`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CENTURYLINK, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-693-RWS
`
` LEAD CASE
` Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`DEFENDANT DELL INC.’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF COMMON INTERROGATORIES
`TO DEFENDANTS AND INTERVENORS (NO. 11)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant Dell Inc. (“Dell”)
`
`provides its First Supplemental Responses and Objections to Plaintiff Alacritech Inc.’s
`
`(“Alacritech” or “Plaintiff”) Second Set of Common Interrogatories, Interrogatory No. 11
`
`(“Interrogatories” or “Interrogatory”).
`
`GENERAL STATEMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
`
`The responses provided here are submitted on behalf of Dell, and reflect Dell’s continuing
`
`investigations of facts and discovery of information and documents relating to the claims and
`
`defenses at issue in this case. Accordingly, Dell’s responses to these Interrogatories are based upon
`
`Dell’s current knowledge and reasonable beliefs. Dell expressly reserves the right to modify and/or
`
`supplement any response, and to assert additional objections to these Interrogatories as necessary
`
`and/or appropriate.
`
`Nothing in these responses and objections shall be deemed an admission by Dell regarding
`
`the existence of any information, the relevance or admissibility of any information, for any
`
`purpose, or the truth or accuracy of any statement or characterization contained in any
`
`
`
`EX. 2005.001
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatory. Where Dell responds by identifying individuals with knowledge concerning a
`
`particular subject matter identified in an Interrogatory, such response shall not be construed as an
`
`admission concerning the accuracy of Alacritech’s characterization of the subject matter.
`
`Furthermore, Dell makes the following General Objections, whether or not separately set
`
`forth in each response to each instruction, definition, and Interrogatory made in Alacritech’s
`
`Second Set of Interrogatories:
`
`1.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information or documents
`
`protected by any applicable privilege, including but not limited to the attorney-client privilege, the
`
`work-product doctrine or immunity, joint-defense privilege, common-interest privilege, and any
`
`other applicable privilege, immunity, or exemption from discovery as outlined in the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, orders of the Court, and applicable law. For the sake of clarity,
`
`Dell hereby asserts such privileges and/or exemptions. Any inadvertent disclosure or production
`
`of information and/or documents shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with respect to
`
`such information or documents or of any work-product doctrine or immunity that may attach
`
`thereto.
`
`2.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information or documents
`
`not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party, not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence, or otherwise not within the scope of relevant discovery.
`
`3.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request information that is
`
`not proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the
`
`action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
`
`resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
`
`expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`
`
`2
`
`EX. 2005.002
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information that Dell is
`
`under an obligation to third parties not to disclose, or information otherwise subject to
`
`confidentiality restrictions of a third party. Dell will not disclose or produce such information
`
`except in conformity with Dell’s obligations to such third party.
`
`5.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they request information that is
`
`a matter of public record, that is equally available to Alacritech and/or equally obtainable from
`
`more convenient sources, or that purport to impose upon Dell a burden or obligation beyond the
`
`duties imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other applicable rules or law governing
`
`this action.
`
`6.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they are duplicative, cumulative,
`
`compound, or contain multiple subparts in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33. Dell objects to the
`
`Interrogatories to the extent they exceed the permissible number, including all parts and subparts.
`
`7.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, oppressive, or constitute an abuse of process, particularly when the cost necessary to
`
`investigate or respond is high compared to Alacritech’s need for the information.
`
`8.
`
`Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Dell objects to providing narrative responses
`
`to the Interrogatories where the information sought can be derived from documents produced by
`
`Dell or Dell’s suppliers, and where the burden to derive such information from those documents
`
`is substantially the same for Alacritech as it is for Dell.
`
`9.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories as overly broad to the extent they fail to specify
`
`a relevant time period for which information is requested, to the extent the specified period is
`
`irrelevant, or to the extent the specified period includes periods of time for which Alacritech would
`
`not be entitled to collect any documents.
`
`
`
`3
`
`EX. 2005.003
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories as overly broad to the extent they fail to specify
`
`a relevant geographic area for which information is requested, and to the extent a specified
`
`geographic area is irrelevant.
`
`11.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they use terms that are not
`
`defined or understood; Dell will not speculate as to the meaning ascribed to these terms, and will
`
`respond to the extent it understands such requests.
`
`12.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek legal opinions or
`
`conclusions, or present questions of pure law.
`
`13.
`
`Dell objects to the Definitions, Instructions, and Interrogatories to the extent they
`
`seek information or the identification of documents not within Dell’s possession, custody or
`
`control, or refer to persons, entities, or events not known to Dell, on the grounds that such
`
`Definitions, Instructions, and Interrogatories seek to require more of Dell than any obligation
`
`imposed by law, they subject Dell to unreasonable and undue burden and expense, and further seek
`
`to impose upon Dell an obligation to investigate or discover information or materials from third
`
`parties or sources which are equally accessible to Alacritech.
`
`14.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek identification of “all”
`
`information that refers or relates to a particular subject on the grounds of overbreadth, undue
`
`burden, and expense.
`
`15.
`
`Dell objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they are premature. Dell’s
`
`investigation, discovery and analysis are ongoing, and its responses are based on its present
`
`investigation and information presently available to Dell. Dell reserves the right to produce
`
`evidence of subsequently discovered facts, and to modify, supplement, or otherwise change or
`
`amend its responses to these Interrogatories as necessary.
`
`
`
`4
`
`EX. 2005.004
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Dell objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it (i) is framed in
`
`terms that Alacritech has not specifically or reasonably defined or (ii) fails to identify with
`
`reasonable particularity the information requested. Dell objects to such Interrogatories on the
`
`grounds that they are vague, ambiguous, and unduly broad.
`
`17.
`
`Dell reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and at
`
`trial, information and/or documents responsive to the Interrogatories but discovered subsequent to
`
`the date of its response, including, but not limited to, any such information or documents obtained
`
`in discovery herein.
`
`18.
`
`Dell uses the term “will produce” throughout its responses to indicate that it will
`
`comply with the particular demand for inspection and any related obligations imposed by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and/or the scheduling orders agreed to and
`
`entered in this case, subject to the qualifications and objections set forth in the specific response
`
`and these general objections. Dell’s statements that it “will produce” responsive information or
`
`documents is not a representation that such information or documents exist.
`
`19.
`
`Dell incorporates by reference the general objections set forth above into specific
`
`objections and responses set forth below. Dell may repeat a general objection for emphasis or some
`
`other reason. The failure to repeat any general objections, or failure to specifically incorporate a
`
`general objection by reference, does not waive any general objection to the Interrogatory.
`
`Moreover, Dell does not waive its rights to amend its objections.
`
`20.
`
`Dell objects to the “Definitions” and “Instructions” contained in Alacritech’s
`
`Interrogatories to the extent they are inconsistent with or seek to impose obligations beyond those
`
`imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, or orders of the Court.
`
`
`
`5
`
`EX. 2005.005
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Dell objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “You,” and “Your” to the extent that
`
`it includes persons or entities that are separate and distinct from Dell and over whom Dell exercises
`
`no control.
`
`22.
`
`Dell objects to these Interrogatories as premature insofar as Dell’s responses will
`
`depend upon claim construction.
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`Describe and identify your complete contentions, including all factual and documentary
`evidence, regarding the state of the relevant art at a time when the inventions described in the
`Patents-in-Suit were made, the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at a
`time when the inventions described in the Patents-in-Suit were made, and the level of ordinary
`skill in the art for each of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`Dell incorporates by reference each of its General Objections as though set forth herein.
`
`Dell further objects to this Interrogatory as a premature contention interrogatory.
`
`Dell further objects to this Interrogatory as containing multiple subparts which must be
`
`propounded as separate interrogatories. Dell objects that the multiple subparts make the
`
`Interrogatory inherently ambiguous, confusing, and unduly burdensome. Depending on how the
`
`ambiguities are resolved, the subparts of this Interrogatory exceed the number of interrogatories
`
`permitted.
`
`Dell further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`discovery by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine, and/or other
`
`applicable privileges and protections.
`
`Dell further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that this Interrogatory requests a legal
`
`conclusion and/or calls for expert testimony.
`
`
`
`6
`
`EX. 2005.006
`
`
`
`
`
`Dell objects to the extent that this Interrogatory calls for information tantamount to an early
`
`expert report.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the specific objections and the General Statement and
`
`Objections, Dell responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Dell refers to its Invalidity Contentions and Intel’s
`
`Invalidity Contentions served on February 7, 2017 as well as any supplements or other invalidity
`
`contentions later served, Declaration of Mr. Mark Lanning Regarding Claim Construction, and
`
`any expert reports or declarations that may be served by Dell pursuant to the schedule set by the
`
`Court.
`
`Dell’s investigation is ongoing, and Dell reserves the right to modify or supplement its
`
`response to this interrogatory.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`Subject to its general and specific objections, and without waiving its right to assert
`
`additional objections, Defendant further responds as follows:
`
`Defendant incorporates by reference all arguments outlined in the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regarding the 036 Patent: IPR2017-01391
`
`Regarding the 072 Patent: IPR2017-01406
`
`Regarding the 104 Patent: IPR2017-01393
`
`Regarding the 205 Patent: IPR2017-01402, IPR2017-01405
`
`Regarding the 241 Patent: IPR2017-01392
`
`Regarding the 880 Patent: IPR2017-01409, IPR2017-01410
`
`Regarding the 948 Patent: IPR2017-01395
`
`Regarding the 699 Patent: IPR2017-01559
`
`
`
`7
`
`EX. 2005.007
`
`
`
`
`
`Dell’s investigation is ongoing, and Dell reserves the right to modify or supplement its
`
`response to this interrogatory.
`
`Dated: June 23, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Newton
`Michael J. Newton (TX Bar No. 24003844)
`Brady Cox (TX Bar No. 24074084)
`ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
`2828 North Harwood Street, 18th Floor
`Dallas, Texas 75201-2139
`Tel: (214) 922-3400
`Fax: (214) 922-3899
`mike.newton@alston.com
`brady.cox@alston.com
`
`Deron R Dacus (TX Bar No. 00790553)
`THE DACUS FIRM, PC
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, Texas 75701
`(903) 705-1117
`(903) 581-2543 Fax
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Kirk T. Bradley (NC Bar No. 26490)
`ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
`Bank of America Plaza
`101 South Tryon Street, Suite 4000
`Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
`Tel: (704) 444-1000
`Fax: (704) 444-1111
`kirk.bradley@alston.com
`
`Lindsey Yeargin (GA Bar No. 248608)
`Emily Welch (GA Bar No. 606071)
`ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree St NW #4900
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Tel: 404-881-7000
`Fax: 404-881-7777
`lindsey.yeargin@alston.com
`emily.welch@alston.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DELL INC.
`
`
`
`8
`
`EX. 2005.008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served via e-mail on
`
`counsel for Plaintiff.
`
`This 23rd day of June, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Newton
`Michael J. Newton
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EX. 2005.009
`
`