Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19674 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 58
`
`Exhibit H
`
`Redacted
`
`
`
`Exhibit H
`
`Redacted
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19675 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS LLC’S FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET
`OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-7)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 & 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
`
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC serves the following fourth supplemental responses
`
`and objections to Defendants FCA US, LLC, Ford Motor Company, General
`
`Motors Company, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Honda Development &
`
`Manufacturing of America, LLC, Nissan North America Inc., Nissan Motor
`
`Acceptance Corporation, Tesla, Inc. and Toyota Motor North America, Inc.,
`
`Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North
`
`America, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) First Set of Common Interrogatories
`
`(Nos. 1–7) dated August 10, 2022.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19676 Filed 06/21/24 Page 3 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Plaintiff provides these responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories in
`
`1.
`
`good faith based on its investigation to date. Plaintiff will continue its
`
`investigation, analysis, discovery, and legal research in this matter and accordingly
`
`reserves the right to rely on facts, documents, legal research, or other evidence that
`
`might come to its attention at a later time. Plaintiff sets forth these responses and
`
`objections without prejudice to its right to supplement or amend them, or to assert
`
`additional objections should it discover additional information or grounds for
`
`objection. Plaintiff specifically reserves the right to supplement or amend these
`
`responses and objections at any time before trial.
`
`2.
`
`By producing documents or providing interrogatory responses, Neo
`
`Wireless does not waive and specifically reserves its right to contest and
`
`admissibility or relevance of such documents or information. Any inadvertent
`
`disclosure and production of information that is not relevant or is subject to other
`
`objection(s) does not waive any objection to producing such documents or to
`
`producing additional or related documents. The presence of any objection to one of
`
`the Requests does not indicate that documents responsive thereto have been
`
`withheld, or will be withheld, from discovery. As to the Requests to which Plaintiff
`
`objects, Plaintiff is willing to discuss each such Request with Defendants’ counsel
`
`to determine whether any or all of the objections can be satisfied, or the Requests
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19677 Filed 06/21/24 Page 4 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`can be clarified or narrowed. Plaintiff makes the following general objections to
`
`Defendants’ definitions, instructions, and Interrogatories, whether or not the
`
`objections are also separately set forth in response to each definition, instruction,
`
`or Interrogatory.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff’s responses are made solely for the purposes of discovery in
`
`this Action. Nothing herein is intended to waive the following objections, which
`
`are expressly reserved including but not limited to the following objections: all
`
`objections as to competence, relevance, authenticity, propriety, materiality, and
`
`admissibility of the subject matter of the Interrogatories or information produced in
`
`response thereto; all objections on any ground to any request for further responses
`
`to these or other Interrogatories; and any and all other objections and grounds that
`
`would or could require or permit the exclusion of any information, document or
`
`statement therein from evidence, all of which objections and grounds are reserved
`
`and may be interposed at a hearing in this Action or at the time of trial.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each and every general objection set forth below
`
`into each specific response as if they were set forth in response to each
`
`Interrogatory. The failure to include any general objection in any specific response
`
`shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any general objection to the applicable
`
`Interrogatory.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19678 Filed 06/21/24 Page 5 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`5.
`
`No incidental or implied admissions are intended by Plaintiff’s
`
`responses herein. The fact that Plaintiff has answered or objected to any
`
`Interrogatory should not be taken as an admission that Plaintiff accepts or admits
`
`the existence of any purported “fact” set forth or assumed by such Interrogatory.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definitions, instructions, and
`
`1.
`
`Interrogatories to the extent that they purport to impose burdens or duties upon
`
`Plaintiffs that exceed the scope of reasonable, permissible, and proportional
`
`discovery or that exceed the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan, or any other applicable rule,
`
`decision, law, or court order.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`seek information protected by, immune from, or otherwise exempt from discovery
`
`by the attorney–client privilege, common-interest privilege, any other privilege, the
`
`work-product doctrine, any applicable state or federal statutes, the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan, or any other
`
`applicable rule, decision, or law. The specific objections stated below on the
`
`grounds of attorney–client privilege and/or work-product doctrine in no way limit
`
`the applicability of this objection to all Requests. Nothing contained in the
`
`responses below is intended to be, nor should be considered, a waiver of any
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19679 Filed 06/21/24 Page 6 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`attorney–client privilege and/or work-product doctrine, right of privacy, or any
`
`other applicable privilege or doctrine. Inadvertent disclosure of any information
`
`that is confidential, privileged, that was prepared in anticipation of litigation or for
`
`trial, or is otherwise immune from discovery, shall not constitute a waiver of any
`
`privilege or any ground for objection to discovery with respect to such information,
`
`nor of Plaintiff’s right to object to the use of any such information during this or
`
`any other ongoing or subsequent proceeding before this Court or any other
`
`tribunal.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definitions, instructions, and
`
`Interrogatories as being overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that
`
`they seek the disclosure of information existing in the public domain or that is
`
`otherwise equally as available to Defendants as it is to Plaintiff.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definitions, instructions, and
`
`Interrogatories as being overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that
`
`they seek the disclosure of information already in the possession, custody, or
`
`control of one or more Defendants. The production of such information is
`
`inherently duplicative and unnecessary, particularly with respect to Interrogatories
`
`common to all Defendants, such as the Interrogatories responded to herein.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definitions, instructions, and
`
`Interrogatories as being overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19680 Filed 06/21/24 Page 7 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`they seek the disclosure of information in the possession, custody, or control of an
`
`entity other than Plaintiff that is outside of Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or
`
`control. Plaintiff is not obligated to produce information outside of its possession,
`
`custody, or control. Plaintiff will not seek out information not already known to or
`
`within the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff solely for the purpose of
`
`responding to these Interrogatories; however, as Plaintiff’s investigation continues,
`
`newly discovered information will be disclosed to Defendants in keeping with
`
`Plaintiff’s discovery obligations.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`seek information that is irrelevant to, or not proportional to the needs of, the case.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`seek information relating to “Related Patents,” as such patents are not at issue in
`
`this Action and any such information is necessarily irrelevant to the claims,
`
`defenses, allegations, and issues raised in this Action.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ instruction that “[t]hese
`
`Interrogatories are not limited as to time period unless explicitly stated” to the
`
`extent that it seeks information beyond the relevant temporal scope of the issues in
`
`this Action. To the extent Defendants’ Interrogatories are intended to seek
`
`information for time periods beyond those relevant to issues raised by the claims
`
`and defenses in this case, any such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19681 Filed 06/21/24 Page 8 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`burdensome and without merit or foundation by virtue of seeking information that
`
`is not relevant or proportional to the needs of this Action.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ Requests to the extent that they seek
`
`“all facts” and/or “all circumstances” concerning a given subject. The scope of
`
`such Requests necessarily includes facts that are not reasonably accessible or
`
`otherwise discoverable. Plaintiff will comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Michigan, and this Court’s
`
`orders, and will use reasonable diligence to respond with the full scope of
`
`information possessed by Plaintiff. With respect to any Interrogatories seeking “all
`
`documents” and/or “all things” related to a given subject, Plaintiff incorporates by
`
`reference its General Objection No. 9 in its Response to Defendants’ First Set of
`
`Common Requests for Production of Documents & Things, which is served
`
`concurrently upon Defendants with this Response to Defendants’ First Set of
`
`Common Interrogatories.
`
`10. Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definition of “Plaintiff,” “You,”
`
`“Your,” “Yours,” and “Neo” to the extent said definition seeks to require Plaintiff
`
`to disclose information that is subject to attorney–client privilege, work-product
`
`protection, the common-interest doctrine, or any other applicable privilege,
`
`protection, or immunity. Plaintiff further objects to this definition as overly broad
`
`and calling for information that is neither relevant to this case nor reasonably
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19682 Filed 06/21/24 Page 9 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information. Plaintiff specifically
`
`objects to this definition, and Defendants’ Interrogatories construed under said
`
`definition, as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent they purport to
`
`require Plaintiff to answer Interrogatories on behalf of any entity or person other
`
`than Neo Wireless LLC. In responding to these Interrogatories, Plaintiff
`
`understands the terms “Plaintiff,” “You,” “Your,” “Yours,” and “Neo” to solely
`
`and exclusively encompass, refer to, and require an answer on behalf of Neo
`
`Wireless, LLC.
`
`11. Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definition of the word “Defendants”
`
`as unduly vague insofar as it purports to include “any other defendant…later added
`
`as a party to this Action.” Plaintiff is unable to provide information pertaining to
`
`hypothetical parties where the decision to add one or more such parties (if any
`
`exist) has not yet been made. In the event that one or more additional defendants
`
`are added to the litigation, Plaintiff will update its Responses accordingly. Plaintiff
`
`further objects to Defendants’ definition of the word “Defendants” insofar as it
`
`fails to include all Defendants currently involved in this Action. Any responses
`
`made pursuant to these interrogatories is done solely with the understanding that
`
`all parties to this Action are bound by the same discovery limitations and
`
`deadlines.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19683 Filed 06/21/24 Page 10 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`12. Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definition of “prior art” to the extent
`
`that it seeks to eliminate Defendants’ burden of establishing by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that alleged prior art is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or
`
`103. Plaintiff further objects to the definition to the extent that is seeks to eliminate
`
`the distinctions within the subsections of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. Plaintiff further
`
`objects to the definition’s inclusion of prior art under the pre-AIA and AIA
`
`versions of §§ 102 & 103 as seeking irrelevant information to the extent that only
`
`one version of the relevant statutes applies to any given patent. Plaintiff
`
`understands this definition as referring to prior art as defined by pre-AIA §§ 102
`
`and/or 103 with respect to any asserted claims having an effective filing date on or
`
`before March 15, 2013 and as referring to prior art as defined by AIA §§ 102
`
`and/or 103 with respect to any asserted claims having an effective filing date on or
`
`after March 16, 2013.
`
`13. Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ definition of “Standards Setting
`
`Organization” as vague, ambiguous, and encompassing irrelevant matter; given the
`
`breadth of the definition provided, is it is unclear what organizations fall within
`
`said definition, and it is unclear which of such organizations other than the ETSI
`
`and 3GPP—if any—could be relevant to the issues in this case.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19684 Filed 06/21/24 Page 11 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
`
`COMMON INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`Describe in complete detail, including relevant dates, all current ownership
`
`interests in each Asserted Patent and Neo and all attempted, contemplated, or
`
`completed transfers or changes of title or other ownership rights of any of the
`
`Asserted Patents or Neo, including the date of such transfer or attempted or
`
`contemplated transfer, any consideration suggested, offered, considered, or given
`
`for each transfer, and identify the Documents that reflect this information.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections set forth above.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it purports to require Plaintiff to
`
`answer on behalf of any entity or person other than Neo Wireless as that
`
`information is outside Neo’s possession, custody, or control. Plaintiff objects to
`
`this Interrogatory as compound and impermissibly seeking to combine multiple
`
`separate and distinct Interrogatories concerning ownership interests, assignments,
`
`and consideration for encumbrances, in violation of FRCP 33(a). Plaintiff objects
`
`to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information and documents protected
`
`from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege, common interest privilege,
`
`work product doctrine, and/or other applicable privileges and/or exemptions.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous in seeking information on
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19685 Filed 06/21/24 Page 12 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`“contemplated . . . transfers or changes of title,” “ownership interests,” “the date of
`
`such . . . attempted or contemplated transfer,” and “consideration . . . suggested,
`
`offered, [or] considered” as not defined with reasonable particularity such that Neo
`
`cannot establish the extent of the nature sought. Plaintiff objects to this Request as
`
`unduly burdensome and overly broad in seeking information regarding incomplete
`
`or “contemplated” transfers and in seeking information regarding consideration
`
`that was not provided for a completed transfer. Similarly, Plaintiff objects to this
`
`Request as seeking information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or
`
`defenses in this Action, and not proportional to the needs of the case, to the extent
`
`it seeks information about ownership of the plaintiff, rather than the Asserted
`
`Patents. Plaintiff objects to this Request as unduly burdensome in seeking
`
`information equally available to Defendants and/or in the public domain.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general
`
`objections, Plaintiff offers the following:
`
`The ’366 Patent
`
` Neo Wireless is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 and possesses
`
`all rights of recovery thereto. The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ’366 Patent on June 18, 2013 from U.S. Patent Application 13/205,579
`
`filed by Neocific Inc. on August 8, 2011 on behalf of the inventors. Neocific, Inc.
`
`assigned the ’366 Patent to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019. CFIP NCF
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19686 Filed 06/21/24 Page 13 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`LLC assigned the ’366 Patent to Plaintiff, Neo Wireless LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`The ’908 Patent
`
`Neo Wireless is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 and possesses
`
`all rights of recovery thereto. The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ’908 Patent on November 10, 2020 from U.S. Patent Application
`
`16/902,740 filed by Neo Wireless LLC on June 16, 2020 on behalf of the
`
`inventors.
`
`The ’941 Patent
`
`Neo Wireless is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 and possesses
`
`all rights of recovery thereto. The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ’941 Patent on September 11, 2018 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10,075,941 filed by Neocific, Inc. on behalf of the inventors on March 28, 2016.
`
`Neocific, Inc. assigned the ’941 Patent to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019.
`
`CFIP NCF LLC assigned the ’941 Patent to Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC on January
`
`23, 2020.
`
`The ’450 Patent
`
`Neo Wireless is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 and possesses
`
`all rights of recovery thereto. The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ’450 Patent on October 15, 2019 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`15/676,421 filed by Neocific, Inc. on behalf of the inventors on August 14, 2017.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19687 Filed 06/21/24 Page 14 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Neocific, Inc. assigned the ’450 Patent to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019.
`
`CFIP NCF LLC assigned the ’450 Patent to Plaintiff Neo Wireless on January 23,
`
`2020.
`
`The ’512 Patent
`
`Neo Wireless is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 and possesses
`
`all rights of recovery thereto. The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ’512 Patent on March 30, 2021 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`17/012,813 filed by Neo Wireless, Inc. on behalf of the inventors on September 4,
`
`2020.
`
`The ’302 Patent
`
`Neo Wireless is the sole owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 and possesses
`
`all rights of recovery thereto. The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ’302 Patent on September 8, 2020 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10,771,302 filed by Neocific, Inc. on behalf of the inventors on April 16, 2018.
`
`Neocific, Inc. assigned the ’302 Patent to CFIP NCF LLC on November 2, 2019.
`
`CFIP NCF LLC assigned the ’302 Patent to Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC on January
`
`23, 2020.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff additionally refers to and incorporates by reference the operative
`
`complaint as of this writing in each case comprising a member case in this Action
`
`(No. 2:22-cv-11402, Dkt. 5; No. 2:22-cv-11403, Dkt. 4; No. 2:22-cv-11404, Dkt.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19688 Filed 06/21/24 Page 15 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`4; No. 2:22-cv-11405, Dkt. 5; No. 2:22-cv-11406, Dkt. 5; No. 2:22-cv-11407, Dkt.
`
`12; No. 2:22-cv-11408, Dkt. 10, No. 2:22-cv-11769, Dkt. 1; No. 2:22-cv-11770,
`
`Dkt. 1). Plaintiff further refers to and incorporates by reference its Responses to
`
`Defendants’ Common Requests for Production Nos. 9 & 10, as well as all
`
`documents and/or things produced pursuant to the same. Further, once a suitable
`
`protective order is entered in this Action, Neo will produce and designate
`
`responsive, nonprivileged, confidential documents pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 33(d), from which Defendants can ascertain responsive
`
`information as easily as Neo. Neo designates the following public documents
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d): NEO-AUTO_0000001—NEO-
`
`AUTO_0002283.
`
`Plaintiff further states that discovery is ongoing, and it reserves the right to
`
`supplement and revise its answer.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Plaintiff
`
`offers the following supplemental response:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Neo identifies the following documents:
`
`NEO-AUTO_0093750–804; NEO-AUTO_0112339.
`
`Neo incorporates by reference its responses to Defendants’ Common
`
`Interrogatories No. 2 and 10; and
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19689 Filed 06/21/24 Page 16 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`COMMON INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Describe in complete detail the substance and outcome of all license
`
`discussions and/or negotiations (e.g., the terms offered by each party, any
`
`discussions regarding terms, and the final terms), including the reasons for any
`
`edits made to draft license agreements, relating to any Asserted Patent or Related
`
`Patent or the technology described therein, whether or not a license agreement was
`
`executed, including the identity of all Persons or entities to whom You have ever
`
`licensed, or offered to license, who have requested to license, or to whom You
`
`have granted any other rights under any Asserted Patent or Related Patent
`
`(including any implied license to any product or process that embodies or practices
`
`an Asserted or a Related Patent) or the technology described therein; the dates and
`
`circumstances under which these licenses, offers to license, requests to license,
`
`grants of rights, or other like transactions occurred; the scope of licensed products
`
`covered by each license; and identify all Documents, including drafts, related to
`
`any such license, offer, request, or other grant of rights.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections set forth above.
`
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it purports to require Plaintiff to
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19690 Filed 06/21/24 Page 17 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`answer on behalf of any entity or person other than Neo Wireless. Plaintiff objects
`
`to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case because it seeks information regarding “Related Patents” that
`
`are not asserted in this lawsuit. Plaintiff similarly objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`seeking information that is not relevant to any party’s claims or defenses in this
`
`Action. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information protected by the
`
`attorney–client privilege, work-product protection, or any other applicable
`
`privileges, protections, or immunities. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`unduly burdensome
`
`in seeking
`
`information and documents protected by
`
`confidentiality obligations and Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Plaintiff objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as seeking information outside Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or
`
`control. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`
`regarding or related to unconsummated licensing negotiations and agreements,
`
`which numerous courts have held are outside of the scope of permissible discovery
`
`under most circumstances. See, e.g., Daedalus Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2022
`
`WL 301076, *2–3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2022); Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility, Inc.,
`
`2020 WL 60140, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2020); Mondis Tech., Ltd. v. LG Elecs.,
`
`Inc., 2011 WL 1714304, at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 4, 2011); Bergstrom, Inc. v. Glacier
`
`Bay, Inc., 2010 WL 257253, at *2–3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2010). Plaintiff objects to
`
`this Interrogatory as compound and impermissibly seeking to combine multiple
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19691 Filed 06/21/24 Page 18 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`separate and distinct Interrogatories concerning allegations and settlement
`
`agreements, in violation of FRCP 33(a).
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections,
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Plaintiff’s response is restricted by third-party confidentiality provisions.
`
`Plaintiff is working diligently to obtain all authorization necessary to adequately
`
`respond to the relevant, proportional portions of this Interrogatory and will
`
`supplement its response accordingly. In particular, once those third-party
`
`confidentiality considerations are resolved and a suitable protective order has been
`
`entered in this case, Neo will produce documents from which, pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Defendants may as easily ascertain responsive
`
`information as Neo can. Further, there are co-pending and previously resolved public
`
`litigations between Neo and other parties involving many of the same Asserted
`
`Patents. Namely, the ’366, ’908, ’941, and ’450 Patents were subject to the following
`
`litigation:
`
`• Neo Wireless LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-0026 (W.D. Tex.
`2021)
`
`• Neo Wireless LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, Case No. 6:21-cv-0025
`(W.D. Tex. 2021)
`
`• Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:22-CV-60-
`DAE (W.D. Tex. 2021)
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19692 Filed 06/21/24 Page 19 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its Responses to Defendants’ Common
`
`Requests for Production Nos. 9, 17, 39, 40, 41, 44, and 45, as well as all documents
`
`and/or things produced pursuant to the same. Plaintiff reserves the right to
`
`supplement its response to this request as warranted by its ongoing investigation.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general
`
`objections, Plaintiff provides the following First Supplemental Response:
`
`Neo filed suit against Dell Technologies Inc. (“Dell”) for infringing some of
`
`the same Asserted Patents, namely the ’366, ’908, ’941, and ’450 Patents, on
`
`January 12, 2021. Neo filed suit against Apple Inc. (“Apple”), LG Electronics Inc.,
`
`and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “LG”) for also infringing some of the
`
`same Asserted Patents, namely the ’366, ’908, ’941, and ’450 Patents, on January
`
`13, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19693 Filed 06/21/24 Page 20 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19694 Filed 06/21/24 Page 21 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19695 Filed 06/21/24 Page 22 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19696 Filed 06/21/24 Page 23 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19697 Filed 06/21/24 Page 24 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19698 Filed 06/21/24 Page 25 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general
`
`objections, and subject to the non-waiver agreement set forth in the
`
`Discovery/Protective Orders in the case and the Parties’ August 23rd email
`
`exchange, Plaintiff provides the following Second Supplemental Response:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19699 Filed 06/21/24 Page 26 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19700 Filed 06/21/24 Page 27 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general
`
`objections, and subject to the non-waiver agreements set forth in the
`
`Discovery/Protective Orders in the case and the Parties’ August 23rd and September
`
`8th email exchanges, Plaintiff provides the following Third Supplemental
`
`Response:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19701 Filed 06/21/24 Page 28 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19702 Filed 06/21/24 Page 29 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19703 Filed 06/21/24 Page 30 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19704 Filed 06/21/24 Page 31 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general objections, Plaintiff
`
`offers the following supplemental response:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19705 Filed 06/21/24 Page 32 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMMON INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`Separately for each Asserted Claim on an element-by-element basis, state
`
`the date on which You contend the claimed subject matter was conceived and the
`
`date on which such claimed subject matter was reduced to practice, describe in
`
`detail all facts and circumstances relating to such conception and reduction to
`
`practice, identify the Documents that reflect this information, identify all Persons
`
`who contributed to conception or reduction to practice (and what each Person’s
`
`contribution was), and identify all Persons with knowledge of the conception or
`
`reduction to practice.
`
`
`
`31
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 257-8, PageID.19706 Filed 06/21/24 Page 33 of 58
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference its General Objections set forth above.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information and
`
`documents protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege, common
`
`interest privilege, work product doctrine, and/or other applicable privileges and/or
`
`exemptions. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information outside
`
`Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`prematurely seeking information that may be the subject of expert discovery and
`
`reporting. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as compound and impermissibly
`
`seeking to combine
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
