Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 36
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`---------------------------------------------------------------X
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`
`
`§
`v.
`§
`
`§
`GOOGLE INC. and YOUTUBE, LLC
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`Defendants.
`
`§
`---------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`
`GOOGLE INC. AND YOUTUBE, LLC'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
`PLAINTIFF NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S
`FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
`
`Case No. 1:14-cv-02396-PGG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Google,
`
`Inc. and YouTube, LLC (together, "Google") by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby
`
`respond and object to the First Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 1-215) (the "RFAs") of
`
`Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. ("Network-1"), dated April 9, 2015.
`
`GENERAL RESPONSES
`
`1.
`
`Google's responses to the RFAs are based on the best information available to it at
`
`the time of drafting, within the limitations and subject to the objections set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`The responses set forth below are for the purposes of discovery only, and Google
`
`neither waives nor intends to waive, but expressly reserves, any and all objections it may have to
`
`the relevance, competence, materiality, admission, admissibility, or use at trial of any
`
`information produced, identified, or referred to herein, or to the introduction of any evidence at
`
`trial relating to the subjects covered by such responses.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The fact that Google is willing to answer or does not object to any RFA does not
`
`constitute an admission or acknowledgment that an RFA is proper, that the information it seeks
`
`is relevant or admissible or is within the proper bounds of discovery, or that RFAs for similar
`
`information or subject matter will be treated in a similar fashion. Furthermore, by making these
`
`responses, Google does not concede that it is in possession of any information responsive to any
`
`particular RFA, or that any non-privileged, responsive information actually exists. Nor does
`
`Google's response or objection to any Request or part thereof constitute an admission that
`
`Google accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth or assumed by such Request, or that
`
`such responses or objections constitute admissible evidence.
`
`4.
`
`Google reserves the right at any time to revise, correct, add to, supplement, or
`
`clarify any of the responses propounded herein. Google further expressly reserves its right to
`
`rely, at any later time including trial, upon additional information not included in its specific
`
`responses.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Google objects to the RFAs to the extent that they call for information subject to a
`
`claim of privilege or immunity, including the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product
`
`doctrine, or any other applicable evidentiary privilege or immunity from disclosure. The
`
`inadvertent provision of any information subject to such privileges or immunities is not intended
`
`to relinquish any privilege or immunity and shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any
`
`applicable privilege or immunity.
`
`2.
`
`Google objects to the RFAs to the extent that they purport to impose discovery
`
`obligations beyond those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the
`
`Southern District of New York, and the Court's Scheduling Order (D.I. 31).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Google objects to the RFAs to the extent that they are so vague, ambiguous or
`
`confusing as not to be susceptible to a reasoned interpretation or response. Google objects to the
`
`RFAs to the extent that terms including, but not limited to, "fingerprint," "Content ID system,"
`
`"Video ID," "Audio ID," and "technologies" are undefined, and therefore vague, ambiguous, and
`
`confusing as not to be susceptible to a reasoned interpretation or response.
`
`4.
`
`Google objects to the RFAs to the extent that they call for information unknown
`
`to Google.
`
`5.
`
`Google objects to the RFAs to the extent that they seek information not relevant
`
`to the claims or defenses of either party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`evidence relevant to the subject matter involved in the Action.
`
`6.
`
`Google objects to the RFAs to the extent that they are duplicative, cumulative, or
`
`seek information that may be obtained from other sources or through other means of discovery
`
`that are more convenient, more efficient, more practical, less burdensome and/or less expensive.
`
`7.
`
`Google objects to the RFAs to the extent that they are overly broad, overly
`
`expansive, oppressive and/or unduly burdensome and would impose upon Google an
`
`unreasonable burden of inquiry.
`
`8.
`
`Google objects to the definition of "You" and "Your" as overbroad and unduly
`
`burdensome. Google will interpret "You" and "Your" to mean Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC.
`
`9.
`
`Google objects to the definition of "Accused Instrumentalities" as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence. Google interprets the term "Accused Instrumentalities" to be
`
`the products identified in Network-1's Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions, served on July 21, 2014.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Google expressly reserves the right to object to further discovery into the subject
`
`matter of the RFAs.
`
`11.
`
`Google objects to the RFAs as unduly burdensome to the extent that information
`
`requested is within the knowledge of Network-1, can be determined by referring to documents
`
`within the possession, custody and control of Network-1 or is within the public domain or
`
`otherwise more readily or equally available to Network-1 and thus more conveniently obtained
`
`by Network-1.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`
`Each of the foregoing General Responses and Objections are incorporated by reference
`
`into each and every specific response set forth below. Notwithstanding the specific response to
`
`any RFA, Google does not waive any of its General Responses or Objections. Subject to the
`
`General Responses and Objections, and without waiver, modification or limitation thereof,
`
`Google's responses and objections to the RFAs are set forth below.
`
`RFA NO. 1:
`
`Admit that You operate the Internet site www.youtube.com ("YouTube site").
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 1:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google admits this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 2:
`
`Admit that the YouTube site is a video-sharing platform.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 2:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited
`to the term "video-sharing platform." Subject to the foregoing, Google admits this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 3:
`
`Admit that the YouTube site allows users to upload video content to the site.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 3:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google admits this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 4:
`
`Admit that video files are uploaded to the YouTube site from users' client devices.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 4:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited
`to the term "users' client devices." Google objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for a
`legal conclusion. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 5:
`
`Admit that it is advantageous for the YouTube site to be able to screen newly-uploaded
`video content to determine if it contains known audio and/or video works.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 5:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited
`to the term "advantageous." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 6:
`
`Admit that it is advantageous for the YouTube site to be able to determine if a newly-
`uploaded video contains copyrighted audio and/or video content, such as a popular song or
`television program, or portions thereof.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 6:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited
`to the term "advantageous." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 7:
`
`Admit that You operate a system referred to as Content ID.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 7:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited
`to the terms "operate" and "system." Subject to the foregoing, Google admits this Request.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`RFA NO. 8:
`
`Admit that the Content ID system includes a computer system with one or more
`electronic communications devices.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 8:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the terms "includes"
`and "electronic communication devices." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 9:
`
`Admit that the Content ID system includes a computer system with one or more
`processors operatively connected to one or more electronic communications devices.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 9:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the terms "includes"
`and "electronic communication devices." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 10:
`
`Admit that the Content ID system includes one or more computer readable media
`operatively connected to one or more processors.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 10:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the terms "includes"
`and "operatively connected to." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 11:
`
`Admit that the Content ID system includes one or more databases of electronic
`fingerprints for known audio and video works.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 11:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Google
`objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the
`terms "databases," electronic fingerprints," and "known audio and video works." Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to the
`foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`RFA NO. 12:
`
`Admit that the Content ID system includes a database comprising first electronic data
`related to identification of one or more reference electronic works.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 12:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Google
`objects to this Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the
`terms "database," "first electronic data" and "related to identification of." Further, Google
`objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to the foregoing,
`Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 13:
`
`Admit that the Content ID system includes a database comprising second electronic data
`related to action information comprising an action to perform corresponding to each of one or
`more reference electronic works.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 13:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the terms
`"database," "second electronic data," "related to action information," and "an action to perform
`corresponding to." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 14:
`
`Admit that the Content ID system obtains extracted features of video files uploaded to the
`YouTube site.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 14:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the terms "obtains."
`Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 15:
`
`Admit that the Content ID system includes technologies referred to as Audio ID and
`Video ID.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 15:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`RFA NO. 16:
`
`Admit that the Audio ID and Video ID work together to make up the technological
`backbone of YouTube's Content ID system.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 16:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 17:
`
`Admit that the Audio ID component of the Content ID system ("Audio ID") is an audio-
`based content identification technology.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 17:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 18:
`
`Admit that Audio ID uses an audio fingerprinting technology.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 18:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 19:
`
`Admit that Audio ID electronically extracts features from an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 19:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to the
`forgoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 20:
`
`Admit that Audio ID electronically determines an identification of an electronic work,
`such as an uploaded video file, based on features extracted from the work.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 20:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`"identification." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`RFA NO. 21:
`
`Admit that Audio ID compares extracted features of an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file, with features from reference works.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 21:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 22:
`
`Admit that Audio ID and the Content ID system includes a database including electronic
`data related to identification of one or more reference electronic works.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 22:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`"identification." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 23:
`
`Admit that Audio ID allows You to compare videos uploaded to the YouTube site to a
`database of files that have been submitted to You by content owners.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 23:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 24:
`
`Admit that Audio ID operates to determine if there is a match between an uploaded video
`and a file in the database.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 24:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 25:
`
`Admit that Audio ID determines an identification of an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file, based on a non-exhaustive search identifying a neighbor.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 25:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the terms "non-
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`exhaustive search" and "neighbor," which are disputed claim terms for construction by the Court,
`and the term "identification." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 26:
`
`Admit that Audio ID determines an identification of an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file, based on a non-exhaustive search identifying a near neighbor.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 26:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the terms "non-
`exhaustive search" and "neighbor," which are disputed claim terms for construction by the Court,
`and the term "identification." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 27:
`
`Admit that Audio ID determines an identification of an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file, based on a sublinear approximate nearest neighbor search.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 27:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term "neighbor,"
`which is a disputed claim term for construction by the Court, and the term "identification."
`Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 28:
`
`Admit that Audio ID and the Content ID system determine an action to perform based
`upon the identification of an electronic work, such as an uploaded video file.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 28:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`"identification." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 29:
`
`Admit that Video ID and the Content ID system includes a database that includes
`electronic data related to action information comprising an action to perform corresponding to
`each of the reference electronic works identified in the database.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 29:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google also objects to
`this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this
`Request.
`
`RFA NO. 30:
`
`Admit that when Audio ID and Content ID identify a match, they perform certain actions,
`including but not limited to, applying a policy chosen in advance by the content owner.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 30:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google also objects to
`this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this
`Request.
`
`RFA NO. 31:
`
`Admit that the Audio ID and Content ID system associate a determined action, including
`but not limited to a policy chosen in advance by the content owner, with the identified electronic
`work, such as an uploaded video file.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 31:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`"associate," which is a disputed claim term for construction by the Court. Google also objects to
`this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this
`Request.
`
`RFA NO. 32:
`
`Admit that Audio ID and the Content ID system electronically perform the action
`determined based upon the identification of an electronic work, such as an uploaded video file.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 32:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`"identification." Google also objects to this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to
`the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`RFA NO. 33:
`
`Admit that the Video ID component of the Content ID system ("Video ID") is a video-
`based content identification technology.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 33:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 34:
`
`Admit that Video ID uses a video fingerprinting technology.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 34:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 35:
`
`Admit that Video ID electronically extracts features from an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 35:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to the
`forgoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 36:
`
`Admit that Video ID electronically determines an identification of an electronic work,
`such as an uploaded video file, based on features extracted from the work.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 36:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`"identification." Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 37:
`
`Admit that Video ID compares extracted features of an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file, with features from reference works.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 37:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to the
`foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 38:
`
`Admit that Video ID and the Content ID system includes a database including electronic
`data related to identification of one or more reference electronic works.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 38:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google also objects to
`this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this
`Request.
`
`RFA NO. 39:
`
`Admit that Video ID allows Defendants to, inter alia, compare videos uploaded to the
`YouTube site to a database of files that have been submitted to Defendants by content owners.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 39:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google also objects to
`this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this
`Request.
`
`RFA NO. 40:
`
`Admit that Video ID operates to determine if there is a match between an uploaded video
`and a file in the database.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 40:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term "match."
`Google also objects to this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing,
`Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 41:
`
`Admit that Video ID determines an identification of an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file, based on a non-exhaustive search identifying a neighbor.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 15 of 22
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 41:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term "non-
`exhaustive search" and "neighbor," which are disputed claim terms for construction by the Court,
`and the term "identification." Google also objects to this Request to the extent that it is
`compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 42:
`
`Admit that Video ID determines an identification of an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file, based on a non-exhaustive search identifying a near neighbor.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 42:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term "non-
`exhaustive search" and "neighbor," which are disputed claim terms for construction by the Court,
`and the term "identification." Google also objects to this Request to the extent that it is
`compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 43:
`
`Admit that Video ID determines an identification of an electronic work, such as an
`uploaded video file, based on a sublinear approximate nearest neighbor search.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 43:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term "neighbor,"
`which is a disputed claim terms for construction by the Court, and the term "identification."
`Google also objects to this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing,
`Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 44:
`
`Admit that Video ID and the Content ID system determine an action to perform based
`upon the identification of an electronic work, such as an uploaded video file.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 44:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 16 of 22
`
`
`
`"identification." Google also objects to this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to
`the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 45:
`
`Admit that Video ID and the Content ID system includes a database that includes
`electronic data related to action information comprising an action to perform corresponding to
`each of the reference electronic works identified in the database.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 45:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google also objects to
`this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this
`Request.
`
`RFA NO. 46:
`
`Admit that when Video ID and Content ID identify a match, they perform certain actions,
`including but not limited to, applying a policy chosen in advance by the content owner.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 46:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term "match."
`Google also objects to this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing,
`Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 47:
`
`Admit that the Video ID and Content ID system associate a determined action, including
`but not limited to a policy chosen in advance by the content owner, with the identified electronic
`work, such as an uploaded video file.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 47:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`"associate," which is a disputed claim term for construction by the Court. Google also objects to
`this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this
`Request.
`
`RFA NO. 48:
`
`Admit that Video ID and the Content ID system electronically perform the action
`determined based upon the identification of an electronic work, such as an uploaded video file.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-11 Filed 11/12/20 Page 17 of 22
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 48:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Further,
`Google objects to this Request to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Google objects to this
`Request to the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term
`"identification." Google also objects to this Request to the extent that it is compound. Subject to
`the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 49:
`
`Admit that the policies that may be chosen by content owners include "monetize,"
`"block," and "track."
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 49:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Responses and Objections, Google admits this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 50:
`
`Admit that when a content owner has chosen to apply the "monetize" policy to a
`particular work, uploaded videos that match that work may be shown on the YouTube site with
`advertisements on or before the video.
`
`RESPONSE TO RFA NO. 50:
`
`Google incorporates by reference the above General Responses and Objections. Google
`objects to this Request to the extent it is compound. Further, Google objects to this Request to
`the extent it is vague and ambiguous, including but not limited to the term "match." Further,
`Google objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous because the term "may" has a variety of
`possible meanings, including that (1) the action may or may not occur; or that (2) the action is
`permitted to occur. Subject to the foregoing, Google denies this Request.
`
`RFA NO. 51:
`
`Admit that wh