Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 2671
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 16-290 (MN)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SAMUEL E. JOYNER IN SUPPORT OF IP BRIDGE’S
`MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`I, Samuel E. Joyner, make this declaration in support of IP Bridge’s Motion to Amend
`
`Scheduling Order and certify as follows:
`
`1.
`
`My name is Samuel E. Joyner. I am more than twenty-one years old, of sound mind,
`
`and fully capable of making this declaration. I am a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West
`
`Point, New York. Before attending law school, I served in the U.S. Army as an Airborne Infantry
`
`Ranger. I was honorably discharged from active duty service as a Captain. I have never been
`
`convicted of a felony or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. I was conferred the degree of
`
`Doctor of Jurisprudence from The University of Tulsa College of Law in 2002, and I received my
`
`license from the State Bar of Texas in November 2002. I am a partner at the law firm of Shore
`
`Chan DePumpo LLP in Dallas, Texas, and one of the attorneys representing Godo Kaisha IP
`
`Bridge 1 in an action styled Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision Technologies, LLC, No. 1:16-
`
`cv-00290 (MN), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. I have personal
`
`knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and am competent to testify thereto.
`
`2.
`
`On March 5, 2018, OmniVision served Defendant OmniVision Technologies,
`
`Inc.’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s First Set of Interrogatories
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 2672
`
`(NOS. 1-10). A true and correct copy of Defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc.’s Responses
`
`and Objections to Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s First Set of Interrogatories (NOS. 1-10) is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`3.
`
`By the end of March 2018, OmniVision had produced 146 documents, which only
`
`concerned 13 of the 114 accused products.
`
`4.
`
`By August 29, 2018, when depositions discovery opened, OmniVision had only
`
`produced 174 documents. But those documents did not include the requested damages information
`
`or the required core technical documents.
`
`5.
`
`On October 3, 2018, OmniVision’s counsel agreed to provide certain damages
`
`information by October 26, 2018, while asserting that OmniVision would not produce core
`
`technical documents for all accused products.
`
`6.
`
`On October 10, 2018, OmniVision served Defendant OmniVision Technologies,
`
`Inc.’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production to Defendant
`
`(NOS. 13-27). The next day, on October 11, 2018, OmniVision served Defendant OmniVision
`
`Technologies, Inc.’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production
`
`to Defendant (NOS. 28-40). True and correct copies of Defendant OmniVision Technologies,
`
`Inc.’s Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of Requests for Production to Defendant
`
`(NOS. 13-27) and Defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc.’s Objections and Responses to
`
`Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for Production to Defendant (NOS. 28-40) are attached hereto as
`
`Exhibits 2 and 3 respectively.
`
`7.
`
`The table below reflects OmniVision’s document production to date and
`
`demonstrates OmniVision failed to discharge its discovery obligations under the Scheduling
`
`Order.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 2673
`
`Bates Range
`IPB1-OMNI
`00000001 - 00007150
`
`# of
`Docs
`59
`
`IPB1-OMNI
`00007151 - 00008657
`IPB1-OMNI
`00008658 - 00008711
`
`IPB1-OMNI
`00008712 - 00008751
`IPB1-OMNI
`00008752 - 00011180
`
`87
`
`13
`
`2
`
`13
`
`IPB1-OMNI
`00011181 - 00030109
`
`
`
`IPB1-OMNI
`00030110 - 00043005
`
`1550
`
`# of
`Pages
`7150
`
`Produced
`Dec 2017
`
`1,507 Mar 2018
`
`54
`
`May 2018
`
`40
`
`Jun 2018
`
`2,429 Aug 2018
`
`Summary of Content
`Product and marketing
`requirement documents for
`approximately eight accused
`products
`References cited in invalidity
`contentions
`Extrinsic evidence to be cited
`in claim construction briefing
`and one CMOS development
`agreement
`Extrinsic evidence to be cited
`in claim construction briefing
`Product and marketing
`requirement documents for
`approximately four accused
`products
`18,929 Oct 1, 2018 Public financial filings from
`period before OVT went
`private; one terms and
`conditions document; patent
`documents; product release
`announcements
`12,896 Oct 8, 2018 Press releases; product data
`sheets; product briefs; certain
`manufacturer agreements;
`selected sales orders for three
`US companies and spreadsheet
`of alleged US sales; distributor
`agreements with three or four
`distributors; and patent license,
`settlement, and assignment
`agreements involving Cal
`Tech, Kodak, and Ziptronix;
`and patent documents related
`to said agreements.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`As reflected in the table above, only this month, OmniVision produced 1,550
`
`documents, which constitutes 90% of its production. Specifically, OmniVision refused to produce
`
`core technical document for the 114 accused products by December 3, 2017 or August 28, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 4 of 58 PageID #: 2674
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 the foregoing is true and
`
`correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed on October 19, 2018 in Dallas, Texas.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`Samuel E. Joyner
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 5 of 58 PageID #: 2675
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 6 of 58 PageID #: 2676
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`DEFENDANT OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S RESPONSES AND
`OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE I’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
`
`OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”) hereby submits its responses and objections to
`
`Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s (“IPB”) First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-10).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The following responses are made solely for the purpose of, and in relation to, this action.
`
`Each response is provided subject to all appropriate objections (including, without limitation,
`
`objections concerning competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and admissibility) that
`
`would require the exclusion of any statement contained herein if the statement were made by a
`
`witness present and testifying in court. All such objections and grounds therefore are reserved
`
`and may be interposed at the time of trial.
`
`The following responses are based on the facts and information presently known and
`
`available to OmniVision. The responses refer only to those contentions that have been asserted
`
`to date, based on the facts now known to OmniVision. Discovery, investigation, research, and
`
`analysis are ongoing in this case and may disclose the existence of additional facts, add meaning
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 7 of 58 PageID #: 2677
`
`to known facts, establish entirely new factual conclusions or legal contentions, or possibly lead
`
`to additions, variations, and changes to these responses. OmniVision reserves the right to change
`
`or supplement these responses as additional facts are discovered, revealed, recalled, or otherwise
`
`ascertained.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`In addition to any specifically stated objections, each of OmniVision’s responses herein
`
`is subject to and incorporates the following general objections:
`
`1.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories and the definitions to the
`
`extent they purport to impose obligations greater or more extensive than those required by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
`
`District of Delaware, or other applicable law.
`
`2.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories and definitions to the extent
`
`they purport to request information that cannot be found in the course of a reasonable search.
`
`3.
`
`OmniVision’s partial response to any interrogatory is not a waiver of its
`
`objection or right to object to the interrogatory, or any part thereof, or to any additional,
`
`supplemental or further interrogatory or part thereof, but is instead offered in an effort to
`
`resolve a potential discovery dispute.
`
`4.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks
`
`information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense raised in this litigation, nor
`
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`5.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is vague or
`
`ambiguous.
`
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 8 of 58 PageID #: 2678
`
`6.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is unreasonably
`
`cumulative or duplicative of other discovery requests, or seeks information that is obtainable
`
`from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
`
`7.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it is overly broad,
`
`fails to reasonably identify the information sought, is unduly burdensome, and is 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.
`
`8.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks
`
`information for which the burden or expense of obtaining and disclosing outweighs its likely
`
`benefit in resolving the issues of this action.
`
`9.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it fails to describe
`
`with reasonable particularity the information requested.
`
`10.
`
`To the extent that any interrogatory may be construed as calling for information
`
`which is subject to a claim of privilege, including, without limitation, the attorney-client
`
`privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, OmniVision hereby claims such privilege and
`
`objects to the disclosure of the information. Such information as may hereafter be provided in
`
`response to the Interrogatory should not include any information subject to such privileges and
`
`doctrines, but the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information shall not constitute a waiver
`
`of any applicable privilege.
`
`11.
`
`OmniVision objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential,
`
`commercially sensitive, trade secret, and/or proprietary information of a non-party or
`
`information covered by a confidentiality agreement, or information that is otherwise protected
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 9 of 58 PageID #: 2679
`
`from disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule
`
`501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. OmniVision will not produce such information unless
`
`the non-party agrees to the terms of the protective order to be entered in this case or consents in
`
`writing to the disclosure of that information to IPB.
`
`12.
`
`OmniVision objects to each of the interrogatories to the extent it seeks
`
`information that is not in OmniVision’s possession, custody, or control.
`
`13.
`
`OmniVision objects to the instructions accompanying IPB’s interrogatories to
`
`the extent that such instructions are not consistent with the provisions of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure or to the extent that the instructions purport to require OmniVision to take
`
`actions or provide information not required or which exceed the scope of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure or other applicable rules of law.
`
`14.
`
`OmniVision objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`prematurely call for discovery concerning, among other things, facts and contentions relating to
`
`non-infringement, invalidity and other claims and defenses before they are due under the
`
`Scheduling Order in this case. Dkt. No. 37. Pursuant to this objection and other objections set
`
`forth herein, OmniVision will respond to these interrogatories under the case schedule.
`
`15.
`
`OmniVision objects to any interrogatory that seeks information, documents or
`
`things subject to confidentiality agreements, protective orders, and/or any other obligation
`
`pursuant to which OmniVision is required to protect and/or maintain the confidentiality of any
`
`third party’s documents. Should an interrogatory call for such information, documents or things,
`
`OmniVision will act reasonably to obtain the consent of the third party to produce the
`
`information.
`
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 10 of 58 PageID #: 2680
`
`16.
`
`OmniVision objects to any interrogatory that seeks information, documents or
`
`things for the “six (6) years preceding the filing of the Complaint” as irrelevant, over-broad and
`
`unduly burdensome. IPB has not established that it is entitled to pre-suit damages, nor has it
`
`pled so in its Complaint.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
`
`17.
`
`OmniVision objects to IPB’s definition of “Defendant,” “OmniVision,” “You,”
`
`or “Your” as overly broad and unduly burdensome. For purposes of these interrogatories,
`
`reference to “Defendant,” “OmniVision,” “You,” or “Your” shall refer to Defendant
`
`OmniVision Technologies, Inc. only.
`
`18.
`
`OmniVision objects to the definition of “relate to,” “related to,” “relating to,”
`
`and all requests incorporating these terms, as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, unintelligible,
`
`requiring subjective judgment on the part of OmniVision and/or its attorneys, and calling for
`
`conclusions or opinions of counsel in violation of the attorney work product doctrine.
`
`19.
`
`OmniVision objects to IPB’s definition of “identify” and “describe” as overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome, and calling for the provision of information that is in the public
`
`domain and/or is equally available to IPB.
`
`20.
`
`OmniVision objects to IPB’s definition of “document” and “documents” as
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome, especially with respect to the inclusion of “SMS
`
`messages,” “text messages,” and “records of conversations […] of any type of personal or
`
`telephone conversations or negotiations” that were specifically excluded by Delaware’s
`
`Default Standard for Discovery. Omnivision further objects to the definition to the extent it
`
`calls for any other information that are explicitly excluded from a party’s discovery obligations
`
`in the Delaware’s Default Standard for Discovery, including but not limited to Schedule A, and
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 11 of 58 PageID #: 2681
`
`the Scheduling Order set forth in this Case. Dkt. No. 37. OmniVision further objects this
`
`definition as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it requires OmniVision to
`
`produce “bank deposit slips, bank checks, canceled checks, diaries, diary entries” and other
`
`documents to which the probative value is far outweighed by the prejudicial effect.
`
`OmniVision further objects to the definition as equally calling for the provision of information
`
`that is in the public domain and/or is equally available to IPB. OmniVision further objects to
`
`IPB’s request for production of documents in native form as part of the definition of
`
`“Electronically stored information” to the extent it calls for information outside the bounds of
`
`Delaware’s Default Standard for Discovery.
`
`21.
`
`OmniVision objects to IPB’s definition of “Electronically stored information” as
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome, especially with respect to the inclusion of “instant
`
`messenger or other computer-to-computer communication protocols” and “Facebook or other
`
`social media communications.” OmniVision further objects
`
`to IPB’s definition of
`
`“Electronically stored information” as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it
`
`requires OmniVision to search “archived copies of website.” Omnivision further objects to the
`
`definition to the extent it calls for information “in native form” outside the bounds of
`
`Delaware’s Default Standard for Discovery. Omnivision further objects to the definition to the
`
`extent it calls for “all associated metadata” that are outside the discovery obligations prescribed
`
`by Delaware’s Default Standard for Discovery. Omnivision further objects to the definition to
`
`the extent it calls for any other information that are explicitly excluded from a party’s discovery
`
`obligations in the Delaware’s Default Standard for Discovery, including but not limited to
`
`Schedule A, and the Scheduling Order in this Case. Dkt. No. 37. OmniVision further objects to
`
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 12 of 58 PageID #: 2682
`
`the definition as equally calling for the provision of information that is in the public domain
`
`and/or is equally available to IPB.
`
`22.
`
`OmniVision objects to IPB’s definition of “image sensor devices” as vague and
`
`ambiguous, especially to the extent IPB attempts to equate “image sensor devices” to
`
`“OmniBSI, OmniBSI-2, PureCel, PureCel-S, and PureCel Plus-S.”
`
`23.
`
`OmniVision objects to IPB’s definition of the “OmniVision Products” and
`
`“OmniVision Product” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
`
`proportional to the needs of the case, especially to the extent that it includes products that are
`
`not manufactured, imported or sold in the U.S. For purposes of these interrogatories, reference
`
`to the “OmniVision Products” or “OmniVision Product” shall refer to the OmniVision products
`
`IPB has specifically identified – OV2640, OV2655, OV2665, OV2720, OV2720, OV2722,
`
`OV3142, OV3640, OV3642, OV3650, OV3660, OV3660, OV5620, OV5640, OV5645,
`
`OV5647, OV5648, OV5650, OV5653, OV5656, OV5658, OV5695, OV6680, OV6946,
`
`OV6948, OV7695, OV7699, OV7727, OV7949, OV8820, OV8825, OV9674, OV9724,
`
`OV9726, OV9728, OV9740, OV10640, OV10642, OV10650, OV10810, OV12825, OV14810,
`
`OV14825, OV14825, OVM7690, OX02A10, OX2A10, OXO1A10, OV2718, OV2724,
`
`OV2770, OV2775, OV2775-Ards, OV3647, OV4682, OV4682 RGB IR, OV4685, OV4688,
`
`OV4689, OV5630, OV5642, OV5680, OV5690, OV5693, OV8830, OV8835, OV8850,
`
`OV8865, OV9716, OV9760, OV9762, OV9770, OV10823, OV12830, OV16820, OV16825,
`
`OX1A10, OS02A1Q, OS05A10, OS05A20, OS08A10, OV13850, OV13853, OV2281,
`
`OV2732, OV2740, OV5670, OV5675, OV8856, OV8858, OV9734, OV13860, OV16850,
`
`OV21840, OV23850, OV12890, OV12895, OV12A10, OV13870, OV13A10, OV13A1Q,
`
`OV16860, OV16880, OV16885, OV16885-4C, OV16B10, OV20880, and OV20880-4C.
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 13 of 58 PageID #: 2683
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Provide a spreadsheet or listing showing every OmniVision Product made or sold by you
`
`or at your direction since 2010, and for each product identify: (1) OmniVision’s position as to
`
`whether each product is sold in the United States, (2) OmniVision’s categorization of said
`
`product (i.e. OmniBSI, OmniBSI-2, PureCel, PureCel-S, and PureCel Plus-S), (3) all internal
`
`part numbers used for said product, and (4) all third-party devices of which OmniVision is aware
`
`that include said product.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`
`OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks products sold
`
`preceding the filing of the Complaint, and to its usage of the terms “every Omnivision Product,”
`
`“all internal parts numbers,” and “all third-party devices.” IPB has not established that it is
`
`entitled to pre-suit damages, nor has it pled so in its Complaint. OmniVision further objects to
`
`the definition as equally calling for the provision of information that is in the public domain
`
`and/or is equally available to IPB, including but not limited to Omnivision’s categorization of its
`
`products. Omnivision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it has multiple
`
`subparts and thus should be worded as separate interrogatories.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Omnivision responds as
`
`follows: Omnivision is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of this request.
`
`OmniVision reserves the right to supplement its response after further investigation.
`
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 14 of 58 PageID #: 2684
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Identify each and every person and/or entity involved with the design, development,
`
`testing, verification, manufacturing, packaging, assembly, sampling, marketing, importing,
`
`selling, and offering to sell of the OmniVision Products including, but not limited to, the identity
`
`of each supplier and the material or component they supply for each of the OmniVision Products.
`
`Your response should include a fair summary description of each person and/or entity’s role in
`
`the activities listed above.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`
`OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, in its usage of the term “each and
`
`every person and/or entity involved.” OmniVision further objects that the request for “a fair
`
`summary description” is vague and ambiguous. In addition, OmniVision objects to this
`
`interrogatory on the basis that the terms “verification,” “development,” and “sampling,” and
`
`“assembly” are vague; OmniVision interprets these terms to be coextensive with one or more of
`
`the other terms used in this interrogatory.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, OmniVision refers to Section I
`
`of its Initial Disclosures served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and pursuant to Delaware’s
`
`Default Standard for Discovery. In addition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), OmniVision
`
`identifies the following documents in which information responsive to this interrogatory may be
`
`ascertained: IPB1-OMNI 00001479-00001511, IPB1-OMNI 00002240-00002296, IPB1-OMNI
`
`00002313-00002458, IPB1-OMNI 00003925-00003946. OmniVision is in the process of
`
`obtaining third-party consent to disclose information responsive to this request. OmniVision will
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 15 of 58 PageID #: 2685
`
`supplement its response to this request after obtaining such consent.
`
`OmniVision reserves the right to supplement its response after further investigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Identify and describe in reasonable detail all relationships and agreements relating to the
`
`research and development, design, development, testing, verification, manufacturing, assembly,
`
`sampling, marketing, and sale of the OmniVision Products including, but not limited to, supply
`
`agreements relating to component parts of the OmniVision Products and all persons with
`
`knowledge of facts relevant to these relationships and agreements.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`
`OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, in its usage of the term “all
`
`relationships and agreements.” OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that
`
`the terms “verification,” “assembly,” and “sampling” are vague and ambiguous; OmniVision
`
`interprets these terms to be coextensive with one or more of the other terms used in this
`
`interrogatory. OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is
`
`duplicative of at least Interrogatory No. 2.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, OmniVision refers to Section I
`
`of its Initial Disclosures served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) and to Delaware’s Default
`
`Standard for Discovery. In addition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), OmniVision identifies
`
`the following documents in which information responsive to this interrogatory may be
`
`ascertained: IPB1-OMNI 00001479-00001511, IPB1-OMNI 00002240-00002296, IPB1-OMNI
`
`00002313-00002458, IPB1-OMNI 00003925-00003946. OmniVision is in the process of
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 16 of 58 PageID #: 2686
`
`obtaining third-party consent to disclose information responsive to this request. OmniVision will
`
`supplement its response to this request after obtaining such consent.
`
`OmniVision reserves the right to supplement its response after further investigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Identify the date of the hypothetical negotiation for a reasonable royalty, the parties that
`
`would have been involved in that hypothetical negotiation, the product or products on which You
`
`base your contention regarding the date of the hypothetical negotiation, identify any document
`
`and all facts or other information that You believe supports Your contention as to the
`
`hypothetical negotiation date, and identify each person with knowledge or information regarding
`
`the same, and the substance of such knowledge.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`
`OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is compound. OmniVision
`
`further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it prematurely requests information that is
`
`the subject of expert discovery. OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground
`
`that
`
`it prematurely requests
`
`information
`
`that falls under
`
`the scope of “Contention
`
`Interrogatories,” pursuant to the deadline set forth by the Scheduling Order Section 2(e). Dkt.
`
`No. 37 at 2. OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to shift
`
`the burden of proof on damages from IPB to OmniVision. OmniVision objects to this
`
`interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information protected by the attorney work product
`
`doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege. Omnivision further objects to this interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks a legal conclusion.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, OmniVision responds as
`
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 17 of 58 PageID #: 2687
`
`follows: OmniVision’s investigation of information responsive to this Interrogatory is ongoing.
`
`OmniVision reserves the right to supplement its response after further investigation and pursuant
`
`to the Scheduling Order in this case. Dkt. No. 37.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Identify the date when You first made, used, sold, offered for sale, or distributed in the
`
`United States each of the OmniVision Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`
`OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to shift the burden of
`
`proof of liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271 from IPB to OmniVision. OmniVision further objects to
`
`this interrogatory on the ground that it is duplicative of at least Interrogatory No. 4. Omnivision
`
`further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks a legal conclusion.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, OmniVision responds as
`
`follows: OmniVision’s investigation of information responsive to this Interrogatory is ongoing.
`
`OmniVision reserves the right to supplement its response after further investigation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Describe in detail all facts and circumstances related to Your first awareness or
`
`knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and of IP Bridge and what, if any, investigation OmniVision
`
`has undertaken with respect to either the Patents-in-Suit and/or IP Bridge including, but not
`
`limited to, communications with third parties.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`
`OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information protected
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 107 Filed 10/19/18 Page 18 of 58 PageID #: 2688
`
`by the attorney work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege. OmniVision objects to
`
`this interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and is not proportional
`
`to the needs of the case. OmniVision objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks
`
`information protected by the attorney work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, OmniVision responds as
`
`follows: OmniVision first became aware of the Patents-in-Suit and of IPB at or around the time
`
`IPB filed its Complaint in the action Godo Kaisha IPB 1 v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., Case
`
`No. 1-16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF (D. Del.). OmniVision will supplement its responses if and when
`
`more information becomes available.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Identify and describe in detail all patent or intellectual property licenses or agreements of
`
`any kind either granted or taken by OmniVision relating in any way to (1) any of the
`
`OmniVision Products, (2) image sensor devices; and (3) the subject matter of the Patent-in-Suit.
`
`For licenses, this description should include: (i) the date; (ii) the parties to the agreement; (iii) the
`
`licensed technology; (iv) the time period of the license; (v) whether the license is a cross license;
`
`(vi) whether the license was entered into as part of settlement of litigation; (vii) the royalty rate;
`
`(viii) a description of the royalty base to which the rate is applied; (ix) the Bates number of each
`
`such license; (x) the amount of license payments for each license already made and the bases for
`
`determining future license payments by you or another party to the agreement; and (xi) and all
`
`persons with knowledge of facts relevant to such licenses.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`In addition to the foregoing general objections, which are expressly incorporated herein,
`
`OmniVision further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is compound. Omnivision
`
`OMNIVISION’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`TO IP BRIDGE’S FIRST ROGS (NOS. 1-10)
`CASE NO. CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00290-JFB-SRF
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN