Ryan E. Hatch (SBN 235577)
`rhatch@linerlaw.com
`Jason L. Haas (SBN 217290)
`jhaas@linerlaw.com
`LINER LLP
`1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90024.3518
`Telephone: (310) 500-3500
`Facsimile:
`(310) 500-3501
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff SIGNAL IP, INC.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No. 2:14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`(Related to 2:14-cv-02962-JAK
`(JEMx); 8:14-cv-00497-JAK (JEMx);
`8:14-cv-00491-JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-
`02963 JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-02457-
`JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-03111-JAK
`(JEMx); 2:14-cv-03109-JAK (JEMx);
`2:14-cv-03113-JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-
`03108-JAK (JEMx); 2:14-cv-03114-
`JAK (JEMx))
`
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S
`SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES
`TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`(NOS. 1-8)
`
`The Hon. John A. Kronstadt
`
`Trial Date:
`March 15, 2016
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC., a California
`corporation,
`
`
`vs.
`
`AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
`INC., a California corporation;
`HONDA OF AMERICA MRG, INC.,
`an Ohio corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`AND RELATED CASES
`
`
`
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`VWGoA - Ex. 1007
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Petitioner v. Signal IP, Inc., Patent Owner, IPR2015-00968
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Plaintiff Signal IP, Inc. (“Signal IP”, “Plaintiff” or “Responding Party”),
`through its counsel, and pursuant to F.R.C.P. 26 and 33, hereby amends its prior
`responses to the First Set of Common Interrogatories (NOS. 1-8) served on Signal
`IP by Defendants American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda of America Mfg.,
`Inc., BMW North America LLC, Kia Motors America, Inc., Mazda Motor of
`America, Inc., Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Nissan North America, Inc., Porsche
`Cars North America, Inc., and Subaru of America, Inc. (each a “Defendant” and,
`collectively, “Defendants”), as follows:
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Signal IP has not fully completed investigation of the facts relating to this
`case, discovery in this action, or preparation for trial. All of the responses contained
`herein are based only upon such information and documents that are presently
`available to, and specifically known to Signal IP. It is anticipated that further
`discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply
`additional facts, which may, in turn, clarify and add meaning to known facts as well
`as establish entirely new factual matters, all of which may lead to substantial
`additions to, changes in, and variations from the contentions and responses herein
`set forth.
`The following discovery responses are given without prejudice to Signal IP’s
`right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or facts, witnesses or
`information that Signal IP may later identify, locate, or recall. Signal IP accordingly
`reserves the right to supplement or change any and all responses herein as additional
`facts are ascertained, analyses are made, legal research is completed and contentions
`are formulated. The responses contained herein are made in a good faith effort to
`supply as much factual information and as much specification of legal contentions
`as is presently known but should in no way be to the prejudice of this Responding
`Party in relation to further discovery, research, or analysis. This preliminary
`statement is incorporated into each and every response set forth below.
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`Signal IP objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they attempt
`1.
`to impose obligations on it greater or different than those imposed by the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the Central District of California, the
`Standing Order for Patent Cases Assigned to Judge John A. Kronstadt, or any order
`of the Court.
`2.
`Signal IP objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek the
`disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work
`product doctrine, and/or other privileges held by Signal IP or any person acting on
`its behalf or third parties. Signal IP will not waive the attorney-client privilege or
`disclose information protected by the attorney work product doctrine. In responding
`to the interrogatories, whenever the term “privileged” appears it shall encompass the
`attorney-client privilege and word product doctrine.
`3.
`Signal IP objects to the interrogatories to the extent they assume
`disputed facts or legal conclusions in describing the information or documents
`sought.
`Signal IP objects to these interrogatories as they are overbroad, vague,
`4.
`ambiguous and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence.
`Signal IP objects to these interrogatories in their entirety as they are
`5.
`replete with undefined and ill-defined terms, making the interrogatories vague,
`ambiguous and unintelligible. Signal IP has made a good faith effort to provide
`substantive responses to the extent that is able to determine the meaning of the
`interrogatories.
`6.
`Signal IP reserves the right to make any additional or different
`objections as may be appropriate based upon any amendment(s) to the pleadings
`and/or further court proceedings in this action. Signal IP does not concede that any
`of its responses are or will be admissible evidence in any subsequent proceeding,
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`2
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`including the trial of this or any other action, or any evidentiary hearing.
`7.
`Signal IP expressly reserves the right to supplement or amend its
`responses based on subsequently discovered information, documents and witnesses
`in these actions.
`8.
`Signal IP objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`equally available to BMW through public sources or records
`The general objections set forth above, and the objections to the
`interrogatories set forth below, are made as to matters which are clearly
`objectionable from the face of the interrogatories. These objections are made
`without prejudice to or waiver of Signal IP’s right to object, on all appropriate
`grounds to the provision of specific information hereafter, prior to, or at the time of
`service of these responses.
`Subject to and without waiver of the general objections above, each and every
`one of which is incorporated into each and every response below, and subject to
`Signal IP’s right to amend and supplement these responses, Signal IP responds to
`each interrogatory as follows:
`
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`For each Asserted Claim of each of the Patents-in-Suit, describe in as much
`detail as You contend is possible the facts and circumstances relating to its
`conception and reduction to practice. While not limiting, it is expected that a full
`response to this Interrogatory would include the date(s) and location(s) of
`conception and reduction to practice, whether and how diligence was exercised in
`reducing the alleged invention to practice, whether reduction to practice was actual
`or constructive, the identity of each person (including Third-Parties) who
`contributed to conception or the development of the alleged invention(s) and their
`role including, and the identity of any document that supports Your response to this
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`3
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Interrogatory.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
`that is neither relevant to a claim or defense nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it seeks information on the
`conception and reduction to practice of the inventions claimed in U.S. Patents
`5,714,927 (the “927 Patent”); 5, 954,775 (the “775 Patent”); and 5,463,374 (the
`“374 Patent”). As set forth in the various Infringement Contentions served by
`Plaintiff on June 18, 2015, Plaintiff does not claim a priority date earlier than the
`application date for the ‘927 Patent, ‘775 Patent, and ‘374 Patent. For this reason,
`the conception and reduction to practice of these three patents is not relevant.
`Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
`discovery of information protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege, work
`product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, and the common interest privilege.
`Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`protected by any other applicable privilege or immunity. Signal IP objects to this
`Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound.
`Subject to its general and specific objections, and without waiving them,
`Plaintiff responds that, pursuant to FRCP 33(d), Defendant is referred to the
`documents Plaintiff produced at SIG00001716-1765 for the information available to
`Plaintiff on the conception and reduction to practice of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486.
`Plaintiff asserts a priority date for U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (the “007
`Patent”) based on the application date for U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375, because the
`007 Patent is a continuation-in-part of that earlier patent. Plaintiff has no
`information relating to the conception and reduction to practice of the ‘007 Patent
`beyond the information contained in the patent applications for the ‘375 and ‘007
`Patents.
`
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`4
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information
`that is neither relevant to a claim or defense nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence to the extent that it seeks information on the
`conception and reduction to practice of the inventions claimed in U.S. Patents
`5,714,927 (the “927 Patent”) and 5,463,374 (the “374 Patent”). As set forth in the
`various Infringement Contentions served by Plaintiff on June 18, 2015, Plaintiff
`does not currently claim a priority date earlier than the application date for the ‘927
`Patent and ‘374 Patent. Plaintiff understands, however, that Delphi Automotive
`Systems, LLC ("Delphi") will be producing documents and testimony in response to
`subpoenas served by Defendants, and that Defendants will be further deposing
`inventors of the '927 Patent and the '374 Patent in the coming weeks. Plaintiff
`reserves its rights to amend this response with respect to any and all issues and
`further anticipates that it will amend this response following that discovery.
`Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
`discovery of information protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege, work
`product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, and the common interest privilege.
`Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`protected by any other applicable privilege or immunity. Signal IP objects to this
`Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound.
`Subject to its general and specific objections, and without waiving them,
`Plaintiff responds that, U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486 (the '486 Patent) was first
`conceived on or about July 8, 1996 and first reduced to writing on or about July 21,
`1999. Pursuant to FRCP 33(d), Defendant is further referred to the deposition
`transcript of Mark Henderson, the exhibits to that deposition including, but not
`limited to Exhibits 5 and 6, and to the documents Plaintiff produced at
`SIG00001716-1765 for the information available to Plaintiff on the conception and
`reduction to practice of U.S. Patent No. 6,434,486.
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`5
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`With respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,012,007 (the “007 Patent”), Plaintiff
`currently understands that the dates of conception and reduction to practice for the
`claims asserted in this litigation were between August 13, 1996 and the patent
`application date of June 3, 1997. Plaintiff anticipates that the forthcoming document
`productions and testimony from Delphi will enable it to identify these dates more
`precisely. Pursuant to FRCP 33(d), Plaintiff further refers Defendant is to the
`deposition transcripts of Robert Cashler and Duane Fortune, the exhibits to those
`depositions, and to the documents Plaintiff produced at SIG00040403-23 for the
`information available to Plaintiff on the conception and reduction to practice of the
`'007 Patent.
`With respect to U.S. Patent No. 5,954,775 (the “775 Patent”), the '775 Patent
`was first conceived on or about January 19, 1996 and first reduced to practice on or
`about May 24, 1996 . Pursuant to FRCP 33(d), Defendant is further referred to the
`deposition transcript of Charles Cluff, the exhibits to that deposition, and to the
`documents Plaintiff produced at SIG00030379-30402 for the information available
`to Plaintiff on the conception and reduction to practice of the '775 Patent.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`Identify and describe in detail each and every instance in which You or a
`Predecessor in Interest have licensed or assigned, attempted to license or assign,
`offered to license or assign, suggested a license or assignment, discussed a license or
`assignment, entered a covenant not to sue, entered a technology transfer agreement,
`and/or settled a lawsuit or dispute that relates to the subject matter of any Patent-in-
`Suit or Related Patent, including but not limited to, the persons, places, dates, and
`material terms associated with each such instance and the identity of the
`individual(s) knowledgeable with respect to the facts sought by this Interrogatory,
`the identity of the license(s), assignment(s), or other agreements, and all Documents
`referring or relating thereto.
`
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`6
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of
`documents or information protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege,
`work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest privilege, or
`any other applicable privilege or immunity. Plaintiff also objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks information regarding the licensing or assignment
`of Patent-in-Suit or Related Patent beyond the information contained in the executed
`licenses, assignment agreements, and settlement agreements. Those agreements
`speak for themselves. Other information responsive to this interrogatory is neither
`relevant to a claim or defense in this action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence. For the same reason, Plaintiff additionally
`objects to this interrogatory as being overbroad and unduly burdensome. Signal IP
`objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and pursuant to
`FRCP 33(d), Plaintiff refers Defendants to the license agreements or assignments for
`the Patents-in-Suit and Related Patents that it has produced, which can be found at,
`e.g., SIG00001432-1576, SIG00012366-73. Plaintiff further refers Defendants to
`the two executed settlement agreements in these actions, which can be found at
`SIG00012322-40 (Volvo Agreement); SIG00012341-56 (Jaguar/Land Rover).
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of
`documents or information protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege,
`work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest privilege, or
`any other applicable privilege or immunity. Plaintiff also objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks information regarding the licensing or assignment
`of Patent-in-Suit or Related Patent beyond the information contained in the executed
`licenses, assignment agreements, and settlement agreements. Those agreements
`speak for themselves. Other information responsive to this interrogatory is neither
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`7
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`relevant to a claim or defense in this action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence. For the same reason, Plaintiff additionally
`objects to this interrogatory as being overbroad and unduly burdensome. Signal IP
`objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and pursuant to
`FRCP 33(d), Plaintiff refers Defendants to the license agreements or assignments for
`the Patents-in-Suit and Related Patents that it has produced, or will soon produce,
`which can be found at, e.g., SIG00001432-1576, SIG00012366-73. Plaintiff further
`refers Defendants to the four executed settlement agreements in these actions, which
`can be found at SIG00012322-40 (Volvo Agreement); SIG00012341-56
`(Jaguar/Land Rover); SIG00030349-62 (Mitsubishi); and SIG00030363-78 (Volvo);
`and to the licenses identified in Exhibit G to the October 31, 2013 Patent Purchase
`Agreement between Delphi Technologies, Inc, and Loopback Technologies, Inc.,
`which can be found at SIG00001472-73.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`Describe any prior or existing relation or affiliation between or among You
`and/or each Predecessor in Interest of Signal.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of
`documents or information protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege,
`work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest privilege, or
`any other applicable privilege or immunity. Plaintiff further objects to the
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is publically available. Signal IP
`objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
`that Signal IP, Inc. and Loopback Technologies, Inc. (“Loopback”) are both wholly-
`owned subsidiaries of Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (“Marathon”), which is publicly-
`traded. On or about October 31, 2013, Loopback agreed to acquire the patents-in-
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`8
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`suit and certain other patents from Delphi Technologies, Inc. (“DTI”). DTI-- which
`is unaffiliated with Loopback, Plaintiff or Marathon--then assigned those patents to
`Loopback on or about December 18, 2013. Loopback then assigned the patents-in-
`suit to Plaintiff on or about March 26, 2014.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`For each period of alleged infringement of each Patent-in-Suit, identify each
`person or entity that holds or held an interest in each Patent-in-Suit and each real
`party-in-interest and/or each person or entity who stands or stood to benefit
`financially from this or a related action and/or any potential action involving any
`Patent-in-Suit or Related Patent and, for each such person or entity, the nature of
`their interest.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of
`documents or information protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege,
`work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest privilege, or
`any other applicable privilege or immunity. Plaintiff further objects to this
`interrogatory on the grounds that it is neither relevant to a claim or defense in this
`action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`Plaintiff further objects to the interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is
`publically available. Signal IP objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is
`compound.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
`that Signal IP Inc. owns the patents-in suit, and is itself a wholly-owned subsidiary
`of Marathon Patent Group, Inc., which is a public company with shareholders.
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`Plaintiff objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of
`documents or information protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege,
`work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the common interest privilege, or
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`9
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`any other applicable privilege or immunity. Plaintiff further objects to this
`interrogatory on the grounds that it is neither relevant to a claim or defense in this
`action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`Plaintiff further objects to the interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is
`publically available. Signal IP objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is
`compound.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds
`that Signal IP Inc. currently owns the patents-in suit, and is itself a wholly-owned
`subsidiary of Marathon, which is a public company with shareholders. Signal was
`assigned the patents-in-suit on or about March 26, 2014 by Loopback. Loopback
`agreed to acquire the patents-in-suit and certain other patents from DTI on or about
`October 31, 2013, and it received the patents through an assignment from DTI on or
`about December 18, 2013. DTI or another DTI-related entity owned the patents-in-
`suit at all relevant times prior to that date.
`DBD Credit Funding LLC ("DBD") may stand to benefit financially from this
`or other actions filed by Signal. Under certain circumstances that are unrelated to
`this and the other Signal IP actions, DBD could have a contractual right to receive a
`modest (15% or less) portion of the proceeds from this litigation. DBD Credit
`Funding LLC is not involved in the management of Plaintiff or of Marathon, and it
`exercises no management over, and has no input regarding, this litigation.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`For each of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-In-Suit, identify the relevant
`field of art and describe the level or ordinary skill in the relevant art that You
`contend is applicable, provide all factual bases for Your definition and description,
`including the date against which You contend the level of ordinary skill in the art is
`measured.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`Signal IP objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound.
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`10
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Signal further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it asks for the factual
`bases for the identification of the relevant field of art and the ordinary level of skill
`in the art, as such information is the subject of expert testimony. At the appropriate
`time, Defendants may question Plaintiff’s experts on this issue.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
`follows for the patents-in-suit:
`927 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is vehicle sensor systems.
`The relevant time period for this patent is December 9, 1996. A person with
`ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelors degree in electrical,
`mechanical, or automotive engineering and approximately 2 or more years of
`experience in the relevant field of art (or have commensurate education and
`experience).
`007 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is automotive electronics.
`The relevant time period for this patent is December 1, 1995. A person with
`ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in
`Computer Science, Electrical Engineering or similar discipline and approximately
`two years of industry experience, or equivalent work experience.
`374 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is automotive electronics.
`The relevant time period for this patent is March 10, 1994. A person with ordinary
`skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer
`Science, Electrical Engineering or similar discipline and approximately two years of
`industry experience, or equivalent work experience.
`775 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is data communications.
`The relevant time period for this patent is February 5, 1997. A person with ordinary
`skill in the art would have at least a Bachelors degree in computer science, electrical
`or computer engineering, or a related technical field, 2-4 years of work experience,
`and some exposure to data communications and embedded systems (or a person of
`commensurate education and experience).
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`11
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`486 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is vehicle sensor systems.
`The relevant time period for this patent is on or around July 8, 1996. A person with
`ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelors degree in electrical,
`mechanical, or automotive engineering and approximately 2 or more years of
`experience in the relevant field of art (or have commensurate education and
`experience).
`AMENDED RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`Signal IP objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound.
`Signal further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it asks for the factual
`bases for the identification of the relevant field of art and the ordinary level of skill
`in the art, as such information is the subject of expert testimony. At the appropriate
`time, Defendants may question Plaintiff’s experts on this issue.
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as
`follows for the patents-in-suit:
`927 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is vehicle sensor systems.
`The relevant time period for this patent is December 9, 1996. A person with
`ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelors degree in electrical,
`mechanical, or automotive engineering and approximately 2 or more years of
`experience in the relevant field of art (or have commensurate education and
`experience).
`007 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is automotive electronics.
`The relevant time period for this patent is June 3, 1997. A person with ordinary skill
`in the art would have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science,
`Electrical Engineering or similar discipline and approximately two years of industry
`experience, or equivalent work experience.
`374 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is automotive electronics.
`The relevant time period for this patent is March 10, 1994. A person with ordinary
`skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`12
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Science, Electrical Engineering or similar discipline and approximately two years of
`industry experience, or equivalent work experience.
`775 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is data communications.
`The relevant time period for this patent is February 5, 1997. A person with ordinary
`skill in the art would have at least a Bachelors degree in computer science, electrical
`or computer engineering, or a related technical field, 2-4 years of work experience,
`and some exposure to data communications and embedded systems (or a person of
`commensurate education and experience).
`
`486 Patent: The relevant field of art for this patent is vehicle sensor systems.
`The relevant time period for this patent is on or around July 8, 1996. A person with
`ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelors degree in electrical,
`mechanical, or automotive engineering and approximately 2 or more years of
`experience in the relevant field of art (or have commensurate education and
`experience).
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`If You contend that the Asserted Patents are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§
`102 or 103, explain in detail the basis for that contention, including but not limited
`to, an explanation why each reference (or combination of references) identified in
`Defendants’ final elections of prior art (served May 29, 2015) does not anticipate
`and/or render obvious one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. While not
`limiting, Your explanation should include at a minimum an identification (on a
`reference by reference basis) of any claim elements not disclosed by the reference
`(or combination of references), and why the addition of such claim element would
`not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`was made.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for expert
`testimony and is premature, in that Defendants have not yet served their final
`41406.002-2556386v2 (JLH)
`13
`PLAINTIFF SIGNAL IP, INC.’S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-8)
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`‘927
`Patent
`
`JPH05-139227 (“Satoru”)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 4,053,026 (“Fujiki”)
`
`Exemplary Reasons Why
`Reference Does Not Render
`Claim Invalid1
`Omits claim element [8]
`because the patent does not
`sustain time, but rather it
`disables the alert signal. (Paras.
`12-14)
`Omits claim elements: [1]
`because the radar is in the front
`of vehicle and not in “blind
`
`invalidity contentions or their expert reports to support their contentions that the
`patents-in-suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C.. Plaintiff also continues its investigation
`and analysis of the prior art identified by Defendants. For these reasons, all
`responses below are preliminary, subject to change, and Plaintiff reserves the right
`to amend and supplement the responses as needed. Plaintiff further objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of documents or information
`protected from discovery by attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, the
`joint defense privilege, the common interest privilege, or any other applic