Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 26
`Case 4:18-cv-07229—YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 26
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 26
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (SBN 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (SBN 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1550
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2901
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`RYAN R. SMITH (SBN 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`CHRISTOPHER D. MAYS (SBN 266510)
`cmays@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`DEFENDANT QUALYS INC.’S
`SECOND AMENDED AND
`SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF
`FINJAN, INC.’S NOTICE OF
`DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE
`OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6)
`
`)))))))))))
`
`FINJAN, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`QUALYS INC., a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Qualys, Inc.
`(“Qualys”) hereby provides a second amended and supplemental responses and objections to
`Plaintiff Finjan, Inc.’s (“Finjan”) Notice of Deposition of Qualys pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
`30(b)(6), dated August 23, 2019, as follows:
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`Qualys makes the following General Objections whether or not separately set forth in
`response to each Topic for Examination by Finjan:
`1.
`Qualys objects to the date, time, and location for the deposition unilaterally set by
`Finjan in the Notice. To the extent that Qualys makes a witness available for deposition, it will do
`so at a location near the witness’s residence and/or place of work at a date and time convenient for
`that witness. Qualys will meet and confer regarding a date, time, and location that is agreeable to
`both parties for each witness made available for deposition.
`2.
`Qualys objects to the Notice’s statement that the deposition “will continue from day
`to day (excluding weekends and holidays) until completed” on the grounds that it exceeds the limits
`set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`3.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent it calls upon Qualys to testify
`regarding dealings or communications between Qualys and any other third party that are beyond the
`scope of the specific claims and defenses in this lawsuit, and is thus overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`and/or irrelevant.
`4.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent it seeks to impose any requirement
`on Qualys other than those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of
`the Court.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it calls upon Qualys to testify
`5.
`regarding any information that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the
`attorney work produce doctrine, the common interest privilege, or any other applicable immunity,
`privilege, protection or rule of confidentiality that makes information non-discoverable. Nothing
`contained in these objections and responses is intended to be, nor should be considered, a waiver of
`any of the aforementioned privileges or any other applicable privilege or doctrine. Furthermore, any
`-1-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 4 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`inadvertent disclosure of such information shall not be deemed a waiver of the applicable immunity,
`privilege, protection or rule of confidentiality.
`6.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent it is overly broad, unduly
`burdensome, and posed for improper purposes, including, without limitation, embarrassment, undue
`annoyance, harassment, oppression, delay, or to increase the expense of litigation or to the extent it
`calls for a legal conclusion or opinion.
`7.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it seeks information not in the
`possession, custody, or control of Qualys, or would subject Qualys to unreasonable and undue
`burden and expense, or would seek to impose upon Qualys an obligation to investigate or discover
`information or materials from third parties or sources that are equally accessible to Finjan.
`8.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it seeks information that
`reflects or discloses confidential, personal, proprietary, competitively sensitive, and/or trade secret
`information of Qualys or another individual or entity, and/or which is otherwise protected by
`constitutional, statutory, and/or common law and/or privacy rights. Qualys will provide such
`information only pursuant to the terms of the protective order entered by the Court in this action.
`9.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it is vague, indefinite, and/or
`ambiguous. By indicating that it will produce a witness capable of testifying on a deposition topic,
`Qualys is indicating that it will produce a witness to testify to the extent Qualys understands the
`deposition topic and to the extent that Qualys has information responsive to the deposition topic that
`can be located after reasonable efforts.
`10.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that more efficient and appropriate
`means to provide the requested information exist in the form of documents and/or interrogatory
`responses.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it seeks information related to
`11.
`products and features other than those expressly identified by Finjan as accused products in this
`lawsuit.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous,
`12.
`indefinite, duplicative, cumulative, unintelligible, or otherwise unclear as to the information it seeks.
`-2-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 5 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it seeks opinion or expert
`13.
`testimony. By indicating it does not have knowledge on a topic or by providing a witness to testify,
`Qualys is not precluded from providing full expert testimony at the times designated by the Court.
`14.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it seeks to depose Qualys on
`the contents of certain documents, the contents of which speak for themselves.
`15.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of
`information that is neither relevant to any party’s claim or defense nor proportional to the needs of
`the case. For example, to the extent that any topic calls for information regarding Qualys’ activities,
`sales, and/or customers outside of the U.S., such testimony is irrelevant. Qualys will limit its
`designation to activities, sales, and/or customers within the U.S.
`16.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to
`the extent that more than one topic seeks the same information, or to the extent that Finjan’s non-
`deposition discovery efforts seek the same information.
`17.
`Qualys objects to each separate topic to the extent that it relates to facts, events, or
`activities outside of the United States.
`18.
`Qualys objects to the definition of “document” to the extent it calls upon Qualys to
`testify regarding any information that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege,
`the attorney work product doctrine, the common interest privilege, or any other applicable
`immunity, privilege, protection, or rule of confidentiality that makes information non-discoverable.
`19.
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of “Plaintiff” or “Finjan” as overly broad and
`unduly burdensome. For purposes of these topics for examination, reference to “Plaintiff” or
`“Finjan” shall refer to Plaintiff Finjan, Inc. only.
`20.
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of “Defendant,” “You,” “Your,” or “Qualys” as
`overly broad and unduly burdensome. For purposes of these topics for examination, reference to
`“Defendant,” “You,” “Your,” or “Qualys” shall refer to Defendant Qualys, Inc. only.
`21.
`Qualys objects to Finjan’s definition of the “Accused Instrumentalities” overly broad
`and unduly burdensome. For purposes of these topics for examination, reference to the “accused
`instrumentalities” shall refer to the Qualys products and services Finjan has specifically accused of
`-3-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 6 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`infringement identified in Finjan’s Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions served on April 19, 2019.
`22.
`Qualys objects to the definition of “relate to,” “reflecting,” “relating to,” and
`“concerning” or “any variations thereof” and all topics for examination incorporating these terms,
`as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, requiring subjective judgment on the part of
`Qualys and/or its attorneys, and calling for conclusions or opinions of counsel in violation of the
`attorney work product doctrine.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO TOPICS FOR EXAMINATION
`Subject to and without waiving or limiting the foregoing General Objections, and
`incorporating them into each and every response to the extent applicable, Qualys responds as
`follows to the Topics for Examination:
`TOPIC NO. 1:
`The functionality and features of the following Accused Instrumentalities
`a.
`Malware Detection (MD, MDS, Malware Detection Services).
`b.
`Web Application Scanning (WAS).
`c.
`Web Application Firewall (WAF).
`d.
`Secure Seal.
`e.
`Vulnerability Management (VM).
`f.
`Threat Protection (ThreatPROTECT, TP).
`g.
`Continuous Monitoring (CM).
`h.
`Indicators of Compromise (IOC).
`i.
`Policy Compliance (PC).
`j.
`Cloud Agent.
`k.
`Container Security (CS).
`l.
`Qualys Scanner Appliance and Virtual Appliance.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-4-
`
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 7 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it is overly broad and unduly
`burdensome; for example, the topic requests information regarding “the functionalities and
`features of the following Accused Instrumentalities.” Qualys objects to this phrase as vague and
`ambiguous – Qualys understands this Topic to refer to the overall features and functions of the
`identified products, and not algorithm- or code-level functions. Additionally, Qualys also objects
`to this topic to the extent is seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue
`in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qualys
`further objects to this topic on the ground that it seeks information that is unreasonably duplicative
`and cumulative of that sought by Finjan through other means of discovery.
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Holger Krause to testify on the accused functionalities of the accused products
`identified in Finjan’s Infringement Contentions with respect to the aspects of items (e) and (i)
`pertaining to VM (scanner engine) and Dilip Bachwani as to other aspects of this topic at a
`mutually agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 2:
`The interoperation and collaboration between the different Accused Instrumentalities and
`any shared or common portions of source code between the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 2:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly
`burdensome and seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case
`and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`Additionally, Qualys objects to this topic on the ground that the phrase “interoperation and
`collaboration” is vague and ambiguous; Qualys understands this Topic to refer to instances where
`one accused instrumentality communicates and collaborates with another accused instrumentality.
`Qualys also objects that the phrase “shared or common portions of source code” is vague and
`ambiguous; Qualys understands this Topic to refer to specific portions of source code that belong
`-5-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 8 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`to more than one accused instrumentality. This topic therefore fails to describe the matters for
`examination with reasonable particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Dilip Bachwani to testify regarding whether any of the Accused
`Instrumentalities share, or otherwise rely upon, a common code base at a mutually agreeable time
`and place.
`TOPIC NO. 3:
`The use of any Accused Instrumentalities with Knowledgebase, Qualys’ research labs or
`Qualys’ secure operations centers.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 3:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it is overly broad and unduly
`burdensome. Qualys also objects to this topic to the extent is seeks information that is irrelevant
`to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
`of admissible evidence. Qualys further objects to this topic on the ground that it is vague and
`ambiguous, as the phrase “use of any Accused Instrumentalities with Knowledgebase, Qualys’
`research labs or Qualys’ secure operations centers” lacks sufficient clarity. This topic therefore
`fails to describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity as required by Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 30(b)(6).
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Dilip Bachwani to testify on this topic at a mutually agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 4:
`The differences in functionality or features between different versions of each of the
`Accused Instrumentalities and any substantive changes made or anticipated to be made to the
`functionality of the Accused Instrumentalities after the filing of the complaint.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 4:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly
`-6-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 9 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`burdensome; for example, the topic requests information regarding “the differences in
`functionality or features between different versions of each of the Accused Instrumentalities.”
`Qualys also objects to this topic to the extent it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims
`and defenses at issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`admissible evidence. For example, Qualys objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks testimony
`about changes “anticipated to be made” but that have not been made as being irrelevant to the
`parties’ claims and defenses, and will not designate a witness on this portion of the Topic.
`Additionally, Qualys objects to this topic on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous; for
`example, the terms “anticipated,” “substantive,” and “features” lacks sufficient clarity. This topic
`therefore fails to describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity as required by
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Mr. Krause to testify only as to the differences in functionality or features
`between different versions of each of the Accused Instrumentalities already implemented in
`released versions of Qualys’ products with respect to ML versions of VM, PC, and Qualys Scanner
`Appliance and Virtual Appliance and designates Mr. Bachwani as to other aspects of this topic at
`a mutually agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 5:
`The manner in which Defendant organizes its source code for each of the Accused
`Instrumentalities, including the identities and organization of the components or modules of source
`code of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 5:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it is overbroad and unduly
`burdensome and seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case
`and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous; for example, the phrase
`“manner in which Defendant organizes its source code” lacks sufficient clarity. Qualys
`-7-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 10 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`understands this Topic to refer to the organization of overall source code files and modules, and
`not the organization of specific algorithms or functions within individual source code files. This
`topic therefore fails to describe the matters for examination with reasonable particularity as
`required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Mr. Krause to testify with respect to ML versions of VM, PC, and Qualys
`Scanner Appliance and Virtual Appliance and designates Mr. Bachwani as to other aspects of this
`topic at a mutually agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 6:
`Identification of the geographic location(s) where Defendant produces, manufactures, tests,
`uses, administers, controls, or installs the Accused Instrumentalities.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 6:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it is overly broad and unduly
`burdensome. Additionally, Qualys also objects to this topic to the extent is seeks information that
`is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead
`to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qualys further objects to this topic on the ground that it
`seeks information that is unreasonably duplicative and cumulative of that sought by Finjan through
`other means of discovery.
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Dilip Bachwani to testify on this topic at a mutually agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 7:
`The location of the Servers that host the software that Defendant’s customers download for
`the Accused Instrumentalities that are sold to customers located (a) inside the United States and
`(b) outside of the United States.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 7:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it is overly broad and unduly
`-8-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 11 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`burdensome. Additionally, Qualys also objects to this topic to the extent is seeks information that
`is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead
`to the discovery of admissible evidence; for example, it seeks information regarding servers that
`sell the accused products “outside of the United States.” Qualys will not designate a witness to
`testify regarding servers located outside the United States that host software for customers also
`located outside the United States. Qualys further objects to this topic on the ground that it seeks
`information that is unreasonably duplicative and cumulative of that sought by Finjan through other
`means of discovery.
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Dilip Bachwani to testify on part (a) of this topic at a mutually agreeable time
`and place.
`TOPIC NO. 8:
`Communications between Defendant and third parties regarding Finjan, Finjan's patents,
`Finjan's products, and/or Finjan's technology, including any contracts, discussions, or agreements
`related to third party indemnification for claims of infringement of Finjan patents.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 8:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information protected
`from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, common interest (joint
`defense) privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Qualys also objects
`to this topic to the extent it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is
`irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to
`the discovery of admissible evidence. Qualys objects to designating a witness on the topic of any
`and all communications between itself and third parties regarding Finjan, Finjan’s patents, Finjan’s
`products, and/or Finjan’s technology, as this topic is overbroad and seeks irrelevant information.
`Qualys will designate a witness only on the topic of communications related to third party
`indemnification. Additionally, Qualys objects to this topic to the extent that it seems information
`not in Qualys’s possession, custody, or control. Qualys further objects to this topic on the ground
`-9-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 12 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`that it seeks information that is unreasonably duplicative and cumulative of that sought by Plaintiff
`through other means of discovery.
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Bruce Posey to testify on non-privileged aspects of this topic at a mutually
`agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 9:
`The dates and circumstances of Qualys' first knowledge or first awareness of Finjan,
`Finjan's products, and Finjan's patents, including any diligence, meetings, analysis, documents,
`communications, or investigation You participated in regarding licensing the Asserted Patents, and
`which Finjan patents or products it was aware of on which dates.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 9:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information protected
`from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, common interest (joint
`defense) privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Qualys also objects
`to this topic to the extent it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks information that is
`irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to
`the discovery of admissible evidence. Qualys further objects to this topic on the ground that it
`seeks information that is unreasonably duplicative and cumulative of that sought by Plaintiff
`through other means of discovery. Qualys further objects to the extent this Topic seeks information
`protected by one or more applicable privileges.
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Bruce Posey to testify on non-privileged aspects of this topic at a mutually
`agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 10:
`The actions, if any, that Qualys took based on Qualys' knowledge or awareness of Finjan,
`Finjan's products, and Finjan's patents, including with respect to any diligence, meetings, analysis,
`documents, communications, or investigation related to acquisitions of other companies, and the
`-10-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 13 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`nature of any alleged non-infringing alternatives or design-arounds to the inventions of the
`Asserted Patents, including the cost of implementing such alternatives or design-arounds and how
`such costs were calculated.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 10:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information protected
`from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, common interest (joint-
`defense) privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Qualys also objects
`to this topic to the extent that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at
`issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`Qualys further objects to this topic on the ground that it prematurely requests information that is
`subject to expert discovery. Qualys further objects to this topic on the ground that it seeks
`information that is unreasonably duplicative and cumulative of that sought by Finjan through other
`means of discovery. Additionally, Qualys objects to this topic on the ground that it is vague and
`ambiguous.
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Bruce Posey to testify on non-privileged aspects of this topic at a mutually
`agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 11:
`For each of the Asserted Patents, the factual basis for Defendant's allegations of non-
`infringement of the patent, the factual basis for Defendant's allegations of invalidity of the patent,
`and the factual basis for any affirmative defense Defendant asserts with respect to the patent.
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 11:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information protected
`from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, common interest (joint
`defense) privilege, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection. Qualys also objects
`to this topic to the extent that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at
`-11-
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 14 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`issue in this case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`Qualys objects to this topic on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Qualys
`further objects to this topic on the ground that it prematurely requests information that is subject
`to expert discovery. Additionally, Qualys objects to this topic on the ground that it is vague and
`ambiguous. This topic therefore fails to describe the matters for examination with reasonable
`particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Qualys further objects that this Topic
`effectively seeks opinion testimony that is improper from a fact witness.
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys will provide a witness regarding the design and operation of the accused products as well
`as the design and operation of Qualys’s prior art Vulnerability Management product at a mutually
`agreeable time and place. See Response to Topic No. 1 for designations.
`TOPIC NO. 12:
`Product manuals, guides, seminars, consulting, or training provided to Defendant's
`customers regarding how to install, administer, and operate the Accused Instrumentalities
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 12:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome; for example,
`the topic requests information without any temporal limitation. Qualys also objects to this topic
`to the extent that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this
`case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qualys further
`objects to this topic on the ground that it seeks information that is unreasonably duplicative and
`cumulative of that sought by Plaintiff through other means of discovery.
`Subject to and without waiver of the General Objections and the objections listed above,
`Qualys designates Dilip Bachwani to testify on this topic at a mutually agreeable time and place.
`TOPIC NO. 13:
`Maintenance, support, instructions, and consulting services provided by Defendant to its
`customers relating to the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`-12-
`
`SECOND OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`TO FINJAN’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`PURUSANT TO FRCP 30(b)(6)
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 114-8 Filed 10/01/20 Page 15 of 26
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 13:
`In addition to the foregoing General Objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`Qualys objects to this topic on the ground that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome; for example,
`the topic requests information without any temporal limitation. Qualys also objects to this topic
`to the extent that it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this
`case and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Qualys further
`objects to this topic on the ground that it seeks information that is unreasonably duplicative and
`cumulativ