`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`Marc A. Fenster, State Bar No. 181067
`Andrew D. Weiss, State Bar No. 232974
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Tel: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Email: aweiss@raklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Proxyconn, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`PROXYCONN, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff
`
`vs.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et
`al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`Case No. 8:11-CV-1681-DOC-(ANx)
`
`CONSOLIDATED
`
`PLAINTIFF PROXYCONN INC.'S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION'S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO
`PLAINTIFF PROXYCONN, INC.
`[NOS. 1-7]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT
`
`EXHIBIT 1011
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Defendant Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`Page 1 of 33
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
`
`Proxyconn, Inc. (''Proxyconn'') responds to Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s
`
`(''Microsoft'') First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-7) as follows:
`
`Proxyconn’s responses are based on information known and available to it at
`
`the time of these responses. Proxyconn’s investigation in this matter is continuing.
`
`Further, because all information and documents that are possibly within the scope
`
`of the Interrogatories may not have yet been located and/or identified, the
`
`development of Proxyconn’s contentions with respect to its claims and defenses is
`
`ongoing, Proxyconn reserves the right to assert additional objections to the
`
`Interrogatories and to modify and supplement its responses pursuant to Rule 26(e)
`
`of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.
`
`Proxyconn’s responses to these Interrogatories are not to be construed as
`
`admission that any of the requested information exists or that any contention or
`
`assumption contained in the interrogatories, whether implicit or explicit, is correct.
`
` By making any responses, Proxyconn does not concede that the information
`
`given is properly discoverable or admissible, and Proxyconn reserves its right to
`
`object to the introduction of these responses into evidence for any purpose.
`
` Proxyconn is willing and prepared to discuss definitions of vague,
`
`ambiguous, or otherwise objectionable terms, as well as the appropriate
`
`discoverable scope of each interrogatory in light of the objections contained herein.
`
`
`
`These General Objections are incorporated into the specific responses
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`below.
`
`1.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`attempt to impose an obligation on Proxyconn different from or greater than that
`
`required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Central
`
`District of California, the Court’s rules and orders entered in this action, and any
`
`agreements between the parties.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`request information related to patents or patent claims that have not been asserted
`
`against Proxyconn, and thus are irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`3.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`request the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`work-product doctrine, common interest privilege, joint defense privilege,
`
`mediation privilege, or any other privilege or immunity. Proxyconn hereby asserts
`
`all such applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged and
`
`protected information from its responses to the Interrogatories. Unless explicitly
`
`stated, any disclosure of such privileged or protected documents is inadvertent and
`
`should not be construed as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, work-product
`
`doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection or doctrine. Further,
`
`Proxyconn will not log any privileged or protected documents created after the
`
`filing of the original complaint, on November 3, 2011.
`
`4.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories as vague, ambiguous,
`
`overly broad in scope, seeking information not relevant to the claims or defenses of
`
`Proxyconn or Defendant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence to the extent the Interrogatory contains no or unreasonable
`
`time limitations.
`
`5.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories as unduly vague and overly
`
`broad to the extent that they fail to identify the information sought with reasonable
`
`particularity, thereby requiring Proxyconn to resort to conjecture and speculation
`
`as to what information is sought.
`
`6.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`request confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information that is not relevant to
`
`this action including without limitation confidential business information,
`
`proprietary and/or competitively sensitive information or trade secrets. If
`
`
`Page 3 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
` 2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`
`
`necessary and at the appropriate time, if such information is responsive and its
`
`production is otherwise unobjectionable, Proxyconn will provide it subject to a
`
`protect order or, if necessary, will seek additional protections from the Court.
`
`7.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek
`
`documents that Proxyconn is not permitted to disclose pursuant to confidentiality
`
`obligations or agreements with third or nonparties or protective orders. Proxyconn
`
`will not provide such information without the consent of the relevant third party or
`
`a court order.
`
`8.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
`
`information from an individual or entity outside of Proxyconn's control.
`
`Proxyconn cannot reasonably respond to such interrogatories, and objects to them
`
`as unreasonable and unduly burdensome. Proxyconn further objects to the extent
`
`these Interrogatories would require it to produce or disclose documents that are
`
`publicly available or that are as readily identifiable and accessible to Defendant as
`
`to Proxyconn. Proxyconn shall conduct a reasonably calculated search of
`
`reasonably available sources within its possession, custody and control, in
`
`conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the
`
`Central District of California, and this Court's orders.
`
`9.
`
`Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or obtainable from some other source that
`
`is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
`
`10. Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are
`
`speculative, lack foundation, or improperly assume the existence of hypothetical
`
`facts that are incorrect or unknown to Proxyconn.
`
`11. Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`assume facts not in evidence.
`
`12. Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call
`
`for purely legal Conclusions and/or the rendering of expert opinions.
`
`
`Page 4 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
` 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`
`
`13. To the extent these Interrogatories seek discovery of information
`
`within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4), Proxyconn objects to these
`
`Interrogatories as premature and improper discovery of expert opinion.
`
`14. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B), Proxyconn
`
`states that it will not search sources of electronically stored information that are not
`
`reasonably accessible regardless of whether those sources may contain
`
`electronically stored information responsive to these Interrogatories. However,
`
`Proxyconn reserves the right to supplement its responses as additional information
`
`about other potentially responsive information from other sources that are not
`
`reasonably accessible becomes known. To the extent these Interrogatories seek
`
`different data or data in configurations different from those for which such
`
`databases are configured, Proxyconn is not searching or attempting to produce
`
`information from such databases because it believes they are ''not reasonably
`
`accessible because of undue burden or cost'' as contemplated by Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`26(b)(2)(B).
`
`15. Proxyconn objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek ''all''
`
`about a topic; such Interrogatories are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`16. Proxyconn objects to the Instructions to the extent they impose a
`
`greater burden than the burdens imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`17. Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
`
`information or documents already in the possession of or are more readily
`
`available to Defendant, in the public domain, or equally available to Defendant as
`
`they are to Proxyconn.
`
`18. Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
`
`documents not within Proxyconn's possession, custody, or control.
`
`19. Proxyconn objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
`
`documents cumulative or duplicative of disclosures already provided by
`
`
`Page 5 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
` 4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`
`
`Proxyconn.
`
`20. By responding to Defendant's Interrogatories, Proxyconn does not
`
`waive any objection that may be applicable to: (a) the use, for any purpose, by
`
`Defendant of any document produced; (b) the admissibility, relevance, or
`
`materiality of any such documents to any issue in this case; or (c) the competency
`
`or authenticity of any such documents.
`
`21. Proxyconn objects to Defendant's definitions of ''person'' and
`
`''persons'' because they make each Request that references a person vague,
`
`ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome. For example, it could include
`
`people unknown to Proxyconn and not under its control.
`
`22. Proxyconn objects to Defendant’s definitions of ''you,'' ''your,''
`
`''Plaintiff'' and ''Proxyconn'' as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly
`
`burdensome because of its inclusion of ''present and former agents, officers,
`
`directors, employees, affiliates, investigators, trustees, consultants, advisors,
`
`accountants, attorneys and all other persons or entities acting or purporting to act
`
`on its behalf.'' For example, the definition may include people and entities outside
`
`of Proxyconn’s control. In responding to these Requests, Proxyconn interprets
`
`these terms to refer to Proxyconn, Inc.
`
`23. Proxyconn objects to Defendant’s definition of ''Defendant'' as vague,
`
`confusing, overbroad and unduly burdensome. Proxyconn will interpret this term
`
`as referring to Defendant.
`
`24. Proxyconn objects to Defendant’s definition of ''Microsoft'' as
`
`overbroad and unduly burdensome. Proxyconn cannot know, for example, all of
`
`the ''subsidiaries and divisions'' of Microsoft. Proxyconn will interpret this term to
`
`refer to Defendant.
`
`25. Proxyconn objects to Defendant’s definition of ''Accused Technology''
`
`as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and confusing. Proxyconn will interpret
`
`this term to Defendant's Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`
`Page 6 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
` 5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`
`
`26. Proxyconn objects to the Instructions to the extent they are overbroad
`
`and unduly burdensome and inconsistent with Proxyconn's obligations pursuant to
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the local rules of this District and any Court
`
`orders.
`
`27. Proxyconn objects to paragraph D of the Instructions as overbroad and
`
`unduly burdensome. Proxyconn will interpret Defendant's Interrogatories
`
`according to their plain meaning.
`
`INTERROGATORY RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`
`
`For each Asserted Claim and for each Accused Technology, state Your
`
`contentions describing all ways in which that Accused Technology allegedly
`
`infringes that Asserted Claim, including explaining, for each step, structure,
`
`function or other limitation of the Asserted Claim, the meaning of that limitation
`
`and all specific functions, modules and other portions of that Accused Technology
`
`that You contend embodies that limitation.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`In addition to the General Objections, which are incorporated by reference
`
`as though fully set forth herein, Proxyconn objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege.
`
`Proxyconn also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks
`
`expert discovery. Proxyconn also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`requires a legal conclusion. Proxyconn also objects to this Interrogatory as vague
`
`and ambiguous. For example, the phrases ''the meaning of that limitation'' and ''all
`
`specific functions, modules and other portions'' are ambiguous in this context.
`
`Proxyconn interprets this Interrogatory as seeking disclosure of Proxyconn's bases
`
`for its allegations of infringement.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Proxyconn
`
`
`Page 7 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Proxyconn
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Discovery in this matter is at a very early stage and is ongoing. Microsoft
`
`has only recently begun to produce documents and things, or provided any
`
`deposition testimony or other discovery in this action. Proxyconn's investigation
`
`regarding these and other potential grounds of infringement is ongoing. This
`
`response is therefore based upon information that Proxyconn has been able to
`
`obtain publicly, together with Proxyconn's current good faith beliefs regarding the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, and is given without prejudice to Proxyconn's right to
`
`obtain leave to supplement or amend its disclosure as additional facts are
`
`ascertained, analyses is made, research is completed and claims are construed.
`
`Further, this response is based at least in part upon Proxyconn's present
`
`understanding of the meaning and scope of the claims of the patents-in-suit in the
`
`absence of additional claim construction proceedings or discovery. Proxyconn
`
`reserves the right to seek leave to supplement or amend these disclosures if its
`
`understanding of the claims changes, including if the Court construes them.
`
`Based on the information presently available, Proxyconn provides the
`
`exemplary chart contained in Exhibit A. This chart contains representative
`
`examples of infringement by the Accused Instrumentalities. Proxyconn contends
`
`that the asserted claims are directly infringed by at least the using of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities by Microsoft. Additionally, or in the alternative, if Microsoft is
`
`deemed not to directly infringe the asserted claims, then Proxyconn contends that
`
`Microsoft jointly infringes such claims, including without limitation with
`
`contractors who sell the Accused Instrumentalities on behalf of Microsoft and/or
`
`the end users of the Accused Instrumentalities, such as customers. Additionally, or
`
`in the alternative, if Microsoft is deemed to not directly or jointly infringe the
`
`asserted claims, Proxyconn asserts that Microsoft indirectly infringes, either by
`
`
`Page 8 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
` 7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`
`
`inducement or contributory, such claims.
`
`Based on the information presently available, it appears that each element of
`
`each asserted claim is literally infringed by the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`Additionally and/or alternatively, Proxyconn asserts that each element of
`
`each asserted claim is infringed by the Accused Instrumentalities under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. For example, Proxyconn reserves the right to assert
`
`doctrine of equivalents following entry of the Court's Claim Construction Order, in
`
`accordance with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules and
`
`any applicable Court orders. In addition, Proxyconn asserts that, for any claim
`
`limitation that Microsoft argues is not literally, such claim limitation is at least met
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents because a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would find that the differences between that claim language and the operation of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities, as explained by Microsoft, to be insubstantial. One
`
`way of determining if a difference is insubstantial is to consider whether or not an
`
`accused device or method performs substantially the same function in substantially
`
`the same way to obtain the same result. Thus, for example, regardless of what
`
`Microsoft may argue regarding the operation of the Accused Instrumentalities, the
`
`various products will nevertheless perform the substantially the same function in
`
`substantially the same way to obtain the same result. As another example, if
`
`Microsoft argues that the Accused Instrumentalities fail to perform one or more
`
`claimed steps, Microsoft cannot deny that the same function is being performed in
`
`the same way to achieve the same result, demonstrating the difference to be
`
`insubstantial.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`
`
` For each Asserted Claim and for each Identified Prior Art Reference, state
`
`Your contentions describing all ways in which that Asserted Claim allegedly
`
`differs from the disclosures in that Identified Prior Art Reference, including
`
`explaining, for each step, structure, function or other limitation of that claim that
`
`
`Page 9 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
` 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`
`
`You contend is not disclosed by that Identified Prior Art Reference, the meaning of
`
`that limitation and how it differs from what the Identified Prior Art Reference
`
`discloses.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`In addition to the General Objections, which are incorporated by reference
`
`as though fully set forth herein, Proxyconn objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege.
`
`Proxyconn also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks
`
`expert discovery. Proxyconn also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`requires a legal conclusion. Proxyconn also objects to this Interrogatory as vague
`
`and ambiguous. For example, the phrase ''the meaning of that limitation'' is
`
`ambiguous in this context. Proxyconn interprets this Interrogatory as seeking
`
`disclosure of Proxyconn's responses to Defendants’ invalidity arguments regarding
`
`the Identified Prior Art.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Proxyconn
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Proxyconn’s analysis is preliminary in nature and does not, for example,
`
`take into account the Court’s construction of the Asserted Claims. Proxyconn
`
`intends to continue its analysis and such continued analysis may reveal additional
`
`bases illustrating the differences between the Asserted Claims and the Identified
`
`Prior art. Proxyconn expressly reserves the right to amend or supplement its
`
`response to this interrogatory as necessary. Proxyconn also expressly reserves the
`
`right to rely on expert testimony at the appropriate time.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,742,820 to Perlman (''Perlman'')
`
`The disclosure of Perlman differs from the invention claimed in the asserted
`
`claims of the '717 patent.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
` 9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`For example, Perlman does not disclose the ''permanent storage memory''
`
`limitation. Perlman discloses that ''memory unit 204 may comprise storage
`
`locations typically composed of random access memory (RAM) devices.'' Perlman
`
`at 5:46-48. Random access memory is not permanent.
`
`As another example, all of the asserted claims require a network cache
`
`memory. Perlman does not disclose a network cache memory where digital digests
`
`are created from data in a specific network cache memory, as required by the
`
`asserted claims. Because Williams does not disclose the network cache memory
`
`limitation of the asserted claims of the '717 patent, Williams does not disclose any
`
`of the claim elements that require or rely on network cache memory.
`
`Additionally, Perlman appears to disclose creating ''database identifiers''
`
`from CSNP, which consist ''of identifications of all LSP data items in the database,
`
`along with sequence numbers for these items.'' Perlman at 3:21-25. In other
`
`words, CSNP is not stored data. As a result, even if Defendants' assertion
`
`regarding network cache memory is correct, which it is not, Perlman does not
`
`disclose making digital digests from the actual data contained in the network cache
`
`memory, as required by the asserted claims.
`
`Santos et al., ''USENIX, Increasing Effective Link Bandwitdth by Supressing
`
`Replicated Date,'' Proceedings of the USENIX Annual Technical Conference (NO
`
`98) New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1998 (''Santos'')
`
`The disclosure of Santos differs from the invention claimed in the asserted
`
`claims of the '717 patent.
`
`For example, Santos does not disclose the ''permanent storage memory''
`
`limitation. Indeed, Santos expressly discloses that the cache is stored in RAM (i.e.,
`
`not permanent storage memory). See Santos at § 2.5. This is further confirmed by
`
`the disclosure that, if one device in the system is reset, the cache in the other
`
`device must also be reset to a known state. See Santos at § 3.2. Thus, Santos
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`Page 11 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`discloses the use of RAM, not a permanent storage memory as required by the
`
`asserted claims.
`
`As another example, Santos does not disclose the use of ''sender/computer''
`
`and ''receiver/computer.'' Santos discloses the use of intermediary computers,
`
`which are referred to as ''gateways'' in the '717 patent. Thus, at best, Santos
`
`discloses the use of gateways, not ''sender/computer'' and ''receiver/computer'' as
`
`required by the asserted claims of the '717 patent.
`
`For example, all of the asserted claims require a network cache memory.
`
`Although Santos uses the word ''cache,'' Santos does not disclose a network cache
`
`memory where digital digests are created from data in a specific network cache
`
`memory, as required by the asserted claims.
`
`As another example, Santos describes a link-level algorithm, not an
`
`application-level algorithm. Indeed, Santos specifically notes it is not an
`
`application-level algorithm. Santos at ¶ 5.2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,085,249 to Wang (''Wang'')
`
`The disclosure of Wang differs from the invention claimed in the asserted
`
`claims of the '717 patent. In fact, Wang was considered by the PTO during the
`
`prosecution of the '717 patent and the claims of the '717 patent were found to be
`
`patentable over Wang.
`
`For example, Wang does not disclose the use of a network cache memory.
`
`While Wang refers to storing ''the representation of the digital media,'' it does not
`
`disclose the use of a network cache memory where digital digests are created from
`
`data in a specific network cache memory, as required by the asserted claims.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,990,810 to Williams (''Williams'')
`
`The disclosure of Williams differs from the invention claimed in the asserted
`
`claims of the '717 patent.
`
`For example, Williams does not disclose the use of a network cache
`
`memory. Defendants point extensively to the ''Low-Redundancy File System''
`
`11
`Page 12 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`application disclosed in Williams. This application does disclose a network cache
`
`memory because it simply discloses maintaining a hash table with pointers to the
`
`location of the actual data in general memory. See, e.g., Williams at Fig. 26. The
`
`Low-Redundancy File System does not disclose a network cache memory where
`
`digital digests are created from data in the network cache memory, as required by
`
`the asserted claims. The ''Subblock Server'' application also pointed to by
`
`Defendants similarly does not disclose a network cache memory as required by the
`
`asserted claims. Because Williams does not disclose the network cache memory
`
`limitation of the asserted claims of the '717 patent, Williams does not disclose any
`
`of the claim elements that require or rely on network cache memory.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,943 to Yohe (''Yohe'')
`
`The disclosure of Yohe differs from the invention claimed in the asserted
`
`claims of the '717 patent. In fact, Yohe was considered by the PTO during the
`
`prosecution of the '717 patent and the claims of the '717 patent were found to be
`
`patentable over Yohe.
`
`For example, Yohe does not disclose a ''permanent storage memory.''
`
`Defendants' contentions admit that only the ''file server computer'' is disclosed as
`
`having a permanent storage memory. The ''file server computer'' does not,
`
`however, meet the limitation of the other limitations of the asserted claims.
`
`Therefore, Yohe does not disclose the permanent storage memory limitation.
`
`As another example, Yohe does not disclose the ''means for creating digital
`
`digests on data'' limitation. Yohe discloses created a ''signature'' of a directory by
`
`''factoring'' the ''signatures'' of sub-objects in a directory into a single ''signature.
`
`Yohe at 7:17-8:4. This disclosure does not teach the creation of digital digests as
`
`taught by the '717 patent. As a result, this limitation is not disclosed.
`
`As another example, Yohe does not disclose the use of ''sender/computer''
`
`and ''receiver/computer.'' Yohe discloses the use of intermediary computers, which
`
`are referred to as ''gateways'' in the '717 patent, to process data stored on a separate
`
`12
`Page 13 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`''file server computer.'' This, at best, discloses the use of gateways, not
`
`''sender/computer'' and ''receiver/computer'' as required by the asserted claims of
`
`the '717 patent.
`
`Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Proxyconn reserves the right to
`
`supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`
`
`Separately, for each Asserted Claim, set forth a complete chronological
`
`description of the development of the claimed subject matter from conception to
`
`actual reduction to practice (even if that actual reduction to practice occurred after
`
`the constructive reduction to practice), including the claimed subject matter’s place
`
`and date of conception, place and date of actual reduction to practice, place(s) and
`
`dates of diligence and ''invention'' under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), identifying each
`
`inventor thereof and each Person aware of the conception or reduction to practice
`
`thereof and the nature, place(s) and date(s) of that Person’s contribution, if any, to
`
`that conception or reduction to practice, and identify all documents corroborating
`
`or otherwise relating to these requested facts.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`In addition to the General Objections, which are incorporated by reference
`
`as though fully set forth herein, Proxyconn objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege.
`
`Proxyconn also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks
`
`expert discovery. Proxyconn also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`
`requires a legal conclusion. Proxyconn further objects to this Interrogatory to the
`
`extent it seeks information regarding any actual reduction to practice of an
`
`Asserted Claim that occurred after the constructive reduction to practice of the
`
`Asserted Claim as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to
`
`lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Proxyconn also objects to the
`
`13
`Page 14 of 33
`
`Proxyconn's Objections and Responses to Microsoft's First Set of Interogatories [Nos. 1-7]
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`

`

`
`
`Interrogatory as being compound and containing multiple subparts. In fact, this
`
`Interrogatory contains three distinct subparts.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Proxyconn
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Subpart 1 (chronological description of conception and reduction to
`
`practice): Leonid Goldstein conceived of the invention clamed in the '717 patent in
`
`approximately the spring or summer of 1998. On September 18, 1998, Mr.
`
`Goldstein constructively reduced the invention to practice by filing Israeli
`
`Application No. 126292 (the ''‘292 application''). The '717 patent was filed on
`
`September 16, 1999 and claims priority to the '292 application.
`
`Soon after the filing of the '292 application, Mr. Goldstein contacted a
`
`number of companies in Israel, including Microsoft. Mr. Goldstein sought to start
`
`a joint venture for developing and selling his invention. In 2000, Mr. Goldstein co-
`
`founded Proxyconn with the purpose of developing and selling products that
`
`practiced the '717 patent. The result of Mr. Goldstein and Proxyconn’s work was
`
`the Proxyconn Web Accelerator.
`
`Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Proxyconn reserves the right to
`
`supplement this response as discovery in this case proceeds.
`
`Subpart 2 (identity of inventor): Leonid Goldstein.
`
`Discovery in this case is ongoing, and Proxyconn reserves the right to
`
`supplement this response as discovery in this case