Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 62 PageID #: 1993
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 62 Page|D #: 1993
`
`
`
`DX10
`
`DX10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 62 PageID #: 1994
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 62 Page|D #: 1994
`
`
`EXHIBIT REDACTED
`IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`EXHIBIT REDACTED
`
`IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 62 PageID #: 1995
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 62 Page|D #: 1995
`
`
`
`DX11
`
`DX11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 62 PageID #: 1996
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 62 Page|D #: 1996
`
`
`EXHIBIT REDACTED
`IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`EXHIBIT REDACTED
`
`IN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 5 of 62 PageID #: 1997
`Case 1:15—cv—OO311—RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 5 of 62 Page|D #: 1997
`
`
`
`DX12
`
`DX12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 6 of 62 PageID #: 1998
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 15-228 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 15-282 (RGA)
`
`C.A. No. 15-311 (RGA)
`
`)))))))))
`
`))))))))) )))))))))))
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
`INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC. and
`2K SPORTS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY LLC’S CORRECTED OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ELECTRONIC
`ARTS INC., TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., ROCKSTAR GAMES,
`INC. AND 2K SPORTS, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC (“Acceleration Bay” or “Plaintiff”) hereby responds to
`
`the First Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”) of Defendants Activision Blizzard, Inc.,
`
`(cid:3)
`
`1(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 7 of 62 PageID #: 1999
`
`Electronic Arts Inc., Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Rockstar Games, Inc. and 2K Sports,
`
`Inc. (the “Defendants”) as follows:
`
`RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Discovery in this action is continuing and Plaintiff may learn of additional facts
`
`pertaining to the Interrogatories. Therefore, Plaintiff reserves the right to change, amend, or
`
`supplement its objections and responses at a later date. If further evidence is obtained which is
`
`not protected from discovery, Plaintiff reserves the right to present such evidence at the time of
`
`trial.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s responses are made solely for purposes of this action, and not for
`
`purposes of any other action. These responses are subject to all objections as to competence,
`
`relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility, and any and all other objections and grounds that
`
`would require the exclusion of evidence disclosed herein if the evidence were produced and
`
`sought to be introduced into evidence in Court; all of which objections and grounds are
`
`specifically reserved, and may be interposed at the time of trial or other attempt to use one or
`
`more of these responses.
`
`3.
`
`The following General Objections apply to each and every separately numbered
`
`Interrogatory and are incorporated by reference into each and every specific response as if set
`
`forth in full in each response. From time to time a specific response may repeat a General
`
`Objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to repeat any General Objection in any
`
`specific response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any General Objection to that response.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that the Interrogatory attempts
`
`or purports to call for the production of any information or documentation that is privileged, that
`
`was prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, that reveals communications between
`
`(cid:3)
`
`2(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 8 of 62 PageID #: 2000
`
`Plaintiff and its legal counsel, that otherwise constitutes attorney work product, privileged
`
`attorney-client communication, or that is otherwise privileged or immune from discovery.
`
`Inadvertent disclosure of any such information or documentation is not intended to and shall not
`
`constitute a waiver of any privilege or any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to
`
`such information, or with respect to the subject matter thereof. Nor shall such inadvertent
`
`production or disclosure waive the right of Plaintiff to object to the use of any such information
`
`during this action or in any other subsequent proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`protected by the right of privacy, including the right of privacy afforded to Plaintiff’s customers.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definitions and instructions to the extent they are
`
`beyond the scope of the Federal Rules, the Local Rules, and the Orders of this Court.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ Interrogatories to the extent they are overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, or not relevant or likely to lead to any relevant evidence as to any party's
`
`claims, counterclaims, or defenses or the subject matter involved in the action.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to require
`
`Plaintiff to provide documentation other than that which may be obtained through a reasonably
`
`diligent search of Plaintiff's corporate records.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each of the Interrogatories to the extent it does not describe the
`
`information sought with sufficient particularity and/or is vague, ambiguous, or unlimited in
`
`scope.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each of the Interrogatories to the extent they seek disclosure of
`
`information that is already in Defendants’ possession, custody or control, is duplicative of
`
`discovery already propounded, and is available to Defendants from some other source that is
`
`(cid:3)
`
`3(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 9 of 62 PageID #: 2001
`
`more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive, or is available to Defendants from public
`
`sources.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each of the Interrogatories to the extent they call for legal
`
`conclusions and/or seek to elicit testimony from fact witnesses which is properly obtained during
`
`expert discovery.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the definition of “Defendants” in the Interrogatories to the
`
`extent it is overbroad and burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Defendants have not identified specifically what other parties can be
`
`considered to be part of “Defendants.”
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the Definitions of “Acceleration Bay,” “Plaintiff,” “You,” or
`
`“your” to the extent that the definitions are overbroad and burdensome and not reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff will construe the terms
`
`“Acceleration Bay,” “Plaintiff,” “You,” or “Your” wherever used to refer to Acceleration Bay
`
`LLC only.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the definition of “Prior Art” to the extent it is overly broad,
`
`burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`Plaintiff further objects to this definition of “Prior Art” to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion
`
`and/or expert opinion.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the definition of “infringe,” “infringes,” “infringed” and
`
`“infringement” to the extent it exceeds the scope of claims of infringement brought by Plaintiff
`
`in this case. Plaintiff further objects to this definition to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion
`
`and/or expert opinion.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`4(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 10 of 62 PageID #: 2002
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the definitions of “Relating to,” “related to,” “concerning,”
`
`“Thing,” “things,” “Person," “persons,” “Entity,” “entities,” “Documents,” “Communications,”
`
`or “communicated” to the extent they are vague and ambiguous, overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome, and purport to place obligations on Plaintiff greater than allowed for under, broader
`
`than, or inconsistent with, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are compound and are
`
`comprised of multiple discrete subparts. Plaintiff will count each subpart as a separate
`
`Interrogatory pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a). Plaintiff will not respond to
`
`Interrogatories in excess of the allotted number of Interrogatories established in the Court’s
`
`scheduling order.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`5(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 11 of 62 PageID #: 2003
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`
`
`Describe in detail the circumstances surrounding the conception and reduction to
`
`practice of the alleged invention of each asserted claim of the Asserted Patents, including by
`
`providing the names of all persons involved, by providing the dates for each conception and
`
`reduction to practice, and by identifying with specificity all documents describing each
`
`alleged conception and reduction to practice, the priority date to which you allege the claim
`
`is entitled, and the persons most knowledgeable about the above.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion and/or expert
`
`opinion. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of documents and
`
`information subject to the scheduling order in this action. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it is vague and ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by
`
`“circumstance” and “involved.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information that is not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff objects to the extent
`
`this Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, common interest
`
`doctrine, work product doctrine, or seeks information protected by any other applicable privilege
`
`or protection. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, business,
`
`financial, proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of third parties, which may be
`
`subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements or in which any third
`
`party has an expectation of privacy. Plaintiff will not produce such confidential information
`
`absent consent from the third party and/or court order.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`6(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 12 of 62 PageID #: 2004
`
`
`
`
`
`Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`
`The date of conception for certain claims or aspects of claims of Patent Number
`
`6,701,344 is no later than July 31, 2000. The date of reduction to practice of Patent Number
`
`6,701,344 is no later than July 31, 2000. Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa were involved
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to, the conception and reduction to practice of the Patent
`
`Number 6,701,344.
`
`
`
` The date of conception for certain claims or aspects of claims of Patent Number
`
`6,714,966 is no later than July 31, 2000. The date of reduction to practice of Patent Number
`
`6,714,966 is no later than July 31, 2000. Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa were involved
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to, the conception and reduction to practice of the Patent
`
`Number 6,714,966.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for certain claims or aspects of claims of Patent Number
`
`6,732,147 is no later than July 31, 2000. The date of reduction to practice of Patent Number
`
`6,732,147 is no later than July 31, 2000. Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa were involved
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to, the conception and reduction to practice of the Patent
`
`Number 6,732,147.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for certain claims or aspects of claims of Patent Number
`
`6,829,634 is no later than July 31, 2000. The date of reduction to practice of Patent Number
`
`6,829,634 is no later than July 31, 2000. Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa were involved
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to, the conception and reduction to practice of the Patent
`
`Number 6,829,634.
`
`
`
`The date of conception for certain claims or aspects of claims of Patent Number
`
`6,910,069 is no later than July 31, 2000. The date of reduction to practice of Patent Number
`
`(cid:3)
`
`7(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 13 of 62 PageID #: 2005
`
`6,910,069 is no later than July 31, 2000. Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa were involved
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to, the conception and reduction to practice of the Patent
`
`Number 6,910,069.
`
`The date of conception for certain claims or aspects of claims of Patent Number
`
`6,920,497 is no later than July 31, 2000. The date of reduction to practice of Patent Number
`
`6,920,497 is no later than July 31, 2000. Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa were involved
`
`with, and may have knowledge related to, the conception and reduction to practice of the Patent
`
`Number 6,920,497.
`
`The date of conception for certain claims or aspects of claims of Patent Number
`
`7,412,537 is no later than December 11, 2003. The date of reduction to practice of Patent
`
`Number 7,412,537 is no later than December 11, 2003. Fred B. Holt and Virgil E. Bourassa
`
`were involved with, and may have knowledge related to, the conception and reduction to practice
`
`of the Patent Number 7,412,537.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff will provide further disclosures related to the subject matter of this Interrogatory
`
`pursuant to the schedule in this action. To the extent that they exist, Plaintiff will produce
`
`responsive, relevant, and non-privileged documents in its possession, custody, or control, from
`
`which further information responsive to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained
`
`pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s investigation of this
`
`matter is ongoing, and its response to this Interrogatory will be supplemented as additional
`
`information becomes known to it.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`
`
`Identify any secondary considerations and/or objective indicia of non-obviousness for
`
`the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents, and state in detail the complete legal and factual
`
`(cid:3)
`
`8(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 14 of 62 PageID #: 2006
`
`basis for such secondary considerations and objective indicia, including the identity of any
`
`documents, the persons most knowledgeable, and evidence that support such secondary
`
`considerations and objective indicia.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion and/or expert
`
`opinion. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of documents and
`
`information subject to the scheduling order in this action. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it is vague and ambiguous. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`seeks information that is not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff objects to the
`
`extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, common
`
`interest doctrine, work product doctrine, or seeks information protected by any other applicable
`
`privilege or protection. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential,
`
`business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of third parties, which
`
`may be subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements or in which
`
`any third party has an expectation of privacy. Plaintiff will not produce such confidential
`
`information absent consent from the third party and/or court order.
`
`
`
`
`
`Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`
`At the very least, the patents-in-suit are novel and non-obvious due to the industry praise,
`
`long felt need, commercial licensing, copying by competitors, and commercial success of the
`
`technology covered by these patents.
`
`
`
`To the extent that they exist, Plaintiff will produce responsive relevant and non-
`
`privileged documents in its possession, custody or control, from which further information
`
`(cid:3)
`
`9(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 15 of 62 PageID #: 2007
`
`responsive to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s investigation of this matter is ongoing, and its
`
`response to this Interrogatory will be supplemented as additional information becomes known to
`
`it.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`
`
`Describe in detail all efforts by Acceleration Bay or others (including the Boeing
`
`Company, Panthesis, Inc., and the named inventors of the Asserted Patents) to make, use,
`
`market, sell or offer for sale any product or service embodying any of the alleged inventions
`
`claimed in the Asserted Patents, including by identifying each product made, used, sold,
`
`offered for sale, or marketed by or on behalf of Acceleration Bay or others, or any third party
`
`licensed or under the authority or permission of Acceleration Bay or others, that embodies,
`
`practices, or falls within the scope of any of the alleged inventions claimed in the Asserted
`
`Patents; the name of the manufacturer, seller, and/or licensee; the date on which each product
`
`was first made, sold, offered for sale, marketed, and/or licensed and the volume; whether the
`
`product is currently being sold; and if it is not, when it was last sold, and by identifying with
`
`specificity all documents describing or relating to the above and the persons most
`
`knowledgeable about the above.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to any
`
`of the claims and/or defenses asserted in this action. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it calls for a legal conclusion and/or expert opinion. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it seeks disclosure of documents and information subject to the scheduling order in
`
`(cid:3)
`
`10(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 16 of 62 PageID #: 2008
`
`this action. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as compound and composed of discrete parts.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is vague and ambiguous particularly as to
`
`what it purports to mean by “most knowledgeable.” Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent that it seeks information that is not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control,
`
`particularly as to the Interrogatory related to “others,” including The Boeing Company,
`
`Panthesis, Inc. and the named inventors. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, common interest doctrine, work
`
`product doctrine, or seek information protected by any other applicable privilege or protection.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, business, financial,
`
`proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of third parties, which may be subject to
`
`pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements or in which any third party has
`
`an expectation of privacy. Plaintiff will not produce such confidential information absent
`
`consent from the third party and/or court order. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome.
`
`
`
`Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`
`To the extent that they exist, Plaintiff will produce responsive relevant and non-
`
`privileged documents in its possession, custody or control, from which further information
`
`responsive to this Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s investigation of this matter is ongoing, and its
`
`response to this Interrogatory will be supplemented as additional information becomes known to
`
`it.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`11(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 17 of 62 PageID #: 2009
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`
`
`Identify all prior art to the Asserted Patents known to Acceleration Bay, including
`
`prior art brought to Acceleration Bay’s attention by a third party, by (i) for written prior art,
`
`identifying the document by bates number or other suitable means; and (ii) for any non-
`
`written prior art, describing in detail all facts and circumstances relating to such non-written
`
`prior art, including the relevant dates; the identity of each persons involved; the price of any
`
`non-written prior art offered for sale or sales; and identifying any documents relating to such
`
`non-written prior art, and by identifying with specificity the persons most knowledgeable
`
`about the above.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is compound and unintelligible. Plaintiff
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion and/or expert opinion.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of documents and
`
`information subject to the scheduling order in this action. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent it is vague and ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by
`
`“circumstance,” “relevant dates,” and “involved,” “price” and “most knowledgeable.” Plaintiff
`
`object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is in the public domain or
`
`not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff objects to the extent this Interrogatory
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, common interest doctrine, work
`
`product doctrine, or seeks information protected by any other applicable privilege or protection.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, business, financial,
`
`proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of third parties, which may be subject to
`
`(cid:3)
`
`12(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 18 of 62 PageID #: 2010
`
`pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements or in which any third party has
`
`an expectation of privacy. Plaintiff will not produce such confidential information absent
`
`consent from the third party and/or court order. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome.
`
`
`
`Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`
`Plaintiff is aware of the following prior art cited in prosecution history of the patents-in-
`
`suit:
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 4,912,656; 5,056,085; 5,058,105; 5,079,767; 5,117,422; 5,309,437;
`
`5,426,637; 5,459,725; 5,471,623; 5,535,199; 5,568,487; 5,636,371; 5,644,714; 5,673,265;
`
`5,696,903; 5,732,074; 5,732,086; 5,732,219; 5,734,865; 5,737,526; 5,754,830; 5,761,425;
`
`5,764,756; 5,790,548; 5,790,553; 5,799,016; 5,802,285; 5,850,592; 5,864,711; 5,867,660;
`
`5,867,667; 5,870,605; 5,874,960; 5,899,980; 5,907,610; 5,925,097; 5,928,335; 5,935,215;
`
`5,948,054; 5,949,975; 5,956,484; 5,970,232; 5,974,043; 5,987,506; 6,003,088; 6,013,107;
`
`6,023,734; 6,029,171; 6,032,188; 6,038,602; 6,047,289; 6,094,676; 6,115,580; 6,167,432;
`
`6,173,314; 6,199,116; 6,216,177; 6,223,212; 6,243,691; 6,268,855; 6,271,839; 6,272,548;
`
`6,285,363; 6,304,928; 6,321,270; 6,463,078; and 6,524,189 as well as U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 2002/0027896. Other publications including at least the following: Azar et al., “Routing
`
`Strategies for Fast Networks,” May 1992, INFO COM '92, Eleventh Annual Joint Conference of
`
`the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, vol. 1, 170-179.; Cho et al., “A Flood
`
`Routing Method for Data Networks," Sep. 1997, Proceedings of 1997 International Conference
`
`on Information, Communications, and Signal Processing, vol. 3, pp. 1418-1422.; Komine et al.,
`
`“A Distributed Restoration Algorithm for Multiple-Link and Node Failures of Transport
`
`Networks,” Dec. 199 Global Telecommunications Conference, 1990, and Exhibition, IEEE, vol.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`13(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 19 of 62 PageID #: 2011
`
`1, pp. 459-463; Peercy et al., “Distributed Algorithms for Shortest-Path, Deadlock-Free Routing
`
`and Broadcasting in Arbitrarily Faulty Hypercubes,” Jun. 1990, 20'h International Symposium
`
`on Fault-Tolerant Computing, 1990, pp. 218-225; Murphy, Patricia, A., “The Next Generation
`
`Networking Paradigm: Producer/Consumer Model,” Dedicated Systems Magazine-2000 (pp. 26-
`
`28); The Gamer's Guide, “First-Person Shooters,” Oct. 20, 1998 (4 pages); The O'Reilly
`
`Network, “Gnutella: Alive, Well, and Changing Fast,” Jan. 25, 2001 (5 pages)
`
`http://www.open2p.com/ 1pt... [Accessed Jan. 29, 2002]; Oram, Andy, “Gnutella and Freenet
`
`Represents True Technological Innovation,” May 12, 2000 (7 pages) The O'Reilly Network
`
`http://www.oreillynet.com/1pt... [Accessed Jan. 29, 2002]; Internetworking Technologies
`
`Handbook, Chapter 43 (pp. 43-1-43-16); Oram, Andy, “Peer-to-Peer Makes the Internet
`
`Interesting Again,” Sep. 22, 2000 (7 pages) The O'Reilly Network
`
`http:/!linux.oreillynet.com/1pt... [Accessed Jan. 29, 2002]; Monte, Richard, “The Random Walk
`
`for Dummies,” MIT Undergraduate Journal of Mathematics (pp. 143-148); Srinivasan, R.,
`
`“XDR: External Data Representation Standard,” Sun Microsystems, Aug. 1995 (20 pages);
`
`Internet RFC/STD/FYI/BCP Archives http://www.faqs,.org/ rfc1832.html [Accessed Jan. 29,
`
`2002]; A. Databeam Corporate White Paper, “A Printer on the T.120 Series Standards,”
`
`Copyright 1995 (pp. 1-16); Kessler, Gary, C., “An Overview of TCP/IP Protocols and the
`
`Internet,” Apr. 23, 1999 (23 pages) Hill Associates, Inc.
`
`http://www.hill.com/library/publications/t... [Accessed Jan. 29, 2002]; Bondy, J.A., and Murty,
`
`U.S.R., “Graph Theory with Applications,” Chapter 1-3 (pp. 1-47), 1976 American Elsevier
`
`Publishing Co., Inc., New York, New York; Carmen, Thomas H. et al., Introduction to
`
`Algorithms, Chapter 5.3 (pp. 84-91), Chapter 12 (pp. 218-243), Chapter 13 (p. 245), 1990, The
`
`MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York; The Common
`
`(cid:3)
`
`14(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 20 of 62 PageID #: 2012
`
`Object Interrogatory Broker: Architecture and Specification, Revision 2.6, Dec. 2001, Chapter
`
`12 (pp. 12-1-12-10), Chapter 13 (pp. 13-1-13-56), Chapter 16(pp. 16-1-16-26), Chapter 18 (pp.
`
`18-1-18-52), Chapter 20 (pp. 20-1-20-22); The University of Warwick, Computer Science Open
`
`Days, “Demonstration of the Problems of Distributed Systems,” http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.u ...
`
`[Accessed Jan. 29, 2002]; Alagar, S. and Venkatesan, S., “Reliable Broadcast in Mobile Wireless
`
`Networks,” Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Military
`
`Communications Conference, 1995, MILCOM '95 Conference Record, IEEE San Diego,
`
`California, Nov. 5-8, 1995 (pp. 236-240); International Search Report for The Boeing Company,
`
`International Patent Application No PCT/USOl/24240, Jun. 5, 2002 (7 pages).
`
`Plaintiff’s investigation of this matter is ongoing, and its response to this Interrogatory
`
`will be supplemented as additional information becomes known to it.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`
`
`Describe in detail all studies, investigations, testing, inspections, reverse engineering,
`
`evaluations, opinions, presentations or meetings conducted or obtained by Acceleration Bay,
`
`or by anyone on Acceleration Bay’s behalf, prior to the filing of this Case, whether orally or
`
`in writing, concerning the alleged infringement of any claims of the Asserted Patents by the
`
`Accused Products, including, but not limited to, by identifying all documents, dates, and
`
`persons and their roles relating to any such study, investigation, testing, inspection, reverse
`
`engineering, evaluation, opinions, presentation or meeting, and by identifying with
`
`specificity the persons most knowledgeable about the above.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`(cid:3)
`
`15(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 21 of 62 PageID #: 2013
`
`privilege, common interest doctrine, work product doctrine, or seeks information protected by
`
`any other applicable privilege or protection. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`calls for a legal conclusion and/or expert opinion. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks confidential, business, financial, proprietary or sensitive information, or trade
`
`secrets of third parties, which may be subject to pre-existing protective order(s) and/or
`
`confidentiality agreements or in which any third party has an expectation of privacy. Plaintiff
`
`will not produce such confidential information absent consent from the third party and/or court
`
`order.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`
`
`Explain in detail whether any person or entity other than Acceleration Bay is
`
`providing financial assistance to, or otherwise supporting, or has a financial or contingent
`
`interest in this Case by identifying their names, and identifying all related documents,
`
`including without limitation, any agreements entered into between Acceleration Bay and
`
`those persons or entities, and by identifying with specificity the persons most knowledgeable
`
`about the above.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is not relevant to any of the claims and/or
`
`defenses asserted in this action. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it is vague and
`
`ambiguous particularly as to what it purports to mean by “financial or contingent interest” and
`
`“involved.” Plaintiff object to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is not
`
`in Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control. Plaintiff objects to the extent this Interrogatory
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, common interest doctrine, work
`
`(cid:3)
`
`16(cid:3)
`
`

`
`Case 1:15-cv-00311-RGA Document 82-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 22 of 62 PageID #: 2014
`
`product doctrine, or seeks information protected by any other applicable privilege or protection.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks confidential, business, financial,
`
`proprietary or sensitive information, or trade secrets of third parties, which may be subject to
`
`pre-existing protective order(s) and/or confidentiality agreements or in which any third party has
`
`an expectation of privacy. Plaintiff will not produce such confidential information absent
`
`consent from the third party and/or court order.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`
`
`Describe in detail, for each asserted claim, the factual and legal basis for Acceleration
`
`Bay’s allegation that Defendants have infringed the Asserted Patents, either directly or
`
`indirectly, by providing a chart setting forth the alleged infringement on a limitation-by-
`
`limitation basis, including an identification of the allegedly infringing products and