UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES,
`INCLUDING TELEVISIONS, BLU-RAY
`DISC PLAYERS, HOME THEATER
`SYSTEMS, TABLETS AND MOBILE
`PHONES, COMPONENTS THEREOF
`AND ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-882
`
`MOTION TO INTERVENE IN INVESTIGATION
`AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF GOOGLE INC.
`
`MOTION
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.19, Google Inc. (“Google”) moves to intervene
`
`in this investigation. Google seeks to intervene to protect its significant interests and to
`
`defend the Google and YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”) proprietary products and services
`
`that are identified in the Complaint and the accompanying claim charts or that are
`
`otherwise within the scope of this investigation. YouTube is a wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`of Google. As set forth in more detail in the following memorandum, Google respect-
`
`fully requests that its motion to intervene (“Motion”) be granted.1
`
`1 Google presently seeks to intervene only as an intervenor and not as a respondent.
`Should its motion be granted, however, Google reserves the right to file a motion to
`change its status to that of a respondent
`if additional facts come to light
`in the
`investigation that would support such a request.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Samsung v. Black Hills Media
`IPR2014-00717
`SAMSUNG EX. 1007
`
`1/76
`
`

`

`As required by Ground Rule 5(e), Google has made a reasonable and good-faith
`
`effort to contact and seek to resolve the subject matter of this Motion two days prior to
`
`filing this Motion. Respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C., LG Electronics, Inc.,
`
`LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of America, Toshiba Corporation,
`
`Toshiba Corporation America Information Systems, Inc., Sharp Corporation, and Sharp
`
`Electronics Corporation (“Respondents”) indicated they do not oppose the Motion.
`
`Complainant Black Hills Media, LLC (“Black Hills” or “Complainant”) indicated that it
`
`will oppose the Motion. The Commission Investigative Staff has indicated that it will
`
`take a position after it reviews the Motion.
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`This investigation was instituted on June 18, 2013, as a result of a Complaint that
`
`was filed by Black Hills on May 13, 2013, alleging infringement of six patents by one or
`
`more of twelve Respondents, including OEMS for Android devices, Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America,
`
`L.L.C., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics,
`
`Inc., LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic
`
`Corporation of America, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Corporation America Information
`
`Systems, Inc., Sharp Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Corporation.
`
`The claim charts that accompanied the Complaint specifically identify certain
`
`proprietary Google and YouTube products and services operating on Android devices
`
`- 2 -
`
`2/76
`
`

`

`manufactured by each of the Respondents as allegedly infringing or allegedly providing a
`
`portion of the infringing functionality of various patent claims. Specifically, Google
`
`Maps and Google Latitude were identified in the claim charts for U.S. Patent 6,618,593.
`
`Google Play Music was expressly identified in the claim charts for U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 8,045,952 and 8,050,652. YouTube was expressly identified in claim charts for U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,028,323, 8,214,873, and 8,230,099.
`
`In addition, Black Hills has served subpoenas on both Google and its wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary YouTube, copies of which are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2. The
`
`subpoena to Google defines “Google Device Locator Applications” as “software applica-
`
`tions that enable device users to identify and locate on a map, via global positioning
`
`system data, other wireless communication devices. Device Locator Applications include,
`
`without limitation, Google Latitude, AT&T Family Map, and all other reasonably similar
`
`applications.” Ex. 1 at 4. The subpoena defines “Google Media Sharing Applications”
`
`as “YouTube and applications for managing and sharing digital media and other network
`
`connected devices including music sharing applications, such as Google Play Music and
`
`reasonably similar applications, as well as, second screen and DIAL video sharing
`
`applications, and other reasonably similar applications.” Id. The subpoena to YouTube,
`
`Google’s wholly owned subsidiary, defines “YouTube Products” as “YouTube software
`
`used in conjunction with respondents’ devices including, but not limited to, YouTube
`
`applications and services and YouTube discovery and launch (‘DIAL’), second screen, or
`
`remote control functionality.” Ex. 2 at 5.
`
`- 3 -
`
`3/76
`
`

`

`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`The Commission’s rules expressly provide for a third party to intervene in a
`
`pending investigation. Rule 210.19; Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose,
`
`and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-604, Order No. 7
`
`(July 25, 2007) (“The Commission generally follows the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure in determining whether intervention in a particular matter is appropriate.”)2
`
`The Commission evaluates the following factors in determining whether intervention is
`
`appropriate:
`
`(1) was the motion timely; (2) does the moving party have “an interest
`
`relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action;” (3) is the
`
`moving party “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter
`
`impair or impede its ability to protect that interest;” and (4) is the moving party “not
`
`adequately represented by existing parties.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`GOOGLE SATISFIES THE STANDARD FOR INTERVENTION
`
`1.
`
`Google’s Motion is Timely
`
`A motion to intervene is timely if filed at a “relatively early” stage of the
`
`investigation. Id. Google’s motion is timely, as this investigation was only instituted on
`
`June 18, 2013, a little more than five weeks ago, and the preliminary hearing before the
`
`ALJ will not occur until August 6, 2013.
`
`See Certain Portable Electronic
`
`Communication Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof, Inv.
`
`2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 provides: “On timely motion, the court must
`permit anyone to intervene who .
`.
`. claims an interest relating to the property or
`transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action
`may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest,
`unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”
`
`- 4 -
`
`4/76
`
`

`

`No. 337-TA-885, Order No. 5 (July 16, 2013) (motion timely when filed “within weeks
`
`of the institution of the investigation”); Certain Cigarettes and Packaging Thereof, Inv.
`
`No. 337-TA-424, Order No. 15 (Nov. 19, 1999) (granting motion to intervene filed less
`
`than ninety days after publication of the notice of investigation and prior to the initial
`
`conference).
`
`2.
`
`Google Has a Compelling Interest in This Investigation
`
`Google has a compelling interest in this investigation as a result of Complainant’s
`
`assertion that the alleged infringement is based, in part, on Respondents’ devices and
`
`their use of proprietary Google products and services, including Google Play Music,
`
`Google Maps/Latitude, and YouTube. See Certain Portable Electronic Communication
`
`Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-885,
`
`Order No. 5 (finding Google established that it has a substantial interest due to the
`
`alleged infringement of HTC devices that run Google products or services); Certain
`
`Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components
`
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-847, Order No. 3 (Aug. 3, 2012) (finding Google established
`
`that it has a substantial interest because “proprietary Android applications developed by
`
`Google and imbedded [sic] in the accused HTC devices form the basis of Nokia’s
`
`infringement allegations”); see also, Ancora Tech., Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Info. Sys., Inc.,
`
`2008 WL 4326788 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2008) (granting motion to intervene where
`
`“[a]pplicant has a significantly protectable interest because the Defendants are important
`
`OEM customers who make and sell computer products equipped with Applicant’s
`
`software, and Plaintiff alleges patent infringement based on the Defendants’ use of
`
`- 5 -
`
`5/76
`
`

`

`Applicant’s software and technology in connection with making and selling computer
`
`products”).
`
`Google also has a business interest in the continued importation and sale of
`
`Respondents’ accused products that utilize Google proprietary products and services.
`
`Google has invested substantial resources in developing and supporting these products
`
`and services and has a strong interest in assuring that Respondents can continue to utilize
`
`these products and services by importing their products into the United States. See
`
`Certain Garage Door Operators, Inv. No. 337-TA-459, Order No. 5 (Oct. 1, 2001)
`
`(party’s status as “a designer, manufacturer and supplier” of a principal component of
`
`“the accused device renders its interest in this investigation substantial”).
`
`3.
`
`Google’s Substantial Interests Are Not Adequately
`Protected by the Respondents
`
`In two prior investigations involving Google’s proprietary products and services,
`
`with closely analogous facts, the Commission found that the respondents could not
`
`adequately protect Google’s interests. See Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile
`
`Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-847, Order
`
`No. 3 (Aug. 3, 2012) (“I find that HTC, as the accused device manufacturer, but not the
`
`developer of the Android applications embedded in those devices, does not adequately
`
`represent Google’s interests.”); Certain Portable Electronic Communication Devices,
`
`Including Mobile Phones and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-885, Order No. 5
`
`(“The ALJ finds that Google’s interests are not adequately protected by existing parties”).
`
`The same holds true in this investigation.
`
`- 6 -
`
`6/76
`
`

`

`Moreover, Google’s products and services are not the only third-party products
`
`and services that are alleged to infringe the asserted patents, and Respondents’ interests
`
`will be more focused on their own accused products as opposed to Google’s proprietary
`
`products and services.
`
`See Certain Personal Computer with Memory Management
`
`Information Storied in External Memory, Inv. No. 337-TA-352, (July 15, 1993) (“Cyrix
`
`will not be adequately represented by the other parties in this investigation. The
`
`Twinhead respondents have an interest in selling personal computers, not necessarily
`
`those with Cyrix microprocessors. . . . Cyrix should not be forced to depend on the other
`
`parties to litigate issues which will have a very substantial effect on Cyrix’s interests.”).
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all these reasons, Google respectfully requests that its Motion to Intervene in
`
`Investigation as a party with full participation rights under Rule 210.19 be granted.
`
`Dated: July 26, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Stefani E. Shanberg
`Stefani E. Shanberg
`Jennifer J. Schmidt
`Robin L. Brewer
`Michael J. Guo
`Madeleine E. Greene
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Telephone:
`(415) 947-2000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 947-2099
`E-Mail:
`sshanberg@wsgr.com
`jschmidt@wsgr.com
`rbrewer@wsgr.com
`mguo@wsgr.com
`mgreene@wsgr.com
`
`- 7 -
`
`7/76
`
`

`

`Larry L. Shatzer
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`1700 K Street, N.W., Fifth Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Telephone:
`(202) 973-8800
`Facsimile:
`(202 973-8899
`E-Mail:
`lshatzer@wsgr.com
`
`Counsel for GOOGLE INC.
`
`- 8 -
`
`8/76
`
`

`

`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`9/76
`
`9/76
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, DC.
`
`Before The Honorable David P. Shaw
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES,
`INCLUDING TELEVISIONS, BLU—RAY
`
`DISC PLAYERS, HOME THEATER
`
`SYSTEMS, TABLETS AND MOBILE
`
`PHONES, COMPONENTS THEREOF
`AND ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`Investigation No. 337—TA—882
`
`SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND AD TESTIFICANDUM
`
`.Google, Inc.
`1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
`Mountain View, CA 94043
`
`TAKE NOTICE: By authority of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19
`
`U.S.C. § 1337, 5 U.S.C. § 556(c)(2), and pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.32 ofthe Rules OfPractice
`
`and Procedure of the United States International Trade Commission, and upon an application for
`
`subpoena made by Complainant Black Hills Media, LLC:
`
`YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to produce at Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and
`
`Popeo PC, 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300, San Diego, California, on July 11, 2013, or at
`
`such other place and date as agreed upon, all of the Documents and Things in your possession,
`
`custody or control listed and described in Attachment A to this subpoena. Such production will be
`
`for the purpose of inspection and copying.
`
`If the production of any document listed and described in Attachment A is withheld on the
`
`basis ofa claim ofprivilege, each withheld document shall be separately identified in a privileged
`
`10/76
`
`

`

`document iist. The privileged document list must identify each document separately, specifying for
`
`each document at least: (1) the date; (2) author(s)/sender(s); (3) recipients(s), including copy
`
`recipients; and (4) the general subject matter ofthe document. The sender(s) and recipients(s) shall
`
`be identified by position and entity (corporation or firm, etc.) with which they are employed or
`
`associated. Ifthe sender or the recipient is an attorney or a foreign patent agent, he or she shall be
`
`identified. The type of privilege claimed must be also stated, together with a certification that all
`
`elements of the claimed privilege have been met and have not been waived with respect to each
`
`document.
`
`if any of the Documents or Things listed and described in Attachment A are considered
`“confidential business information,” as that term is defined in the Protective Order attached to this
`
`subpoena as Attachment C, such Documents or Things shall be produced subject to the terms and
`
`provisions of the Protective Order.
`
`YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to present yourself for purposes of your deposition
`
`upon oral examination at 9:00 am. on July 11, 2013 at Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and
`
`POpeo PC located at 3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300, San Diego, California or on such
`
`other date, time, and/or location as agreed upon, concerning the subject matter set forth in the
`
`topics listed in Attachment B to this subpoena.
`
`The deposition will be taken before a Notary Public or other person authorized to
`
`administeroaths and will continue from day—to-day until completed. The deposition may
`
`also be recorded by real—time transcription display and videotape.
`
`If any of your testimony is considered “confidential business information,” as that
`
`term is defined in the Protective Order attached as Attachment C to this subpoena, such
`
`11/76
`
`

`

`testimony shall be so designated and treated according to the terms and provisions of the
`
`Protective Order.
`
`Any motion to limit or quash this subpoena shall be filed within ten (10) days after the
`
`receipt hereof. At the time offiling ofany motion concerning this subpoena, two courtesy copies
`
`shall be served concurrently on the Administrative Law Judge at his office.
`
`commission to be affixed at Washington, DC. on thisZE-day of June, 2013.
`
`W
`
`The Honorable David P. Shaw ‘
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`United States International Trade Commission
`
`
`
`12/76
`
`

`

`DEFINITIONS
`
`“Google,” ”You,” and “Yours” means Google, Inc. and any of its predecessors in interest,
`
`subsidiaries, joint ventures, and other legal entities that are wholly or partially owned or
`
`controlled by any of the foregoing entities, either directly or indirectly, and the principals,
`
`directors, officers, owners, members, representatives, employees, agents, and consultants of
`
`these same entities.
`
`“BHM” means Complainant Black Hills Media, LLC.
`
`“Document(s)” has the same meaning that it has under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34
`
`and Commission Rule 210.3 0, and includes electronically stored information as specified in
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.
`
`“Google Device Locator Applications” refers to software applications that enable device
`
`users to identify and locate on a map, via global positioning system data, other wireless
`
`communications devices. Device Locator Applications include, without limitation, Google
`
`Latitude, AT&T Family Map, and all other reasonably similar applications.
`
`“Google Media Sharing Applications” refers to YouTube and applications for managing and
`
`sharing digital media with other network connected devices including music sharing
`
`applications, such as Google Play Music and reasonably similar applications, as well as,
`
`second screen and DIAL video sharing applications, and other reasonably similar
`
`applications.
`
`“Thing(s)” has the broadest meaning allowable under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 34 and
`
`Commission Rule 210.30 and includes any tangible object other than a Document and,
`
`without limitation, objects of every kind and nature, as well as prototypes, models, or
`
`' physical specimens thereof.
`
`13/76
`
`

`

`10.
`
`ll.
`
`12.
`
`“Google Products” means Google Device Locator Applications and Google Media Sharing
`
`Applications.
`
`“Respondents” means: Samsung Electronics Co., Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc,
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C., LG Electronics, 1110., LG Electronics,
`
`USA, Inc, LG Electronics MobileComm USA, Inc, Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic
`
`Corporation ofAmerica, Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc,
`
`Sharp Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Corporation.
`
`“Respondents’ Devices” means: mobile phones, tablets, televisions, Blu-ray players and
`
`home theater systems of Respondents.
`
`“Third Parties” means any individual or entity excluding Respondents.
`
`“Asserted Patents” means, collectively, US. Patent Nos. 8,050,652 (“the “652 Patent”),
`
`8,045,952 (“the ‘952 Patent”), 6,618,593 (“the ‘593 Patent”), 8,028,323 (“the ‘323 Patent”),
`
`8,214,873 (“the ‘873 Patent”), and 8,230,099 (“the ‘099 Patent”).
`
`“Source Code” means human-readable programming language text that defines software,
`
`firmware, and/or hardware. Source Code includes, but is not limited to, files containing code
`
`in “C”, “C++”, “Java”, and assembly program languages for, but not limited to, DSP and any
`programmable processors. Source Code further includes but is not limited to “include” files,
`
`“make” files, “link” files, “build” files, and other human readable text files used in the
`
`generation and/or building of software directly executed on an application processor,
`
`baseband processor, micro-controller, or DSP. The term “software” as used above is meant
`
`to include but is not limited to operating systems as well as operating system kernels,
`
`libraries and DLL’s, compiled programs, applications, and drivers and includes both client
`
`based and server—based software. Source Code files also include, but are not limited to files
`
`14/76
`
`

`

`containing Source Code in VHDL, Verilog, and other Hardware Description Language
`
`(“HDL”) formats, including but not limited to, Register Transfer Level (“RTL”) descriptions.
`The terms “and,” “or,” and “and/or” shall be construed in the conjunctive or the disjunctive,
`
`13.
`
`whichever makes the request more inclusive.
`
`14.
`
`All pronouns shall be construed to refer to the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender, in
`
`singular or plural, as in each case makes the request more inclusive.
`
`15/76
`
`

`

`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`The following instructions apply to each Request for Production unless otherwise
`
`explicitly stated.
`
`A.
`
`As to any portion of any request that refers to Documents that You are aware of
`
`which were at one time within Your possession, custody or control, but which are not now within or
`
`subject to Your possession, custody or control, You are directed to identify such Documents in a
`
`manner sufficient to describe such Documents for the purpose of preparing and serving a proper
`
`subpoena duces tecum and to give the name, telephone number, and address ofthe person last known
`
`by You to have been in possession, custody or control of such Documents.
`
`B.
`
`All Documents are to be produced in the same file or other organizational
`
`environment in which they are maintained. For example, a Document that is part ofa file, docket,
`
`or other grouping must be produced in the same order or manner of arrangement as the original.
`
`Alternatively, as to each Document and thing produced in response hereto, you should identifythe
`
`request for production in response-to which the Document or thing is being produced. See
`
`Commission Rule 210.30.
`
`C.
`
`Documents including electronically stored information shall be produced in their
`
`native format with metadata. Documents that exist only on paper may be scanned and produced in
`
`.tiff format with load files. Any comment or notation appearing on any Document, and not a part
`
`of the original text, is to be considered a separate “Document.”
`
`D.
`
`Any request to produce a Document “relating to” a particular subject shall be
`
`construed in its broadest, most inclusive sense, and shall be considered a request that you produce
`
`Documents that relate to, refer to, discuss, summarize, reflect, constitute, contain, embody, pertain
`
`16/76
`
`

`

`to, mention, consist of, comprise, show, comment on, evidence, describe, or in any other way
`
`concern the subject matter.
`
`E.
`
`If a Document is in a language other than English and an English translation
`
`exists, provide both Documents.
`
`F.
`
`State, for each request, whether or not there exists any Documents within the
`
`scope ofthe request and whether any such Documents are within Your possession, custody, or
`
`control.
`
`G.
`
`If you are aware that a Document or group of Documents once existed but has
`
`been destroyed, this should be stated, and it should be also stated who destroyed it, when, and
`
`why it was destroyed, and the circumstances under which it was destroyed.
`
`H.
`
`If no Documents are responsive to a particular request, you are to state that no
`
`responsive Documents exist.
`
`17/76
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT A
`
`Reg uests for Document Production
`
`Documents evidencing all past and Current versions of the Google Products and the
`changes made from one successive version to the next.
`
`All Documents evidencing which ofRespondents’ Devices the Google Products are
`loaded on, including when and by whom they are loaded (e.g., prior to importation, after
`importation, automatically upon first use of Respondents’ Devices, by the end user), and
`the approximate number of Google Products that have been installed on each model of
`Respondents” Devices.
`
`All Documents describing the structure, function, and operation of all Google Products,
`including but not limited to all programming guides, developer documentation including
`commands, requests, status, data formats and protocols for communications to and from
`Google servers, Documents relating to application programming interfaces (“API”),
`Documents relating to native applications ofthe Google Products, user manuals, user
`guides, hardware specifications, software specifications, feature specifications, technical
`presentations, engineering presentations, FAQs, marketing presentations, and marketing
`studies.
`'
`
`All Source Code relating to the Google Products, including but not limited to all Google
`Products in first screen or second screen applications, on servers, in databases, or in any
`location where Source Code relating to the Google Products resides.
`
`All Documents and Source Code relating to the steps and resources employed to cause
`the Google Media Sharing Applications to receive and communicate a user's request for
`music and to receive and process data identifying one or more songs for playback,
`including but not limited to Documents and Source Code relating to (a) receiving and
`processing the user's request for music; (b) communicating the user’s request to a server;
`(0) receiving data identifying one or more songs for playback; and (d) playing back the
`songs.
`
`All Documents and Source code relating to any local storage on Respondents” Devices of
`songs, or portions of songs, obtained fi‘om Google's servers.
`
`All Documents, Source Code and communications You have provided to or received
`from Respondents relating to the Google Products.
`
`All Documents relating to the combination of Google Products with Respondents”
`Devices, including but not limited to any advertisements, instructions, or promotion of
`Google Products by You, Respondents or You and Respondents together.
`
`All Documents, communications, or protocols relating to the testing ofthe Google
`Products in conjunction with Respondents’ Devices, whether performed by You, by
`Respondents, or by Third Parties, such as mobile carriers.
`
`
`
`18/76
`
`

`

`10.
`
`ll.
`
`12.
`
`All indemnity requests received by You relating to this investigation, including any
`indemnity requests received from Respondents.
`
`All Documents that relate to payments or compensation exchanged between You and
`Respondents relating to Google Products.
`
`All Documents that relate to Charles Drutman, Darlene Drutman, Andrew Egendorf,
`Norton Greenfeld, Eugene Pettinelli, Roving Radar, Safl Qureshey, Dan Sheppard,
`AudioRamp or the Asserted Patents and their infringement, non—infi‘ingement, validity,
`invalidity, enforceability or unenforceability, or Your knowledge of the Asserted Patents.
`
`13.
`
`Documents sufficient to show Google’s corporate structure and identification of its
`officers.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`All server logs, data and summaries regarding the successful matching of mobile devices
`using the Google Device Locator Applications, including the identity and brand of
`mobile devices that have been matched.
`
`Information (including server logs) sufficient to show that the Google Device Locator
`Applications provided a handset manufactured by LG with the location of another LG
`handset.
`
`Information (including server logs) sufficient to show that the Google Device Locator
`Applications provided a handset manufactured by Samsung with the location of another
`Samsung handset.
`
`Information (including server logs) sufficient to show that the Google Device Locator
`Applications provided a handset manufactured by LG with the location of a Samsung
`handset.
`
`Information (including server logs) sufficient to show that the Google Device Locator
`Applications provided a handset manufactured by Samsung with the location of an LG
`handset.
`
`All Documents and Things relating to the structure, function, and operation ofthe Discovery
`and Launch Protocol (“DIAL”), including all versions of the DIAL protocol specification,
`programming guides, user manuals, user guides, hardware specifications, software
`specifications, technical presentations, engineering presentations, marketing presentations,
`and marketing studies.
`
`All current and former versions of the DIAL Registry.
`
`All Source Code relating to DIAL, including all implementations of DIAL in conjunction
`with Respondents’ Devices in first screen applications and second screen applications.
`
`All Documents and Source Code Google provides to Respondents relating to DIAL.
`
`19/76
`
`

`

`23. All Documents and Things relating to the use of DIAL by second screen devices to discover
`and launch applications on first screen devices, including all programming guides, user
`manuals, user guides, hardware specifications, software specifications, feature specifications,
`technical presentations, engineering presentations, marketing presentations, and marketing
`studies.
`
`20/76
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT B
`
`Deposition Topics
`
`All Documents identified in Attachment A.
`
`All efforts to collect Documents identified in Attachment A.
`
`All past and current versions of the Google Products and the changes made from one
`successive version to the next.
`
`Which of Respondents’ Devices the Google Products are loaded on, including when and
`by whom they are loaded, and the approximate number of Google Products that have
`been installed on each model of Respondents” Devices.
`
`The structure, function, and operation of all Google Products.
`
`Source Code relating to the Google Products.
`
`Documents, Source Code and communications You have provided to or received from
`Respondents relating to the Google Products.
`
`The combination of Google Products with Respondents’ Devices, including but not
`limited to any advertisements, instructions, promotion of Google Products by You,
`Respondents or You and Respondents together.
`
`The testing of the Google Products in conjunction with Respondents’ Devices, whether
`performed by You, by Respondents, or by Third Parties, such as, mobile carriers.
`
`Indemnity requests received by You relating to this investigation.
`
`Payments or compensation exchanged between You and Respondents relating to Google
`Products.
`
`Charles Drutman, Darlene Drutman, Andrew Egendorf, Norton Greenfeld, Eugene
`Pettinelli, Roving Radar, Safi Qureshey, Dan Sheppard, AudioRamp, the Asserted
`Patents and their infringement, non—infringement, validity, invalidity, enforceability or
`unenforceability and Your knowledge of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Google’s corporate structure, including without limitation information about officers or
`employees.
`
`The identity of servers and databases that are used in connection with the Google
`Products.
`
`10.
`
`ll.
`
`12,
`
`l3.
`
`l4.
`
`
`
`21/76
`
`

`

`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`Records generated by the use of the Google Device Locator Applications, including
`records sufficient to establish use of the Google Device Locator Applications on handsets
`of the Respondents which have been sold in the United States.
`
`All server logs, data and summaries regarding the successful matching of mobile devices
`using the Google Device Locator Applications.
`
`The structure, function, and operation of the Discovery and Launch Protocol (“DIAL”).
`
`The DIAL Registry.
`
`The Source Code relating to DIAL.
`
`Documents and Source Code YouTube provides Respondents relating to DIAL.
`
`The use of DIAL by second screen devices to discover and launch of applications on first
`screen devices.
`
`22/76
`
`

`

`ATTACHMENT C
`
`23/76
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the'Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES,
`INCLUDING TELEVISIONS, BLU—RAY
`DISC PLAYERS, HOME THEATER
`SYSTEMS, TABLETS AND MOBILE
`PHONES, COMPONENTS THEREOF
`AND ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE
`
`
`‘
`
`Inv. No. 337—TA~882.
`
`Order No. 1: PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, documents and information may he sought, produCed or exhibited by and.
`
`among the parties to the above captioned proceeding, which materials relate to trade secrets or'
`other confidential research, development or commercial information, as such terms are-usedinv
`
`the Cenunission’s Rules, 19 CPR. 210.5;
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
`1, Confidential business information is inferniation which has not been made public and
`A which concemsor relates'to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style ofwork, or apparatus,
`or to the production, sates, shipments, purchases, transfers, identification of customers,
`
`inventories, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures ofany person, firm,
`partnership, corporation, or other organization, the disclosure ofwhich information is likely to
`
`have the effect of either (i) impairing the Commission’s ahiiity to obtain such information as is
`
`necessary to perform its statutory functions; or (ii) causing substantial harm to the competitive
`
`position of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other organization from which the
`
`24/76
`
`

`

`information was obtained, unless the Corninis’sinn is-t'equir'ed by law to disclose such
`
`infomnatibn.
`
`2, (a), Any infonnation submittedg inv'preheaiing discovery or in a pleading, motion, or
`response: to a motioneither voluntarily or plusuant to order, in this investigation, Which is
`
`assened by a supplier to contain or ‘constitute confidential business intbnnation Shall be so
`7' designated,by snch supplier. in writing, or orally at:adeposi-ti'on, conference or hearing, and‘shall
`
`be: segregated from other infonnation being submitted, Docxments shall be clearly and
`
`prominently marked on their face with the legend: “[SUpplier’s name] CONFIDENTIAL
`BUSINESS WFORMATTON’, SUBJECT TO. PROTECTIVE ORDER,”'01~a comparable notice
`Dufing the.preheating phase ofthis investigationy such infonnatioin Whether‘subniitted in writing
`or moraltestimony sha