`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: philip.wang@limruger.com
`traci.keith@1imruger.com
`
`Attorneys for Non-Party
`RPX Corporation
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT CODRT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Civil Action No. 6:11-cv—287 (Eastern
`District of Texas)
`
`MACROSOLVE, INC.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`
`
`ANTENNA SOP I W. ARE, INC. ET AL,
`
` Defendants.
`
`NON—PARTY R'PX CORPORATION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`
`SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
`
`\OOO‘QOU'I-«SXUJN
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`{00885559.DOC}
`
`MACROSOLVE-2002
`PAGE 1 of 4
`
`PAGE 1 of 4
`
`MACROSOLVE-2002
`
`
`
`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. et a1. , Civil Action No.
`
`6:1 Lev-287 (Eastern District of Texas) (the “Action”). RPX reserves the tight to supplement any
`
`of its responses and/or objections set forth herein at any time in the future.
`
`W
`
`All documents (including E81 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 [PR request, and any ongoing activities or
`
`communications relating to the IPR request.
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUEST
`
`l.
`
`RPX objects to the Document Subpoena and the Request on the grounds that they
`
`have been brought in an improper forum. The interpartes review (“IPR”) process before the US.
`
`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 ofpermi ssible discovery
`
`allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, local rule, or any court order.
`
`\DOOQC‘Lh-wah-d
`
`MNNNNNNHi—tw—twmr—iwwwv—I
`
`
`
`{00885559.DOC}
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DOCUMENT SUBPOENA
`
`MACROSOLVE-2002
`PAGE 2 of 4
`
`PAGE 2 of 4
`
`MACROSOLVE-2002
`
`
`
`p—A
`
`KOOOQO‘tm-h-UJN
`
`NNNNNl—‘b—oh—tu‘wv—IHHH.‘
`
`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 [PR 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. Water Co. ofJapan, 249 F.R.D.
`575, 577 (ND. Cal. 2007) (“There is simply no reason to burden nonparties when the documents
`
`sought are in possession of the party defendant”).
`
`5.
`
`RPX 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
`
`frame for compliance is unreasonable in light of scope of the request.
`
`7.
`
`RPX objects to the Request to the extent it requires disclosure of privileged 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
`
`
`{008855 SQDOC}
`
`3
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DOCUMENT SUBPOENA
`
`
`
`
`
`MAC ROSOLVE-2002
`PAGE 3 of 4
`
`PAGE 3 of 4
`
`MACROSOLVE-2002
`
`
`
`burden or cost. RPX further objects to the Subpoena to the extent it seeks electronically stored
`
`information that is back-up data on the grounds tliat it is not reasonably accessible to RPX.
`
`ll.
`
`RPX objects to the Request on the ground that the terms “ESP”, “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.”
`
`l3.
`
`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
`
`\DOO‘JOXMADJNH
`
`filing” are vague and uncertain.
`
`Dated: December 3, 2013
`
`LIM, RUGER & KIM LLP
`
` Philip J. Wan
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR NON-PARTY
`RPX CORPORATION
`
`NMNNNNNNNr—‘r—Hmi—dr—Hwy—uwOOQCXMQWNHCWOO‘JQthmr—‘O
`
`{00885559.DOC}
`
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DOCUMENT SUBPOENA
`
`MACROSOLVE-2002
`PAGE 4 of 4
`
`PAGE 4 of 4
`
`MACROSOLVE-2002
`
`