Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 831
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 831
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 832
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-SLR
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF SET OF INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO VENUE
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the parties’
`
`Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time and Venue Discovery (D.I. 16), Defendant OmniVision
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” or “OmniVision”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`responds to Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s (“Plaintiff” or “IP Bridge”) First Set of
`
`Interrogatories To Defendant Relating to Venue as follows:
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`OmniVision makes the following objections, whether or not separately set forth in any
`
`specific response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories To Defendant Relating to Venue, to each
`
`and every Instruction, Definition, and Interrogatory:
`
`1.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Interrogatory as unduly
`
`burdensome and oppressive to the extent that it purports to require OmniVision to search
`
`OmniVision’s facilities and inquire of OmniVision’s employees other than those facilities and
`
`employees that would reasonably be expected to have responsive information. OmniVision’s
`
`responses are based upon: (1) a reasonable search, given the time allocated to OmniVision to
`
`respond to the Interrogatories; and (2) inquiries of OmniVision’s employees and/or representatives
`
`who could reasonably be expected to possess responsive information.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 833
`
`2.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Interrogatory to the extent
`
`that it purports to impose any requirement or discovery obligation on OmniVision other than those
`
`set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable rules and orders of this Court, and
`
`stipulations among the parties to this litigation.
`
`3.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the
`
`work product doctrine, the common interest doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity. Such information and/or documents shall not be provided in response to any
`
`Interrogatory and any inadvertent disclosure or production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of
`
`any privilege with respect to such information and/or documents, or of any work product
`
`protection, which may attach thereto.
`
`4.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information and/or documents concerning, and the disclosure of, proprietary and highly
`
`confidential information and/or trade secrets. If and to the extent OmniVision agrees to provide
`
`any information or documents, it will do so only subject to the protections of an appropriate
`
`protective order and/or a mutually acceptable supplemental protective order to address
`
`OmniVision’s confidentiality concerns.
`
`5.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Interrogatory to the extent
`
`that it purports to require OmniVision to produce or disclose information in violation of a legal or
`
`contractual obligation of nondisclosure to a third party. OmniVision will not produce such
`
`documents without either the consent of the relevant third party or an order by this Court
`
`compelling disclosure or production.
`
`6.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition, and Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead to
`
`the discovery of admissible evidence, or seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense or the subject matter involved in this action.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 834
`
`7.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is
`
`not known to OmniVision and is outside OmniVision’s possession, custody and control.
`
`8.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that
`
`is available from public sources, more conveniently or less expensively obtained from another
`
`source, or otherwise just as available to Plaintiff as it is to OmniVision.
`
`9.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition, and Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information from sources that are not reasonably accessible.
`
`10.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Interrogatory as premature to the extent it calls for
`
`information in advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`Court, any applicable local rules or agreed to by the parties in this action.
`
`11.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it calls for information that
`
`can be derived or ascertained from records OmniVision has produced or will produce in this action
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. For certain of its purposes, OmniVision may cite
`
`to the appropriate documents pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d).
`
`12.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`13.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`calls for information more properly the subject of expert testimony.
`
`14.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Interrogatory as vague, overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it fails to specify a relevant time period, or specify a time period
`
`beyond the scope of this litigation.
`
`15.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Interrogatory as vague, overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it fails to specify a relevant geographic scope, seeks information
`
`relating to activity outside the United States, or otherwise specifies a location beyond the
`
`geographic scope of this litigation.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 835
`
`16.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Interrogatory as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative
`
`to the extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery requests in this litigation,
`
`including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Admissions Relating to Venue and
`
`Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue.
`
`17.
`
`OmniVision objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “OmniVision,” “you,” and
`
`“your” as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Unless called out separately, OmniVision will
`
`understand the terms “Defendant,” “OmniVision,” “you,” and “your” to refer to OmniVision
`
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`18.
`
`OmniVision objects to terms “Accused Product” and “Accused Products” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. OmniVision will understand the terms
`
`“Accused Product” and “Accused Products” to refer to those OmniVision image sensors identified
`
`in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “communication” and “communications” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`20.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “document” and “documents” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`21.
`
`OmniVision objects to the term “electronically stored information” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`22.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “Affiliate” and “Affiliates” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`23.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “employee” and “employees” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`24.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “person” and “persons” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`25.
`
`OmniVision objects to the term “file” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and
`
`unduly burdensome.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 836
`
`26.
`
`OmniVision objects to the term “identify” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and
`
`unduly burdensome.
`
`27.
`
`OmniVision’s responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories To Defendant
`
`Relating to Venue are made to the best of OmniVision’s present knowledge, information, and
`
`belief, are based upon OmniVision’s best understanding of each Interrogatory, and are based on
`
`information currently in OmniVision’s possession, custody, and control.
`
`28.
`
`The subject matter of each Interrogatory is under continuing investigation.
`
`OmniVision will respond to each Interrogatory with current knowledge and reserves the right to
`
`supplement these responses if any additional information is identified at a later time and to make
`
`any additional objections that may become apparent.
`
`29.
`
`OmniVision also reserves the right to make use, or introduce at any hearing or at
`
`trial, any documents or information not known of or thought to be responsive at the time of
`
`response.
`
`30.
`
`OmniVision assumes no obligation beyond that imposed by the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure and in the rules and orders of this Court to voluntarily supplement or amend these
`
`responses to reflect witnesses, facts, contentions, information or evidence discovered following
`
`service of these responses.
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES RELATING TO VENUE
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Please Identify each address used by or related to Defendant, independent contractors, or
`
`agents in the last ten years in the State of Delaware and the purpose of each such address.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim
`
`or defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. In particular, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly broad to the extent that
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 837
`
`it fails to specify a relevant time period. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as vague
`
`and ambiguous as to the phrases “used by or related to” and “independent contractors, or agents.”
`
`OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by
`
`the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense or common
`
`interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks publicly available information that is equally available to
`
`IP Bridge. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`
`that is outside of OmniVision’s possession, custody, or control. OmniVision further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential information of a third party. OmniVision further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the
`
`same information as other discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s
`
`First Set of Request For Admissions Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For
`
`Production Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, OmniVision
`
`responds as follows: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), OmniVision identifies the
`
`following non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the address maintained by the registered
`
`agent for service of process of OmniVision in the State of Delaware from which the response to this
`
`Interrogatory may be derived: OMNI VENUE000001 through OMNI VENUE000156.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Please Identify each Affiliate of Defendant incorporated or formed in the State of Delaware.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim
`
`or defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase
`
`“formed.” OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 838
`
`protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense or
`
`common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks publicly available information that is equally
`
`available to IP Bridge. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information that is outside of OmniVision’s possession, custody, or control. OmniVision further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential information of a third party.
`
`OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the
`
`extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery requests in this litigation, including but
`
`not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Admissions Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First
`
`Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, OmniVision
`
`responds as follows: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), identifies the following
`
`non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the incorporation of OmniVision or any wholly
`
`owned subsidiary in the State of Delaware from which the response to this Interrogatory may be
`
`derived: OMNI VENUE000001 through OMNI VENUE000156.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Please Identify the principal office location of each of Seagull International Limited, Hua
`
`Capital Management Co., Ltd., CITIC Capital Holdings Limited, Goldstone Investment Co., Ltd.,
`
`and Shanghai Pudong Science & Technology Investment Co., Ltd.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim
`
`or defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. In particular, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly broad to the extent that
`
`it fails to specify a relevant time period. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as vague
`
`and ambiguous as to the phrase “principal office location.” OmniVision further objects to this
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 839
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the
`
`attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other
`
`applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that
`
`it seeks publicly available information that is equally available to IP Bridge. OmniVision further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of OmniVision’s
`
`possession, custody, or control. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`seeks confidential information of a third party. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other
`
`discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For
`
`Admissions Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, OmniVision
`
`responds as follows: OmniVision is currently unaware of any principal office locations of Seagull
`
`International Limited, Hua Capital Management Co., Ltd., CITIC Capital Holdings Limited,
`
`Goldstone Investment Co., Ltd., or Shanghai Pudong Science & Technology Investment Co., Ltd.
`
`located in the State of Delaware.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Please Identify all potential Defendant witnesses that may be unavailable for trial in
`
`Delaware and explain the reasons for such alleged unavailability.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim
`
`or defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence.
`
`In particular, OmniVision objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it seeks an identification of “all potential OmniVision witnesses.”
`
`OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the phrases
`
`“potential” and “unavailable for trial.” OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as premature
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 840
`
`to the extent it calls for information in advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, the Court, any applicable local rules or agreed to by the parties in this action, or
`
`otherwise calls for information difficult to predict at this stage of the litigation in light of the large
`
`number of patents and accused products at issue. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work
`
`product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`
`that is outside of OmniVision’s possession, custody, or control. OmniVision further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential information of a third party. OmniVision further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the
`
`same information as other discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s
`
`First Set of Request For Admissions Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For
`
`Production Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, OmniVision
`
`responds as follows: In view of the early stage of this litigation and the large number of asserted
`
`patents and accused products at issue, the list of potential witnesses, including OmniVision
`
`employees and potentially ex-employees, is unknown and subject to unpredictable availability.
`
`OmniVision identifies as potential witnesses OmniVision employees (and potentially ex-employees)
`
`who reside near OmniVision headquarters in Santa Clara, California who are involved in the design
`
`and development of the accused technology and products, the sale and marketing of the accused
`
`products and/or familiar with the technology relating to CMOS image sensors prior to the priority
`
`date of the asserted patents. Each of the identified OmniVision employees may be unavailable for
`
`trial in the State of Delaware.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Please Identify all third party witnesses Defendant expects to disclose as persons with
`
`relevant knowledge and provide such witnesses’ addresses.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 841
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim
`
`or defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence.
`
`In particular, OmniVision objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it seeks an identification of “all third party witnesses.” OmniVision
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “expects.” OmniVision
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as premature to the extent it calls for information in advance of
`
`the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court, any applicable local
`
`rules or agreed to by the parties in this action. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work
`
`product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks publicly
`
`available information that is equally available to IP Bridge. OmniVision further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of OmniVision’s possession,
`
`custody, or control. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential information of a third party. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other
`
`discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For
`
`Admissions Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, OmniVision
`
`responds as follows: In view of the early stage of this litigation and the large number of asserted
`
`patents and accused products at issue, the list of potential third party witnesses is subject to change.
`
`THIRD PARTY WITNESS
`
`ADDRESS
`
`Shigeharu Yoshii
`
`IP Bridge, Inc.
`Fuerte Kojimachi FL5
`1-7-25 Kojimachi, Chiyoda-ku,
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 842
`
`THIRD PARTY WITNESS
`
`ADDRESS
`
`Eric J. Robinson
`
`Douglas P. Mueller
`
`Michael E. Forgarty
`
`Ramyar M. Farid
`
`Tokyo 102-0083, Japan
`
`Nixon Peabody LLP
`8180 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 800
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`Hamre, Schumann, Mueller & Larson,
`P.C.
`P.O. Box 2902-0902
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`600 13th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`McDermott Will & Emery LLP
`600 13th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Masayoshi Tagami
`
`Tokyo, Japan
`
`Yoshihiro Hayashi
`
`Tokyo, Japan
`
`Mizuki Segawa
`
`Isao Miyanaga
`
`Toshiki Yabu
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Takashi Nakabayashi
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Takashi Uehara
`
`Takaaki Ukeda
`
`Masatoshi Arai
`
`Takayuki Yamada
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Michikazu Matsumoto
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Tokuhiko Tamaki
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Koichi Kawashima
`
`Kyoto, Japan
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 843
`
`THIRD PARTY WITNESS
`
`ADDRESS
`
`Yasuo Sakurai
`
`Kenji Tateiwa
`
`Daisaku Ikoma
`
`Atsuhiro Kajiya
`
`Kyoto, Japan
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Hyogo, Japan
`
`Katsuhiro Ootani
`
`Nara, Japan
`
`Kyoji Yamashita
`
`Mitsuyoshi Mori
`
`Kyoto, Japan
`
`Kyoto, Japan
`
`Takumi Yamaguchi
`
`Kyoto, Japan
`
`Takahiko Murata
`
`Osaka, Japan
`
`Takeshi Nogami
`
`Sunnyvale, California
`
`Susan H. Chen
`
`Santa Clara, California
`
`Peijun Ding
`
`San Jose, California
`
`Tony Chiang
`
`Mountain View, California
`
`Barry L. Chin
`
`Saratoga, California
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Please Identify all documents and materials in Defendant’s possession, custody or control
`
`that are relevant to this matter and cannot be produced in Delaware and explain the reasons why
`
`these documents and materials cannot be produced in Delaware.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim
`
`or defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 844
`
`evidence.
`
`In particular, OmniVision objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it seeks an identification of “all documents.” OmniVision further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “cannot be produced.”
`
`OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as premature to the extent it calls for information in
`
`advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court, any
`
`applicable local rules or agreed to by the parties in this action. OmniVision further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the
`
`attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other
`
`applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably
`
`cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery requests
`
`in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Admissions Relating
`
`to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, OmniVision
`
`responds as follows: In view of the early stage of this litigation and the large number of asserted
`
`patents and accused products at issue, it is uncertain which materials will be relevant and the volume
`
`of such materials may not be easily produced in Delaware. For example, any requested inspection of
`
`the accused products should be conducted at OmniVision headquarters in Santa Clara, California
`
`where OmniVision engineers, servers, and resources are located.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Please Identify each contract, agreement,
`
`license,
`
`letter of intent, memorandum of
`
`understanding, or purchase order to which Defendant is or has been a party, including but not limited
`
`to agreements related to the purchase or sale of any goods or services, the transaction agreement
`
`pursuant to which Seagull International Limited or its predecessors or affiliates acquired Defendant
`
`or engagement agreements with legal counsel, accountants, consultants, or experts that selects
`
`Delaware governing law, jurisdiction or venue in any court located in the State of Delaware, or any
`
`place of arbitration in the State of Delaware.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 845
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim
`
`or defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. In particular, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly broad to the extent that
`
`it fails to specify a relevant time period. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work
`
`product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks confidential
`
`information of a third party. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably
`
`cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery requests
`
`in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Admissions Relating
`
`to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, OmniVision
`
`responds as follows: OmniVision has entered into one or more agreements that select Delaware
`
`governing law.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Please Identify all materials Defendant is required to file with the Delaware Secretary of
`
`State.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim
`
`or defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence.
`
`In particular, OmniVision objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it seeks an identification of “all materials.” OmniVision further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “required to file.”
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-2 Filed 08/10/16 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 846
`
`OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information protected by
`
`the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense or common
`
`interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks publicly available information that is equally available to
`
`IP Bridge. OmniVision further objects to this Interrogatory as unreasonably cumulative or
`
`duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery requests in this
`
`litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Admissions Relating to
`
`Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, OmniVision
`
`responds as follows: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), OmniVision identifies the
`
`following non-privileged documents sufficient to identify materials OmniVision has filed with the
`
`Delaware Secretary of State from which the response to this Interrogatory may be derived: OMNI
`
`VENUE000001 through OMNI VENUE000156.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`Please Identify each lawsuit or proceeding to which Defendant is or has been a party in the
`
`last ten years before any court, administrative body, or arbitral tribunal in the State of Delaware.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Interrogatory is overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome