Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10154 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 27
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Redacted Version of
`Document to be Sealed
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10155 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-MD-03034
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT
`TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF
`EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS
`Le Procureur général d'Etat
`Cité Judiciaire
`Plateau du St. Esprit
`L-2080 Luxembourg
`The United States District Court
`FROM:
`For the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
`
`
`231 W. Lafayette Blvd.
`
`
`Detroit, MI 48226
`
`
`United States of America
`
`
`PERSON TO WHOM THIS REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE IS DIRECTED:
`Mr. Andreas Kohn, or a corporate representative who may provide the requested
`information.
` Rolling Wireless S.A.R.L.
`15 Rue Edward Steichen
`2540 Neudorf-Weimershof
`Luxembourg
`Please return the evidence directly to the attention of the requesting court – unless the information
`provided is not written in English. In that case, please return the evidence and all correspondence
`to:
`
`TO:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action Group, Ltd., d/b/a APS International, Ltd.
`Attn: International Evidence Department
`APS International Plaza
`7800 Glenroy Road
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439-3122
`U.S.A.
`Fax: (952) 831-8150
`Email: Evidence@CivilActionGroup.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and notify the requesting court of such transmittal.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10156 Filed 05/04/23 Page 3 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`Names and Address of the Parties and their Representatives
`
`Jason D. Cassady
`John Austin Curry
`Christopher S. Stewart
`Caldwell Cassady Curry P.C.
`2121 N. Pearl Street, Ste. 1200
`Dallas, TX 75201, USA
`
`Jaye Quadrozzi
`Young, Garcia & Quadrozzi, P.C.
`2775 Stansbury Boulevard, Ste. 125
`Farmington Hills, MI 48334, USA
`
`Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
`Megan S. Woodworth
`Johnathon L. Falkler
`Robert C. Tapparo
`Venable LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue NW
`Washington D.C., 20001, USA
`
`Patrick G. Seyferth
`Susan M. McKeever
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 400
`Troy, MI 48084, USA
`Matthew J. Moore
`Michael A. David
`Benjamin L. Smith
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington D.C., 20004, USA
`
`Clement J. Naples
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`1271 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10020, USA
`
`Gabrielle A. LaHatte
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111, USA
`Joseph A. Herriges
`
`I.
`Plaintiff:
`Neo Wireless, LLC
`123 West Wayne Avenue, Fl. 1
`Wayne, PA 19087, USA
`
`Defendants:
`FCA US, LLC
`1000 Chrysler Drive
`Auburn Hills, MI 48326, USA
`
`Ford Motor Company
`1 American Road
`Dearborn, MI 48126, USA
`
`General Motors Company
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10157 Filed 05/04/23 Page 4 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`300 Renaissance Center
`Detroit, MI 48243, USA
`
`General Motors LLC
`300 Renaissance Center
`Detroit, MI 48243, USA
`
`American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
`1919 Torrance Boulevard
`Torrance, CA 90501, USA
`
`Honda Development & Manufacturing of
`America, LLC
`24000 Honda Parkway
`Marysville, OH 43040, USA
`
`Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
`1 Mercedes Benz Drive
`Sandy Springs, GA 30328, USA
`
`Nissan North America, Inc.
`1 Nissan Way
`Franklin, TN 37067, USA
`
`Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation, a/k/a
`Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC
`1 Nissan Way
`Franklin, TN 37067, USA
`
`Conrad A. Gosen
`James Hugenin-Love
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, 3200 RBC Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402, USA
`
`Michael J. McKeon
`Christian Chu
`Jared Hartzman
`Joshua P. Carrigan
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington D.C. 20024, USA
`
`J. Michael Huget
`Sarah E. Waidelich
`Honigman LLP
`315 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
`John T. Johnson
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`7 Times Square, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10036, USA
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell
`Benjamin J. Christoff
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington D.C. 20024, USA
`
`Thomas P. Branigan
`Bowman and Brooke LLP
`41000 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 200 East
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304, USA
`Celine J. Crowson
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`555 Thirteenth Street NW
`Washington D.C. 20004, USA
`Reginald J. Hill
`Peter J. Brennan
`Jenner & Block LLP
`353 N. Clark Street
`Chicago, IL 60654, USA
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10158 Filed 05/04/23 Page 5 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`Tesla Inc.
`13101 Tesla Road
`Austin, TX 78725, USA
`
`Toyota Motor Corporation
`1 Toyota-Cho, Toyota City
`Aichi Prefecture, 471-8571, Japan
`
`Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
`6565 Headquarters Drive
`Plano, TX 75024, USA
`
`Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
`6565 Headquarters Drive
`Plano, TX 75024, USA
`
`Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
`North America, Inc.
`6565 Headquarters Drive
`Plano, TX 75024, USA
`
`Toyota Motor Credit Corporation
`6565 Headquarters Drive
`Plano, TX 75024, USA
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
`Herndon, VA 20171, USA
`
`Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga
`Operations, LLC
`
`Thomas H. Reger II
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Ste. 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201, USA
`
`Lawrence Jarvis
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, GA 30309, USA
`
`Elizabeth Ranks
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`1 Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210, USA
`
`J. Michael Huget
`Sarah E. Waidelich
`Honigman LLP
`315 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ste. 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
`Paul R. Steadman
`Matthew Satchwell
`Shuzo Maruyama
`DLA Piper LLP
`444 West Lake Street, Ste. 900
`Chicago, IL 60606, USA
`
`Brian Erickson
`DLA Piper LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Ste. 3000
`Austin, TX 78701, USA
`
`Susan M. McKeever
`Justin B. Weiner
`Bush Seyferth PLLC
`100 W. Big Beaver Road, Ste. 400
`Troy, MI 48084, USA
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10159 Filed 05/04/23 Page 6 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
`Herndon, VA 20171, USA
`
`
`
`Daniel E. Yonan
`Deirdre M. Wells
`Ryan C. Richardson
`William H. Milliken
`Anna G. Phillips
`Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC
`1100 New York Avenue NW, Ste. 600
`Washington D.C., 20005, USA
`
`II.
`
`Summary of the Case
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC (“Plaintiff”) has asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,075,941, U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, and U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302, U.S. Patent
`No. 10,833,908, and U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) against
`Defendants for patent infringement. The accused products are Defendants’ vehicles which are
`compatible with the 4G/LTE or 5G/NR wireless communication standards. Plaintiff seeks an
`award of damages from Defendants to compensate for the alleged patent infringement. The
`Patents-in-Suit relate to systems, apparatuses, and methods for improving cellular wireless
`communications, and cover certain aspects of the LTE and 5G standards.
`
`Through discovery, Plaintiff has determined that Rolling Wireless S.A.R.L. (“Rolling”)
`makes certain accused devices and/or components that are used in the allegedly infringing vehicles
`made and sold by Defendants. Defendants have represented that they do not have possession,
`custody, or control of documents or information about these accused devices/components and that
`instead, Rolling is the proper entity from which to obtain the requested information. On
`information and belief, Rolling possesses information relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of infringement
`in this patent litigation.
`III. Requested Evidence
`Plaintiffs seek the production of documents and deposition testimony from Rolling. The
`
`specific documentary evidence sought is outlined in Exhibit A, and the topics upon which
`testimony is sought are outlined in Exhibit B. Any responses and/or evidence returned to this
`court will be submitted as evidence at trial. The requested evidence is necessary for the
`continuance of these proceedings. As allowed by the internal laws of Luxembourg, please have
`all returned evidence verified and/or certified as to completeness and authenticity.
`
`The Court understands that the documents and information requested are clearly
`enumerated and of direct and close connection with the subject matter of the litigation. If any
`portion of this Request is deemed to be unacceptable under the laws of Luxembourg, please
`disregard that portion and continue to comply with as much of the Request as is legally permissible.
`IV. Confidentiality Order
`In this matter, a Protective Order has been entered that governs the production of
`
`documents. A copy of this order is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Because this action involves
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10160 Filed 05/04/23 Page 7 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`confidential and proprietary business information, the Protective Order serves to protect such
`information from public disclosure. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern
`District of Michigan requests that any documents or testimony obtained in response to this Letter
`of Request be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Protective Order to protect
`confidential and proprietary information.
`
`For the protection of the privacy of information in this case in Luxembourg, this Court
`requests that the Luxembourgish court issue a corresponding order to provide similar
`confidentiality protection in Luxembourg to the testimony and any other documents, transcripts,
`etc. produced and/or recorded in relation to this request.
`V.
`Reimbursement for Costs
`This Court understands that any fees and costs incurred in the execution of this Request
`
`are reimbursable under the second paragraph of Article 14 or under Article 26 of the Hague
`Evidence Convention. These fees and costs will be reimbursed by the above-named counsel for
`the Plaintiff/Defendant up to US$5,000. Counsel for Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC should be
`informed before the costs exceed this amount.
`DATED this ____ day of ________, 2023
`
`
`Respectfully Requested,
`
`____________________________________
`
`The Honorable Terrence G. Berg
`United States District Judge
`for the Eastern District of Michigan
`Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse
`231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 253
`Detroit, MI 48226
`United States of America
`Telephone: (313) 234-2640
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10161 Filed 05/04/23 Page 8 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`The terms “Plaintiff,” or “Neo Wireless” means Neo Wireless, LLC.
`2.
`“Rolling,” “You,” “Your,” or “Yours” means Rolling Wireless S.A.R.L., its
`predecessors and successors, past and present parents, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related
`companies, and all past and present directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, attorneys,
`and others purporting to act on its behalf.
`3.
`The term “Document” includes, without limitation, all originals and copies,
`duplicates, drafts, and recordings of any written, printed, graphic, or otherwise recorded matter,
`however produced or reproduced, and all writings of any nature, whether on paper, magnetic tape,
`electronically recorded, or any other information storage means, including film and computer
`memory devices; and where any such items contain any marking not appearing on the original or
`are altered from the original, then such items shall be considered to be separate original documents.
`4.
`The term “relate,” “relates,” “related to,” or “relating to” means concerning,
`referring to, summarizing, reflecting, constituting, containing, embodying, pertaining to, involved
`with, mentioning, discussing, consisting of, comprising, showing, commenting on, evidencing,
`describing, or otherwise relating to the subject matter.
`5.
`“Defendants” means FCA US LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors
`Company, General Motors LLC, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Honda Development &
`Manufacturing of America, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan
`Motor Acceptance Corp., Tesla Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor N. America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Sales USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Credit Corp., Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and Volkswagen Group of America
`Chattanooga Operations, LLC, their predecessors and successors, past and present parents,
`divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related companies.
`6.
`
`“Suppliers” means Magneti Marelli S.p.A.,
`, Ficosa International S.A., their predecessors and successors, past and present parents,
`divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related companies.
`7.
`Answer each Request separately by listing the responsive Documents and by
`describing them as defined below. All Documents shall be: (i) organized and designated to
`correspond to the categories in these Requests, or if not, (ii) produced as they are maintained in
`the normal course of business, and in either case: (a) all associated file labels, file headings, and
`file folders shall be produced together with the responsive Documents and each file shall be
`identified as to its owner or custodian; (b) all Documents that cannot be legibly copied shall be
`produced in their original form; otherwise, You may produce photocopies (but Defendant reserve
`the right to inspect the originals); and (c) each page shall be given a discrete production number
`and produced in Bates-numbered form.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10162 Filed 05/04/23 Page 9 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`8.
`Documents stored electronically must be produced in the form or forms in which
`they are ordinarily maintained. Producing electronic Documents in the “form or forms in which
`they are ordinarily maintained” does not include printing those Documents and scanning them into
`PDF format.
`9.
`These Requests call for Documents that are known or available to Rolling, or in the
`possession, custody, or control of Rolling, including all Documents known or available to
`attorneys, agents, representatives, or any other person acting on behalf of Rolling or under the
`direction or control of Rolling, its attorneys, agents, or representatives.
`10.
`Possession, custody, and control does not require that Rolling have actual physical
`possession; instead, if Rolling has physical control or a superior right to compel production from
`another, the requested Document must be produced.
`11.
`In the event that multiple copies of a Document exist, produce every copy on which
`any notations or markings of any sort not appearing on any other copies exist. If no Documents or
`things are responsive to a particular request, state that no responsive materials exist.
`12.
`Each requested Document or thing shall be produced in its entirety and with all
`attachments, without deletions or excisions, regardless of whether Rolling considers the entire
`Document or any attachment thereto to be relevant to this case or responsive to these Requests. If
`any Document or thing cannot be produced in full, it shall be produced to the fullest extent
`possible, specifying the reasons for the inability to produce the remainder and stating whatever
`information, knowledge, or belief Rolling has concerning the unproduced portion.
`13.
`If Rolling objects to any Request or part thereof, Rolling shall (1) state the
`objection, and (2) produce all relevant Documents to which Rolling’s objection does not apply.
`14.
`If any Documents are withheld from production under a claim of privilege or work
`product, produce all relevant Documents to which Rolling’s privilege objection does not apply,
`and then state the nature of the privilege claimed and provide sufficient information to permit a
`full determination of whether the claim is valid. For allegedly privileged Documents, include: (i)
`any privilege or immunity from discovery asserted; (ii) the nature of the Document (letter,
`memorandum, notes, etc.); (iii) the author; (iv) the addressee, including recipients of copies; (v)
`the date; (vi) each and every Person who has seen such Document or a portion of such Document;
`(vii) the subject matter and general nature of the information; and (viii) all other facts which are
`alleged to support the assertion of privilege or immunity.
`15.
`Unless otherwise stated, these Requests require the production of Documents or
`things that were prepared, created, written, sent, dated or received at any time.
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
`
`Documents sufficient to identify the Qualcomm, Intel, or other modem chipset (e.g.,
`Qualcomm MDM9215, Qualcomm MDM9615, etc.) used in the
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10163 Filed 05/04/23 Page 10 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
`
`Documents sufficient to identify the Qualcomm, Intel, or other modem chipset (e.g.,
`Qualcomm MDM9215, Qualcomm MDM9615, etc.) in NAD modules that You supply to
`Defendants or Suppliers for intended use in North America
`
`if any.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
`
`Documents sufficient to identify the Qualcomm, Intel, or other modem chipset supplier’s
`software version number(s) (also known as a software build identifier or chipset vendor stack
`version) corresponding to the software version(s) installed on each modem chipset identified in
`response to Requests for Production Nos. 1 & 2.1
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
`
`
`Documents sufficient to identify the cellular capabilities and functionalities of the
`, including documents sufficient to identify the networks in
` is approved for use; documents consisting of the
`North America on which the
`technical specifications implemented or practiced by the
`; as well as testing
`reports, conformance testing reports, and
`plementation conformance reports for the
`
`.
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
`
`
`Documents sufficient to identify the cellular capabilities and functionalities of the
`, including documents sufficient to identify the networks in
` is approved for use; documents consisting of the
`North America on which the
`technical specifications implemented or practiced by the
`; as well as testing
`reports, conformance testing reports, and implementation conformance reports for the
`
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6
`
`Documents sufficient to identify, for each NAD module other than the
`
`
`, the
`cellular capabilities and functionalities of each such NAD module, including documents sufficient
`to identify the networks on which each such NAD module is approved for use; documents
`consisting of the technical specifications implemented or practiced by each such NAD module; as
`well as testing reports, conformance testing reports, and implementation conformance reports for
`each such NAD module.
`
`
`1 Two examples of known valid Qualcomm software build identifiers are “MDM9607.LE.1.1-00100-STD.PROD-1”
`and “M9615ACETWMLZD551354004.1.”
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10164 Filed 05/04/23 Page 11 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`EXHIBIT B
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC requests the following information from Rolling Wireless
`
`S.A.R.L. to be used as evidence in the proceedings of In re Neo Wireless Patent Litigation, No.
`2:22-md-03034-TJB, and all member cases of the same:
`DEFINITIONS & INSTRUCTIONS
`1.
`The terms “Plaintiff,” “Neo,” or “Neo Wireless” mean Neo Wireless, LLC.
`2.
`“Rolling,” “You,” “Your,” or “Yours” means Rolling Wireless S.A.R.L., its
`predecessors and successors, past and present parents, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related
`companies, and all past and present directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, attorneys,
`and others purporting to act on its behalf.
`3.
`The term “relate,” “relates,” “related to,” or “relating to” means concerning,
`referring to, summarizing, reflecting, constituting, containing, embodying, pertaining to, involved
`with, mentioning, discussing, consisting of, comprising, showing, commenting on, evidencing,
`describing, or otherwise relating to the subject matter.
`4.
`“Defendants” means FCA US LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors
`Company, General Motors LLC, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Honda Development &
`Manufacturing of America, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Nissan
`Motor Acceptance Corp., Tesla Inc., Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor N. America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Sales USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Toyota
`Motor Credit Corp., Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and Volkswagen Group of America
`Chattanooga Operations, LLC, their predecessors and successors, past and present parents,
`divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related companies.
`5.
`
`“Suppliers” means Magneti Marelli S.p.A.,
`, Ficosa International S.A., their predecessors and successors, past and present parents,
`divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related companies.
`6.
`Please construe “any” and “all” as “any and all.”
`7.
`Please construe “each” and “every” as “each and every.”
`8.
`Please construe “including” to mean “without limitations,” and assume that any
`terms following the word “including” are used by way of example only.
`9.
`Please construe the use of the singular form of any word as including the plural,
`and vice versa, as necessary to bring within the scope of the question all responses that might
`otherwise be construed to be outside its scope.
`10.
`One or more representatives may be produced to respond to one or more questions.
`11.
`If in responding to these questions You claim any ambiguity in either a topic or a
`definition or instruction applicable thereto, please identify in advance of the deposition the
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10165 Filed 05/04/23 Page 12 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`language you consider ambiguous and state the interpretation You are using in preparing your
`witness(es) to testify.
`
`EVIDENTIARY QUESTIONS
`1.
`What is the model of modem chip (e.g., Qualcomm MDM9215, Qualcomm
`MDM9615, etc.) used in the
`
`
`
`2.
`What is the complete software build identifier (possibly known as a “chipset vendor
`stack version”) for the modem chip software build installed on the modem chip used in the
`
`In answering, please
`provide a full, valid modem chip software build identifier.2 If multiple software builds have been
`used over time, please provide the full, valid modem chip software build identifier for each
`software build used, and please state the time periods for which each such software build was used.
`3.
`What are the cellular functionalities and capabilities of the
` In
`answering, please identify the cellular networks in North America on which the
`
`is approved for use, the technical specifications implemented or practiced by the
`,
`and whether there exist any testing reports, conformance testing reports, or implementation
`conformance reports for the
`.
`4.
`, do you supply any other model of network access
`Other than the
`device (NAD) module to Defendants or Suppliers for intended use in North America?
`5.
`If You answered Question No. 4 in the affirmative, please identify for each such
`NAD module the NAD model name, the modem chip used by said NAD module(s), and the
`Defendant(s) and/or Supplier(s) to whom they are supplied for intended use in North America.
`6.
`If You answered Question No. 4 in the affirmative, what is the is the complete
`software build identifier (possibly known as a “chipset vendor stack version”) for the modem chip
`software build installed on the modem chip used in each NAD module that You identified in
`response to Question No. 5? In answering, please provide a full, valid modem chip software build
`identifier. If multiple software builds have been used over time, please provide the full, valid
`modem chip software build identifier for each software build used, and please state the time periods
`for which each such software build was used.
`7.
`If You answered Question No. 5 in the affirmative, what are the cellular
`functionalities and capabilities of each NAD module that You identified in response to Question
`No. 5? In answering, please state, for each such NAD module, the cellular networks in North
`America on which the module is approved for use, the technical specifications implemented or
`practiced by the module, and whether there exist any testing reports, conformance testing reports,
`or implementation conformance reports for the module.
`
`
`2 Two examples of known valid Qualcomm software build identifiers are “MDM9607.LE.1.1-00100-STD.PROD-1”
`and “M9615ACETWMLZD551354004.1.”
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10166 Filed 05/04/23 Page 13 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`EXHIBIT C
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court hereby enters
`
`
`
`
`
`the following protective order:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Designated Material – Any document or thing that a producing party
`
`reasonably and in good faith believes to contain confidential information that is not
`
`publicly available (such as research and development, commercial, or other
`
`sensitive information) may be produced by that party with the clear and obvious
`
`designation “CONFIDENTIAL,” “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
`
`EYES ONLY,” or “CONFIDENTIAL – RECEIVING PARTY ONLY”
`
`(“Designated Material”). The legend or stamp shall be placed on each page of the
`
`Protected Material (except deposition and hearing transcripts) for which such
`
`protection is sought. For deposition and hearing transcripts, the legend or stamp
`
`shall be placed on the cover page of the transcript (if not already present on the
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10167 Filed 05/04/23 Page 14 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`cover page of the transcript when received from the court reporter) by each
`
`attorney receiving a copy of the transcript after that attorney receives notice of the
`
`designation of some or all of that transcript as Designated Material.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information – Any document or
`
`thing designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” may only be used to prosecute or defend
`
`this action and shall not be disclosed to (or the content discussed with) anyone
`
`other than the following persons:
`
`a.
`
`Outside counsel of record in this Action and their support staff
`
`(e.g., copying and document management personnel).
`
`b.
`
`Personnel of the receiving party to the extent reasonably
`
`necessary for the litigation of this Action.
`
`c.
`
`Independent experts or consultants engaged by a party’s
`
`attorneys to assist in the preparation and trial of this case who
`
`agree to abide by the terms of this Protective Order by signing
`
`Exhibit A and who are approved by the producing party
`
`pursuant to paragraph 7 below.
`
`d.
`
`Deposition witnesses of the producing party whose testimony is
`
`being taken with respect to the document or thing, or about the
`
`subject matter of the document or thing, who (i) agree to abide
`
`by the terms of this Protective Order, (ii) are the author or
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10168 Filed 05/04/23 Page 15 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`recipient of a document containing the information or a
`
`custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the
`
`information, or (iii) are listed as a corporate designee for which
`
`the document is relevant.
`
`e.
`
`Independent litigation support services, including persons
`
`working for or as court reporters, graphics or design services,
`
`jury or trial consulting services, and photocopy, document
`
`imaging, and database services retained by counsel and
`
`reasonably necessary to assist counsel with the litigation of this
`
`Action.
`
`f. Anyone else to whom the designating party consents, as long as
`
`such consent is provided in writing by the designating party or
`
`its outside counsel of record.
`
`g.
`
`This Court and its staff members.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Non-Disclosure of Confidential – Receiving Party Only
`
`Information – Any Designated Material which the designating party believes
`
`should be limited solely to the receiving party (for example, settlement
`
`communications with a particular defendant not shared with other co-defendants)
`
`may be produced with the clear and obvious designation “CONFIDENTIAL –
`
`RECEIVING PARTY ONLY.” Documents produced with this designation shall be
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10169 Filed 05/04/23 Page 16 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`treated the same as those designated “CONFIDENTIAL,” except that, with respect
`
`to paragraphs 2.a., 2.c., 2.d., and 2.e., the documents may only be shared with
`
`outside counsel, experts, deposition witnesses, or support services of the receiving
`
`party itself, rather than those of any party.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Non-Disclosure of Highly Confidential– Attorneys’ Eyes Only
`
`Information– Any document or thing that a party reasonably and in good faith
`
`believes to contain highly confidential information that is not publicly available
`
`(such as a trade secret, or highly confidential research and development,
`
`commercial, or other sensitive information) may be produced by that party with the
`
`clear and obvious designation “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
`
`EYES ONLY.” Any document or thing produced with this designation may only
`
`be used to prosecute or defend this action and shall not be disclosed to (nor the
`
`content discussed with) anyone other than the persons set forth above in
`
`Paragraphs 2.a and 2.c-2.g.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Disclosure to Experts and Consultants – Before any Designated
`
`Material is disclosed to an independent expert or consultant, the receiving party
`
`shall give the producing party five business (5) days written notice of the proposed
`
`expert by providing the following information:
`
`a. the expert or consultant’s name and the city and state of his or her
`
`primary residence;
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10170 Filed 05/04/23 Page 17 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`b. the expert or consultant’s current CV;
`
`c. the expert or consultant’s current employer(s);
`
`d. a list of litigation matters in which the expert has provided a report or
`
`testified (at trial or deposition) including the name and number of the
`
`case, filing date, and location of court; and
`
`e. a list of companies that the individual has been employed by or
`
`provided consulting services pertaining to the field of the invention of
`
`the patent(s)-in-suit or the products accused of infringement within
`
`the last four (4) years and a brief description of the subject matter of
`
`the consultancy or employment.
`
`If the producing party objects to the consultant or expert, it must notify the
`
`receiving party in writing that it objects to the disclosure of the Protected Material
`
`to the consultant or expert within five business (5) days of disclosure. The parties
`
`shall first attempt to resolve their disagreement without Court intervention. If the
`
`producing party objects to the expert, no designated material or information of the
`
`producing party shall be disclosed to the expert or consultant until the issue is
`
`resolved by agreement of the affected parties or by the Court. A Party that receives
`
`a timely written objection must meet and confer with the designating party
`
`(through direct voice to voice dialogue) to try to resolve the matter by agreement
`
`within five (5) business days of the written objection. The objecting party bears the
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 138-4, PageID.10171 Filed 05/04/23 Page 18 of 27
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY
`
`burden of moving for a protective order to prevent disclosure to the consultant or
`
`expert within 14 days from when the objecting party notifies the receiving party of
`
`its objection.
`
`
`
`