Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Exhibit 37
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`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'S INTERROGATORY NOS. 14-21
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26(e) and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Google Inc.
`
`Case No. 1:14-cv-02396-PGG
`
`
`
`
`
`("Google") and YouTube, LLC ("YouTube") (collectively "Defendants") by and through their
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby further respond and object to Interrogatory Nos. 14-21 (the
`
`"Interrogatories") of plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. ("Network-1" or "Plaintiff"), dated
`
`April 10, 2015. Defendants' investigation of the matters raised by Plaintiff's interrogatories is
`
`continuing and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), Defendants expressly reserve the right to amend
`
`and/or supplement their responses.
`
`GENERAL RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference all general and specific responses and objections
`
`previously made in Defendants' original Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First and Second
`
`Sets of Interrogatories.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`
`Each of the General Responses and Objections are incorporated by reference into each
`
`and every specific response set forth below. Notwithstanding the specific response to any
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`Interrogatory, Defendants do not waive any of their General Responses or Objections. Subject to
`
`the General Responses and Objections, and without waiver, modification or limitation thereof,
`
`Defendants' responses and objections to the Interrogatories are set forth below.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`
`Specify the Bates number range for each of the documents you have produced in
`response to Network-1’s Request for Production No. 4.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference each of their general objections above. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks the
`
`Bates number of every document that Google has produced relating to non-infringement.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants believe that at least
`
`the following produced documents are relevant to Network-1's Request for Production No. 4:
`
`GOOG-NETWORK-00000023; GOOG-NETWORK-00000115; GOOG-NETWORK-00000411;
`
`GOOG-NETWORK-00000662; GOOG-NETWORK-00000764; GOOG-NETWORK-00001093;
`
`GOOG-NETWORK-00001614; GOOG-NETWORK-00002046; GOOG-NETWORK-00002048;
`
`GOOG-NETWORK-00002348; GOOG-NETWORK-00002364; GOOG-NETWORK-00002484;
`
`GOOG-NETWORK-00004330; GOOG-NETWORK-00004824; GOOG-NETWORK-00005616;
`
`GOOG-NETWORK-00006548; GOOG-NETWORK-00006733; GOOG-NETWORK-00006991;
`
`GOOG-NETWORK-00007603; GOOG-NETWORK-00011651; and GOOG-NETWORK-
`
`00012751; GOOG-NETWORK-00610860; GOOG-NETWORK-00610863; GOOG-
`
`NETWORK-00611445; GOOG-NETWORK-00611446.
`
`For the avoidance of doubt, Defendants do not claim that any or all of the above
`
`documents were produced directly "in response to" Network-1's Request for Production No. 4, or
`
`that the above documents are the only documents produced directly "in response to" Network-1's
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`Request for Production No. 4, but merely that Defendants believe these documents are relevant
`
`to Network-1's Request for Production No. 4. Defendants have made a good faith effort to
`
`identify by Bates number(s) documents relevant to this interrogatory; however Defendants do not
`
`claim to have identified each and every document that may be relevant to this Interrogatory.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`
`Separately for each of the Accused Instrumentalities, identify all of its versions, including
`the date each version was publicly released, the dates each version was in use, and any and all
`changes that were made to each version from the previous version, including, but not limited to,
`any changes in nomenclature.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference each of their general objections above. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks
`
`information regarding components and/or features that are not related to the accused
`
`functionality. Defendants object to this Interrogatory as unduly broad to the extent it seeks
`
`information regarding Defendants' operations prior to August 30, 2011, the date when the first
`
`patent-in-suit issued. Defendants object to the Interrogatory as seeking evidence that is
`
`inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 1001, et seq., because
`
`Defendants' business records describing the operation of the Accused Instrumentalities constitute
`
`the best evidence concerning their design and operation. Defendants object to this Interrogatory
`
`to the extent that it contains discrete subparts within the meaning of FED. R. CIV. P. 33.
`
`Defendants object to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that could more practically
`
`be obtained through other means of discovery, in violation of Local Civil Rule 33.3.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Defendants respond as follows: Content ID does not
`
`consistently employ version numbering. However, major changes to Content ID have included
`
`the following:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`In 2010, Google added melody matching functionality to Content ID.
`
`In 2011, Google introduced a second generation video fingerprint known as the
`
`"Robust Video Fingerprint."
`
`In 2013, Google introduced a second generation audio fingerprint known as the
`
`"Optimized Audio Fingerprint."
`
`The foregoing changes did not include any substantial changes to the nomenclature of
`
`Content ID.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
`
`Identify with specificity all applications, products, or services offered by you that make
`use of or relate to the ContentID system (e.g., Sound Search for Google Play, Google Ears),
`including the date each such application, product, or service was publicly released and the dates
`each such application product, or service was in use.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference each of their general objections above. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks
`
`information regarding components and/or features that are not related to the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities or the accused functionality. Defendants object to this Interrogatory as unduly
`
`broad to the extent it seeks information regarding Defendants' operations prior to August 30,
`
`2011, the date when the first patent-in-suit issued. Defendants object to this Interrogatory
`
`because it seeks information that could more practically be obtained through other means of
`
`discovery, in violation of Local Civil Rule 33.3.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Defendants respond as follows: Sound Search for Google Play
`
`(also known as Google Ears), released in 2013, performs audio identification. Skyjam Matching
`
`for Google Play, released in 2012, performs audio identification. Google Hangouts On Air
`
`includes content recognition functionality released in 2012. YouTube Live Stream includes
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`content recognition functionality released in 2012. Google's Child Sexual Abuse Imagery
`
`system, released in 2014, performs video identification. Google's Admin Match system, released
`
`in 2014, performs content recognition.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
`
`For each application, product, or service you identified in response to Interrogatory No.
`16, separately state for each month and year that you have sold, offered for sale, used, or
`otherwise provided such application, product, or service, (a) each manner or way in which you
`generate or derive revenue, directly or indirectly from such application, product, or service, (b)
`your revenues, costs, costs of goods sold, gross profits, operating costs, operating profits, and net
`profits from such application, product, or service, (c) sales and/or downloads of such application,
`product, or service, and (d) the number of active users of such identified application, product, or
`service.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference each of their general objections above. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks
`
`information regarding components and/or features that are not related to the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities or the accused functionality. Defendants object to this Interrogatory as unduly
`
`broad to the extent it seeks information regarding Defendants' operations prior to August 30,
`
`2011, the date when the first patent-in-suit issued. Defendants object to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent that it contains discrete subparts within the meaning of FED. R. CIV. P. 33. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that could more practically be obtained
`
`through other means of discovery, in violation of Local Civil Rule 33.3.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants will produce
`
`documents sufficient to answer this Interrogatory.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
`
`If you contend that any portion of the revenues identified in your response to
`Interrogatory No. 17 should not be included as part of any calculation by Network-1 of revenues
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`in this case (including, for example, as part of a royalty base for damages purposes) on the
`grounds that the revenue was generated from Accused Instrumentalities that were not made,
`used, offered for sale, or sold within the United States, identify (a) such revenue, (b) each fact
`supporting your contention, (c) all individuals having personal knowledge of the information set
`forth in your response to this interrogatory, and (d) all sources of information (by Bates number
`in the case of documents) relied upon by you in making your response.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference each of their general objections above. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks
`
`information regarding components and/or features that are not related to the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities or the accused functionality. Defendants object to this Interrogatory as unduly
`
`broad to the extent it seeks information regarding Defendants' operations prior to August 30,
`
`2011, the date when the first patent-in-suit issued. Defendants object to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent that it contains discrete subparts within the meaning of FED. R. CIV. P. 33. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory because it seeks information that could more practically be obtained
`
`through other means of discovery, in violation of Local Civil Rule 33.3.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants will produce
`
`documents sufficient to answer this Interrogatory.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
`
`Identify in chart format, and with specificity (including by Bates numbers), all
`agreements that you are or were a party to (or are or were otherwise bound by) pursuant to which
`license or covenant rights under one or more patents are or were granted and that either (a) relate
`to the Accused Instrumentalities and/or (b) you contend are relevant to the determination of any
`damages in this lawsuit, and identify all individuals having personal knowledge of the
`information set forth in your response.
`
`[Sample chart omitted.]
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19:
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference each of their general objections above. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendants object to this Interrogatory to the extent that
`
`it contains discrete subparts within the meaning of FED. R. CIV. P. 33. Defendants object to this
`
`Interrogatory because it seeks information that could more practically be obtained through other
`
`means of discovery, in violation of Local Civil Rule 33.3.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants have neither granted
`
`nor received any patent license agreements specifically to the technology underlying Content ID.
`
`Defendants do not presently contend that Defendants are parties to any patent license agreements
`
`relevant to the determination of damages in this lawsuit. However, Defendants reserve the right
`
`to amend or supplement this response based upon subsequent developments in this litigation,
`
`including but not limited to the Court's claim construction ruling, consultation with expert
`
`witnesses, further factual investigation, and further legal analysis.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
`
`Set forth in specific detail each change or modification that you have made, or plan to
`make, to the design, operation, or use of the Accused Instrumentalities as a result of or in
`response to this lawsuit, and identify all individuals having personal knowledge of the
`information set forth in your response to this interrogatory and all sources of information (by
`Bates number in the case of documents) relied upon by you in making your response.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20:
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference each of their general objections above. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege and/or work product doctrine. Defendants object to this Interrogatory as overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information regarding components and/or features
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`that are not related to the accused functionality. Defendants object to the Interrogatory as
`
`seeking evidence that is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 1001,
`
`et seq., because Defendants' business records describing the operation of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities constitute the best evidence concerning their design and operation.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Defendants respond as follows: Defendants believe the patents-
`
`in-suit are invalid and not infringed, as explained in Defendants' September 8, 2014 Corrected
`
`Preliminary Invalidity Contentions and Defendants' interrogatory responses to date. Defendants
`
`have not, and do not presently plan to, modify Content ID as a result of or in response to this
`
`lawsuit.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
`
`Set forth in specific detail each and every basis for your contention that Network-1 lacks
`standing to sue for infringement of the patents-in-suit, including all facts that support or
`contradict your contention, all persons with knowledge of such facts, and all sources of
`information (by Bates number in the case of documents) relied upon by you for such facts.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21:
`
`Defendants incorporate by reference each of their general objections above. Defendants
`
`object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege and/or work product doctrine.
`
`Subject to the foregoing, Defendants respond as follows: Based on the information
`
`presently available to Defendants, Defendants do not contend that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue
`
`for infringement of the patents-in-suit. However, Defendants reserve the right to amend or
`
`supplement this response based upon subsequent developments in this litigation, including but
`
`not limited to further factual investigation, and further legal analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 241-12 Filed 11/12/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`Dated: May 14, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`James J. Elacqua
`Ian Chen
`SKADDEN ARPS SLATE
` MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
`525 University Avenue, Ste. 1100
`Palo Alto, CA 94301
`Tel: (650) 470-4500
`Fax: (650) 470-4570
`James.Elacqua@skadden.com
`Ian.Chen@skadden.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Douglas R. Nemec
`
`Douglas R. Nemec
`Marti A. Johnson
`Andrew D. Gish
`SKADDEN ARPS SLATE
` MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
`Four Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: (212) 735-3000
`Fax: (917) 777-2419
`Douglas.Nemec@skadden.com
`Marti.Johnson@skadden.com
`Andrew.Gish@skadden.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Google Inc. and
`YouTube, LLC
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I, Douglas R. Nemec, counsel for Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC, do
`
`hereby certify that the foregoing document and accompanying exhibits were served by electronic
`
`mail on counsel for Network-1 Technologies, Inc. on this the 14th day of May, 2015.
`
`
`DATED: May 14, 2015
`
`
`/s/ Douglas R. Nemec
`
`
`
`9
`
`