Case 1:13-cv-23309-CMA Document 160-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2014 Page 1 of 7
`
`CASE NO. 13-23309-CIV-ALTONAGA/O’SULLIVAN
`
`EXHIBIT “7”
`
`Atlas’s Supplemental Responses to Medtronic’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories
`Nos. 15 and 16, dated June 6, 2014
`
`Filed in Support of Medtronic Defendants’ Opposition to
`Atlas’s Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`ST. JUDE 1030
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-23309-CMA Document 160-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2014 Page 2 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`MIAMI DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 13-23309-CIV-ALTONAGA/O’SULLIVAN
`
`ATLAS IP, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MEDTRONIC, INC., a Minnesota Corporation,
`MEDTRONIC USA, INC., a Minnesota Corporation, and
`MEDTRONIC MINIMED, INC. a Delaware Corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
` /
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO MEDTRONIC’S FOURTH SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NO. 16-17)
`
`Plaintiff, Atlas IP, LLC (“Atlas”), objects to the fourth set of interrogatories propounded
`
`by the Medtronic defendants to the extent any interrogatory contained therein seeks to impose
`
`upon Atlas an obligation greater than that imposed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Civil
`
`Procedure. Subject to this objection, Atlas hereby responds to such interrogatories as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 16: For each Asserted Claim, identify the following: each claim
`term, phrase, or clause in the claim that Atlas contends should be construed by the Court; each
`claim limitation that Atlas contends should be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6); whether Atlas
`contends that the preamble of any Asserted Claim is a claim limitation; to the extent Atlas
`contends that the preamble of any Asserted Claim is a claim limitation, each claim term, phrase,
`or clause in the preamble of any Asserted Claim that Atlas contends should be construed by the
`Court; Atlas’s proposed construction for each such claim term, phrase, or clause or, for each
`limitation that Atlas contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the structure(s), act(s), or
`material(s) corresponding to that limitation; all intrinsic support, including from any patent or
`patent application or prosecution history, for such construction or contention; all extrinsic
`support, including from any dictionary, treatise, prior art reference, or other document,
`supporting such construction or contention; the substance of any anticipated testimony in support
`of such construction or contention.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-23309-CMA Document 160-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2014 Page 3 of 7
`
`Response: Atlas objects to the extent it calls for information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege and/or the work product immunity. Subject to its objection, Atlas responds that the
`
`terms requiring construction in this matter are the same as those identified as being in dispute in
`
`the co-pending Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 1:14-cv-21006-CMA (S.D. Fla.).
`
`The following are Atlas’s position on such terms, and the support therefor. No limitation at issue
`
`is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6).
`
`Limitation
`communicator
`
`Proposed Construction
`A device capable of communication.
`
`hub
`
`A distinct communicator within a
`group of communicators.
`
`The hub establishing repeating
`communication cycles
`
`The hub [as defined] initiating more
`than one communication cycle.
`
`communication cycle
`
`A cycle during which bi-directional
`communication may occur.
`
`Evidence
`Preamble, Figs. 1, 4
`& 5, 5:35-40, 9:64-
`10:3, 14:20-24 &
`46-50.
`Preamble, Fig. 2,
`5:42-44, 10:34-37
`& 45-55, 18:22-27.
`Preamble, Fig. 3,
`5:44-47, 11:38-42,
`13:21-22, 35:53-55.
`Preamble, Figs. 3 &
`10, 11:49-55,
`32:16-18.
`Fig. 2, 5:47-58,
`6:23-27, 26:26-39.
`
`Fig. 2, 5:47-58,
`11:45-62, 12:14-17,
`30-34 & 47-58,
`13:12-14, 27:54-57,
`29:18-20 & 27-31.
`
`The hub [as defined] transmitting
`information to the remotes to initiate
`the communication cycle.
`This limitation is incomplete. The
`limitation to be construed is “the hub
`transmitting information to the
`remotes to establish the
`communication cycle and a plurality
`of predeterminable intervals,” and
`should be construed to mean “the hub
`transmitting information to the
`remotes to initiate the communication
`cycle, such cycle including a plurality
`of predeterminable [as defined]
`intervals.”
`This limitation needs no construction. N/A
`
`the hub transmitting information
`to the remotes to establish the
`communication cycle
`the hub transmitting information
`to the remotes to establish . . . a
`plurality of predeterminable
`intervals during each
`communication cycle
`
`the information transmitted from
`the hub
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-23309-CMA Document 160-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2014 Page 4 of 7
`
`Evidence
`5:67-6:2, 12:18-19,
`29:32-34.
`
`Plain meaning, Fig.
`9, 6:29-33, 19:54-
`55, 24:33-49,
`28:20-24, 33:15-18,
`35:53-55, 43:14-15.
`6:56-61, 13:6-8,
`23:31-66, 31:58-
`32:12.
`
`Limitation
`the hub allocating a number of
`transmission opportunities
`during at least one
`communication cycle which is at
`least one less in number than the
`number of remotes in the Group
`length
`
`Proposed Construction
`The hub allocating a number M of
`transmission opportunities during one
`or more communication cycles with M
`≥ (N-1), where N is the number of
`remotes in the group.
`
`The distance or duration from one
`point to another.
`
`the remotes transmitting a
`transfer unit having a header
`having at least one field
`containing information
`describing at least one frame of a
`previous transmission unit which
`was not successfully received by
`the hub; and the hub responding
`to the field information
`describing the frame which was
`successfully received by
`transmitting in another
`subsequent transfer unit those
`remaining frames of the previous
`transfer unit which were not
`successfully received
`
`The remotes transmitting a message to
`the hub [as defined] with a part of the
`message having information
`describing one or more frames
`transmitted by the hub that the
`remotes had not successfully received,
`and the hub [as defined] responding to
`such information by retransmitting the
`described frames that the remotes had
`not successfully received.
`
`NOTE: The language in the claim
`“received by the hub” is an obvious
`typographical error. The claim should
`read “received by the remotes.”
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Identify Atlas’s proposed construction for each claim term,
`phrase, or clause below, including whether Atlas contends such claim term, phrase, or clause
`should be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), and for each limitation that Atlas contends is
`governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) corresponding to that
`limitation; for each Atlas’s intrinsic support, including from any patent or patent application or
`prosecution history, for such construction or contention; all extrinsic support, including from any
`dictionary, treatise, prior art reference, or other document, supporting such construction or
`contention; and the substance of any anticipated testimony in support of such construction or
`contention:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“communicator”;
`“Group”;
`“hub”;
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-23309-CMA Document 160-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2014 Page 5 of 7
`
`• “remote”;
`• “medium access control protocol”;
`• “the medium access control protocol controlling each communicator of the Group to
`effect predetermined functions comprising”;
`• “repeating communication cycle”;
`• “communication cycle(s)”;
`• “designating one of the communicators of the Group as a hub and the remaining the
`communicators of the Group as remotes”;
`• “the hub establishing repeating communication cycles”;
`• “predeterminable intervals”;
`• “intervals”;
`• “frame(s)”;
`• “the hub transmitting information to the remotes to establish the communication cycle
`and a plurality of predeterminable intervals during each communication cycle”;
`• “the intervals . . . when the hub is allowed to transmit frames to the remotes”;
`• “the intervals . . . when the remotes are allowed to transmit frames to the hub”;
`• “the intervals . . . when each remote is expected to receive a frame from the hub”;
`• “powering off their transmitters”;
`• “powering off their [transmitters/receivers] . . . by using the information transmitted from
`the hub”;
`• “powering off their receivers”;
`• “the hub assigning transmission opportunities to the remotes”;
`• “an interval for a remote to transmit frames to the hub”;
`• “the hub transmitting transmission opportunity allocation information in a frame
`transmitted by the hub”;
`• “the hub allocating a number of transmission opportunities”;
`• “during at least one communication cycle”;
`• “a number of transmission opportunities during at least one communication cycle which
`is at least one less in number than the number of remotes in the Group”;
`• “the hub revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote which
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-23309-CMA Document 160-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2014 Page 6 of 7
`
`has not transmitted more than a predetermined number of frames during a previous
`number of communication cycles”; and
`• “the hub transmitting two frames containing information to establish the plurality of
`predeterminable intervals during each communication cycle, the second frame containing
`the information to established the plurality of predeterminable intervals occurring before
`the intervals in which the remotes are allowed to transmit frames to the hub.”
`
`
`Response: Atlas objects to the extent it calls for information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege and/or the work product immunity. Subject to its objection, Atlas responds that the
`
`terms requiring construction in this matter are the same as those identified as being in dispute in
`
`the co-pending Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 1:14-cv-21006-CMA (S.D. Fla.).
`
`The foregoing identified terms do not require independent construction.
`
`
`Date: June 6, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` As to objections,
`
`
`By: /s/ George C. Summerfield
`George C. Summerfield
`Rolf O. Stadheim
`Kyle L. Harvey
`STADHEIM & GREAR LTD.
`400 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Telephone: 312-755-4400
`Facsimile: 312-755-4408
`summerfield@stadheimgrear.com
`
`Curtis Carlson
`Carlson & Lewittes, P.A.
`1 SE 3rd Avenue
`1200 Sun Trust International Center
`Miami, FL 33131-1817
`Telephone: 305-372-9700
`Facsimile: 305-372-8265
`carlson@carlson-law.net
`
`Attorneys for Atlas IP, LLC
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-23309-CMA Document 160-7 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2014 Page 7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 6, 2014, I caused a copy of Plaintiff’s Response to
`
`Medtronic’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories and this Certificate of Service to be served upon the
`
`following individuals via electronic mail.
`
`Luke L. Dauchot
`Email: luke.dauchot@kirkland.com
`Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
`333 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-680-8400
`Facsimile: 213-680-8500
`
`Janet T. Munn
`Florida Bar No. 501281
`E-mail: jmunn@rascoklock.com
`Rasco Klock Perez Nieto
`283 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 200
`Coral Gables, FL 33134
`Telephone No. (305) 476-7101
`Facsimile No. (305) 476-7102
`
`Jeanne M. Heffernan
`Email:
`jeanne.heffernan@kirkland.com
`Akshay S. Deoras
`Email: akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`Beatrice Hahn
`Email: Beatrice.hahn@kirkland.com
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022-4611
`Telephone No. (212) 446-4800
`Facsimile No. (212) 446-4900
`Email:
`Medtronic_Atlas@kirkland.com
`
`By:
`
`/s/ George C. Summerfield
`George C. Summerfield
`
`6
`
`