`Date Filed: November 1, 2017
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Koninklijke Philips N.V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND MICROSOFT MOBILE INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`Patent RE44,913
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED DISCOVERY REQUESTS
`TO PETITIONERS
`
`Philips 2011
`Microsoft v. Philips
`IPR2017-01766
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`
`Patent Owner Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”) requests that Petitioners
`
`
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively “Microsoft”) produce the
`
`following documents and things.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`In responding to and producing documents and things responsive to
`
`these Requests, please comply with the Board’s Scheduling Order and instructions
`
`in the Patent Trial Practice Guide.
`
`2.
`
`Please timely amend your responses if you learn that your response is
`
`incomplete or if additional responsive information is found.
`
`3.
`
`You must produce documents and things either (a) as they are kept in
`
`the usual course of business, or (b) organized and labeled to correspond with the
`
`particular categories set forth below. Please copy and produce any files or
`
`containers in which the responsive documents are kept.
`
`4.
`
`Identify any responsive documents you are aware of but cannot
`
`produce because they have been lost or destroyed or are no longer in your
`
`possession.
`
`5.
`
`If you object to a portion or an aspect of any request, state the grounds
`
`of your objection with specificity and respond to the remainder of the request.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`
`6.
`
`If, in answering these requests, you encounter any ambiguities when
`
`
`
`
`construing a request, instruction, or definition, your response shall set forth the
`
`matter deemed ambiguous and the construction used in responding.
`
`7.
`
`For any document withheld based upon a claim of privilege, please
`
`provide a privilege log according to the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure Rule 26.
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`The terms “You”, “Your”, “Petitioners” and “Microsoft” shall be
`
`understood to include any predecessors, divisions, departments, subsidiaries,
`
`parents, affiliates, present or former officers, directors, employees, agents, counsel,
`
`representatives, and others authorized to act on the behalf of the party or parties.
`
`2.
`
`The term “Google” means Google Inc., and includes any
`
`predecessors, divisions, departments, subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, present or
`
`former officers, directors, employees, agents, counsel, representatives, and others
`
`authorized to act on Google’s behalf.
`
`3.
`
`The term “Acer” means Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation, and
`
`includes any predecessors, divisions, departments, subsidiaries, parents, affiliates,
`
`present or former officers, directors, employees, agents, counsel, representatives,
`
`and others authorized to act on Acer’s behalf.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`
`4.
`
`The term “ASUS” means ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS
`
`
`
`
`Computer International, and includes any predecessors, divisions, departments,
`
`subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, present or former officers, directors, employees,
`
`agents, counsel, representatives, and others authorized to act on ASUS’s behalf.
`
`5.
`
`The term “HTC” means HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc., and
`
`includes any predecessors, divisions, departments, subsidiaries, parents, affiliates,
`
`present or former officers, directors, employees, agents, counsel, representatives,
`
`and others authorized to act on HTC’s behalf.
`
`6.
`
`The term “asserted patents” refers to any of the following patents
`
`asserted in the district court litigation and challenged by parties named herein:
`
`- U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`
`- U.S. Patent No. RE43,564
`
`- U.S. Patent No. 6,690,387
`
`- U.S. Patent No. 7,184,064
`
`- U.S. Patent No. 6,772,114
`
`- U.S. Patent No. 7,529,806
`
`- U.S. Patent No. RE44,006
`
`- U.S. Patent No. 5,910,797
`
`- U.S. Patent No. 6,522,695
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`
`7.
`
`The term “district court litigation” includes any of the following
`
`
`
`
`district court actions:
`
`- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. HTC Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-01126-
`
`GMS (D. Del.)
`
`- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Acer Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01170-
`
`GMS (D. Del.)
`
`- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Asustek Computer Inc., Case No. 1:15-
`
`cv-01125-GMS (D. Del.)
`
`- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Visual Land, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
`
`01127-GMS (D. Del.)
`
`- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Southern Telecom, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
`
`cv-01128-GMS (D. Del.)
`
`- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Double Power Tech., Inc., Case No.
`
`1:15-cv-01130-GMS (D. Del.)
`
`- Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Yifang USA, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
`
`cv-01131-GMS (D. Del.)
`
`8.
`
`The term “document” has the broadest meaning prescribed in the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 26 and 34, including, but not limited to,
`
`electronically stored information (“ESI”) in Your possession, custody, or control.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`
`REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
`
`Request for Production No. 1
`
`Agreements in force between Microsoft and Acer and/or ASUS relating to
`
`indemnifications for and/or options to control defenses (including
`
`validity/unpatentability challenges) of patent infringement pertaining to devices
`
`containing Microsoft software products.
`
`Request for Production No. 2
`
`Between December 7, 2015 (the initial filing date of the Acer district court
`
`litigation) and July 12, 2017 (the filing date of the present IPR), documents and
`
`things related to any direct or indirect cost sharing between Microsoft and Google,
`
`Acer, ASUS and/or HTC related, directly or indirectly, to invalidity/unpatentability
`
`challenges against the asserted patents, which direct or indirect cost sharing shall
`
`be understood to include any division of responsibilities for challenging the
`
`asserted patents.
`
`Request for Production No. 3
`
`Between December 7, 2015 and July 12, 2017, documents and things related
`
`to communications with Google, Acer, ASUS and/or HTC concerning challenging
`
`the validity/unpatentability of the asserted patents in the USPTO.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Request for Production No. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01766
`U.S. Patent No. RE44,913
`
`A witness, for deposition, designated by Microsoft as most knowledgeable
`
`about any communications between Microsoft and Google, Acer, ASUS, and/or
`
`HTC, between December 7, 2015 and July 12, 2017, relating to challenging the
`
`validity/unpatentability of the asserted patents in the USPTO.
`
`
`
`
`
`FCHS_WS 13862087v1.doc
`
`- 6 -
`
`