Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 195 PageID #: 3152
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 195 PageID #: 3152
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 2 of 195 PageID #: 3153
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Title
`SEMICONDUCTOR INTEGRATED
`CIRCUIT DEVICE AND METHOD FOR
`FABRICATING THE DEVICE
`
`Application Date
`Sep. 28, 2001
`
`Priority Date
`Oct. 2, 2000
`
`Patent Date
`Sep. 21, 2004
`
`Inventor
`Tokuhiro Tamaki et al
`
`Claims
`1, 2, 4, 5
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 3 of 195 PageID #: 3154
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`1. A semiconductor integrated circuit device comprising:
`(A) a first circuit pattern having (B) a first linear pattern and placed in (C) a region in which a group of elements having a
`repetitive pattern are formed; and
`(D) a second circuit pattern having (E) a second linear pattern and placed in (F) a region in which components other than the
`group of elements are formed,
`(G) a dummy pattern being inserted in (F) the region in which (D) the second circuit pattern is placed such that a sum perimeter
`of (B) the first linear pattern, (E) the second linear pattern, and (G) the dummy pattern per unit area is equal to or less than a
`perimeter of (B) the first linear pattern per unit area.
`
`2. The semiconductor integrated circuit device of claim 1, wherein (C) the group of elements are (H) memories.
`
`4. A semiconductor integrated circuit device comprising:
`(A) a first circuit pattern having (B) a first gate electrode pattern and placed in (C) a memory circuit region; and
`(D) a second circuit pattern having (E) a second gate electrode pattern and placed in (F) a logic circuit region,
`(G) a dummy pattern being inserted in (F) the logic region in which (D) the second circuit pattern is placed
`such that a sum perimeter of (B) the first gate electrode pattern, (E) the second gate electrode pattern, and (G) the dummy
`pattern per unit area is equal to or less than a perimeter of (B) the first gate electrode pattern per unit area.
`
`5. The semiconductor integrated circuit device of claim 4,
`wherein (G) the dummy pattern has (H) a rectangular like shape.
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 4 of 195 PageID #: 3155
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Camera Module
`
`Die marking
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 5 of 195 PageID #: 3156
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 6 of 195 PageID #: 3157
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 1
`A semiconductor integrated circuit device comprising:(A) a first circuit pattern having (B) a first linear pattern and placed in (C) a
`region in which a group of elements having a repetitive pattern are formed; and
`
`The first circuit pattern (A) has a first linear pattern (B) and is in a region
`with elements having a repetitive pattern (C).
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 7 of 195 PageID #: 3158
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 1
`(D) a second circuit pattern having (E) a second linear pattern and placed in (F) a region in which components other than the
`group of elements are formed,(G) a dummy pattern being inserted in (F) the region in which (D) the second circuit pattern is
`placed
`
`A second circuit pattern (D) having a second linear pattern (E) in another region (F) having a dummy pattern (G).
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`(G)
`
`(F)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 8 of 195 PageID #: 3159
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 1
`such that a sum perimeter of (B) the first linear pattern, (E) the second linear pattern, and (G) the dummy pattern per unit area is
`equal to or less than a perimeter of (B) the first linear pattern per unit area.
`
`𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷(𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺)+𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷(𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝑷𝑷𝒍𝒍)+𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷(𝒅𝒅𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝒅𝒅)
`𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒑𝒑𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨=
`𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒐𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼(𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺)+𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒐𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼(𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝑷𝑷𝒍𝒍)+𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒐𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼(𝒅𝒅𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝒅𝒅)
`𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷(𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺)
`𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑭𝑭𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑳𝑳𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼𝒑𝒑𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨=
`𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒐𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼(𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺)
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(E)
`
`(D)
`
`(G)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 9 of 195 PageID #: 3160
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 1
`such that a sum perimeter of (B) the first linear pattern, (E) the second linear pattern, and (G) the dummy pattern per unit area is
`equal to or less than a perimeter of (B) the first linear pattern per unit area.
`(A) a first circuit pattern
`(B)
`(D) a second circuit pattern
`
`(E)
`
`Both photographs depicted with
`same scale
`
`(G)
`(D)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 10 of 195 PageID #: 3161
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 1
`such that a sum perimeter of (B) the first linear pattern, (E) the second linear pattern, and (G) the dummy pattern per unit area is
`equal to or less than a perimeter of (B) the first linear pattern per unit area.
`
`(A) a first circuit pattern
`
`(B)
`
`(D) a second circuit pattern
`(E)
`
`(G)
`
`Both photographs depicted
`with same scale
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 11 of 195 PageID #: 3162
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 2
`The semiconductor integrated circuit device of claim 1, wherein (C) the group of elements are (H) memories.
`
`The group of elements (G) are memories (H).
`
`(C)
`
`(H)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 12 of 195 PageID #: 3163
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 4
`A semiconductor integrated circuit device comprising:
`(A) a first circuit pattern having (B) a first gate electrode pattern and placed in (C) a memory circuit region; and
`
`The first circuit pattern (A) has a first gate electrode pattern (B) and is placed in a memory circuit region (C).
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`(C)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 13 of 195 PageID #: 3164
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 4
`(D) a second circuit pattern having (E) a second gate electrode pattern and placed in (F) a logic circuit region,
`(G) a dummy pattern being inserted in (F) the logic region in which (D) the second circuit pattern is placed
`
`The second circuit pattern (D) has a second gate electrode pattern (E) in a
`logic circuit region (F), the (F) the logic region has a dummy pattern (G).
`
`(D)
`
`(E)
`
`(G)
`
`(F)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 14 of 195 PageID #: 3165
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 4
`such that a sum perimeter of (B) the first gate electrode pattern, (E) the second gate electrode pattern, and (G) the dummy
`pattern per unit area is equal to or less than a perimeter of (B) the first gate electrode pattern per unit area.
`
`(E)
`
`(D)
`
`(G)
`
`𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷(𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺)+𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷(𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝑷𝑷𝒍𝒍)+𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷(𝒅𝒅𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝒅𝒅)
`𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒑𝒑𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨=
`𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒐𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼(𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺)+𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒐𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼(𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝒍𝑷𝑷𝒍𝒍)+𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒐𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼(𝒅𝒅𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝒅𝒅)
`𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷(𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺)
`𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑺𝑺𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑭𝑭𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑳𝑳𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼𝒑𝒑𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑼𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨=
`𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒐𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑼𝑼(𝒔𝒔𝑷𝑷𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺)
`
`(A)
`
`(B)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 15 of 195 PageID #: 3166
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 4
`such that a sum perimeter of (B) the first gate electrode pattern, (E) the second gate electrode pattern, and (G) the dummy
`pattern per unit area is equal to or less than a perimeter of (B) the first gate electrode pattern per unit area.
`
`(A) a first circuit pattern
`
`(B)
`
`(D) a second circuit pattern
`(E)
`
`(G)
`
`Both photographs depicted
`with same scale
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 16 of 195 PageID #: 3167
`USP 6,794,677 - OmniVision Technologies, Inc. OV5650 (OmniBSI) [AMENDED 11/16/2018]
`
`Claim 5
`The semiconductor integrated circuit device of claim 4, wherein (G) the dummy pattern has (H) a rectangular like shape.
`
`The dummy pattern (G) has a rectangular like shape (H).
`(H)
`(G)
`
`PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS – SUBJECT TO CHANGE
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 17 of 195 PageID #: 3168
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 17 of 195 PageID #: 3168
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 18 of 195 PageID #: 3169
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 1:16-cv-00290-MN-SRF
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`To: Defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc., by and through its counsel of record: David E.
`Moore and Bindu A. Palapura, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Hercules Plaza, 6th
`Floor, 1313 N. Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, and James C. Yoon, WILSON
`SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo
`Alto, CA 94304-1050
`
`
`Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge” and/or “Plaintiff”) hereby serves the
`
`following Third Supplemental Objections and Responses
`
`to Defendant OmniVision
`
`Technologies, Inc.’s (“OmniVision” and/or “Defendant”) First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-
`
`16) (“Interrogatories”).
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories on the following grounds.
`
`1.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the definition of “IP Bridge,” “Plaintiff,” “you,” or “your” to
`
`the extent that it seeks documents or information that are not in IP Bridge’s knowledge,
`
`possession, custody, or control, after a reasonably diligent search, through the inclusion of
`
`“partners,” “investors,” “former employees,” “agents,” “affiliates,” “parents,” “any entity
`
`affiliated with IP Bridge,” and “IP Bridge, Inc. and Innovation Network Corporation of Japan,
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 19 of 195 PageID #: 3170
`
`and their executives, managers, partners, and investors” within the scope of the definition. As
`
`used herein, “IP Bridge” refers only to Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1.
`
`2.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the definition of “IP Bridge,” “Plaintiff,” “you,” or “your”
`
`because it seeks to invade the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine through the
`
`inclusion of “counsel” within the scope of the definition.
`
`3.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the definition of “IP Bridge,” “Plaintiff,” “you,” or “your”
`
`because it seeks to invade the consulting expert privilege and/or work product doctrine through
`
`the inclusion of “consultants” within the scope of the definition.
`
`4.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the inclusion of U.S. Patent No. “6,794,667” in definition of
`
`“Asserted Patents” instead of U.S. Patent No. 6,794,677.
`
`5.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the definition of “related patent families” and “related patents”
`
`as overbroad, not relevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence through the inclusion of patents, and claims and defenses, that are not asserted in this
`
`lawsuit. IP Bridge’s responses herein are limited to the patents, and the claims and defenses,
`
`asserted in this lawsuit.
`
`6.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the definitions of “document” and “communication” to the
`
`extent they are contrary to the procedures set forth in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 37) and the
`
`Court’s Default Standard for Discovery of Electronic Documents.
`
`7.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek disclosure of
`
`information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine,
`
`the consulting expert privilege, the common interest doctrine, trade secret or proprietary
`
`information, or any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity. Such information will
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 20 of 195 PageID #: 3171
`
`not be disclosed in response to the Interrogatories. Any disclosure of such information is
`
`inadvertent, and should not be deemed to be a waiver of any privilege or immunity.
`
`8.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they call for information
`
`not in IP Bridge’s knowledge, possession, custody or control, after a reasonably diligent search,
`
`on the grounds that said discovery requests are unduly burdensome and oppressive.
`
`9.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are drafted in a
`
`manner so vague and/or overly broad as to render IP Bridge unable to discern the nature of the
`
`relevant information requested with particularity and unable to formulate a proper response
`
`thereto. Such information will not be provided by IP Bridge.
`
`10.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories as vague and ambiguous because
`
`numerous terms used in the Interrogatories are wholly undefined or inadequately defined. These
`
`inadequacies are further detailed herein. IP Bridge further objects to the extent these
`
`Interrogatories would require speculation as to the nature or scope of the information requested.
`
`11.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they call for information
`
`irrelevant or not related to the dispute between the parties and/or not reasonably calculated to
`
`lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Such information will not be provided by IP Bridge.
`
`12.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information or
`
`documents that are a matter of public record or otherwise are as equally accessible to Defendant
`
`as they are to IP Bridge.
`
`13.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information or
`
`documents that are already in Defendant’s knowledge, possession, custody, or control.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 21 of 195 PageID #: 3172
`
`14.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they call for legal conclusions
`
`or opinions. Such discovery requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence and such information will not be provided by IP Bridge.
`
`15.
`
`The responses herein are given without prejudice to IP Bridge’s right to produce
`
`or rely on subsequently discovered documents and/or information. IP Bridge reserves the right
`
`to change the responses herein and/or produce or rely on subsequently discovered documents
`
`and/or information as additional facts are ascertained, analysis is made, and legal research is
`
`completed.
`
`16.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they improperly seek to
`
`require IP Bridge marshal its evidence in this case.
`
`17.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they improperly seek to
`
`conduct a deposition by written question.
`
`18.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they improperly seek to have
`
`IP Bridge create documents not already in existence.
`
`19.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they improperly attempt to
`
`require IP Bridge to produce documents and/or improperly attempt to require IP Bridge to
`
`organize and label such documents to correspond to the requests rather than as they are kept in
`
`the usual course of business.
`
`20.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories as premature to the extent they seek IP
`
`Bridge’s contentions with respect to issues currently under investigation. IP Bridge’s response
`
`to the Interrogatories, however, is based on a reasonable investigation to date. As discovery and
`
`counsel’s investigation are ongoing, IP Bridge reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify
`
`or correct its responses, as appropriate.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 22 of 195 PageID #: 3173
`
`21.
`
`The failure of IP Bridge to make a specific objection to a particular Interrogatory
`
`is not, and shall not be construed as, an admission that responsive information or documents
`
`exist. Likewise, any statement herein that IP Bridge will provide information or produce
`
`documents in response to an individual Interrogatory does not mean that IP Bridge in fact has
`
`such information or documents, or that such information or documents exist. Rather, any such
`
`statement reflects IP Bridge’s intentions, subject to its general and specific objections, to conduct
`
`a reasonable search for responsive information and documents, and produce them subject to the
`
`asserted objections.
`
`22.
`
`IP Bridge further objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek production
`
`of information covered by any domestic or judicial order, protective order, stipulation of
`
`confidentiality, non-disclosure agreement, or confidentiality agreement with any non-parties
`
`such that disclosure by IP Bridge is restricted. IP Bridge will not knowingly disclose any
`
`information that is subject to such privilege or protection. In connection with the Interrogatories,
`
`IP Bridge does not intend to waive, and shall not be construed as having waived, any such
`
`privilege or protection. Any inadvertent production or disclosure thereof shall not be deemed a
`
`waiver of any such privilege or protection in whole or in part. IP Bridge reserves its right to
`
`recall any such document. Subject to necessary consents from third parties, IP Bridge will
`
`produce responsive documents related to the patent, and the claims and defenses, asserted in this
`
`lawsuit that are in IP Bridge’s knowledge, possession, custody, or control.
`
`23.
`
`IP Bridge also objects to these Interrogatories on the grounds that they are overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant or
`
`admissible evidence to the extent they are not reasonably limited as to scope and/or not
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 23 of 195 PageID #: 3174
`
`reasonably limited as to time. In responding subject to its objections, IP Bridge’s responses will
`
`cover a reasonable time period and/or scope.
`
`24.
`
`IP Bridge objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek discovery of e-
`
`mail or electronically stored information, as OmniVision did not seek production from IP Bridge
`
`pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 37) and the Court’s Default
`
`Standard for Discovery of Electronic Documents.
`
`25.
`
`IP Bridge objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they are duplicative of
`
`other requests herein.
`
`26.
`
`IP Bridge objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`exceeding that mutually agreed upon by the parties in the proposed and/or entered protective
`
`order or ESI order in this case.
`
`27.
`
`IP Bridge objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek discovery of
`
`expert information exceeding that provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IP Bridge
`
`will not produce and will withhold communications with its experts at this time, and will comply
`
`with its expert disclosure obligations pursuant to the Scheduling Order (Dkt. 37), FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`26, and the Local Rules.
`
`28.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek discovery of expert
`
`information in advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Court. Such information will be
`
`disclosed in accordance with said deadlines.
`
`29.
`
`IP Bridge objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they contain one or more
`
`discrete subparts and should, therefore, be treated as multiple interrogatories for purposes of the
`
`limits set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 37). Specifically, although the
`
`Interrogatories are numbered 1 through 16, there are at least 37 logically and factually separate
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 24 of 195 PageID #: 3175
`
`and distinct subparts. Accordingly, IP Bridge maintains that the Interrogatories contain at least
`
`37 individual interrogatories for purposes of the limits set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order
`
`(Dkt. 37).
`
`30.
`
`IP Bridge objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`related to IP Bridge’s Rule 11 investigation, which requires leave of the Court and is only
`
`allowed in extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11
`
`Advisory Committee Notes to the 1983 Amendment (“To assure that the efficiencies achieved
`
`through more effective operation of the pleading regimen will not be offset by the cost of satellite
`
`litigation over the imposition of sanctions, the court must to the extent possible limit the scope
`
`of sanction proceedings to the record. Thus, discovery should be conducted only by leave of the
`
`court, and then only in extraordinary circumstances.”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3)(A)
`
`(“Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in
`
`anticipation of litigation…” unless that party shows that it has a “substantial need for the
`
`materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial
`
`equivalent by other means.”); Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. International Business Machine Corp.,
`
`No. C09-05897 RS (HRL), 2011 WL 940263, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) (denying motion
`
`to compel responses to interrogatories that requested description of pre-filing investigation);
`
`Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, No. 11-6609 (FLW), 2012 WL
`
`2871061, at *6 (D.N.J. July 12, 2012) (holding that testing procedures and protocol used by
`
`plaintiff fell within work-product privilege).
`
`31.
`
`Each of the foregoing general objections is hereby incorporated by reference into
`
`each of the following specific responses to Defendant’s specific Interrogatories.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 25 of 195 PageID #: 3176
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Separately, for each claim of the Asserted Patents that IP Bridge contends is infringed in
`
`this case, describe in detail, including via claim charts and the specific theory of infringement (e.g.,
`
`literally or by doctrine of equivalents, directly, jointly, dividedly, or indirectly, induced or
`
`contributory), how OmniVision or its products, devices, processes, methods, acts, and/or
`
`instrumentalities, as well as any acts or instrumentalities attributable to OmniVision, allegedly
`
`infringe any claim of the Asserted Patents, including how OmniVision or its products, devices,
`
`processes, methods, acts, and/or instrumentalities, as well as any acts or instrumentalities
`
`attributable to OmniVision, meets the limitations and elements of each specific asserted claim, and
`
`including all evidence relating to such alleged infringement, including identification of all
`
`documents (by Bates number) that IP Bridge contends supports its answer and identification of all
`
`persons who have knowledge of such alleged infringement.
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE:
`
`IP Bridge objects to this interrogatory because it appears to require claim charts for all accused
`
`products. This is contrary to the Court’s rules regarding infringement contentions and charts, and is
`
`further contrary to OmniVision’s proposal of representative products. IP Bridge has already produced
`
`infringement contentions for at least one product identified as representative by OmniVision for each
`
`asserted patent/product family combination. Further, IP Bridge objects to OmniVision’s request for
`
`such information when it has only produced or offered to product core technical documentation for
`
`products it alleges are representative. IP Bridge further objects to the foregoing interrogatory to the
`
`extent it improperly seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work
`
`product doctrine. IP Bridge further objects to the extent the interrogatory improperly seeks
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 26 of 195 PageID #: 3177
`
`information protected by the consulting expert privilege. IP Bridge further objects to the extent that
`
`the interrogatory seeks disclosure of expert information in advance of the applicable deadline for
`
`disclosure of expert information. IP Bridge further objects to the extent that the interrogatory
`
`improperly seeks to conduct a deposition by written questions. IP Bridge further objects to the extent
`
`the interrogatory improperly requires IP Bridge to marshal its evidence. IP Bridge further objects
`
`because the interrogatory is comprised of one or more discrete subparts and should be treated as
`
`multiple interrogatories for purposes of the limits set forth in the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 37);
`
`specifically, the interrogatory is comprised of three logically and factually distinct subparts—namely,
`
`(i) description of IP Bridge’s “theory of infringement;” (ii) description of “how OmniVision or its
`
`products… allegedly infringe any claim of the Asserted Patents;” and (iii) identification of supporting
`
`documents—and should accordingly be counted as at least three interrogatories.
`
`IP Bridge further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information related to IP
`
`Bridge’s Rule 11 investigations, which requires leave of the Court and is only allowed in
`
`extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here. See FED. R. CIV. P. 11 Advisory Committee
`
`Notes to the 1983 Amendment (“To assure that the efficiencies achieved through more effective
`
`operation of the pleading regimen will not be offset by the cost of satellite litigation over the
`
`imposition of sanctions, the court must to the extent possible limit the scope of sanction proceedings
`
`to the record. Thus, discovery should be conducted only by leave of the court, and then only in
`
`extraordinary circumstances.”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3)(A) (“Ordinarily, a party may not
`
`discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation…” unless that
`
`party shows that it has a “substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without
`
`undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.”); Vasudevan Software, Inc. v.
`
`International Business Machine Corp., No. C09-05897 RS (HRL), 2011 WL 940263, at *4-5 (N.D.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 27 of 195 PageID #: 3178
`
`Cal. Feb. 18, 2011) (denying motion to compel responses to interrogatories that requested description
`
`of pre-filing investigation); Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, No. 11-6609
`
`(FLW), 2012 WL 2871061, at *6 (D.N.J. July 12, 2012) (holding that testing procedures and protocol
`
`used by plaintiff fell within work-product privilege).
`
`RESPONSE TO SUBPART 1:
`
`Subject
`
`to and without waiving
`
`the foregoing
`
`objections, IP Bridge refers OmniVision to its infringement contentions and claim charts delivered
`
`during pre-suit negotiations and served in this lawsuit regarding OmniVision’s products. Additional
`
`non-privileged, non-protected, non-public details as to any “theory of infringement” will be the
`
`subject of expert testimony and will be disclosed in accordance with the deadlines established by the
`
`Court. As discovery and counsel’s investigation are ongoing, IP Bridge expressly reserves the right
`
`to supplement, amend, modify, or correct its responses to this interrogatory, as appropriate.
`
`RESPONSE TO SUBPART 2:
`
`Subject
`
`to and without waiving
`
`the foregoing
`
`objections, IP Bridge refers OmniVision to its infringement contentions and claim charts delivered
`
`during pre-suit negotiations and served in this lawsuit regarding OmniVision’s products. Additional
`
`non-privileged, non-protected, non-public details as to “how OmniVision or its products… allegedly
`
`infringe any claim of the Asserted Patents” will be the subject of expert testimony and will be
`
`disclosed in accordance with the deadlines established by the Court. As discovery and counsel’s
`
`investigation are ongoing, IP Bridge expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, or
`
`correct its responses to this interrogatory, as appropriate.
`
`RESPONSE TO SUBPART 3:
`
`Subject
`
`to and without waiving
`
`the foregoing
`
`objections, IP Bridge refers OmniVision to its infringement contentions and claim charts delivered
`
`during pre-suit negotiations and served in this lawsuit regarding OmniVision’s products. Additional
`
`non-privileged, non-protected, non-public details as to any supporting documents for infringement
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OMNIVISION
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 131-1 Filed 11/28/18 Page 28 of 195 PageID #: 3179
`
`will be the subject of expert testimony and will be disclosed in accordance with the deadlines
`
`established by the Court. As discovery and counsel’s investigation are ongoing, IP Bridge expressly
`
`reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, or correct its responses to this interrogatory, as
`
`appropriate.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Identify any products made, used, sold, or offered for sale in the United States or imported
`
`into the United States by or for IP Bridge, its licensees, its partners, or its investors, including every
`
`code name, internal name, project name, trade name, marketing name, version name, part number,
`
`or other unique designation used in connection with each such product, that practice(d) or
`
`incorporate