Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 39673
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 1 of 40 PagelD #: 39673
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B-2
`EXHIBIT B-2
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 39674
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 2 of 40 PagelD #: 39674
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 39675
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 3 of 40 PagelD #: 39675
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C-15
`EXHIBIT C-15
`
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`CONFIDENTIAL-OUTSIDE COUNSEL
`ONLY
`ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 39676
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 4 of 40 PagelD #: 39676
`
`REDACTED
`REDACTED
`IN ITS
`IN ITS
`ENTIRETY
`ENTIRETY
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 39677
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 5 of 40 PagelD #: 39677
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C-16
`EXHIBIT C-16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 39678
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 16-454 (RGA)
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`PLAINTIFF ACCELERATION BAY’S FIRST SET OF
`PARTY SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-7)
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 33, and L.R. 5.4, Defendant Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”
`
`or “Defendant”), by and through its undersigned attorneys, serve(s) these Objections and
`
`Responses to Plaintiff Acceleration Bay LLC’s First Set of party specific Interrogatories (Nos.
`
`1-7) (the “Interrogatories”).
`
`Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement these Objections and Responses
`
`in the event that further information or documents are discovered. In addition, Defendant’s
`
`Responses are given without prejudice to its rights to introduce at trial evidence of any
`
`subsequently discovered or unintentionally omitted facts or documents.
`
`Defendant’s Objections and Responses shall not constitute an admission by Defendant
`
`that any Interrogatory, or the answer thereto, is admissible as evidence in any trial or other
`
`proceeding. Defendant specifically reserves the right to object on any grounds at any time to
`
`the admission of any Interrogatory, or any response or document produced in connection
`
`therewith, in any trial or other proceeding.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 39679
`
`Defendant’s Responses are made for the purpose of this pending action only.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`The following general objections apply to the Interrogatories as a whole as well as
`
`to each and every individual Interrogatory propounded by Plaintiff, and they are incorporated
`
`by reference into each response by Defendant as if set forth fully therein:
`
`1.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction, to the
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing,
`
`incomprehensible, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to
`
`lead to the discovery of relevant evidence and is not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction, to the
`
`extent that it is not reasonably limited in time or scope. Subject to and without waiving its
`
`objections, Defendant will provide information for the period of March 30, 2015 to present
`
`unless otherwise noted.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`the work- product doctrine, the common interest privilege, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A),
`
`or any other privilege or immunity. The inadvertent production of any privileged document
`
`or information shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable objection or privilege. For
`
`the purposes of
`
`responding to these Interrogatories, Defendant will interpret such
`
`Interrogatory, definition, and instruction as excluding information subject to privilege.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it seeks to elicit confidential and/or proprietary information of third parties and/or
`
`information that is subject to or precluded by restrictions of confidentiality imposed by,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 39680
`
`or pursuant to, agreements between Defendant and third parties in the absence of permission
`
`by those third parties to reveal such information to Plaintiff.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it contains multiple subparts or renders an Interrogatory compound. Such
`
`Interrogatories constitute separate Interrogatories that count toward the limit on Interrogatories
`
`that Plaintiff is permitted to propound. Defendant objects to each and every Interrogatory
`
`that would exceed such limit.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it calls for a legal conclusion. Any response by Defendant shall not be
`
`construed as providing a legal conclusion regarding the meaning or application of any terms
`
`or phrases used in Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, definitions, or instructions.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that the information requested therein is not within the possession, custody, or control
`
`of the Defendant.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it purports to impose obligations on Defendant(s) that exceed the obligations imposed
`
`upon a responding party under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other applicable law.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it purports to require Defendant to do anything beyond that which is required by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Court’s Scheduling Order, Protective Order, or the Local
`
`Rules.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 39681
`
`11.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it is cumulative and duplicative of other forms of discovery that are more
`
`convenient and less burdensome. Defendant further objects to each Interrogatory, definition,
`
`and instruction to the extent that it seeks to require Defendant to do more than conduct an
`
`examination of those files or sources that reasonably may be expected to yield responsive
`
`information, or an inquiry of those persons who may be reasonably expected to possess
`
`responsive information.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it improperly and prematurely seeks discovery of expert opinions. Such information
`
`will be disclosed within the timeframe outlined by the Court’s Scheduling Order.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it prematurely requests discovery of materials and information in advance of their
`
`respective deadlines under the Court’s Scheduling Order. Defendant objects to each
`
`Interrogatory as unfairly prejudicial and premature to the extent that it would require
`
`Defendant to formulate its full contentions on various topics in order to answer at this stage in
`
`the litigation.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant objects to each Interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent that it purports to place an obligation on Defendant to obtain or provide information
`
`that is as readily available to Defendant as it is to Plaintiff.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant objects to the definitions of the terms “Defendants,” “You,” “Your,”
`
`and “Activision,” “EA,” and “Take-Two,” as vague and ambiguous as the scope of the terms
`
`“present and former,” “directors,” “officers,” “employees,” “parent organization(s),”
`
`“subsidiary organization(s),” “predecessors in interest,” “successors in interest,” “divisions,”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 39682
`
`“servants,”
`
`“agents,” “attorneys,” “consultants,” “partners,” “associates,” “investigators,”
`
`“representatives,” “accountants,” “financial advisors,” “distributors,” and “any other person
`
`acting on their behalf, pursuant to its authority or subject to its control,” is unclear. Defendant
`
`further objects to the definitions of the terms “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” as overly
`
`broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that the definitions (in combination with the
`
`individual Interrogatories): (i) seek to encompass information that is neither relevant nor
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence; (ii) are not reasonably
`
`limited in time or scope; (iii) seek to encompass information not within Defendant’s
`
`possession, custody, or control; and/or (iv) seek to encompass information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest
`
`privilege, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A), or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
`
`Defendant also objects to these definitions to the extent that they presume that Defendant has
`
`knowledge of each of the persons or entities within the scope of these definitions. Any request
`
`that purports to require Defendant to ascertain the knowledge of all of the individuals contained
`
`in the definitions of “Defendants,” “You,” and “Your” is overbroad, harassing, and unduly
`
`burdensome.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant objects to the definition of the terms “Plaintiff” and “Acceleration
`
`Bay” as vague and ambiguous as the scope of the terms “present and former,” “directors,”
`
`“officers,” “employees,” “parent organization(s),” “subsidiary organization(s),” “predecessors
`
`in
`
`interest,” “successors
`
`in
`
`interest,” “divisions,” “servants,” “agents,” “attorneys,”
`
`“consultants,”
`
`“partners,” “associates,” “investigators,” “representatives,” “accountants,”
`
`“financial advisors,” “distributors,” and “any other person acting on their behalf, pursuant to
`
`its authority or subject to its control,” is unclear. Defendant further objects to these definitions
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 39683
`
`as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that the definitions (in combination with
`
`the individual Interrogatories): (i) seek to encompass information that is neither relevant nor
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence; (ii) are not reasonably
`
`limited in time or scope; (iii) seek to encompass information not within Defendant’s
`
`possession, custody, or control; and/or (iv) seek to encompass information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the common interest
`
`privilege, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A), or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
`
`Defendant also objects to these definitions to the extent that they presume that Defendant has
`
`knowledge of each of the persons or entities within the scope of these definitions. Any request
`
`that purports to require Defendant to ascertain the knowledge of all of the individuals
`
`contained in the definitions of “Plaintiff” and/or “Acceleration Bay” is overbroad, harassing,
`
`and unduly burdensome.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant objects to the definition of the terms “Patents-in-Suit,” “’344 Patent,”
`
`“’966 Patent,” “’147 Patent,” “’634 Patent,” “’069 Patent,” and “’497 Patent,” as overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that the definitions include patents and/or patent claims
`
`that are not asserted against Defendant in this action.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant objects to the definition of the terms “EA Products” or “Accused
`
`Products” as: (i) vague and ambiguous as the terms “current,” “previous and contemplated
`
`versions,” “releases,” and “continuations” are undefined; (ii) overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome
`
`to
`
`the extent
`
`that
`
`the definition (in combination with the individual
`
`Interrogatories) seeks to encompass information that is neither
`
`relevant nor reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence; (iii) overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that the definition (in combination with the
`
`individual
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 39684
`
`Interrogatories) seeks to encompass products that have not specifically been accused of
`
`infringement by Plaintiff; (iv) inconsistent with Plaintiff’s Complaint, (v) inconsistent with
`
`Plaintiff’s Identification of Accused Products and Patents served to Defendant on February
`
`13, 2017 pursuant to the Scheduling Order in this action, and (vi) inconsistent with the Orders
`
`from the Special Master.
`
`
`
`The following Responses are based on information reasonably available to
`
`Defendant as of the date of these Responses. Defendant’s investigation is continuing and
`
`ongoing and Defendant expressly reserves the right to revise and/or supplement its responses
`
`based on information discovered after the date of these Responses and to use such information
`
`in defending Plaintiff's claims at trial or for any other purpose in this litigation. Defendant's
`
`Responses to these Interrogatories shall not constitute a waiver of any objection to: (1) the use
`
`of any information provided by Defendant in its Responses by Plaintiff, for any purpose; or
`
`(2) the admissibility, materiality, or relevance of such information to this case.
`
`These General Objections shall be deemed to be incorporated in full into each one of the
`
`individual Responses set forth below.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Identify all licensing agreements between Defendant and any third party regarding patents,
`
`proprietary technology, or know-how related to or comparable to the technology disclosed in the
`
`Asserted Patents, describe the terms of these agreements, and identify those agreements that You
`
`assert are comparable or relevant agreements for purposes of a reasonable royalty analysis of
`
`damages.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 39685
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`EA objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous and fails to
`
`specifically identify the information requested. In particular, the terms “related to or comparable
`
`to the technology disclosed in the Asserted Patents” is vague and ambiguous and fails to
`
`specifically identify the technology sought. EA also objects to this Interrogatory as it calls for
`
`information that is not relevant and not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Defendant responds pursuant to
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) that licenses which may be responsive to the broad request of this
`
`interrogatory can be found in the following bates ranges:
`
`EA0038359-EA0038365;
`
`EA0038366-EA0038372;
`
`EA0038373-EA0038380;
`
`EA0038381-EA0038388; EA0038389-EA0038400; EA0038401-EA0038402; EA0038403-
`
`EA0038404; EA0038405-EA0038406; EA0038407-EA0038408; EA0038409-EA0038410;
`
`EA0038411-EA0038412; EA0038413-EA0038414; EA0038415-EA0038416; EA0038417-
`
`EA0038418; EA0038419-EA0038420; EA0038421-EA0038422; EA0038423-EA0038424;
`
`EA0038425-EA0038426; EA0038427-EA0038428; EA0038429-EA0038430; EA0038431-
`
`EA0038432; EA0038433-EA0038447; EA0038448-EA0038449; EA0038450-EA0038459;
`
`EA0038460-EA0038472; EA0038473-EA0038480; EA0038481-EA0038482; EA0038483-
`
`EA0038483; EA0038484-EA0038487; EA0038488-EA0038489; EA0038490-EA0038509;
`
`EA0038510-EA0038510; EA0038511-EA0038529; EA0038530-EA0038531; EA0038532-
`
`EA0038565; EA0038566-EA0038582; EA0038583-EA0038584; EA0038585-EA0038614;
`
`EA0038615-EA0038616; EA0038617-EA0038619; EA0038620-EA0038642; EA0038643-
`
`EA0038644; EA0038645-EA0038650; EA0038651-EA0038658; EA0038659-EA0038666;
`
`EA0038667-EA0038674; EA0038675-EA0038682; EA0038683-EA0038691; EA0038692-
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 39686
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 14 of 40 PagelD #: 39686
`
`EA0038703; EA0038704-EA0038715; EA0038716-EA0038727; EA0038728-EA0038735;
`EA0038703; EA0038704-EA0038715; EA0038716-EA0038727; EA0038728-EA0038735;
`
`EA0038736-EA0038744; EA0038745-EA0038756; EA0038757-EA0038768; EA0038769-
`EA0038736-EA0038744; EA0038745-EA0038756; EA0038757-EA0038768; EA0038769-
`
`EA0038777; EA0038778-EA0038788; EA0038789-EA0038789; EA0038790-EA0038801;
`EA0038777; EA0038778-EA0038788; EA0038789-EA0038789; EA0038790-EA0038801;
`
`EA0038802-EA0038803; EA0038804-EA0038812; EA0038813-EA0038824; EA0038825-
`EA0038802-EA0038803; EA0038804-EA0038812; EA0038813-EA0038824; EA0038825-
`
`EA0038836; EA0038837-EA0038848; EA0038849-EA0038860; EA0038861-EA0038872;
`EA0038836; EA0038837-EA0038848; EA0038849-EA0038860; EA0038861-EA0038872;
`
`EA0038873-EA0038884; EA0038885-EA0038896; EA0038897-EA0038908; EA0038909-
`EA0038873-EA0038884; EA0038885-EA0038896; EA0038897-EA0038908; EA0038909-
`
`EA0038920; EA0038921-EA0038932; EA0038933-EA0038941; EA0038942-EA0038944;
`EA0038920; EA0038921-EA0038932; EA0038933-EA0038941; EA0038942-EA0038944;
`
`EA0038945-EA0038946; EA0038947-EA0038948; EA0038949-EA0038950; EA0038951-
`EA0038945-EA0038946; EA0038947-EA0038948; EA0038949-EA0038950; EA0038951-
`
`EA0038955; EA0038956-EA0038965; EA0038966-EA0038976; EA0038977-EA0038978;
`EA0038955; EA0038956-EA0038965; EA0038966-EA0038976; EA0038977-EA0038978;
`
`EA0038979-EA0039008; EA0039009-EA0039010; EA0039011-EA0039012; EA0039013-
`EA0038979-EA0039008; EA0039009-EA0039010; EA0039011-EA0039012; EA0039013-
`
`EA0039014; EA0039015-EA0039016; EA0039017-EA0039018; EA0039019-EA0039025;
`EA0039014; EA0039015-EA0039016; EA0039017-EA0039018; EA0039019-EA0039025;
`
`EA0039026-EA0039027; EA0039028-EA0039029; EA0039030-EA0039031; EA0039032-
`EA0039026-EA0039027; EA0039028-EA0039029; EA0039030-EA0039031; EA0039032-
`
`EA0039033; EA0039034-EA0039035; EA0039036-EA0039037; EA0039038-EA0039039;
`EA0039033; EA0039034-EA0039035; EA0039036-EA0039037; EA0039038-EA0039039;
`
`EA0039040-EA0039042; EA0039043-EA0039045; EA0039046-EA0039048; EA0039049-
`EA0039040-EA0039042; EA0039043-EA0039045; EA0039046-EA0039048; EA0039049-
`
`EA0039050; EA0039051-EA0039052; EA0039053-EA0039054; EA0039055-EA0039056;
`EA0039050; EA0039051-EA0039052; EA0039053-EA0039054; EA0039055-EA0039056;
`
`EA0039057-EA0039058; EA0039059-EA0039060; EA0039061-EA0039062; EA0039063-
`EA0039057-EA0039058; EA0039059-EA0039060; EA0039061-EA0039062; EA0039063-
`
`EA0039064; EA0039065-EA0039066; EA0039067-EA0039072; EA0039073-EA0039084;
`EA0039064; EA0039065-EA0039066; EA0039067-EA0039072; EA0039073-EA0039084;
`
`EA0039085-EA0039086; EA0039087-EA0039087; EA0039088-EA0039091; EA0039092-
`EA0039085-EA0039086; EA0039087-EA0039087; EA0039088-EA0039091; EA0039092-
`
`EA0039096; EA0039097-EA0039097; EA0039098-EA0039101; EA0039102-EA0039102;
`EA0039096; EA0039097-EA0039097; EA0039098-EA0039101; EA0039102-EA0039102;
`
`EA0039103-EA0039111; EA0039112-EA0039112; EA0039113-EA0039113; EA0039114-
`EA0039103-EA0039111; EA0039112-EA0039112; EA0039113-EA0039113; EA0039114-
`
`EA0039133; EA0039134-EA0039135; EA0039136-EA0039152; EA0039153-EA0039154;
`EA0039133; EA0039134-EA0039135; EA0039136-EA0039152; EA0039153-EA0039154;
`
`EA0039155-EA0039155; EA0039156-EA0039157; EA0039158-EA0039159; EA0039160-
`EA0039155-EA0039155; EA0039156-EA0039157; EA0039158-EA0039159; EA0039160-
`
`EA0039161; EA0039162-EA0039163; EA0039164-EA0039165; EA0039166-EA0039167;
`EA0039161; EA0039162-EA0039163; EA0039164-EA0039165; EA0039166-EA0039167;
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 39687
`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 15 of 40 PagelD #: 39687
`
`EA0039168-EA0039168; EA0039169-EA0039169; EA0039170-EA0039171; EA0039172-
`EA0039168-EA0039168; EA0039169-EA0039169;
`EA0039170-EA0039171; EA0039172-
`
`EA0039172; EA0039173-EA0039173; EA0039174-EA0039174; EA0039175-EA0039176;
`EA0039172; EA0039173-EA0039173; EA0039174-EA0039174; EA0039175-EA0039176;
`
`EA0039177-EA0039177; EA0039178-EA0039183; EA0039184-EA0039185; EA0039186-
`EA0039177-EA0039177; EA0039178-EA0039183; EA0039184-EA0039185; EA0039186-
`
`EA0039196; EA0039197-EA0039198; EA0039199-EA0039200; EA0039201-EA0039202;
`EA0039196; EA0039197-EA0039198; EA0039199-EA0039200; EA0039201-EA0039202;
`
`EA0039203-EA0039203; EA0039204-EA0039205; EA0039206-EA0039207; EA0039208-
`EA0039203-EA0039203; EA0039204-EA0039205; EA0039206-EA0039207; EA0039208-
`
`EA0039208; EA0039209-EA0039210; EA0039211-EA0039212; EA0039213-EA0039213;
`EA0039208; EA0039209-EA0039210; EA0039211-EA0039212; EA0039213-EA0039213;
`
`EA0039214-EA0039214; EA0039215-EA0039216; EA0039217-EA0039218; EA0039219-
`EA0039214-EA0039214; EA0039215-EA0039216; EA0039217-EA0039218; EA0039219-
`
`EA0039219; EA0039220-EA0039220; EA0039221-EA0039221; EA0039222-EA0039222;
`EA0039219; EA0039220-EA0039220; EA0039221-EA0039221; EA0039222-EA0039222;
`
`EA0039223-EA0039223; EA0039224-EA0039225; EA0039226-EA0039227; EA0039228-
`EA0039223-EA0039223; EA0039224-EA0039225; EA0039226-EA0039227; EA0039228-
`
`EA0039229; EA0039230-EA0039231; EA0039232-EA0039233; EA0039234-EA0039234;
`EA0039229; EA0039230-EA0039231; EA0039232-EA0039233; EA0039234-EA0039234;
`
`EA0039235-EA0039235; EA0039236-EA0039238; EA0039239-EA0039239; EA0039240-
`EA0039235-EA0039235; EA0039236-EA0039238; EA0039239-EA0039239; EA0039240-
`
`EA0039240; EA0039241-EA0039241; EA0039242-EA0039242; EA0039243-EA0039243;
`EA0039240; EA0039241-EA0039241; EA0039242-EA0039242; EA0039243-EA0039243;
`
`EA0039244-EA0039244; EA0039245-EA0039253; EA0039254-EA0039261; EA0039262-
`EA0039244-EA0039244; EA0039245-EA0039253; EA0039254-EA0039261; EA0039262-
`
`EA0039264; EA0039265-EA0039284; EA0039285-EA0039286; EA0039287-EA0039297;
`EA0039264; EA0039265-EA0039284; EA0039285-EA0039286; EA0039287-EA0039297;
`
`EA0039298-EA0039298; EA0039299-EA0039306; EA0039307-EA0039317; EA0039318-
`EA0039298-EA0039298; EA0039299-EA0039306; EA0039307-EA0039317; EA0039318-
`
`EA0039319; EA0039320-EA0039320; EA0039321-EA0039321; EA0039322-EA0039322;
`EA0039319; EA0039320-EA0039320; EA0039321-EA0039321; EA0039322-EA0039322;
`
`EA0039323-EA0039330; EA0039331-EA0039336; EA0039337-EA0039357; EA0039358-
`EA0039323-EA0039330; EA0039331-EA0039336; EA0039337-EA0039357; EA0039358-
`
`EA0039367; EA0039368-EA0039371; EA0039372-EA0039381; EA0039382-EA0039383;
`EA0039367; EA0039368-EA0039371; EA0039372-EA0039381; EA0039382-EA0039383;
`
`EA0039384-EA0039419; EA0039420-EA0039421; EA0039422-EA0039422; EA0039423-
`EA0039384-EA0039419; EA0039420-EA0039421;
`EA0039422-EA0039422; EA0039423-
`
`EA0039425; EA0039426-EA0039426; EA0039427-EA0039429; EA0039430-EA0039432;
`EA0039425; EA0039426-EA0039426; EA0039427-EA0039429; EA0039430-EA0039432;
`
`EA0039433-EA0039445; EA0039446-EA0039446; EA0039447-EA0039447; EA0039448-
`EA0039433-EA0039445; EA0039446-EA0039446; EA0039447-EA0039447; EA0039448-
`
`EA0039448; EA0039449-EA0039449; EA0039450-EA0039450; EA0039451-EA0039451;
`EA0039448; EA0039449-EA0039449; EA0039450-EA0039450; EA0039451-EA0039451;
`
`EA0039452-EA0039452; EA0039453-EA0039467; EA0039468-EA0039468; EA0039469-
`EA0039452-EA0039452; EA0039453-EA0039467; EA0039468-EA0039468; EA0039469-
`
`
`
`10
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 39688
`
`EA0039469; EA0039470-EA0039470; EA0039471-EA0039471; EA0039472-EA0039472;
`
`EA0039473-EA0039480; EA0039481-EA0039487; EA0039488-EA0039495; EA0039496-
`
`EA0039503; EA0039504-EA0039511; EA0039512-EA0039522; EA0039523-EA0039530.
`
`Defendant further notes that the November 19, 2006 patent licensing agreement between the
`
`Boeing Management Company (a wholly owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company) and Sony
`
`Computer Entertainment America Inc. is highly relevant to a reasonable royalty analysis of damages.
`
`See BOEING000013- BOEING000023.
`
`The information provided in response to this interrogatory is based on Defendant’s current
`
`knowledge and information. Defendant is continuing its investigation and reserves all rights to amend,
`
`modify, or supplement the information provided here.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`
`
`Describe in detail any non-infringing alternative or design around that you contend
`
`Defendant could use to modify or as an alternative to the Accused Products to avoid infringement.
`
`Your identification should include a description of the technology that allows the non-infringing
`
`alternative product or design around to achieve the same functionality as the Accused Products
`
`and the costs to develop, use, manufacture or implement such non-infringing alternative or design
`
`around.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`EA objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is: (i) compound, in that it seeks
`
`disparate and unrelated information; (ii) vague and ambiguous, as the scope of the terms
`
`“alternative product,” “design around,” and “technology” are not defined in any sets of
`
`interrogatories served by Plaintiff, and are therefore unclear; (iii) vague and ambiguous, as Plaintiff
`
`has not provided EA with a coherent infringement theory, and therefore EA cannot ascertain what
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 17 of 40 PageID #: 39689
`
`may or may not be infringing under Plaintiff’s definition; (iv) overly broad and unduly burdensome
`
`as it seeks information that is not in the possession, custody, or control of EA; (v) overbroad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and oppressive to the extent it seeks information not relevant to any claim or
`
`defense of any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence;
`
`(vi) vague, as the Interrogatory fails to provide the specific time period within which it pertains;
`
`and (vii) potentially seeking information relating to communications protected from disclosure by
`
`the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A), or any other applicable privilege or immunity. The absence of any specific
`
`and intelligible infringement theory from Plaintiff makes this Interrogatory vague, directed toward
`
`irrelevant information and unduly burdensome to answer. EA also objects that this Interrogatory
`
`includes multiple subparts under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, and to the extent EA can
`
`understand this Interrogatory, EA responds as follows:
`
`I.
`
`EA games available before the date on which Plaintiff contends infringement began
`
`Plaintiff took the position that the date of the hypothetical negotiation, which is when the
`
`first infringement began, occurred on the date Plaintiff served its complaint against EA in the prior
`
`case i.e. March 31, 2015. Under this assertion, it logically follows that any products available
`
`before Plaintiff served the Complaint do not infringe including the Accused Products.
`
`Accordingly, EA contends that all similar products available before March 31, 2015
`
`constitute non-infringing alternatives to the Accused Products. FIFA15, NHL15, Tiger Woods
`
`PGA, and PvZ were available before March 31, 2015, and include the same or similar
`
`functionalities as the Accused Products; in many cases, they are nearly identical.
`
`II. Games having topologies Plaintiff disavowed during prosecution
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 18 of 40 PageID #: 39690
`
`During the proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), Plaintiff
`
`specifically disclaimed: 1) client-server topology, and 2) full mesh topology. As such, EA
`
`contends that any games that use the disclaimed client-server or full mesh topologies constitute
`
`non-infringement alternatives to the Accused Products. The prosecution history also specifically
`
`disclaims network topologies with m-less than 3. Accordingly, another non-infringing alternative
`
`would include network topologies with m equal to 2. All non m-regular topologies would also be
`
`non-infringing alternatives.
`
`III. Game engine from third parties
`
`In the online gaming space, other multiplayer game networking engines that include
`
`services necessary for operating a multiplayer game were available for licensing. One example of
`
`this was a game networking engine from Raknet. Raknet provided a cross platform game
`
`networking engine with the key features present in the Accused Products, including the network
`
`topologies (e.g., client-server and fully connected mesh), Voice communication, Lobby, NAT
`
`traversal, and host migration. Because games having these disclaimed topologies constitute non-
`
`infringing alternatives to the Accused Products for the reasons stated above, Raknet also
`
`constitutes a non-infringing alternative because it uses client server and full mesh topologies.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`
`
`Identify all projections, build costs, or valuations related to the technology for Defendant’s
`
`network that allows for players to connect, communicate, play against, or otherwise interact with
`
`other players, for the Accused Products for the period of time from 2015 to 2020.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`EA objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is: (i) overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and oppressive because it seeks information not relevant to any claim or defense of
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 19 of 40 PageID #: 39691
`
`any party and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence; (ii) vague
`
`and ambiguous, as to the meaning of the terms “projections,” “build costs,” “valuations,”
`
`“networks,” “connect,” “communicate,” and “interact,” which are not defined in any sets of
`
`interrogatories served by Plaintiff, and is therefore unclear; (iii) vague, as the Interrogatory seeks
`
`information that is outside the relevant time period; (iv) fails to particularly identify the
`
`information requested; (v) compound, in that it seeks disparate and unrelated information; and (vi)
`
`potentially seeking information relating to communications protected from disclosure by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 26(b)(4)(A), or any other applicable privilege or immunity. EA also objects that this
`
`interrogatory includes multiple subparts under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its foregoing objections, EA does not understand this
`
`Interrogatory and is available to meet and confer regarding the scope and nature of the requested
`
`information. EA is available to meet and confer regarding the information requested and the scope
`
`and nature of a response.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Identify and describe Plaintiff’s damages from Defendant’s alleged infringement assuming
`
`a finding of infringement and validity including but not limited to a royalty, a royalty rate, and a
`
`royalty base. Include in you answer the following information: (a) a detailed description of the
`
`methodology for determining the damages; (b) all facts and reasons that relate to Defendant’s
`
`determination of damages; (c) the largest amount of damages that Defendant contends Plaintiff is
`
`entitled to seek from a jury for Defendants’ infringement; and (d) the identity of the owner or
`
`assignee of the Asserted Patents and the licensor or potential licensor at the time damages are
`
`determined.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00454-RGA Document 472-1 Filed 04/20/18 Page 20 of 40 PageID #: 39692
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`EA objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is: (i) compound, in that it seeks
`
`disparate and unrelated information; (ii) vague and ambiguous, as the scope of the terms “royalty,”
`
`“royalt