IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`LEGO SYSTEM A/S,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RUBICON COMMUNICATIONS, LP
`d/b/a SMALLWORKS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-00823-VLB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT’S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`Defendant Rubicon Communications LP d/b/a SmallWorks (“SmallWorks”) objects and
`
`responds to the First Set of Interrogatories of Plaintiff Lego System A/S (“Lego”) pursuant to Rules
`
`26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`SmallWorks’ objections and responses are based upon its interpretation and understanding of
`
`the Interrogatories, its current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the available facts and the
`
`information as of this date. Additional discovery and investigation may lead to additions to, changes
`
`in, or modifications of these objections and responses, which may be amended as required and
`
`provided under the Rules. Accordingly, these objections and responses are being given without
`
`prejudice to SmallWorks’ right to revise, amend, correct, supplement, modify, or clarify them.
`
`In responding to the First Set of Interrogatories, SmallWorks does not waive objections to the
`
`use of the information, claims of privilege or protection from discovery under the work-product
`
`doctrine that may apply to related information, and expressly reserves all objections to the
`
`admissibility of this information. Should information provided here later be determined to be
`
`privileged or otherwise protected from discovery, SmallWorks reserves the right to exercise any and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`all remedies under clawback provisions under the protective order.
`
`Inadvertent production of information shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege
`
`as to that information or any related document. Identification of documents is made without waiver
`
`of privilege or other protection from discovery that may apply to such document, in whole or in part.
`
`Identification of individuals is made without any acknowledgement or concession that such individual
`
`will be called as a witness or that such person has discoverable information.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`The following General Objections apply to the interrogatories generally and to each
`
`interrogatory and are independent of the specific objections provided in response to each individual
`
`interrogatory.
`
`1.
`
`SmallWorks objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek expert testimony or
`
`information properly the subject of expert testimony. SmallWorks may provide expert testimony
`
`evidence in support of their position on subject matter that is covered or related to these responses, and
`
`these responses are not to be interpreted as statements of any expert engaged by SmallWorks or upon
`
`whose testimony SmallWorks relies.
`
`2.
`
` Many of the interrogatories are overbroad and consequently seek information that is
`
`unrelated to any party’s claims or defenses in this action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to
`
`the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`3.
`
`SmallWorks’ responses provide information known to it and within its custody,
`
`control, or possession. Many of the interrogatories request information that is not known to
`
`SmallWorks or otherwise available to it or in its custody, control, or possession or cannot reasonably
`
`be located, and to that extent the interrogatory imposes an undue burden on it to go and search for and
`
`locate the information and SmallWorks objects.
`
`4.
`
`SmallWorks objects to the interrogatories because they request information that is
`
`already in Lego’s possession, custody, or control or equally available to it.
`
`

`
`5.
`
`The interrogatories seek privileged information and attorney work product, and
`
`SmallWorks objects to providing that information.
`
`6.
`
`SmallWorks objects to the party Rubicon Communications LP d/b/a SmallWorks being
`
`the named defendant in the case. The correct defendant should be Small Works, LLC. Given this,
`
`SmallWorks, LLC shall make the objections and responses herein.
`
`
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`Identify when and the circumstances under which You first became aware of any of the
`Asserted Patents or the applications that led to their issuance, specifying in Your answer the
`applicable Asserted Patent.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as vague and unclear, including the phrase “the
`circumstances under which You first became aware of any of the Asserted Patents or applications.”
`SmallWorks objects to the interrogatory due to the definition of “You” being overbroad and
`including SmallWorks’ attorneys. SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it has multiple
`subparts that should be counted as separate interrogatories. In addition, SmallWorks objects to
`this interrogatory in that it seeks attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product.
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: On or about May 12, 2011, Aaron Sternberg sent a
`communication to Jim Thompson which referenced United States Patent No. 7,731,191. This was
`the first awareness of any of the Asserted Patents or applications for the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Identify and describe in detail all communications between You and any person relating
`to any of the Asserted Patents, specifying those communications that took place before May 29,
`2015 separately from those communications that took place on or after May 29, 2015.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to the interrogatory due to the definition of “You” being overbroad
`and including SmallWorks’ attorneys. SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it has multiple
`subparts that should be counted as separate interrogatories. In addition, SmallWorks objects to
`this interrogatory in that it seeks attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product.
`
`

`
`
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows:
`
`Pre-May 29, 2015, there were e-mail communications between Aaron Sternberg and Jim
`Thompson, there were communications between Jim Thompson and the attorneys for SmallWorks,
`there were communications between Frazier Newlin, Jim Thompson and Jamie Thompson, there
`were communications between Jim Thompson, Frazier Newlin and Hannah Wimberley prior to
`the CES 2013 trade show, and there were communications between Jim Thompson and Aaron
`Sternberg at the CES 2013 show. Excluding the attorney-client communications, the
`communications were about the statements made by Mr. Sternberg. The written communications
`to and from Mr. Sternberg will be produced by the defendant, and they speak for themselves.
`
`Post-May 29, 2015, there were communications with attorneys (which are privileged) and
`a company-wide e-mail regarding the current suit which will be produced.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`State all facts surrounding the origin, creation, design and development of the BrickCase
`Products, including the date and identity of all persons involved and the nature of their
`involvement.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome with
`respect to “all facts surrounding.” SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it has multiple
`subparts that should be counted as separate interrogatories. SmallWorks objects to this
`interrogatory as not relevant to any of the issues in this case. SmallWorks objects tot this
`interrogatory as vague and unclear.
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: The BrickCase Products were created, designed, and developed
`by Hunter S. Thompson, Jamie L. Thompson, James W. Thompson, and Frazier Newlin. These
`actions occurred from August of 2010 to January of 2011. When Hunter Thompson was 12, he
`attended a Boy Scout event. His parents, Jamie and Jim Thompson gave him an iPhone 3 so that
`he could call his parents. When he returned from the event, his parents asked him how he liked
`the phone. As an avid Lego user, Hunter responded that he liked the case for the phone, but wished
`that he could place Lego blocks and elements on the phone. Hunter, Jamie, and Jim then developed
`the phone case with the assistance of Frazier Newlin. Frazier prepared CAD designs for the cases
`based on the designs created by himself and Hunter, Jamie, and Jim. Hunter, Jamie, Jim, and
`Frazier worked with manufacturers to make the product, and began selling the products in January
`of 2011.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4
`
`
`

`
`Describe in detail Your relationship with the following persons and their involvement, if
`any, with SmallWorks Communications, LP dba SmallWorks and the development, sale or
`licensing of the BrickCase Products:
`
`Pono Paani, LLC
`SmallWorks, LLC
`Rubicon Communications, LLC
`
`Rubicon Communications Management Group, LLC
`Hunter S. Thompson
`Jamie L. Thompson
`James W. Thompson
`Frazier Newlin
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to the interrogatory due to the definition of “You” being overbroad
`and including SmallWorks’ attorneys. SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it has multiple
`subparts that should be counted as separate interrogatories. In addition, SmallWorks objects to
`this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks attorney-client communications and/or attorney work
`product.
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: Pono Paani, LLC is a company that holds intellectual property
`rights, and is owned by Jim and Jamie Thompson. SmallWorks, LLC is a company owned by Jim
`and Jamie Thompson and this is the company that has engaged in the accused conduct for this
`case. Rubicon Communications, LLC is a company owned by Jim and Jamie Thompson, and sells
`products other than the accused products in this case. Rubicon Communications Management
`Group, LLC is a dormant organization, which will be closed down shortly. Hunter S. Thompson
`is the son for Jim and Jamie Thompson, all of which are inventors of the accused products. Frazier
`Newlin is an employee of Rubicon Communications, LLC and is an inventor of the accused
`products.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5
`
`Please provide the following information for the BrickCase Products:
`
`
`i. All names, numbers, grades, sizes or other designations relating to such
`products;
`ii. The place of manufacture;
`iii. The dates on which such products have been made, used, sold, offered for
`sale, or imported in the United States.
`
`

`
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it has multiple subparts that should be counted
`as separate interrogatories. SmallWorks objects to the terms “numbers”, “grades”, and
`“designations” are vague and unclear.
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: The BrickCase Products include cases for the iPad mini
`(manufactured in China), iPhone 6 (manufactured at R&D Molders in Round Rock, Texas), iPhone
`5/5s (manufactured at R&D Molders in Round Rock, Texas), iPhone 4 (manufactured in China),
`iPhone 4S (manufactured at R&D Molders in Round Rock, Texas), and iPod Touch (manufactured
`in China).
`
`All relevant and responsive sales, manufacturing, and importation information for the
`accused products will be provided in documents to be produced in this case.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6
`
`Please provide the following information for the BrickCase Products, by calendar month
`and product version, from the date of first sale to present:
`
`a.
`b.
`c.
`
`The number of units sold, identifying the person who sold them;
`The sales price of each unit;
`Your gross income from such sales, specifying separately any such income derived
`from licensing;
`Your net income from such sales, specifying separately any such income
`derived from licensing;
`Your profits from such sales, specifying separately any such profits derived from
`licensing;
`An itemized list of the fixed and variable costs associated with the manufacture,
`production, marketing, advertising, selling or licensing of these units.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
`SmallWorks objects to the interrogatory due to the definition of “You” (or “Your”) being
`overbroad and including SmallWorks’ attorneys. SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it
`has multiple subparts that should be counted as separate interrogatories. In addition, SmallWorks
`objects to this interrogatory in that it is premature.
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: SmallWorks will provide this information in responsive and
`relevant documents to be provided in this case and in its expert report, which will be disclosed
`pursuant to the Court’s schedule.
`
`

`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7
`
`
`Identify all persons involved in the marketing, sale, and distribution of the BrickCase
`Products.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it has multiple subparts that should be counted
`as separate interrogatories.
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: Hunter S. Thompson, Jamie L. Thompson, James W.
`Thompson, Frazier Newlin, Hannah Wimberley, Robert Grahl, Keressa Jones, Manuel Moreno,
`Alexander Jones, and Catriel Lopez.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8
`
`
`Describe in detail each and every reason why any of the BrickCase Products is believed
`by you not to infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome with respect
`to “each and every reason why.” SmallWorks objects to the interrogatory due to the definition of
`“You” being overbroad and including SmallWorks’ attorneys. In addition, SmallWorks objects to
`this interrogatory in that it asks for expert testimony and seeks attorney-client communications
`and/or attorney work product.
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: At this time, plaintiff has not disclosed its Infringement
`Contentions. Given this, plaintiff has not described in detail how defendant allegedly infringes
`each of the asserted patents. Defendant will disclose its non-infringement positions after plaintiff
`discloses its infringement contentions and the Court defines the meaning of the claims in its
`Markman Order.
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9
`
`
`Describe in detail all clearance or patentability searches or analyses conducted by any
`person in connection with the development of the BrickCase Products, including the results
`thereof, and identify all persons involved in or having knowledge or information relating to such
`searches or analyses.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`

`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome with respect
`to “describe in detail all.” SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it has multiple subparts that
`should be counted as separate interrogatories. In addition, SmallWorks objects to this
`interrogatory in that it seeks attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10
`
`
`Identify all Prior Art that You contend would anticipate or otherwise render obvious any
`claim or claims of the Asserted Patents, stating for each piece of Prior Art:
`The claim or claims that You contend would be unpatentable over such Prior Art;
`a.
`and
`The specific reasons, including an Identification of the specific text in each Prior
`Art reference, that You rely on for Your contention that such claim or claims would
`be unpatentable.
`
`b.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome with respect
`to “all Prior Art that You contend.” SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as it has multiple
`subparts that should be counted as separate interrogatories. SmallWorks objects to the
`interrogatory due to the definition of “You” being overbroad and including SmallWorks’ attorneys.
`In addition, SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory in that it asks for expert testimony and seeks
`attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product, and violates the agreement between
`the parties as set forth in the Rule 26 report, which specifies the date in which such material shall
`be disclosed by SmallWorks.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11
`
`
`Describe in detail all actions taken by You in response to this Lawsuit.
`
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly
`burdensome. SmallWorks objects to the interrogatory due to the definition of “You” being
`overbroad and including SmallWorks’ attorneys. In addition, SmallWorks objects to this
`interrogatory in that it asks for attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product.
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: All actions taken are set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No.
`2, which is incorporated by reference.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 12
`
`
`Identify all communications or agreements relating in any way to the subject matter of this
`Lawsuit between You and any person, including but not limited to the persons listed in
`Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`

`
`
`
`SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly
`burdensome with respect to “all communications or agreements relating in any way.” SmallWorks
`objects to the interrogatory due to the definition of “You” being overbroad and including
`SmallWorks’ attorneys. In addition, SmallWorks objects to this interrogatory in that it asks for
`attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. Subject to SmallWorks’ objections
`and the general objections, and without waiver thereof, SmallWorks responds as follows: All
`communications are set forth in the answer to Interrogatory No. 2, which is incorporated by
`reference. SmallWorks is unaware of any agreements at this time.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13
`
`
`Identify each person who answered or assisted in the preparation of the answers to the
`foregoing Interrogatories, and identify each Interrogatory which such person answered or assisted
`in answering.
`
`ANSWER:
`
`
`Subject to SmallWorks’ objections and the general objections, and without waiver thereof,
`SmallWorks responds as follows: Jim and Jamie Thompson.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Verification
`
`I hereby declare that the foregoing answers to interrogatories (excluding the objections
`set forth therein) are, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct.
`
`
`
`B . James W. Thompson
`
`
`
`
`
`On behalf of Defendant
`
`August 7‘? , 2015
`
`

`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C.
`1120 South Capital of Texas Highway
`Building 2, Suite 300
`Austin, Texas 78746
`512.853-8800 Telephone
`512.853.8801 Facsimile
`
`
`/s/ Ryan T. Beard
`By: __________________________________
`
`Ryan Tyler Beard
`State Bar No. 24012264
`Email: rbeard@intprop.com
`Eric B. Meyertons
`State Bar No. is 14004400
`Email: emeyertons@intprop.com
`Dwayne K. Goetzel
`State Bar No. 08059500
`Email: dgoetzel@intprop.com
`
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the attorneys of
`record for Plaintiff on this the 27th day of August 2015, as follows:
`
`Via electronic mail:
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ryan T. Beard
`__________________________________
`Ryan T. Beard
`
`
`Elizabeth Ann Alquist
`Day Pitney LLP-Trmbl St Htfd-CT
`242 Trumbull St.
`Hartford, CT 06103-1212
`Email: EAAlquist@DayPitney.com
`
`Catherine Dugan O'Connor
`Day Pitney LLP-Stmfd
`One Canterbury Green
`201 Broad Street
`Stamford, CT 06901
`203-977-7300
`Fax: 203-977-7301
`Email: cdoconnor@daypitney.com