IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`DOT HILL SYSTEMS CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-00800-SS
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-00895-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-01023-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-01025-SS
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`Defendant.
`__________________________________________
`v.
`§
`ORACLE CORPORATION,
`§
`
`§
`§
`__________________________________________
`v.
`§
`DELL INC.
`§
`
`§
`§
`__________________________________________
`v.
`§
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`§
`HUAWEI ENTERPRISE USA, INC.,
`§
`AND HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA,
`§
`INC.,
`
`§
`§
`__________________________________________
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 1
`
`

`
`
`v.
`TANDBERG DATA CORPORATION
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-01026-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:14-cv-00148-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:14-cv-00149-SS
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 1:14-cv-00150-SS
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`__________________________________________
`v.
`§
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`§
`
`§
`§
`__________________________________________
`v.
`§
`NETAPP, INC.
`§
`
`§
`§
`__________________________________________
`v.
`§
`QUANTUM CORPORATION
`§
`
`§
`§
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`2
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 2
`
`

`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, Plaintiff Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Crossroads”) responds as follows to Defendants’ in the above-captioned cases (“Defendants”)
`
`First Set of Common Interrogatories to Plaintiff:
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`The following responses are based on discovery available as of the date hereof.
`
`Discovery is continuing, and these responses are accordingly subject to revision. Further
`
`discovery, independent investigation and analysis may supply additional facts and add meaning
`
`to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of
`
`which may lead to additions to, changes to, or variations from the information herein set forth.
`
`2.
`
`In addition to any specific objections which may be made on an individual basis
`
`in the separate responses set forth below, Crossroads objects generally to these requests to the
`
`extent that they seek to elicit information subject to and protected by the attorney-client privilege
`
`and/or the work-product doctrine. Nothing contained herein is intended to be or should be
`
`construed as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, work-product protection or any other
`
`applicable privilege, protection or doctrine.
`
`3.
`
`These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action and are subject to
`
`all objections as to competence, authenticity, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility and
`
`any and all other objections and grounds which would or could require or permit the exclusion of
`
`any document or statement therein from evidence, all of which objections and grounds are
`
`reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
`
`4.
`
`Crossroads objects to these requests to the extent that they seek information that is
`
`neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence herewith.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 3
`
`

`
`5.
`
`Crossroads objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek confidential
`
`documents and things pertaining to an individual who is not a party to this litigation and whose
`
`right of privacy is protected by Federal and/or State statutory or common law rights of privacy.
`
`Crossroads further objects to these requests to the extent that they seek documents and things
`
`that are subject to confidentiality agreements, protective orders or other confidentiality
`
`obligations owed to third parties.
`
`6.
`
`Crossroads objects generally to these interrogatories to the extent they seek to
`
`impose obligations or requirements on Crossroads which are greater than or different from those
`
`imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules of the United States
`
`District Court for the Western District of Texas.
`
`7.
`
`Crossroads objects to these interrogatories as overbroad, unduly burdensome and
`
`oppressive to the extent that they fail to specify any relevant time period, and thus are neither
`
`limited to events relevant to this litigation nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence.
`
`8.
`
`Crossroads objects to the definitions to the extent that they seek to impose
`
`obligations on Crossroads that exceed or are inconsistent with the requirements of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules or any other applicable rules, law or order, including
`
`the process for withholding information or documents based on attorney client privilege, the
`
`work product immunity or any other privilege or immunity.
`
`9.
`
`Crossroads objects to these interrogatories to the extent they seek discovery of
`
`materials within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(A) and therefore
`
`constitute an improper and/or premature attempt to conduct discovery of expert opinion.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 4
`
`

`
`10.
`
`Crossroads objects to the definition of “you” and “your,” to the extent that such
`
`definition seeks Crossroads to produce documents or provide information that is either not within
`
`the possession, custody or control of Crossroads, or that is subject to the attorney-client privilege
`
`or the work product doctrine.
`
`11.
`
`Crossroads further objects to each and every request herein to the extent that such
`
`request seeks to impose upon Crossroads an obligation to investigate or discover information,
`
`materials or documents from third parties that are not within the possession, custody or control of
`
`Crossroads, regardless of whether such information, materials or documents are equally
`
`accessible to Defendants. Crossroads will not produce documents in the custody or control of
`
`any other persons or non-parties that are not in the possession, custody or control of Crossroads.
`
`12.
`
`Crossroads objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent such an
`
`interrogatory seeks information that is already in Defendants’ possession or is equally available
`
`to Defendants from other sources that are more convenient, less burdensome and/or less
`
`expensive.
`
`13.
`
`Crossroads objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent that the number
`
`thereof, including subparts, exceeds the number allowed.
`
`14.
`
`No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses herein. The
`
`fact that Crossroads has answered or objected to any interrogatory, should not be taken as an
`
`admission that Crossroads accepts or admits the existence of any “facts” set forth or assumed by
`
`such interrogatory. The fact that Crossroads has answered part or all of any interrogatory is not
`
`intended to be, and shall not be construed to be, a waiver by Crossroads of any part or any
`
`objection to any interrogatory.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 5
`
`

`
`15.
`
`Crossroads objects to each and every interrogatory to the extent it requires
`
`Crossroads to make a legal conclusion and/or render an expert opinion.
`
`16.
`
`Crossroads expressly incorporates the above General Objections as though set
`
`forth fully in response to the following interrogatories, and, to the extent that they are not raised
`
`in any particular response, Crossroads does not waive those objections. An answer to an
`
`interrogatory shall not be deemed a waiver of any applicable specific or general objection to an
`
`interrogatory. From time to time a specific response may repeat a general objection for emphasis
`
`or some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any specific response shall
`
`not be interpreted as a waiver of any general objection to that response.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Statement and Objections and without waiving any of
`
`them, Crossroads responds as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Separately for each claim of the Patents-in-Suit, describe in detail all facts and
`
`circumstances relating to the conception and reduction to practice of the claimed invention and
`
`any acts of diligence in reducing the invention to practice, including without limitation the
`
`identification of any person involved and his or her individual role, identification of the inventors
`
`of each claim of the Patents-in-Suit, the dates on which Crossroads alleges the claimed invention
`
`was conceived, the dates on which Crossroads alleges the claimed invention was reduced to
`
`practice, and the geographic location of all such activity, and the identity of each person with
`
`knowledge of any of the foregoing and all documents relating to any of the foregoing.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 6
`
`

`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as compound, and counting subparts, constituting
`
`at least five distinct interrogatories. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
`
`is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive and subjects Crossroads to
`
`unreasonable burden and expense as it purports to require Crossroads to “describe in detail all
`
`facts and circumstances,” to provide “the identity of each person with knowledge of any of the
`
`foregoing,” and to identify “all documents relating to any of the foregoing.” Crossroads objects
`
`to this interrogatory on the ground that the phrases “acts of diligence” and “individual role” are
`
`vague and ambiguous. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is
`
`neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence. Crossroads also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other
`
`privilege.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections set forth
`
`above, Crossroads responds as follows:
`
`The claimed inventions were conceived at least as early as May 1997. Geoffrey Hoese,
`
`Jeffry Russell, and Anthony Peterman have knowledge of and can corroborate this conception.
`
`The claimed inventions were reduced to practice with due diligence at least by December 31,
`
`1997. Geoffrey Hoese and Jeffry Russell have knowledge of and can corroborate this due
`
`diligence. Contemporaneous documents also corroborate conception and due diligence.
`
`Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Crossroads states that
`
`additional information in answer to this interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
`
`compiling, abstracting, or summarizing Crossroads’ business records, and the burden of deriving
`
`
`
`7
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 7
`
`

`
`or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Crossroads will
`
`produce such records and specify the records that must be reviewed in sufficient detail to enable
`
`the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as Crossroads could. In order to
`
`prevent any possible disclosure of any party or third-party’s protected or confidential
`
`information, these records will be produced after entry of a suitable protective order in this
`
`action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Separately for each claim of the Patents-in-Suit asserted against one or more Defendants
`
`in the above-captioned cases, identify the priority date for that claim and explain the complete
`
`basis for Crossroads’ contention, including an identification of the earliest-filed patent
`
`application that the claim is entitled to claim priority to and the portions of that application’s
`
`specification that support each element of the claim.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as compound, and counting subparts, constituting
`
`at least three distinct interrogatories. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
`
`it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive and subjects Crossroads to
`
`unreasonable burden and expense as it purports to require Crossroads to “explain the complete
`
`basis” and identify “the portions of that application’s specification that support each element of
`
`the claim.” Crossroads also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other privilege.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections set forth
`
`above, Crossroads responds as follows: as stated on the face of each patent, each patent in suit
`
`
`
`8
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 8
`
`

`
`claims priority to U.S. patent application No. 09/001,799, filed on December 31, 1997, now U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,941,972.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Separately for each claim of the Patents-in-Suit, describe in detail all the facts and
`
`circumstances of the first to occur of the following events concerning the claimed invention: first
`
`written description, first offer for sale, first sale, first manufacture, first public disclosure, first
`
`public use, or first disclosure to another of the claimed invention, including without limitation
`
`the date on which such event occurred, the identity of each person with knowledge of any of the
`
`foregoing, and the identity of all documents relating to the foregoing.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as compound, and counting subparts, constituting
`
`at least three distinct interrogatories. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
`
`it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive and subjects Crossroads to
`
`unreasonable burden and expense as it purports to require Crossroads to “describe in detail all
`
`the facts and circumstances,” to provide “the identity of each person with knowledge of any of
`
`the foregoing,” and to identify “all documents relating to the foregoing.” Crossroads objects to
`
`this interrogatory on the ground that the requested information is equally available to the
`
`Defendants. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is neither
`
`relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Crossroads also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other privilege.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections set forth
`
`above, Crossroads responds as follows:
`
`
`
`9
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 9
`
`

`
`The first Crossroads product that embodied the ‘035 Patent, ‘041 Patent and ‘311 Patent
`
`was the 4X50, which first shipped in May 1999. The first Crossroads product that embodied the
`
`‘147 Patent was the 8000, which was first shipped in August 2001.
`
`Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Crossroads states that
`
`additional information in answer to this interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
`
`compiling, abstracting, or summarizing Crossroads’ business records, and the burden of deriving
`
`or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Crossroads will
`
`produce such records and specify the records that must be reviewed in sufficient detail to enable
`
`the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as Crossroads could. In order to
`
`prevent any possible disclosure of any party or third-party’s protected or confidential
`
`information, these records will be produced after entry of a suitable protective order in this
`
`action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`Identify and describe, in detail and separately, each product, system, service, or method
`
`(whether commercialized, in research, in development, or conceived) which Crossroads or any
`
`other person contends (or has ever contended), does, did at any time, or was intended at any time
`
`to practice, embody, incorporate, implement, or use the subject matter covered by any claim of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit, and for each such product, system, service, or method, identify all claims of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit that Crossroad contends (or has ever contended) cover it and its first offer for
`
`sale, sale, and public use in the United States, the identity of each person with knowledge of any
`
`of the foregoing, and the identity of all documents relating to any of the foregoing.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 10
`
`

`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as compound, and counting subparts, constituting
`
`at least five distinct interrogatories. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it
`
`is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive and subjects Crossroads to
`
`unreasonable burden and expense as it purports to require Crossroads to provide “the identity of
`
`each person with knowledge of any of the foregoing,” and to identify “all documents relating to
`
`any of the foregoing.” Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the phrase “the
`
`subject matter covered by any claim of the Patents-in-Suit” is vague and ambiguous. Crossroads
`
`objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the requested information is equally available to
`
`the Defendants. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is neither
`
`relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
`
`admissible evidence. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require
`
`Crossroads to engage in a legal analysis or draw legal conclusions. Crossroads also objects to
`
`this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`work product doctrine or other privilege.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections set forth
`
`above, Crossroads responds as follows: Crossroads incorporates its response to Defendants’
`
`common interrogatory No. 3 as if fully set forth here. Further, although every product sold under
`
`the following product names may not necessarily embody the ‘035 Patent, Crossroads contends
`
`or has contended that Crossroads products embodying the subject matter claimed by the ‘035
`
`Patent were sold under the following product names: ShareLoader/Sphinx-EX, Tape Sentry,
`
`6000, 6240, SA20, Achenar, Tomahawk II, Harpoon, DataMover, Ranger, Voyager, RIB, RVA,
`
`Riven, 7100, 7120, 8000, Crossroads 10000, SA40, HP 10000, STK 10000, STK 6000, HP 6000,
`
`
`
`11
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 11
`
`

`
`Achenar I, Achenar II, Akula, Vicksburg, 4X50 series, Cadet, Summit, and Winston. Although
`
`every product sold under the following product names may not necessarily embody the ‘147
`
`Patent, Crossroads contends or has contended that Crossroads products embodying subject
`
`matter claimed by the ‘147 Patent were sold under the following product names: Tape Sentry,
`
`Harpoon, DataMover, Voyager, 8000, 6000, 6240, 7120, M8201, SA20, Crossroads 10000,
`
`SA40, HP10000, STK 10000 and Winston.
`
`None of the foregoing Crossroads’ products that embody the subject matter claimed by
`
`the patents in suit were first disclosed publicly, used publicly, offered for sale or sold prior to
`
`December 31, 1996.
`
`Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Crossroads states that
`
`additional information in answer to this interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
`
`compiling, abstracting, or summarizing Crossroads’ business records, and the burden of deriving
`
`or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Crossroads will
`
`produce such records and specify the records that must be reviewed in sufficient detail to enable
`
`the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as Crossroads could. In order to
`
`prevent any possible disclosure of any party or third-party’s protected or confidential
`
`information, these records will be produced after entry of a suitable protective order in this
`
`action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Identify all efforts and activities by, at the direction of, or on behalf of Crossroads, any
`
`other Interested Persons, or any licensee, predecessor-in-interest, or third party which practices
`
`or has practiced (or is alleged to practice or have practiced) any of the claims of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, to satisfy the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, including a full description of each
`
`
`
`12
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 12
`
`

`
`such effort or activity, an identification of all documents relating to any of the foregoing
`
`(including any license agreements that expressly require marking with the patent number(s) of
`
`one or more Patent(s)-in-Suit) and all persons with knowledge of any of the foregoing.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as compound, and counting subparts, constituting
`
`at least three distinct interrogatories. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it
`
`is unintelligible, in that Crossroads is unable to understand the question “Identify all efforts and
`
`activities by, at the direction of, or on behalf of Crossroads, any other Interested Persons, or any
`
`licensee, predecessor-in-interest, or third party which practices or has practiced (or is alleged to
`
`practice or have practiced) any of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit . . . .” Crossroads objects to
`
`this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and
`
`oppressive and subjects Crossroads to unreasonable burden and expense as it purports to require
`
`Crossroads to identify “all efforts and activities, ” a “full description of each such effort or
`
`activity,” the identity of “all persons with knowledge of any of the foregoing,” and the identity of
`
`“all documents relating to any of the foregoing.” Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the
`
`grounds that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive to the extent it
`
`purports to require Crossroads to speculate and/or conduct an investigation of the knowledge or
`
`activities of third parties. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is
`
`neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`
`purports to require Crossroads to engage in a legal analysis or draw legal conclusions.
`
`Crossroads also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other privilege.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 13
`
`

`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections set forth
`
`above, Crossroads responds as follows:
`
`Crossroads began marking products with U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035 on December 18,
`
`2003. Crossroads began marking products with U.S. Patent No. 7,051,147 on August 4, 2008.
`
`Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Crossroads states that
`
`additional information in answer to this interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
`
`compiling, abstracting, or summarizing Crossroads’ business records, and the burden of deriving
`
`or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Crossroads will
`
`produce such records and specify the records that must be reviewed in sufficient detail to enable
`
`the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as Crossroads could. In order to
`
`prevent any possible disclosure of any party or third-party’s protected or confidential
`
`information, these records will be produced after entry of a suitable protective order in this
`
`action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Excluding all prior art cited during prosecution or reexamination, identify all prior art or
`
`potential prior art to the Patents-in-Suit or Related Patents known or made known to each person
`
`or entity that has ever claimed rights to the Patents-in-Suit, including but not limited to
`
`Crossroads, any other Interested Persons, and any person or entity on behalf of the foregoing,
`
`including a detailed description of when, by whom, and under what circumstances such prior art
`
`was discovered or identified.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 14
`
`

`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as compound, and counting subparts, constituting
`
`at least four distinct interrogatories. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the ground that
`
`the phrases “potential prior art” and “a detailed description” are vague and ambiguous.
`
`Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, harassing, and oppressive and subjects Crossroads to unreasonable burden and
`
`expense as it purports to require Crossroads to speculate and/or conduct an investigation of the
`
`knowledge or activities of third parties. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as seeking
`
`information that is neither relevant to the claim or defense of any party nor reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory to the
`
`extent it purports to require Crossroads to engage in a legal analysis or draw legal conclusions.
`
`Crossroads also objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other privilege.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections set forth
`
`above, Crossroads responds as follows:
`
`All prior art references known to those who had a duty of disclosure to the PTO and
`
`which should have been disclosed under the applicable standards during prosecution of the
`
`relevant patent applications were disclosed to the PTO during the prosecution of the patents in
`
`suit. Those prior art references are all identified in the prosecution histories of the patents.
`
`Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Crossroads states that
`
`additional information in answer to this interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
`
`compiling, abstracting, or summarizing Crossroads’ business records, and the burden of deriving
`
`or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Crossroads will
`
`
`
`15
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 15
`
`

`
`produce such records and specify the records that must be reviewed in sufficient detail to enable
`
`the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as Crossroads could. In order to
`
`prevent any possible disclosure of any party or third-party’s protected or confidential
`
`information, these records will be produced after entry of a suitable protective order in this
`
`action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Describe in detail, for each claim of the Patents-in-Suit asserted against one or more
`
`Defendants in the above-captioned cases, all facts concerning any and all alleged evidence of
`
`“secondary considerations” (including but not limited to commercial success, industry
`
`recognition or praise, copying, long-felt need, failure of others, commercial acquiescence,
`
`unexpected results, improved results, and/or new results) that you contend should be considered
`
`in determining whether that claim is non-obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and identify all persons
`
`with knowledge of such evidence.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as compound, and counting subparts, constituting
`
`at least two distinct interrogatories. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that
`
`it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive and subjects Crossroads to
`
`unreasonable burden and expense as it purports to require Crossroads to “describe in detail . . .
`
`all facts concerning . . . ” Crossroads objects to this interrogatory on the ground that the phrase
`
`““secondary considerations’ (including but not limited to commercial success, industry
`
`recognition or praise, copying, long-felt need, failure of others, commercial acquiescence,
`
`unexpected results, improved results, and/or new results)” is vague and ambiguous. Crossroads
`
`objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to require Crossroads to engage in a legal
`
`
`
`16
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 16
`
`

`
`analysis or draw legal conclusions. Crossroads objects to this interrogatory as premature, as
`
`Defendants have not yet produced documents to Crossroads. Crossroads objects to this
`
`interrogatory on the grounds that it asks Crossroads to provide an expert opinion prior to the due
`
`date for expert reports relevant to the subject matter. Crossroads also objects to this
`
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work
`
`product doctrine or other privilege. Finally, because secondary considerations apply to claims of
`
`obviousness, Crossroads is unable to identify potentially applicable secondary considerations as
`
`Defendants have not identified any relevant obviousness combinations.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections set forth
`
`above, Crossroads responds as follows: To the extent Defendants identify any relevant
`
`obviousness combination, and to the extent objective indicia are indicated, including, without
`
`limitation, commercial success, long felt need, failure of others, copying, unexpected results,
`
`recognition, licensing, skepticism of skilled artisans, and/or teaching away, along with any other
`
`relevant objective indicia of non-obviousness, Crossroads will rely on such objective indicia and
`
`any additional evidence of nonobviousness of the subject matter claimed in the patents in suit.
`
`Crossroads’ investigation is continuing and Crossroad reserves the right to supplement or amend
`
`these responses based on additional discovery and investigation.
`
`Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Crossroads states that
`
`additional information in answer to this interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing,
`
`compiling, abstracting, or summarizing Crossroads’ business records, and the burden of deriving
`
`or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party. Crossroads will
`
`produce such records and specify the records that must be reviewed in sufficient detail to enable
`
`the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as Crossroads could. In order to
`
`
`
`17
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 17
`
`

`
`prevent any possible disclosure of any party or third-party’s protected or confidential
`
`information, these records will be produced after entry of a suitable protective order in this
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`action.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 18, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ James H. Hall
`Steven Sprinkle
` Texas Bar No. 00794962
` Elizabeth J. Brown Fore
` Texas Bar No. 24001795
` Sprinkle IP Law Group, PC
` 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 408
` Austin, Texas 78705
` Tel: 512-637-9220
` Fax: 512-371-9088
` ssprinkle@sprinklelaw.com
` ebrownfore@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Susan K. Knoll
`Texas Bar No. 11616900
`Russell R. Wong
`Texas Bar No. 21884235
`James H. Hall
`Texas Bar No. 24041040
`Stephen D. Zinda
`Texas Bar No. 24084147
`WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD &
`BRUCCULERI, L.L.P.
`20333 SH 249, Suite 600
`Houston, TX 77070
`Tel: 832-446-2400
`Fax: 832-446-2424
`sknoll@counselip.com
`rwong@counselip.com
`jhall@counselip.com
`szinda@counselip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC
`18
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 18
`
`

`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that counsel of record for Defendants in the above-identified
`actions have been served with a copy of the foregoing via email today, June 18, 2014.
`
` /s/ Lynn Marlin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Oracle Ex. 1026, pg. 19