Philip J. Wang (Bar No. 218349)
`Traci M. Keith (Bar No. 235828)
`LIM, RUGER & KIM, LLP
`One Maritime Plaza, Suite 825
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Phone: (415) 599-2828
`Fax: (415) 599-2829
`Email: phi1ip.wang@limruger.com
`traci.keith@1imruger.com
`
`«
`
`Attorneys for Non—Party
`RPX Corporation
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT cdUR'i‘
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MACROSOLVE, INC. Civil Action No. 6:1 1-cv-287 (Eastern
`
`District of Texas)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`ANTENNA SOP I W‘ARE, INC. ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`NON-PARTY RPX CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`
`SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
`
`
`{0088S559.DOC}
`
`..___2—_____.
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`5...»
`
`>-—\>--
`
`v-‘©\OOO\}O\U'I->0-3!\-7
`[\Jbo¢4)-‘)--\)-It--it-1)--A3-4CD\DO0~dO\U‘I-«F>UJl\J
`
`I0 I--‘
`
`NI0
`
`10U)
`
`IO-5-
`
`DO U!
`
`KOO\
`
`IO\3
`
`I0O0
`
`

`
`5.:
`
`S\ooo~.:O\UnJ>~<.»->N
`
`;..a
`
`,-\
`
`u--I I9
`
`3-4 U)
`
`>-h ->-
`
`>—a {ll
`
`i-4 ON
`
`o-—t \.X
`
`\-—n 00
`
`5-: KO
`
`Ix)G
`
`I0 :--t
`
`M(Q
`
`l\3U0
`
`Ix)-I5
`
`l\JU‘!
`
`I0O\
`
`10\)
`
`{*3 O0
`
`Non-party RPX Corporation (“RPX”) states its objections and responses to the subpoena
`
`duces tecum (the “Document Subpoena”) issued on behalf of Macrosolve, Inc. (“Requesting
`
`Party”) in connection with MacroSolve, Inc. v. Antenna Software, Inc. at al. , Civil Action No.
`
`6:1 l—cv-287 (Eastern District of Texas) (the “Action”). RPX reserves the right to supplement any
`
`of its responses and/or objections set forth herein at any time in the future.
`
`DOCUMENT REQUEST
`
`All documents (including ESI and communications) relating to RPX’s request that the
`
`Patent Office institute an interpartes review of MacroSolve’s patent, including all documents
`
`relating to the initial idea for filing the IPR request, the planning for filing the IPR request, the
`
`preparation of the IPR request, the filing of the IPR request, and any ongoing activities or
`
`communications relating to the IPR request.
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUEST
`
`1.
`
`RPX objects to the Document Subpoena and the Request on the grounds that they
`
`have been brought in an improper forum. The inter partes review (“IPR”) process before the U.S.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) provides a means for Requesting Party to seek
`
`discovery, and it is to that forum that Requesting Party should seek relief.
`
`2.
`
`RPX objects to the Document Subpoena and Request to the extent that they are
`
`unduly burdensome, overly broad, and fails to comply with the admonition of Fed. R. Civ. P. -
`
`45(c)(l) that subpoenas to third parties should “avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a
`
`person subject to the subpoena.”
`
`3.
`
`RPX objects to the Document Subpoena and the Request on the grounds that they
`
`seek irrelevant information and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Non-party RPX’s IPR request to the USPTO has no relevance to the claims
`
`or defenses of any party to the Action, and thus the Document Subpoena and the Request exceed
`
`the permissible scope of discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. RPX further objects to the Document
`
`Subpoena and the Request to the extent they otherwise exceed the limits ofpermissible discovery
`
`allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local rule, or any court order.
`
`
`{00885559.DOC}
`
`2
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DOCUMENT SUBPOENA
`
`

`
`4.
`
`RPX objects to the Request to the extent that it seeks documents available from a
`
`party or parties to the Action. To the extent Requesting Party believes that one or more parties to
`
`the Action have participated in an IPR request and seeks such documents to assert claims or
`
`defenses against those Parties, Requesting Party should seek such discovery directly from those
`
`parties rather than burdening non-party RPX. See Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. ofJapan, 249 F.R.D.
`575, 377 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (“There is simply no reason to burden nonparties when the documents
`
`sought are in possession of the party defendant”).
`
`5.
`
`objects to the Request to the extent it calls for the production of documents
`
`that are publicly available.
`
`6.
`
`RPX objects to the Document Subpoena and the Request to the extent that the time
`
`flame for compliance is unreasonable in light of scope of the request.
`
`7.
`
`RPX objects to the Request to the extent it requires disclosure ofprivileged or other
`
`protected matter, including but not limited to documents protected by the attorney-client privilege
`
`and/or attorney work-product doctrine. The inadvertent production of documents protected by any
`
`evidentiary or other privilege shall not be deemed a waiver of such privilege.
`
`8.
`
`. RPX objects to the Request to the extent it calls for documents containing trade
`
`secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information or other sensitive
`
`or confidential information protected by constitutional, statutory, or common law rights of
`
`privacy. RPX further objects to the Request as it seeks disclosure of highly confidential
`
`information that, if divulged, could harm RPX’s business interests and/or legal rights. Requesting
`
`Party has not shown a substantial need for such information and has not shown that RPX can
`
`produce documents without undue hardship.
`
`9.
`
`RPX objects to the Document Subpoena and the Request to the extent they purport
`
`to require RPX to make any form of production of electronically stored information that imposes
`
`any differing or additional obligations from those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`10.
`
`RPX objects to the Document Subpoena and the Request to the extent they seek
`
`»
`
`electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible to RPX because of undue
`
`ha
`
`’<‘D‘\D0O\'IO'\U'z-«l>~U~>l\)
`
`1...; pa
`
`)--a 10
`
`v--A DJ
`
`5-I 5
`
`D--I ‘J!
`
`u--A ON
`
`:---a x)
`
`L-- O0
`
`1-- ‘O
`
`[QC
`
`l\-3 i-4
`
`{Q[0
`
`B)U.)
`
`N-h
`
`I0U’:
`
`[0O\
`
`ix)x)
`
`i\300
`
`
`osnacrious AND RESPONSES iii"
`{oosssssanoc}
`DOCUMENT SUBPOENA
`
`

`
`‘%-I
`
`>-—-y—-
`
`>-‘©\D0O-JO\!J‘t-hi.-.>t\J
`ix):-—tr-an--sv—r-I>—-L--tr-aC>\ooo~.)o\U~a.I>u.2M
`
`IN) v--~
`
`[0N!
`
`NU)
`
`NJi-
`
`IQUt
`
`I0O\
`
`K0~18
`
`IN)00
`
`burden or cost. RPX fiirther objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks electronically stored
`
`information that is back-up data on the grounds
`
`it is not reasonably accessible to RPX.
`
`ll.
`
`RPX objects to the Request on the ground that the terms “BS1”, “MacroSolve’s
`
`patent” and “IPR request” are not identified or defined.
`
`12.
`
`RPX objects to the Request to the extent it requires RPX to draw a legal conclusion
`
`regarding the meaning of “MacroSolve’s patent.”
`
`13.
`
`RPX objects to the Request on the ground that the terms “initial idea for
`
`filing”,“ongoing activities or communications relating to the IPR request” and “planning for
`
`filing” are vague and uncertain.
`
`Dated: December 3, 2013
`
`LIM, RUGER & KIM LLP
`
` Philip J. Wan
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY
`RPX CORPORATION
`
` {00885559-DOC}
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DOCUMENT SUBPOENA