`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ALACRITECH, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TIER 3, INC., ET AL.,
`
`WISTRON CORPORATION, ET AL.,
`
`DELL, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`and
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor.
`
`
`
`
`2:16-cv-693-JRG (LEAD CASE)
`
`2:16-cv-691-JRG
`
`2:16-cv-695-JRG
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`ALACRITECH’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF
`COMMON INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, Plaintiff, Alacritech, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or
`
`“Alacritech”), hereby objects and responds to Defendants’ Tier 3, Inc. et al., Wistron
`
`Corporation et al., Dell, Inc., and intervenor Intel Corporation (collectively “Defendants”) First
`
`Set of Common Interrogatories to Alacritech as follows:
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT
`
`
`
`The following responses are based on discovery available as of the date hereof.
`
`Discovery is ongoing and these responses are subject to amendment accordingly. It is
`
`anticipated that further discovery, independent litigation, and analysis may lead to the discovery
`
`of additional information or documents, supply additional facts and add meaning to known facts,
`
`
`
`1
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.001
`
`

`

`
`
`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 responses set forth herein.
`
`In addition, the following responses are given without prejudice to Alacritech’s right to
`
`produce or rely on subsequently discovered information, facts, or documents. Alacritech
`
`accordingly reserves the right to amend the responses herein and/or produce or rely on
`
`subsequently discovered documents as additional facts are ascertained, analysis is made, legal
`
`research is completed, and contentions are made. The responses herein are made in a good faith
`
`effort to comply with the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, and
`
`governing order and to supply such responsive information as exists and is presently within
`
`Alacritech’s possession, custody, or control, but are in no way to be deemed to be to the
`
`prejudice of Alacritech in relation to further discovery, research, and analysis.
`
`An answer to an Interrogatory shall not be deemed a waiver of any applicable general or
`
`specific objection to an Interrogatory. In responding to the Interrogatories, Alacritech does not
`
`waive any objections that may be applicable to the use, for any purpose, of any information or
`
`documents provided in response, or the admissibility, relevance, or materiality of any such
`
`information or documents to any issue in this case.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`
`
`The following general objections apply to each and every interrogatory propounded by
`
`Defendants and are incorporated into each of the following specific responses by reference as if
`
`set forth in full therein:
`
`1.
`
`Alacritech objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous,
`
`overbroad, unduly burdensome, incomprehensible, compound, fails to identify the documents
`
`
`
`2
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.002
`
`

`

`
`
`sought with reasonable particularity, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor
`
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`2.
`
`Alacritech further objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is not
`
`reasonably limited in time or scope, including without limitation, to the extent that the requests
`
`are directed to activities or events that took place before the formation of Alacritech. Alacritech
`
`will respond to each interrogatory, to the extent possible, based on the information it has
`
`discerned from a reasonably diligent investigation of information sources within its possession,
`
`custody or control, but notes that many of the events at issue took place nearly a decade ago and,
`
`therefore, certain information sources may be inaccessible or at least may take some additional
`
`time to gain access to now.
`
`3.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the
`
`common interest privilege, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and (4), or otherwise
`
`protected from disclosure.
`
`4.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the interrogatories as premature to the extent they
`
`seek to elicit Alacritech’s claim construction position or other legal contentions before the time
`
`provided in the Court’s Scheduling Order.
`
`5.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the interrogatories as premature to the extent they
`
`seek details about Alacritech’s claims and contentions before defendant(s) have provided
`
`necessary discovery, disclosures, or contentions on the issues (e.g., affirmative defenses) on
`
`which they bear the burden of proof. Alacritech objects that such interrogatories are intrinsically
`
`vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and improperly attempt to shift the burden of production
`
`and proof to Alacritech.
`
`
`
`3
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.003
`
`

`

`
`
`6.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the interrogatories to the extent they seek information
`
`that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or which is not proportional to the
`
`needs of the case.
`
`7.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the interrogatories to the extent the information
`
`requested therein is not within the possession, custody, or control of Alacritech or which is not
`
`ascertainable based on a reasonably diligent investigation. Alacritech notes that certain
`
`documents may only be available from back-up servers and other sources that are not currently
`
`being used in the ordinary course of Alacritech’s business and, as such, interrogatories seeking
`
`identification of particular electronic evidence from such sources may be unduly burdensome,
`
`overly broad, not reasonably ascertainable and/or equally available to Defendants.
`
`8.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the interrogatories to the extent that Defendants have
`
`exceeded the limit of seventeen (17) common interrogatories established by the September 20,
`
`2016 Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 45-1) on the grounds that the interrogatories are compound and
`
`contain discrete subparts which must be counted as separate interrogatories. Alacritech reserves
`
`the right to object to and refuse to answer interrogatories that, when properly counted based on
`
`the number of discrete subparts included, exceed the number of interrogatories allowed to each
`
`side.
`
`9.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the Instructions and Definitions set forth in
`
`Defendants’ interrogatories to the extent that those Instructions and Definitions purport to
`
`impose obligations on Alacritech that exceed the obligations imposed upon a responding party
`
`under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, or any Order entered in the parties’
`
`litigation including but not limited to the Docket Control Order, Discovery Order, eDiscovery
`
`Order, and/or Protective Order.
`
`
`
`4
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.004
`
`

`

`
`
`10.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the Instructions and Definitions set forth in
`
`Defendants’ interrogatories to the extent that those Instructions and Definitions purport to define
`
`terms in a manner other than their plain and ordinary meaning, to the extent such meaning is
`
`reasonably ascertainable. Alacritech will apply a reasonable interpretation, where applicable, to
`
`all terms and phrases within the interrogatories that is based on their plain language.
`
`11.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “You,” “Your,” “Plaintiff,” and
`
`“Alacritech” as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous. The definition purports
`
`to encompass individuals and entities that are not within Alacritech’s control and, consequently,
`
`the definition improperly calls for Alacritech to provide information that is not in its possession,
`
`custody, or control and/or which is not ascertainable based on a reasonable investigation.
`
`Alacritech therefore defines “Alacritech” to include only plaintiff Alacritech and its current
`
`officers, directors, employees, and attorneys unless otherwise expressly noted.
`
`12.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Document” and “Documents” to the extent
`
`it is overbroad and exceeds the reasonable scope of discovery. Alacritech shall apply the
`
`ordinary meaning of the term “documents” that is appropriate in the context of the
`
`request/interrogatory at issue and consistent with the Rule of Civil Procedure. Additionally, to
`
`the extent that the request seeks electronic evidence, including email communications, that are
`
`voluminous in nature, Alacritech reserves the right to object that identification, collection, and
`
`production of all such evidence is unduly burdensome, disproportionate to the needs of the case,
`
`and inconsistent with the Orders and rules governing this litigation, including the Discovery
`
`Order and, therefore, that any requests seeking identification of such information are
`
`inappropriate until mutually-agreeable limitations, such a reasonable search terms and
`
`custodians, have been identified.
`
`
`
`5
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.005
`
`

`

`
`
`13.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Affiliate” as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, vague, and ambiguous. The definition purports to encompass individuals and
`
`entities that are not within Alacritech’s control and, consequently, the definition improperly calls
`
`for Alacritech to provide information that is not in its possession, custody, or control and/or
`
`which is not ascertainable based on a reasonable investigation.
`
`14.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Individual” as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, vague, and ambiguous. The definition purports to encompass individuals and
`
`entities that are not within Alacritech’s control and, consequently, the definition improperly calls
`
`for Alacritech to provide information that is not in its possession, custody, or control and/or
`
`which is not ascertainable based on a reasonable investigation..
`
`15.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Representative” as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, vague, and ambiguous. The definition purports to encompass individuals and
`
`entities that are not within Alacritech’s control and, consequently, the definition improperly calls
`
`for Alacritech to provide information that is not in its possession, custody, or control and/or
`
`which is not ascertainable based on a reasonable investigation. Alacritech further objects to this
`
`definition insofar as it encompasses attorneys and/or seeks to obtain privileged information.
`
`16.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Employee” as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, vague, and ambiguous, and inconsistent with its ordinary meaning. Alacritech
`
`therefore defines “Employee” to include only directors, trustees, officers, employees, agents, or
`
`servants of the designated person.
`
`17.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Person” as overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`vague, and ambiguous. The definition purports to encompass individuals and entities that are not
`
`within Alacritech’s control and, consequently, the definition improperly calls for Alacritech to
`
`
`
`6
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.006
`
`

`

`
`
`provide information that is not in its possession, custody, or control and/or which is not
`
`ascertainable based on a reasonable investigation.
`
`18.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Referring to,” “Relating to,” “Referring or
`
`Relating to” and “Related to” to the extent that that use of this term as defined makes the
`
`requests vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Alacritech further objects to
`
`this definition insofar as it would expand the scope of discovery to encompass irrelevant
`
`information
`
`19.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Prior Art” as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, vague, and ambiguous. Alacritech further objects to this definition as premature to
`
`the extent that it seeks expert opinions and improper to the extent it imposes on Alacritech the
`
`burden of providing legal analysis or opinions in order to interpret any interrogatory that
`
`incorporates this defined term.
`
`20.
`
`Alacritech objects to the definition of “Correspondence” to the extent it is vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and purports to apply an interpretation of the term that is inconsistent
`
`with its well-understood meaning. In addition, to the extent that any request requires Alacritech
`
`to search for or produce voluminous electronic evidence, including email communications,
`
`Alacritech reserves the right to provide a response if and when reasonable limitations, such a
`
`search terms and custodians, have been agreed upon.
`
`21.
`
`Alacritech objects to the Instructions set forth in Defendants’ interrogatories to
`
`the extent they call for information protected by attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
`
`and/or other statutory or common law privilege. Alacritech further objects to the instructions as
`
`unduly burdensome to the extent they request that Alacritech conduct anything other than a
`
`reasonable and diligent inquiry. Alacritech also objects to the Instructions to the extent they
`
`
`
`7
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.007
`
`

`

`
`
`render the proposed interrogatories vague, ambiguous, overly broad, improperly compound,
`
`and/or unduly burdensome. By way of example but not limitation, Alacritech objects to
`
`Instruction ¶¶ 2, 5, 6, 9 on this basis and states that it shall provide reasonable responses to the
`
`interrogatories to the extent practical based on a reasonably diligent investigation commensurate
`
`with its discovery obligations as established by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local
`
`Rules, and orders governing this case and that it shall provide a privilege log commensurate with
`
`the scope and timeline set forth in the Court’s Orders.
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`
`
`For Each claim of the Patents-in-Suit (whether asserted or not), describe in detail the
`
`facts Relating to the conception and reduction to practice of the claimed subject matter, including
`
`without limitation: (a) identifying the date(s) and locations of conception and reduction to
`
`practice; (b) describing any diligence that was exercised in reducing such subject matter to
`
`practice along with any supporting evidence, (c) identifying and describing the role of Each
`
`Person who worked on the development of such subject matter; and (d) identifying with
`
`particularity by production label any corroborating evidence of such conception, reduction to
`
`practice, and/or diligence.
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`
`
`Alacritech incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Alacritech further
`
`objects that:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Alacritech objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information that is
`protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
`doctrine, and/or other statutory or common law privilege.
`
`Alacritech objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information protected
`from disclosure by Alacritech’s contractual, legal or other obligations to maintain
`the confidentiality of third party trade secrets and other confidential information.
`
`
`
`8
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.008
`
`

`

`
`
`Alacritech will provide such information pursuant to the terms of the Protective
`Order and any agreements between the parties’ relating thereto once Alacritech
`has had a reasonable opportunity to seek consent from the party whose
`confidential information is sought.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the extent this interrogatory improperly seeks expert
`opinion or legal conclusions.
`
`Alacritech objects that this interrogatory is unduly burdensome to the extent it
`seeks a summary, index, or accounting of evidence, including documents
`produced in this litigation, which is not maintained by Alacritech during the
`ordinary course of business.
`
`Alacritech further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`that is not relevant to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation and/or which
`is not proportional to the needs of the case. By way of example but not limitation,
`to the extent that this interrogatory seeks information about unasserted claims or
`patents, Alacritech objects to the scope of such a request as seeking irrelevant
`information, disproportional to the needs of the case, and unduly burdensome.
`
`Alacritech also objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is not
`reasonably available to Alacritech or is not maintained by Alacritech during the
`ordinary course of business.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the interrogatories as premature to the extent they
`prematurely seek to elicit Alacritech’s claim construction positions before the
`time provided in the Docket Control Order.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving the forgoing general and specific objections, Alacritech
`
`responds as follows: Alacritech incorporates by reference its Patent Initial Disclosures served on
`
`September 9, 2016, including in particular I(e)-(f) and II(b)-(c). Alacritech incorporates by
`
`reference the detailed factual allegations set forth in its Complaint including in ¶¶ 9-12, 19-26.
`
`Alacritech was founded in Silicon Valley in early 1997 by technology pioneer Larry
`
`Boucher, the creator and author of the original SCSI specification, and the other named inventors
`
`of the Asserted Patents, including Peter Craft, Clive Philbrick, Stephen Blightman, David
`
`Higgen, and Daryl Starr (collectively, “the Alacritech Inventors”). The Alacritech Inventors
`
`collaborated to develop network acceleration technologies, including but not limited to
`
`techniques for streamlining, bypassing and offloading aspects of conventional network protocol
`
`
`
`9
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.009
`
`

`

`
`
`processing from host CPUs to “intelligent” network interface devices (“NIDs”), as described in
`
`the Asserted Patents and their claims. Collectively, the Alacritech Inventors conceived of each
`
`of the claimed inventions reflected in the Patents-in-Suit, with each inventor contributing
`
`materially to the inventions reflected in at least one claim of each patent on which he is identified
`
`as a named inventor.
`
`With respect to the ’205 (except claims 3, 9, 10, 16, 22, 24-33, 35, and 36, which are
`
`discussed below), ’036, ’241, ’072, ’699, ’880, and ’948 patents, each of the Alacritech Inventors
`
`contributed at least one significant and important element to the claimed invention(s). As set
`
`forth below, the Alacritech Inventors are all founding members of Alacritech, who worked
`
`closely together to conceive of, develop, and reduce to practice the technology reflected in the
`
`Patents-In-Suit.
`
`Beginning in January 1997, various groups of the Alacritech Inventors met at Mr.
`
`Boucher’s house and at nearby restaurants to discuss their various inventions relating to network
`
`computer systems with intelligent NIDs that reduce host CPU processing by offloading certain
`
`protocol processing from the host CPU to the NID. On March 3, 1997, Alacritech opened its
`
`office in San Jose, where the Alacritech Inventors continued to develop and refine their
`
`inventions. No later than March 10, 1997, Mr. Craft prepared a draft proposal describing the
`
`operation of their inventions, including but not limited to a TCP/IP NIC, including “pseudo-c-ish
`
`code” documenting the inventions the team had come up with and describing the way their
`
`inventions would be made and work. See e.g., ALA00019278 – ALA00019286, ALA00019294
`
`– ALA00019300. This document, among many others, corroborates the Alacritech Inventors’
`
`conception of the inventions reflected in the claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`
`
`10
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.010
`
`

`

`
`
`The Alacritech Inventors shared offices and worked approximately 50 to 60 hours per
`
`week each, collaborating to reduce the inventions to practice. Mr. Boucher contributed to the
`
`conception of all facets of the claimed inventions including both the hardware and software
`
`aspects of the inventions. He also wrote portions of the microcode used in Alacritech’s products.
`
`Mr. Starr’s and Mr. Blightman’s work focused primarily on the hardware architecture though
`
`they were involved in discussions with their co-inventors of all inventive aspects of the
`
`technology. Mr. Starr and Mr. Blightman developed the programming (including the
`
`HDL/VHDL code) for Alacritech’s NID, PCI interface, and host drivers for the interface with the
`
`host stack. Mr. Craft and Mr. Higgen focused primarily on designing and writing the code for
`
`the host CPU to interact with the NID. They were also involved in collaborative discussions
`
`regarding the overall development of Alacritech’s technology and the claimed inventions.
`
`Beginning in May 1997, Alacritech engaged patent attorney Mark Lauer of Silicon Edge
`
`Law Group to prepare patent applications. He worked essentially continuously with the
`
`Alacritech Inventors from May 1997 to the present to prepare and prosecute Alacritech’s patent
`
`portfolio. The asserted claimed inventions reflected in the Patents-in-Suit were constructively
`
`reduced to practice no later than October 17, 1997, when Alacritech filed Provisional Patent
`
`Application Nos. 60/061,809 with the United States Patent Office. Thereafter, Alacritech
`
`prepared and filed Provisional Patent Application No. 60/098,296 on August 27, 1998, which
`
`reflected additional work done on Alacritech inventions and technology.
`
`Additional information regarding the conception and reduction to practice of the
`
`aforementioned Alacritech patents, including the asserted claims, may be found in: Alacritech’s
`
`P.R. 3-2(b) disclosures as well as documents falling within the following ranges: ALA00014356
`
`
`
`11
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.011
`
`

`

`
`
`– ALA00017242, ALA00017761 – ALA00018458, ALA00019278 – ALA00019941,
`
`ALA07362206–ALA07368665.
`
`With respect to claims 3, 9, 10, 16, 22, 24-33, 35, and 36 of the ’205 patent, Mr. Boucher,
`
`Mr. Philbrick, and Mr. Craft participated in and jointly contributed to the conception and
`
`reduction to practice of the claimed inventions at least as early as June 2001. See e.g.,
`
`ALA00019999 – ALA00020016, ALA00020024 – ALA00020033. One of the features jointly
`
`conceived by Mr. Boucher, Mr. Philbrick, and Mr. Craft was to make their inventions compatible
`
`with the iSCSI protocol by using iSCSI as a session layer on top of TCP to handle SCSI and
`
`iSCSI commands. Mr. Boucher’s technical expertise and experience with SCSI and iSCSI,
`
`complemented the integration of SCSI and iSCSI into the subject matter of Alacritech’s
`
`inventions. Mr. Philbrick and Mr. Craft contributed to the SCSI and iSCSI integration concept
`
`from the perspective of how the NID and associated firmware would interact with the host and
`
`associated software to enable using iSCSI as a session layer on top of TCP to handle SCSI and
`
`iSCSI commands. This aspect of the invention was constructively reduced to practice no later
`
`than September 29, 2000, when U.S. Patent Application No. 09/675,484 was filed. The Patent
`
`Office determined the claimed inventions reflected in claims 3, 9, 10, 16, 22, 24-33, 35, and 36
`
`of the ‘205 patent were disclosed at least as of this date and therefore constructively reduced to
`
`practice at least as of this date. Additional information regarding the conception and reduction to
`
`practice of the aforementioned asserted claims may be found in: ALA00013983 –
`
`ALA00014355, ALA00017761 – ALA00018458, and ALA00019278 – ALA00021302,
`
`ALA06777826 – ALA06777869, and ALA06777870 – ALA06778503.
`
`With respect to Asserted Claims 1, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 22 of the ’104 patent, Clive Philbrick
`
`and Peter Craft participated in and jointly contributed to the conception and reduction to practice
`
`
`
`12
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.012
`
`

`

`
`
`of the claimed inventions. One of the features jointly conceived by Mr. Philbrick and Mr. Craft
`
`no later that June 21, 2001, was related to the ACK aspects of the claimed inventions. See e.g.,
`
`ALA00022706 – ALA00022707. This aspect of the invention was reduced to practice no later
`
`than July 9, 2001, by Mr. Philbrick writing the firmware code and Mr. Craft writing the code for
`
`the software on the host, testing and debugging the code, and incorporating it into SiMBa release
`
`5.0. See e.g., ALA00023646 – ALA00023647, ALA00023652 – ALA00023653, ALA00025024
`
`– ALA00025025, ALA00025309, ALA00028759 – ALA00029385.
`
`Additional information regarding the conception and reduction to practice of the ’104
`
`patent, including the asserted claims, may be found in: Alacritech’s P.R. 3-2(b) disclosures,
`
`ALA00017243 – ALA00018018, ALA00018459 – ALA00019277 – ALA00074208, and
`
`ALA07368666 –ALA07369204.
`
`The Alacritech Inventors and their counsel responsible for prosecuting the Alacritech
`
`patent applications may have personal knowledge responsive to this Interrogatory.
`
`Alacritech’s investigation is ongoing and Alacritech reserves the right to supplement or
`
`amend its response to this interrogatory to reflect information or evidence ascertained during the
`
`course of formal discovery or otherwise.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`
`
`
`For each product made, used, sold, or imported by Alacritech, its licensees, or Any prior
`
`owner of the Patents-in-Suit, identify each limitation of each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`that was practiced by that product by specifying (a) the product and (b) the patent-claim-
`
`limitation together with the basis for your answer, and identify all evidence on which you rely
`
`for your answer with respect to that product, including without limitation an identification of
`
`Each Person having knowledge of such information.
`
`
`
`13
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.013
`
`

`

`
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`
`
`
`Alacritech incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Alacritech further
`
`objects that:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`Alacritech objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information that is
`protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
`doctrine, and/or other statutory or common law privilege.
`
`Alacritech objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information protected
`from disclosure by Alacritech’s contractual, legal or other obligations to maintain
`the confidentiality of third party trade secrets and other confidential information.
`Alacritech will provide such information pursuant to the terms of the Protective
`Order and any agreements between the parties’ relating thereto once Alacritech
`has had a reasonable opportunity to seek consent from the party whose
`confidential information is sought.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the extent this interrogatory improperly seeks expert
`opinion or legal conclusions. By way of example but not limitation, Alacritech
`objects to the extent this interrogatory intends to require Alacritech to undertake a
`legal and expert analysis of its patent claims to identify products that may practice
`elements of such claims at least to the extent such analysis was not done during
`the ordinary course of business.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks evidence outside
`of Alacritech’s possession, custody, or control; or which is not practically
`ascertainable based on a reasonable, good faith investigation.
`
`Alacritech objects that this interrogatory is unduly burdensome to the extent it
`seeks a summary, index, or accounting of evidence, including documents
`produced in this litigation, which is not maintained by Alacritech during the
`ordinary course of business.
`
`Alacritech further objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is not
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`Alacritech also objects that this interrogatory seeks information that is not
`reasonably available to Alacritech or is not maintained by Alacritech during the
`ordinary course of business.
`
`Alacritech objects that this interrogatory seeks information uniquely within the
`possession of defendant(s) or which is equally available to both parties, such as
`public information.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the interrogatories as premature to the extent they
`prematurely seek to elicit Alacritech’s claim construction positions before the
`time provided in the Court’s Docket Control Order.
`
`
`
`14
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.014
`
`

`

`
`
`j.
`
`Alacritech objects that this interrogatory seeks information outside of Alacritech’s
`possession, custody, or control and which is not reasonably ascertainable by
`Alacritech and/or is equally available to Defendants and Alacritech including but
`not limited to information regarding products designed, developed, sold, and
`distributed by third parties.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the forgoing general and specific objections, Alacritech
`
`responds as follows: Alacritech is still investigating this matter, however, at this time Alacritech
`
`is not relying on the assertion that its own apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or
`
`other instrumentality of its own practices the claimed inventions. Alacritech reserves the right to
`
`supplement and/or amend this disclosure to identify any apparatus, product, device, process,
`
`method, act, or other instrumentality that practices the Asserted Claims of which Alacritech was
`
`not aware at the time of these disclosures. Without making any representation about whether
`
`Alacritech’s or its licensees’ tangible products practiced the asserted claims of the patents in suit,
`
`Alacritech identifies the following documents that include information that may be responsive to
`
`this interrogatory (e.g., information relating to marking by Alacritech and its licensees):
`
`ALA00144662 – ALA00144722; ALA00144911; ALA00145426; ALA00145475;
`
`ALA06641997; ALA07359885 – ALA07361079; ALA07361199 – ALA07362110;
`
`ALA07362204 – ALA07362205; ALA00179892 – ALA00179908; ALA00180096;
`
`ALA07362185 – ALA07362193; ALA07362117 – ALA07362164; ALA02139985 –
`
`ALA02140167 , ALA06777824 – ALA06777825, ALA07370979 –ALA07371007 .
`
`Alacritech’s investigation is ongoing and Alacritech reserves the right to supplement or
`
`amend its response to this interrogatory to reflect information or evidence ascertained during the
`
`course of formal discovery or otherwise.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`
`
`Identify and describe any offer or request to obtain Any rights under Any Patent-in-Suit
`
`(including without limitations, licenses, covenants-not-to-sue, or settlement), including
`
`
`
`15
`
`INTEL Ex.1065.015
`
`

`

`
`
`identifying: (a) the Persons who offered or requested the rights, (b) the dates of any
`
`Communications with said Persons, (c) the outcome of any such Communications, including the
`
`proposed terms and executed agreements for any license, covenant-not-to sue, or settlement and
`
`(d) All Documents related to any such offer or request.
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`
`
`Alacritech incorporates each of its general objections by reference. Alacritech further
`
`objects that:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Alacritech objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information that is
`protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
`doctrine, and/or other statutory or common law privilege.
`
`Alacritech objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks information protected
`from disclosure by Alacritech’s contractual, legal or other obligations to maintain
`the confidentiality of third party trade secrets and other confidential information.
`Alacritech will provide such information pursuant to the terms of the Protective
`Order and any agreements between the parties’ relating thereto once Alacritech
`has had a reasonable opportunity to seek consent from the party whose
`confidential information is sought.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the extent this interrogatory improperly seeks expert
`opinion or legal conclusions.
`
`Alacritech further objects to the extent this interrogatory seeks evidence outside
`of Alacritech’s possession, custody, or control; or which is not practically
`ascertainable based on a reasonable, good faith investigation.
`
`Alacritech objects that this interrogatory is unduly burdensome to the extent it
`seeks a summary, index, or accounting of evidence, including documents
`produced in this litigation, which is not maintained by Alacritech during the
`ordinary course of business. Alacritech also objects that this interrogatory is
`unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to require Alacritech to describe or
`opine on the terms of its license agreements, which are