Interrogatory No. 7
`
`As Lyft has previously represented to AGIS in its response to Interrogatory No. 7 and confirmed
`by letter, Lyft will—subject to its stated objections—supplement its response to Interrogatory No.
`7 if and when any additional factual information is discovered. See Lyft, Inc.’s Objections and
`Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Lyft, Inc. (Nos. 1-9), at 40-42; See B.
`Salpietra 08/06/21 Letter to V. Rubino, at 3.
`
`Interrogatory Nos. 8 & 9
`
`Lyft is currently in the process of conf