IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C. A. No. 13-2058-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2061-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2062-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2063-RGA
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 1
`
`

`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COX COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DIRECTV LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DISH NETWORK, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C. A. No. 13-2064-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2065-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2066-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2067-RGA
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 2
`
`

`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TIME WARNER CABLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C. A. No. 13-2068-RGA
`
`C. A. No. 13-2069-RGA
`
`DRAGON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC’S
`RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
`FIRST SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES [NOS. 1-11]
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules
`
`of this Court, Plaintiff Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC (“Dragon”) hereby responds to
`
`Defendants’ First Set of Common Interrogatories (Nos. 1-11). Discovery in this case has just
`
`begun, and Dragon’s investigation is ongoing. Dragon reserves the right to amend, modify, or
`
`supplement its answer, if necessary, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Dragon objects to each interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the extent that
`
`it seeks to impose any obligations or burdens upon Dragon different from, in addition to, or
`
`exceeding the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 3
`
`

`
`2.
`
`Dragon objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other common law
`
`or statutory privilege or protection, or that seeks information that is otherwise protected from
`
`discovery or disclosure.
`
`3.
`
`Dragon objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it purports to require
`
`Dragon to account for information that is outside Dragon’s possession, custody, or control on the
`
`grounds that such discovery is overly broad, unreasonably burdensome, and oppressive and will
`
`cause Dragon undue hardship.
`
`4.
`
`Dragon objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks the disclosure of
`
`information that is and/or includes highly confidential information of Dragon or information
`
`protected by Dragon’s privacy rights under federal and state law. Subject to the Court’s Local
`
`Rules, Dragon will disclose such information subject to the Stipulated Protective Order.
`
`5.
`
`Dragon objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is
`
`already in Defendants’ possession or available from a public source as to which the burden of
`
`obtaining such information is the same for Defendants as it would be for Dragon.
`
`6.
`
`Dragon objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks, individually or
`
`collectively, information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence in contravention of Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`7.
`
`A number of the interrogatories to which Dragon responds below contain multiple
`
`subparts addressing discrete subject areas that are more properly addressed in separate
`
`interrogatories. Such interrogatories constitute separate interrogatories that count toward the
`
`- 2 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 4
`
`

`
`total limit of interrogatories that Dragons are permitted to propound under Scheduling Order and
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`8.
`
`Dragon objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is cumulative or
`
`duplicative of other forms of discovery that are more convenient and less burdensome.
`
`9.
`
`Dragon objects to Defendants’ definition of “Plaintiff,” “You,” “Your,” and
`
`“Dragon” because it is vague as to “affiliates,” and “wholly owned or partially owned entities
`
`acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of the foregoing or who are subject to the direction or
`
`control of the forgoing…” Dragon also objects to the definition of “Plaintiff,” “You,” “Your”
`
`and “Dragon” to the extent it purports to seek information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege or the work-product doctrine.
`
`10.
`
`Dragon objects to Defendants’ definition of “Patent Family Tree” because it is
`
`overly broad in scope and leads to requests for irrelevant information.
`
`11.
`
`Dragon objects to Defendants’ definition of “Related Patents” because it is overly
`
`broad in scope and leads to requests for irrelevant information.
`
`These general objections are referred to herein as “General Objections” and are
`
`incorporated by reference into each of Dragon’s responses. The following responses are made
`
`subject to, and in reliance on, these general objections.
`
`RESPONSE TO COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`With regard to each asserted claim of the Asserted Patent, describe in detail the
`
`conception, reduction to practice, and any diligence between the conception and reduction to
`
`practice, including without limitation the following:
`
`- 3 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 5
`
`

`
`(a)
`
`when, where, and by whom the alleged invention was conceived and all
`
`documents constituting or concerning the conception;
`
`(b)
`
`when, where, and by whom the alleged invention was first reduced to practice and
`
`all documents constituting or concerning the reduction to practice;
`
`(c)
`
`all documents concerning diligence in reducing the alleged invention to practice
`
`from the date of conception to the first reduction to practice;
`
`(d)
`
`the first written description, and all documents constituting or referring to such
`
`first written description;
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`the earliest date(s) of the alleged invention to which each claim is entitled; and
`
`the alleged priority date for each claim, i.e., the date upon which Plaintiff
`
`contends that subsequent knowledge or use by others in this country, patents,
`
`printed publications in this or foreign countries, sales, offers for sale, or public use
`
`would not constitute prior art.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Dragon objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague, and aspects of it are unintelligible
`
`as written. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon responds as
`
`follows:
`
`(a) and (b) The inventions described in United States Patent 5,930,444 (the “‘’444
`
`patent”) were invented by Mr. Lawrence Kamhi and Mr. Elie Camhi. The inventions of each
`
`claim of the ’444 patent were conceived and reduced to practice in the United States no later than
`
`April 23, 1992. Documents evidencing the conception and reduction to practice of the
`
`inventions described in the ’444 patent include United States Patent Application 07/872, 435.
`
`- 4 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 6
`
`

`
`(c) At the present time, Defendants have not identified any references that predate the
`
`filing of the application to which the ’444 patent claims priority. Therefore, this subsection of
`
`this interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party, and
`
`is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Dragon’s
`
`investigation is ongoing, and Dragon will supplement this response as additional information
`
`regarding becomes available to Dragon, if any defendant identifies a reference that makes
`
`relevant diligence between the conception of the inventions described in the ’444 patent and the
`
`reduction to practice of those inventions.
`
`(d) To the best of Dragon’s present knowledge, the first written description of the
`
`inventions claimed in the ’444 patent appears in United States Patent Application 07/872, 435,
`
`which was filed on April 23, 1992.
`
`(e) and (f) The inventions claimed in the ’444 patent are entitled to a priority date of no
`
`later than April 23, 1992.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`With respect to the Asserted Patent, identify and state the facts and circumstances
`
`surrounding the first public demonstration, use, disclosure, sale, and/or offer for sale, including
`
`when, where, by whom, and to whom any alleged invention related to each claim was first
`
`publicly demonstrated, used, disclosed, sold, and/or offered for sale, all documents constituting
`
`or referring to same, and all persons having knowledge regarding any such demonstration, use,
`
`disclosure, sale, and/or offer for sale.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Dragon objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and
`
`- 5 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 7
`
`

`
`unreasonably burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon
`
`responds as follows:
`
`As Dragon understands this interrogatory, Dragon does not know when or by whom
`
`devices embodying or practicing the inventions claimed in the ’444 patent were first publicly
`
`demonstrated, used, disclosed, sold, and/or offer for sale.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Identify and describe in detail each assignment, grant or conveyance of rights, title or
`
`interest in the Asserted Patent that has occurred since the application for the Asserted Patent was
`
`filed, including by (i) identifying the parties to each transaction; (ii) identifying the dates of each
`
`transaction; (iii) stating the amount of consideration given in exchange for the acquired rights;
`
`(iv) stating whether the transaction was recorded with the USPTO; and (v) identifying
`
`documents evidencing the transaction.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Dragon objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and
`
`unreasonably burdensome. Dragon further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
`
`seeks information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense of any party, nor reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
`
`foregoing objections, Dragon responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Dragon will produce assignment records from which answers to
`
`this request may be derived or ascertained.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`- 6 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 8
`
`

`
`Separately identify and describe in detail each offer, discussion, and/or negotiation to
`
`sell, buy, acquire, license, sublicense, covenant not to sue, and/or settle any claims (in part or in
`
`whole) concerning the Asserted Patent, any Related Patents, or any patent in the Patent Family
`
`Tree, including without limitation:
`
`(a)
`
`the identity of each Person with whom or to whom the offer was made, or the
`
`discussion and/or negotiation took place;
`
`(b)
`
`the identity of each Person who participated on behalf of Plaintiff and/or the then
`
`current assignee or owner of the patent( s) at issue;
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`the beginning and ending dates of such offers, discussions, and/or negotiations;
`
`the identity of the patent(s) and the patent claim(s) at issue;
`
`the outcome and/ or pending status of the offer, discussion, and/ or negotiation;
`
`the terms of any agreement(s) and/or license(s) (whether any agreement and/or
`
`license was actually entered into), including the patents or parts thereof that were
`
`licensed or the subject of the agreement, the parties to the agreement and/or
`
`license, the payment obligations provided for, the amount(s) of any payments
`
`made;
`
`(g)
`
`all documents (including agreements and license( s)) constituting or referring to
`
`such offer, discussion, negotiation, or evaluation of any such license, sublicense,
`
`covenant not to sue, or settlement;
`
`(h)
`
`the persons who, on behalf of Plaintiffs, are most knowledgeable about such offer,
`
`discussion, and/or negotiation; and
`
`(i)
`
`all other persons who, to Plaintiffs knowledge, are knowledgeable about such
`
`offer, discussion, and/or negotiation.
`
`- 7 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 9
`
`

`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein. This
`
`request covers a number of discrete subject areas that are more properly addressed in separate
`
`interrogatories. Dragon therefore objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague,
`
`overly broad and unreasonably burdensome. Dragon further objects to this interrogatory on the
`
`grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense of any party, nor
`
`reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without
`
`waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon responds as follows:
`
`Acquisition of the ’444 patent: The ’444 patent was assigned to Dragon in 2012.
`
`Persons knowledgeable about the assignment of the ’444 patent to Dragon include Jing Sun, Kai
`
`Zhu, Elie Camhi, and Lawrence Kamhi. Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Dragon will produce
`
`assignment records from which further answers to these requests may be derived or ascertained.
`
`Licensing of the ’444 patent: The ’444 patent has not been licensed to any party. Dragon
`
`filed patent infringement litigation against the Defendants who served these interrogatories.
`
`Those matters are entitled Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 13-2058
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2061 RGA;
`
`Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2062 RGA;
`
`Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, C.A. No. 13-2063
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Cox Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2064 RGA;
`
`Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DIRECTV LLC, C.A. No. 13-2065 RGA; Dragon
`
`Intellectual Property, LLC v. Dish Network, LLC, C.A. No. 13-2066 RGA; Dragon Intellectual
`
`Property, LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A. No. 13-2067 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property,
`
`LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., C.A. No. 13-2068 RGA; and Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC
`
`- 8 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 10
`
`

`
`v. Verizon Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2069 RGA. Other than these patent infringement
`
`actions, Dragon has not contacted any other parties in an attempt to license the ’444 patent.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Identify and describe in detail each instance in which any Person has ever charged,
`
`accused, or otherwise asserted that another Person was infringing (in part or in whole) one or
`
`more of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or patents in the Patent Family Tree, including,
`
`without limitation:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`the identity of the Person charged or accused;
`
`the identity of each Person who participated on behalf of Plaintiff and/or the then
`
`current assignee or owner of the patent(s) at issue;
`
`the date of such charge, accusation, or assertion;
`
`the patent(s) at issue and the patent claim(s) at issue;
`
`a description of the resulting actions, the issues contested, and the result and/or
`
`pending status;
`
`(f)
`
`the identity of all documents that constitute or refer to such charge, accusation, or
`
`assertion;
`
`(g)
`
`the persons who, on behalf of Plaintiff, are most knowledgeable about such
`
`charge, accusation, or assertion; and
`
`(h)
`
`all other persons who, to Plaintiffs knowledge, are knowledgeable about such
`
`charge, accusation, or assertion.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Dragon objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and
`
`- 9 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 11
`
`

`
`unreasonably burdensome. Dragon further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-
`
`product doctrine. Dragon further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
`
`information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense of any party, nor reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
`
`foregoing objections, Dragon responds as follows:
`
`Dragon filed patent infringement litigation against the Defendants who served these
`
`interrogatories. Those matters are entitled Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-2058 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2061
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2062
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, C.A. No. 13-
`
`2063 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Cox Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2064
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DIRECTV LLC, C.A. No. 13-2065 RGA; Dragon
`
`Intellectual Property, LLC v. Dish Network, LLC, C.A. No. 13-2066 RGA; Dragon Intellectual
`
`Property, LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A. No. 13-2067 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property,
`
`LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., C.A. No. 13-2068 RGA; and Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC
`
`v. Verizon Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2069 RGA. Dragon has not accused any other
`
`parties of infringing any claims of the ’444 patent. Other than these patent infringement actions,
`
`Dragon has not contacted any other parties in an attempt to license the ’444 patent.
`
`In compliance with the Local Rules and orders of the Court in which these actions are
`
`pending, Dragon has identified the claims it presently asserts against each defendant in each of
`
`the infringement actions identified in this paragraph. The persons most knowledgeable about the
`
`charges of infringement are Kai Zhu and representatives of each of the defendants in the
`
`- 10 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 12
`
`

`
`referenced infringement actions. Dragon does not presently know the identities of the
`
`representatives of each defendant most knowledgeable about Dragon’s infringement claims.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Separately identify and describe in detail each instance in which any Person has ever
`
`charged, accused, opined, stated, or otherwise asserted that any of the Asserted Patent, Related
`
`Patents, or patents in the Patent Family Tree, was invalid or unenforceable for any reason (in part
`
`or in whole), including, without limitation:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`(g)
`
`the identity of the Person raising the charge;
`
`the identity of each Person who participated on behalf of Plaintiff and/or the then
`
`current assignee or owner of the patent claim(s) at issue;
`
`the date of such charge;
`
`the patent(s) at issue and the claim(s) at issue;
`
`a description of the resulting actions, the issues contested, and the result and/or
`
`pending status;
`
`the identity of all documents that constitute or refer to such charge;
`
`the persons who, on behalf of Plaintiff, are most knowledgeable about such
`
`charge; and
`
`(h)
`
`all other persons who, to Plaintiffs knowledge, are knowledgeable about such
`
`charge.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Dragon objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and
`
`- 11 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 13
`
`

`
`unreasonably burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Dragon filed patent infringement litigation against the Defendants who served these
`
`interrogatories. Those matters are entitled Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-2058 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2061
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2062
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, C.A. No. 13-
`
`2063 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Cox Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2064
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DIRECTV LLC, C.A. No. 13-2065 RGA; Dragon
`
`Intellectual Property, LLC v. Dish Network, LLC, C.A. No. 13-2066 RGA; Dragon Intellectual
`
`Property, LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A. No. 13-2067 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property,
`
`LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., C.A. No. 13-2068 RGA; and Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC
`
`v. Verizon Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2069 RGA. In response to Dragon’s complaints,
`
`each of the defendants in these matters has asserted that the ’444 patent is invalid, but no
`
`defendant has specified the basis for any invalidity defense. Beyond the defendants in these
`
`matters, Dragon is not aware that any other party has ever asserted that any claim of the ’444
`
`patent is invalid or unenforceable.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Separately for each asserted claim of the Asserted Patent, identify each secondary
`
`consideration or other objective evidence of non-obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt
`
`need, commercial acquiescence, expressions of skepticism, copying, teaching away, failed
`
`attempts by others, or simultaneous development), and for each such alleged secondary
`
`- 12 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 14
`
`

`
`consideration or other objective evidence of non-obviousness, describe in detail the facts
`
`underlying the alleged secondary consideration or other objective evidence of non-obviousness
`
`and identify each person with knowledge of such facts.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33(d), Dragon states that information responsive to this request can be
`
`ascertained or derived from the ’444 patent specification and the prosecution history of the ’444
`
`patent. Additionally, Dragon notes that it filed patent infringement litigation against the
`
`Defendants who served these interrogatories. Those matters are entitled Dragon Intellectual
`
`Property, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 13-2058 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v.
`
`AT&T Services, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2061 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Charter
`
`Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2062 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Comcast
`
`Cable Communications, LLC, C.A. No. 13-2063 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v.
`
`Cox Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2064 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v.
`
`DIRECTV LLC, C.A. No. 13-2065 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Dish Network,
`
`LLC, C.A. No. 13-2066 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-2067 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., C.A. No. 13-
`
`2068 RGA; and Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., C.A. No.
`
`13-2069 RGA. In response to Dragon’s complaints, each of the defendants in these matters has
`
`asserted that the ’444 patent is invalid as obvious, but no defendant has specified the basis for
`
`any obviousness defense or counterclaim raised in a responsive pleading. The ’444 patent is
`
`presumed valid, and no party has identified any basis on which the validity of the ’444 patent
`
`- 13 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 15
`
`

`
`might be challenged. If it becomes necessary, Dragon will supplement its response to this
`
`interrogatory at an appropriate time.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`For each Accused Instrumentality, set forth detailed information concerning Plaintiffs
`
`first awareness of such Accused Instrumentality, including, without limitation, the date(s) of
`
`such first awareness; each person at Plaintiff who first became aware of such Accused
`
`Instrumentality; a description of the circumstances under which that person first became aware
`
`of the Accused Instrumentality; a description of the relevant acts taken after gaining such
`
`awareness; a description of all analyses performed on or related to each Accused Instrumentality
`
`for the purposes of determining infringement; the identity of all documents memorializing or
`
`referring to such first awareness; the persons who, on behalf of Plaintiff, are most knowledgeable
`
`about such first awareness; and all other persons who, to Plaintiffs knowledge, are
`
`knowledgeable about such first awareness.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Dragon objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and
`
`unreasonably burdensome. Dragon further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
`
`seeks information that is neither relevant to any claim or defense of any party, nor reasonably
`
`calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Dragon further objects to this
`
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or the marital privilege. Subject to and
`
`without waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon responds as follows:
`
`- 14 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 16
`
`

`
`Dragon became aware of the products it is accusing of infringement at various times after
`
`the formation of Dragon Intellectual Property LLC in July 2012. On December 20, 2013,
`
`Dragon filed complaints for patent infringement in the matters entitled Dragon Intellectual
`
`Property, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 13-2058 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v.
`
`AT&T Services, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2061 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Charter
`
`Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 13-2062 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Comcast
`
`Cable Communications, LLC, C.A. No. 13-2063 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v.
`
`Cox Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2064 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v.
`
`DIRECTV LLC, C.A. No. 13-2065 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Dish Network,
`
`LLC, C.A. No. 13-2066 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-2067 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., C.A. No. 13-
`
`2068 RGA; and Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., C.A. No.
`
`13-2069 RGA. As a result of the short time between the earliest Dragon could have become
`
`aware of any product accused of infringement in any of these actions and the time Dragon filed
`
`its patent infringement complaints, the specific date on which Dragon became aware of any
`
`particular product accused of infringement is not relevant to any claim or defense of any party to
`
`any of the identified matters.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`Separately identify and describe in detail each instance in which Plaintiff or anyone else
`
`has ever given notice (including, without limitation, by way of marking) to each Defendant of
`
`the existence and/or the alleged infringement of the Asserted Patent, including, without
`
`limitation, the substance of any communications You allege constitutes such notice, the date(s)
`
`of such communications, the participants in such communications, the persons who, on behalf of
`
`- 15 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 17
`
`

`
`Plaintiff, are most knowledgeable about such communications, and all other persons who, to
`
`Plaintiffs knowledge, are knowledgeable about such communications.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon responds as follows:
`
`On December 20, 2013, Dragon provided actual notice of the’444 patent and Dragon’s
`
`patent infringement allegations by filing complaints alleging infringement of the ’444 patent
`
`against the named defendants in the matters entitled Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Apple
`
`Inc., C.A. No. 13-2058 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-2061 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Charter Communications, Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-2062 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 13-2063 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Cox Communications Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 13-2064 RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DIRECTV LLC, C.A. No. 13-2065
`
`RGA; Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Dish Network, LLC, C.A. No. 13-2066 RGA;
`
`Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., C.A. No. 13-2067 RGA; Dragon
`
`Intellectual Property, LLC v. Time Warner Cable Inc., C.A. No. 13-2068 RGA; and Dragon
`
`Intellectual Property, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., C.A. No. 13-2069 RGA.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`For each asserted claim in the Asserted Patent, identify all Prior Art that describes the
`
`subject matter claimed by the Asserted Patent, including any Prior Art cited, relied upon, or
`
`brought to your attention by any third party.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`- 16 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 18
`
`

`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Dragon objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague. Subject to and without
`
`waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon responds as follows:
`
`Dragon is not aware of any prior art that describes the subject matter claimed by the ’444
`
`patent.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`Identify each product covered by any claim of the Asserted Patent ever made, offered for
`
`sale, sold, or imported by Plaintiff, any party licensed or otherwise authorized to practice any of
`
`the Asserted Patent, any named inventor on the Asserted Patent, and/or anybody on any named
`
`inventor’s behalf, and for each product state: (1) which claim(s) of the Asserted Patent the
`
`product practices or practiced; (2) whether or not, and if so how, the marking requirements of 35
`
`U.S. C. § 287 were met, including the dates when each such product was sold with any markings
`
`along with an identification of any documents or other evidence of such markings, and the dates
`
`when each such product was sold with such markings; (3) whether or not, and if so how, Plaintiff
`
`has policed the compliance of its licensees with the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287;
`
`and (4) identify all actions Plaintiff has taken to enforce the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287 by its licensees.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`Dragon incorporates the above-stated General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Dragon objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, overly broad and
`
`unreasonably burdensome. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Dragon
`
`responds as follows:
`
`- 17 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 19
`
`

`
`Dragon does not, and has not, manufactured or sold products that embody or practice any
`
`claims of the ’444 patent. To the best of Dragon’s knowledge, no prior owner or assignee of the
`
`’444 patent ever manufactured or sold products that embody or practice any claims of the ’444
`
`patent.
`
`Dragon has not licensed the ’444 patent to any party. Dragon is not aware that any party
`
`has ever licensed the ’444 patent, or manufactured or sold products pursuant to a license to the
`
`’444 patent.
`
`Dated: June 12, 2014
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Robert E. Freitas
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`(650) 593-6300
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
`Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952)
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398)
`Sara E. Bussiere (sb5725)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`P.O. Box 25130
`Wilmington, DE 19899-5130
`(302) 655-5000
`rkirk@bayardlaw.com
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC
`
`- 18 -
`
`Dish, Exh. 1022, p. 20