`FOR PHE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ROY-G-BIV Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`Fanuc Ltd., Fanuc Robotics America, Inc., GE
`Fanuc Automation Americas, Inc., and GE
`Fanuc Intelligent Platforms, Inc.,
`
`Defendanis,
`
`NewNeeneeeneeeweewan”weteranNea”eee”
`
`CASE NO, 2:07-cvy-00418-DE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ROY-G-BIV CORP.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND
`
`Plaintiff ROY-G-BIVCorporation CROY-G-BIV’) hereby provides its second
`
`supplementary responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories.
`
`OBJECTIONS
`
`ROY-G-BIVincorporates by reference its objections set forth in its February 28, 2008,
`
`answers and objections to Defendants’ interrogatories.
`
`ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORYNO. I:
`
`For cach Accused Product, describe the circumstances leading up to the allegation that
`Detendants allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit, including the date on which Plamtifffirst
`became aware of the Defendants’ Accused Products (and identify all documents relating to such
`awareness and all persons with knowledge of such awareness); the date on which Plaintifffirst
`considered the Defendants’ accused products to be an alleged infringement of the patents-in-sult
`(and identify all documents relating to such consideration and all persons with knowledge of
`such consideration}; and all actions taken by or on behalf of Plaintuf to investigate or pursue its
`behets of alleged infringement Gncluding documents reflecting or reporting anytests or analyses
`performed on Defendants’ Accused Products prior to filmg the complaint for purposes of
`determining whether those Accused Products allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit).
`
`Specific Objections:
`
`1
`
`ABB - EXHIBIT 1137
`
`ABB v ROY-G-BIV
`TRIAL IPR2013-00062
`TRIAL IPR2013-00282
`
`
`
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory as secking information that is protected underthe
`
`attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine.
`
`In particular, the details relating to when
`
`Plaintiff first “considered the Defendants’ accused products to be an alleged infringement of the
`
`patents-in-suit” and the identification of “ail actions taken by or on behalf of Plaintiff to
`
`investigate or pursuc its belicts of alleged infringement” calls for information protected under the
`
`attorney-chent privilege and work-product doctrine. Plaintiffalso objects to the mterrogatoryas
`
`vague and ambiguous. For example, it is unclear what the “circumstances leading up to the
`
`allogation that Defendants allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit” encompass. Plaimtiff objects to
`
`this interragatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it requests the
`
`identification of “all” documents and persons,
`
`Answer:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific objections, Plaintuf is in the process of
`
`evaluating which products are accused of mfringement. Further, even arnong accused software
`
`products, tt is difficult at this time to determine whether older versions of the soflware are
`
`the answerto this interrogatory focuses, in some instance, on the current versions of the
`
`sottware, Plaintiff also has attenmpted to answer with respect to prior versions of the software.
`
`Finally, Plaintiif’s awareness of the existence of a particular product should not be construed as
`
`reflecting an awareness ofthe features, characteristics or capabilities of such a product.
`
`One product accused of infringement is the FOCAS software, along with applications
`
`that incorporate and use FOCAS. Plaintiff docs not knowthe exact date on which it first became
`
`aware of FOCAS. With respect to the current version of FOCASI for Ethernet, released in 2003,
`
`Plaintiffs best guess is that it knewof this soflware soon after its release date. The earliest
`
`
`
`Plaimtiff likely knewabout any version of FOCAS| likely was in October 2001, when it likely
`
`learned of FOCAS] for HSSB. Plamtiff probablyfirst learned of FOCAS] for Ethernet around
`
`May 2002. With respect to FOCAS2, Plaintiff likely knewof it in early 2004 — possibly tn
`
`January of 2004. With respect to Proficy HMI/SCADA — CIMPLICITY RMI for CNC, Plaintiff
`
`does not recall an exact date when ut first becarne aware of the product. But Plamtiff believes
`
`that it became aware of the product within two years of the filmmg date of the complaint —
`
`probably im 2006.
`
`Defendant has yet to identify which of its other software is used with POCAS. But to the
`
`extent other versions of CIMPLICITYor software products therein are used, Plaintiff does not
`
`recall whenit first became aware of the other CIMPLICITY software. It likely became aware of
`
`the current version of the software just prior to filing the complaint. Plaintiff may have known
`
`that GE Fanuc offered CIMPLICITYfor HMI products in late 1999,
`
`It is possible that Plaintiff
`
`first became aware that GE Fanue offered a product with the name CIMPLICITYin the 1996-
`
`1998, time period.
`
`Plaintiffbelieves it first became aware of the existence of the PROFICY MACHINE
`
`EDITIONsoftware on or around June 24, 2004.
`
`Some of the claimsrecite features directed at motion hardware and workstations.
`
`Plaintiff was generally aware of various GE FANUCand FANUC motion control hardware im
`
`the late 1990s. It also believes it knewof the alpha and beta servos around 1996. Plaintiff
`
`believes that it became aware of various other hardware and workstations in the 2001-2003 time
`
`frame. Plaintiff, however, dees not know when it became aware ofall ofthese products. Ht
`
`believes that it may have become aware of the series 151, 161, 181, 211, and 1601 products around
`
`October 2061. Plamtiff believes it may have become aware ofthe Paneli in early 2002 —
`
`
`
`possibly in January 2002. Plaintiff was aware that GE FANUC and FANUCoffered various
`
`other controls at least as of early 2003 (possibly January 2003), such as the Senes 150, 1501, 160,
`
`180, 210, 1801, 2161, G1, Power Mate 14, 0, 15, 16, 18, and 21.
`
`Plaintiff does not knowthe date on which it “first considered the Defendants’ accused
`
`products to be an alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit.” H likely consideredthere to be an
`
`infringement — as best it could without having access to confidential mformation sach as source
`
`code - within a year-and-a-half of the filing of the complaint in September 2007. Plaintiff began
`
`investigating the possibility of infringement mn the 2006 time frame. Plaintiff worked withits
`
`counsel in iis unvestigation of the inffmgement. The details regarding this investigation are
`
`protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege doctrines.
`
`INPERROGATORY NOQ, 3:
`
`Separately for cach asserted claim of the patents-in-suit, identify all allogeddates of
`conception, any subsequent diligence until reduction to practice, any dates of actual reduction to
`practice of the claimed invention, the date offirst constructive reduction to practice of the
`claimed subject matter defined bythe claim, all persons who were involved in connection with
`such conception, diligence, or reduction to practice, and the earliest effective filing date Plaintiff
`will assert for each suchclaim, stating in detail all factual bases supporting Plamtilf’s
`identification of each such date, and identifying all persons, documents, and tangible things
`corroborating each such date.
`
`specific Objections:
`
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatoryas overly broad and unduly burdensome to the
`
`extent it requests “all factual” bases.
`
`Answer
`
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific Objections, the claims were conceived at
`
`loast as carly as April i994, The claims were first reduced to practice after the filing of the ‘897
`
`patent — probablyaround latce-1996 or carly-1997. The carliest effective filmg date for asserted
`
`
`
`claims of the patents-in-suit is May 30, 1995, The docurnents in support of this effective filing
`
`date are U.S. Patent No. 5,691,897, along with the original application for this patent. This
`
`original disclosure, filled on May 30, 1995, supports the claims of the patents-in-suit pursuant to
`
`35 ULS.C. § 120, and is a constructive reduction to practice of the invention. The inventors
`
`dihgently workedon theideas, including after their conception date. They worked diligentlyat
`
`least through the reductionto practice dates, particularly considering that they were working on
`
`other projects and at starting up their business. Persons involved in the conception, diligence,
`
`and reduction to practice were Dave Brown and Jay Clark. Their prosecution counsel were
`
`involvedin the constructive reduction to practice — ie., the May 30, 1995 filme date of the ‘897
`
`patent. Persons with knowledge ofthe diligence inchide Richard Black, Robert Hughes, and
`
`Michael Schacht. Plaintiff contimues to investigate other potential persons with knowledge.
`
`Documents in support of these contentions (e.g., corroborating the inventors’ diligent
`
`work on the invention as well as on other technical and business projects), may include:
`
`RGBOQ000 1249 ~ 1257; RGBOQO0004075 - 4086;RGBOG004087 - 4092; RGBOGO04095;
`
`RGB00G07322 - 7342; RGBO0007467 - 7469; RGBO0026444 - 26445: RGBD0028786 - 28788;
`
`RGBO003 1400 - 31522; RGBO003 1739 - 31753; RGBOO05 1260 - 51265; RGBOO05 1279 -
`
`$1299; RGBOUOSI311 - 51318: RGROOGOS 1319 ~ $1320; RGBOOUS1321 - $1326; RGBOOOS 1329
`
`~ 51334; RGBO005 1460 - 51461; RGBO005 1462 - 51466; RGBOOOS 1467 - 51468;
`
`RGBO0OS 1469 - 51471; RGBO005 1472 - $1476; RGBO0005 1477 ~ 51481; RGBOOOS 1482 -
`
`51489; RGBO00S 1490 - 51501; RGBOOOS 1502 - 51514; RGBOOGSIS15 - 51527; RGBOGGS1528
`
`~ 51537; RGBOO0S 1549 ~ 51574; RGBO00S 1602 - 51613; RGBOUOS 1614 - 51636;
`
`RGBO00S 1652 ~ 51674; RGBOO0S1787 - $1788; RGBOOOS 1802 - 51804; RGBOOOS 1806 -
`
`31817; RGBOOOS 1833 - 31856; RGBOOOS 1857 - 31876; RGBOOGS 1877 - 31890; RGBOOGS 189]
`
`hi
`
`
`
`~ 51916; RGBO005 1917 - 51938; RGBO0052086 - 52088; RGBOQOS2089 - 52161;
`
`RGBO0052 106 - 32119; RGB00052120 - 32143; ROBON00S2 144 - 32163; RGBO00S2 164 -
`
`52177; RGBOODS2178 - 52203; RGBOO0S2204 - 52226; RGBOOOS28 18 - 52837; RGBOODS 2882
`
`~ 52924, RGBON0052925 - 52927, RGBOOOS3G12 - 53035; RGBO0053057 - 53078;
`
`RGB00053079 - 53204; RGBOOOS3265 - 53236; RGBOQ0S3237 - 33249; RGBON054846-
`
`$4857; RGBOOOS4858 - 54867; RGBOOOS4868 ~ 54870; RGBOQOOS4871 ~ S4885; RGBOOS 4886
`
`~ 54900; RGBOOO54901 ~ 54921; RGBO0054922 - 54969; RGB00054976 - 55014;
`
`RGBOOOSSGIS - 55017; RGBO0055020 - 55035; RGBO0055036 - 55060; RGBOOO55 112 -
`
`55128; RGBOUOSS 129 - $5143; RGROOOSS 144 - 55171; RGBOOUSS172 - 55199; RGRYOESS200
`
`~ $5214; RGBOOOSS2Z15 ~ $5239; RGBO0055240 ~ $5257; RGBOO0SS258 - 55311;
`
`RGBO00055312 - 55329; RGBO0055330 -~ 55337; RGBODOSS3S1 ~ 55421; RGBO00S5307 -
`
`55514; RGBOUGSS519 - 55533; RGBOUGSS534 - 55537; RGBOOESS540 - 55549; RGBOOUSSS50
`
`~ 55551; RGBOGOS54552 - 35559; RGBOGOS54560 ~- $5561; RGBOUOSS562 - 35573;
`
`RGBOO0SS621 - $5632; RGBOO00S5638 - 55646; RGBOO0S S644 ~ 55639; RGBOBOS5660-
`
`35692; RGOBO0GSS693 - 55698; RGOBO000S 5699 - 55701; RGBOOOSS756 - 55759; ROBOO0SS766
`
`- 55768; RGBOGOS5769 - 55772; RGBOGOS5773 - 55777; RGBOUGSS8O3 - 55819;
`
`RGBO00S5820 - 55823; RGBOUGGS5824 - $5834; RGBOUOSS847 - 558351; RGBOUOGSS842 -
`
`35880; RGOBOOOS SSSI - 55895; RGOBON00S S896 - 35949; RGBO00SS967 - 35974; RGBOOOSS97S
`
`- 55980; RGBOOOSS9S TI - 55987; RGBOOOSS9SS - 56060; RGBOCGS6DG! - 36082;
`
`RGBUGGS6567 - 56570; RGBOGGS6575 - 56576; RGBOUGS6577 - 56578; RGBUOGS6579 -
`
`$6584; RGBOO0056585 - 56590; RGBO0056591 - 56593; RGBOG056594 - 56596; RGBO0056597
`
`- 56598; RGBO00S6599 - 56607; RGBOGOS6608 - 56612; RGOBOCOS6613 - 56617;
`
`RGBOOOSEGIS - 56619; RGBOGOS6620 - 56622; RIGBOGGS6623 - 36624; ROBOOOS6625 -
`
`6
`
`
`
`56626; RGBOUOS6627 - 36629; RGROOVOS6630 - 56631; RGBROOUS6632 - 56635; RGROOUS6636
`
`~ $6638; RGBO0056639 ~ 56642; RGBO0056643 - $6645; RGBO00S6646 - 56630;
`
`RGBO0005665 1 - 56655; RGBO0056656 ~ 56057; RGBOD0S660S8 - 56661; RGBO00S6662 -
`
`56664; RGBOUGS6665 - 36667; RGBOUGS 6668 - 56670; RGBO00S667 1 - 56674; RGBOOUS6675
`
`~ 56678; RGBOGO56679 - 56680; RGBOGOS668 1 - 56687; RGBOUOSG68S - 36717;
`
`RGBOO056718 - $6719; RGBOO0056720 - 56723; RGBOQO0S6724 ~ 56726; RGBOO0S6727 -
`
`36738; RGOBO0056739 - 36748; RGOBOQ0056749 - 56751; RGBO00S6752 - 56757; RGBOOOS6758
`
`- 56769; RGBOGO56770 - 56772; RGBOGOS6773 - 56774; RGBOUGS6775 - 36776;
`
`RGBO000S6777 - 56779; RGBOUGS4780 - 56783; RGBOGOS4G784 - 36785; RGBUUGS6786 -
`
`36795; RGBO0056796 ~ 36797; ROBN0036798 - 56799; RGBON00S6822; RGOBO0OS6824 -
`
`$6829; RGBOOOS6830 - 56836; RGBO0056837 - 56841; RGBOO0S6842 - 56843; RGBO00S6844
`
`~ 56831; RGBO0056852 - 56853; RGBOO0056854 - 56857; RGBON0S6858 - 56870;
`
`RGBO0056871 - 56875; RGBO0056876 - 56877; RGBOQ056878 - 36879; RGBONOS 6880 -
`
`56883; RGBOOOSGRS4 - 56887; RGROQOOSG8SS - 56892; RGBOQ00S6893 - S6894: RGBOCOS6895
`
`~ 56898; RGBO0056899 ~ 56900; RGBOOO5 6901 - 56902; RGBO0056903 - 56908;
`
`RGB00056909 - 56914, RGBODOS69 15 - 56917; RGBO0056918 - 56920, RGBONDS 6921 -
`
`56922; RGBOUOS6923 - 36924; RGROGOVOS6925 - 56933; RGROOUS6934 - 56938; RGRVOES6939
`
`~ $6943; RGBO0056944 ~ $6945; RGBO0056946 ~ $6948; RGBO00S6949 - 56930;
`
`RGBODOS695 1 - 56952; RGBO0056953 - 56955; RGB00056956 - 56957, RGBOD056958 -
`
`56961; RGBOUGS6962 - 36964; RGBOUGS6965 - 56968; RGBO00S6969 - 56971; RGBOOUS6972
`
`- 56976; RGBOG056977 - 56981; RGBOGOS6982 - 56983; RGBOUOSGSS4 - 56987;
`
`RGBOO0S 6988 - 56990, RGBO005699 1 - 56993; RGBOQ00S6994 ~ 56996; RGBO0056997 -
`
`37000; RGBOO0S7001 - 37004; RGBOO0S7005 - 37006; RGBO0GS7007 - 37013; RGBO0057014
`
`~~
`
`
`
`~ 37043; RGBO0057044 - 57045; RGBO005 7046 - 57049; RGBOQOS7050 - 37052;
`
`RGBO005 7053 - 37064; RGBOGOS7065 - 57074; RGBOGOS7075 - 37076; ROBO0057077 -
`
`$7082; RGBOODS 7083 - 57094; RGBOODS 7095 - 57102; RGBOOOS7103 - 37104; RGBO00S7105
`
`~ 57106; RGBO0057 107 - 57109; RGBO0057110 - 57113; RGBOOOS7114 - S7LIS;
`
`RGBO00057116 - 57125; RGBO0057 126 - 57127; RGBOOQ0S7 128 - 37129; RGB00057 130 -
`
`$7132; RGBOOOS7135 - 57140; RGBOOOS7141 - $7144: RGBOO0S7133; RGBOO0S7217 -
`
`37228; RGBO0057229 - 37249; RGBO00S7572 - 37577; RGBOOGS7578 - 37579; RGBOOGS73580
`
`- 37586; RGBOGOS 7606 - 57607; RGBOGOS7608 - 537610; RGBOUGS7611 - 37613;
`
`RGBOO0S7614 - 57616; RGBOUGGS7620 - $7621; RGBOGOS7622 - 37623; RGBOUOGS7635 -
`
`37637; RGBO0057638 ~ 37639; ROBN0057640 - 37641; RGBO00S 7642 - 37644; RGBO00S7649
`
`- 37650; RGBOOOS765 1 - 57652; RGBO00S7664 - 57666; RIGBO0GS7683 - 37684;
`
`RGBOUGGS7685 - 57686; RGBOGGS7735 - 37738; RGBOUGS7741 - 37744; RGBUOGS7817 -
`
`$7823; RGBO0057824 - 37829; RGBOO05 7836 - 57836; RGBO0057837 - 37841; RGBOO0S 7842
`
`57844; RGBOGOS7845 - 57850; RGBOGOS7S8S1 - 37858; ROBOGOS78S9 - 57862;
`
`RGBOG0S7863 - 37865; RGBOGOS7866 - 37869; RIGBOGGS9S IS - 59523; RGOBO0062154 -
`
`62173; RGHO0062478 - 62461; RGBO0062494 - 62495; RGBO0062646 - 62641; RGBG0063239
`
`~ 63248; RGBO0063249 - 63251; RGBO0063252 - 63252; RGBO0063259 - 63260;
`
`RGB00063263 - 63265; RGBN0063266 - 63267; RGBO0063268 - 63269; ROB00063373 -
`
`63376; RGBO0063377 - 63378; RGBO0063414 - 63438: RGBO0063953 - 63953; RGBOODG4 164
`
`~ 64191; RGBO0070462 - 70467, RGBO0076402 - 76406; RGB00076413 - 76418;
`
`RGB00076436- 76440; RGBO007644 1 - 76448; RGBO0076449 - 76454; RGB00076459 -
`
`76313; RGBOQOO77 184 - 77243; RGBOOO77244 ~ 77287,
`
`Plaintiffcontinues to investigate this interrogatoryand will, if required, timely
`
`
`
`supplement this interrogatory.
`
`INTERROGATORYNO.S:
`
`With respect to cach of the patents-in-suit, identify all facts and documents, and all
`persons competent to testify with respect thereto, upon which Plaintiffrelies for proof of
`secondary considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for cach patent.
`
`SpecificObjections:
`
`Plaintiffobjects to this interrogatoryas a premature contention interrogatory. Plaintiff
`
`further objects imsofar as this interrogatoryis predicated on legal terms or conclusions of law
`
`including the term “secondary considerations.” Plaintiff further objects to the extent that this
`
`interrogatory calls for informationthat is properly the subject of expert discovery.
`
`Answer:
`
`Subject to the foregoing General and Specific objections, Plaintufstates as follows:
`
`Discovery has only recently begun in this case and Plaintiff will timely supplernent. Plamtiff’s
`
`invention solved a long-standing problemin the motion control industry. Specifically, the
`
`motion controller market consisted primarily of hardware-oriented companies. These companies
`
`provided low-level software that worked directly with thew hardware cornponents. The software
`
`from each company, however, was specific to that company’s hardware products. As a result, a
`
`consumer wishing to iraplement high-level software, sach as factory automation applications,
`
`could do so only ifall of its hardware used the same low-level software. Low-level software
`
`varied from manufacturer to manufacturer, but also could vary within a single manufacturer's
`
`hardware offermgs, Due to the lack of mteroperability, a consumer wishing to implementa
`
`factory automation application was limited not only to hardware from a single manufacturer, bat
`
`also to specific hardware offerings from that manufacturer. Although Plaintiff does not recall
`
`any particular persons who expressed skepticism about its idea, it does genorallyrecall that, on
`
`
`
`occasion, others expressed skepticism about the ability of its invention to work. Nevertheless,
`
`Plamtif’s hard work and ingenuity fed to a solution to the problem. Others, such as defendants,
`
`have enjoyed great commercial success fromthe use of Plaintiif’s invention. Persons who could
`
`testify about these facts include the inventors of the patents-in-suit, Dave Brown and Jay Clark.
`
`Other potential persons include persons currently and formerly associated with defendants, and
`
`the parties’ experts.
`
`
`
`Dated: April 25, 2008
`
`As to the Objections,
`
`
`
`
`
`Lance Latel
`Lead Attorney
`Texas State Bar No. 12651125
`John M. Black
`Texas State Bar No. 24006850
`HEARD, ROBINS, CLOUD & LUBELLLP
`3800 Buffalo Speedway, 5" Floor
`Houston, Texas 77098
`Telephone: (713) 650-1200
`Fax: (713) 650-1400
`
`fhibelfahe
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`William A. Isaacson
`D. Michael Underhill
`Erie F. Maurer
`Aaron J. Snow
`BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
`S301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20015
`Telephone: 202.237.272
`Fax: 202.237.6131
`5
`E-mail:
`
`E-mail: a
`
`Atiorneys for Plaintiff ROY-G-BIV
`Corporation
`
`Kip Glasscock
`Texas State Bar No. 08011000
`KIP GLASSCOCK,PC.
`550 Fannin, Suite 1350
`Beaumont, Texas 77701
`Telephone: (409) 833-8822
`Fax: (409) 838-4666
`ke
`E-mail:
`king!
`
`Russell A. Chorush
`Texas State Bar No. 24631948
`HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P.
`JP Morgan Chase Tower
`600 Travis Street, Suite 6710
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 221-2006
`Fax: (713) 221-202)
`i
`re
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 25, 2008, counsel of record for the parties are being served
`
`a copy of the foregoing document via E-mail, with a confirmation copyto be sent via First Class
`
`Math
`
`ViaE-Mail:
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`WARD & SMITH LAWFIRM
`1Li West Tyler Street
`Longview, TX 75601
`Telephone: 903.757.6400
`Facsimile: 903,.757,2323
`NYra
`E-Maik pw
`
`ViaFirstClassMail:
`
`Daniel T, Shvodian
`California State Bar No. 184576
`HOWREYLLP
`1950 University Avenue, 4th Floor
`East Palo Alta, CA 94303
`Telephone: 656.798.3500
`Facsimile: 650.798.3600
`a
`E-maik §
`
`Henry C. Bunsow
`California State Bar No. 60707
`James F. Valentine
`California State Bar No. 149269
`Daniel T. Shvedian
`California State Bar No. 184576
`HOWREY LLP
`1956 University Avenue, 4th Floor
`East Pala Alto, CA 94303
`Telephone: 650.798.3506
`Facsimile: 650.798.3600
`
`
`
`
` E-mail: Shvod
`
`
`
`Eric J. Meurer
`
`