`
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser (SBN 179495)
`doug.muehlhauser@knobbe.com
`Mark Lezama (SBN 253479)
`mark.lezama@knobbe.com
`Alexander J. Martinez (SBN 293925)
`alex.martinez@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: 949-760-0404
`Facsimile: 949-760-9502
`
`Vincent J. Belusko (CA SBN 100282)
`vbelusko@mofo.com
`Nicole M. Smith (CA SBN 189598)
`nsmith@mofo.com
`Nicholas R. Fung (CA SBN 312400)
`nfung@mofo.com
`Sorin G. Zaharia (CA SBN 312655)
`szaharia@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone: 213-892-5200
`Facsimile: 213-892-5454
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GUEST-TEK INTERACTIVE
`ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`Defendant.
`
` Case No.
`CV16-08033 AB (FFMx)
`NOMADIX’S FIRST
`SUPPLEMENTAL
`RESPONSES TO
`GUEST-TEK’S
`INTERROGATORIES 2 AND 3
`
`Honorable André Birotte Jr.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`GUEST TEK EXHIBIT 1023
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix, IPR2019-01191
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
`Nomadix hereby supplements its responses to Defendant Guest-Tek Interactive
`Entertainment’s interrogatories 2 and 3.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Nomadix bases its responses to these interrogatories on information
`currently available to Nomadix and located by Nomadix after a reasonable
`investigation. Discovery is ongoing, and Nomadix may supplement or otherwise
`amend its responses as more information becomes available. For example, Guest-
`Tek has not produced complete source code. In general, Guest-Tek’s responses to
`Nomadix’s outstanding discovery requests may change Nomadix’s responses to
`these interrogatories.
`Nomadix will respond to the unobjectionable portions of each interrogatory.
`In doing so, Nomadix may provide information also responsive to objectionable
`portions of an interrogatory; but Nomadix maintains its objections and does not
`agree to provide further information responsive to the objectionable portions. More
`generally, by responding to an interrogatory, Nomadix does not waive any of its
`objections, and in particular, Nomadix does not concede that Guest-Tek is entitled
`to further discovery on the matters to which the interrogatory pertains. Likewise,
`by responding to an interrogatory, Nomadix does not concede any factual or legal
`assertions set forth or assumed in the interrogatory. Moreover, Nomadix does not
`waive any evidentiary objections at trial.
`OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL INTERROGATORIES
`Nomadix objects to Guest-Tek’s discovery requests to the extent that
`1.
`they seek information protected by the attorney–client privilege, information
`protected as work product or trial-preparation material, or information protected by
`any other applicable privilege or immunity. The specific objections stated below
`invoking the attorney–client privilege, work-product or trial-preparation protection,
`
`- 1 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or any other applicable privilege or immunity do not limit the generality of this
`objection in any way.
`Nomadix objects to Guest-Tek’s requests to the extent that they
`2.
`incorporate Guest-Tek’s instructions concerning identification of privileged and
`otherwise-protected materials. Guest-Tek’s instructions would impose obligations
`beyond those that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the parties’ stipulated
`discovery order impose.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY 2:
`For each Network Device and Network Service identified in response to
`Interrogatory No. 1, identify each claim of each patent that you contend reads on
`the Network Device or Network Service’s structure, functionality, or operation,
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 2:
`Nomadix incorporates its Objections Applicable to All Interrogatories.
`Nomadix further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`protected from disclosure by the attorney–client privilege or work-product
`immunity, including the protections of Rules 26(b)(3) and (4). Guest-Tek’s
`production of technical documents is incomplete, and Guest-Tek has not yet
`responded to Nomadix’s interrogatories. Nomadix needs at least that discovery to
`respond to this interrogatory. In particular, Guest-Tek has not produced HEP,
`Mercury, or GTC source code; and Guest-Tek has yet to identify any quarters
`corresponding to the RendezView code it has produced. Depending on Guest-
`Tek’s response to Nomadix’s interrogatories 2 and 3, Nomadix may identify
`additional patent claims in response to this interrogatory. To the extent this
`interrogatory concerns any patent that is not a Licensed Patent or a Bandwidth
`Management Patent and that does not belong to a Patent Family (as those terms are
`defined in the License Agreement), it seeks information that is neither relevant to
`- 2 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the claims or defenses pleaded in this case nor proportional to the needs of the
`case. To the extent this interrogatory asks Nomadix to identify patent claims in
`connection with devices or services (1) whose status as a Licensed Network
`Device or Licensed Network Service is not disputed or (2) with respect to which
`royalties are not disputed based on claim scope, the interrogatory seeks
`information that does not change the outcome of the case and that is therefore
`neither relevant to the claims or defenses pleaded in this case nor proportional to
`the needs of the case. For example, as far as Nomadix is aware, Guest-Tek has not
`disputed that at least RendezView and GTC are each a Licensed Network Device
`or Licensed Network Service; accordingly Nomadix objects to identifying claims
`from the Licensed Patents for these devices and services that would not affect the
`royalty analysis. Similarly, when Guest-Tek has identified properties with HEPs in
`quarterly reports (Schedule B), it has not disputed that it owes full royalties under
`clause 2.4 of the License Agreement; accordingly Nomadix objects to identifying
`claims from the Licensed Patents for these devices and services that would not
`affect the royalty analysis. Nomadix needs Guest-Tek to complete its document
`production and to respond to Nomadix’s interrogatories so that it can assess the
`extent to which there is any royalty dispute based on claim scope for RendezView,
`HEP, and GTC. The foregoing objections and Nomadix’s Preliminary Statement
`qualify the following:
`At least the following claims read on OneView Internet:
`
`Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`U.S. Patent No. 8,725,899
`U.S. Patent No. 8,606,917
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,399
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,857
`
`Claims
`1, 24
`1, 10
`1, 11
`1, 6, 13, 18
`1, 9
`
`- 3 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,626,922
`
`
`Claims
`1, 9
`
`As indicated in Nomadix’s Preliminary Statement, Nomadix may amend or
`supplement its response after receiving or reviewing discovery from Guest-Tek
`and as Nomadix continues to investigate the issues and facts of this case.
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 2:
`Nomadix incorporates its previous response to this interrogatory in its
`entirety. Nomadix’s objections and Preliminary Statement qualify the following
`supplementation:
`In addition to the claims identified in Nomadix’s previous response, at least
`the following claims also read on OneView Internet:
`
`Claims
`4, 6, 12
`4, 6, 12
`
`Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,857
`U.S. Patent No. 8,626,922
`
`As indicated in Nomadix’s Preliminary Statement, Nomadix may amend or
`supplement its response after receiving or reviewing discovery from Guest-Tek
`and as Nomadix continues to investigate the issues and facts of this case.
`INTERROGATORY 3:
`For each patent claim identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, identify
`specifically where and how each limitation of each patent claim is found within
`each purported Licensed Network Device and Licensed Network Service, and
`specify whether each limitation of each patent claim is alleged to be literally
`present or present under the doctrine of equivalents.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 3:
`Nomadix incorporates its Objections Applicable to All Interrogatories.
`Nomadix further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`- 4 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`protected from disclosure by the attorney–client privilege or work-product
`immunity, including the protections of Rules 26(b)(3) and (4). Nomadix
`incorporates its objections to interrogatory 2. In particular, Nomadix emphasizes
`that Guest-Tek’s production of technical documents is incomplete, and Guest-Tek
`has not yet responded to Nomadix’s interrogatories. Nomadix needs at least that
`discovery to respond to this interrogatory. In particular, Guest-Tek has not
`produced HEP, Mercury, or GTC source code; and Guest-Tek has yet to identify
`any quarters corresponding to the RendezView code it has produced. Depending
`on Guest-Tek’s response to Nomadix’s interrogatories 2 and 3, Nomadix may
`identify additional patent claims in response to interrogatory 2 and may
`supplement its response to this interrogatory. Nomadix further emphasizes that, to
`the extent this interrogatory asks Nomadix to map claim language to devices and
`services (1) whose status as a Licensed Network Device or Licensed Network
`Service is not disputed or (2) with respect to which royalties are not disputed based
`on claim scope, the interrogatory seeks information that does not change the
`outcome of the case and that is therefore neither relevant to the claims or defenses
`pleaded in this case nor proportional to the needs of the case. See Nomadix’s
`objections to interrogatory 2 for further discussion. The foregoing objections and
`Nomadix’s Preliminary Statement qualify the following:
`Exhibit 1 (including Exhibits 1A–1C) includes sample claim charts for the
`claims currently identified in response to interrogatory 2. Nomadix hereby
`incorporates all future versions of Exhibit 1, including amendments and
`supplementation thereto. Nomadix contends all limitations are satisfied literally;
`and to the extent Guest-Tek disputes literal satisfaction of any claim limitation,
`Nomadix contends the limitation is satisfied under the doctrine of equivalents. As
`indicated
`in Nomadix’s Preliminary Statement, Nomadix may amend or
`supplement its response after receiving or reviewing discovery from Guest-Tek
`and as Nomadix continues to investigate the issues and facts of this case.
`- 5 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 3:
`Nomadix incorporates its previous response to this interrogatory in its
`entirety. Nomadix’s objections and Preliminary Statement qualify the following
`supplementation:
`As supplementation to Exhibit 1, Supplemental Exhibit 1 includes sample
`claim charts for the additional claims identified in the first supplemental response
`to interrogatory 2.
`As indicated in Nomadix’s Preliminary Statement, Nomadix may amend or
`supplement its response after receiving or reviewing discovery from Guest-Tek
`and as Nomadix continues to investigate the issues and facts of this case.
`
`
`Dated: May 31, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`Mark Lezama
`Alexander J. Martinez
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on May 31, 2019, I served a copy of the foregoing
`NOMADIX’S FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO GUEST-TEK’S
`INTERROGATORIES 2 AND 3 electronically by e-mail to Defendant’s attorneys
`of record at the following addresses:
`Steven J. Rocci
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`srocci@bakerlaw.com
`Daniel J. Goettle
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`dgoettle@bakerlaw.com
`Michael R. Matthias
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`mmatthias@bakerlaw.com
`Michael J. Swope
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`mswope@bakerlaw.com
`Kevin M. Bovard
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`kbovard@bakerlaw.com
`Joelle A. Berle
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`jberle@bakerlaw.com
`guest-tekca@bakerlaw.com
`
`The papers served were either (1) attached directly to the service e-mail or
`(2) were made available for download through a file-sharing service, in which case
`the service e-mail provided notice of their availability for download.
`
`
`Mark Lezama
`
`
`
`Dated: May 31, 2019
`
`
`
`30638863
`
`- 7 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Supplemental Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`’857 patent
`Patent No. 7,953,857
`’857 patent, claim 4 OneView Internet
`
`4. The system of claim
`1, wherein the system
`comprises a gateway
`device.
`
`The OVI system is a gateway.
`
`’857 patent, claim 6 OneView Internet
`
`6. The system of claim
`1, wherein the packet
`is received from the
`first network
`interface.
`
`The discussion of claim 1 addresses packets from the user device that the OVI system receives
`from the LAN-side/internal network interface.
`
`’857 patent, claim 12 OneView Internet
`
`The OVI system is a gateway.
`
`12. The method of
`claim 9, wherein the
`method of dynamically
`managing
`transmission of
`packets is performed
`by a gateway device.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Supplemental Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`’922 patent
`Patent No. 8,626,922
`’922 patent, claim 4 OneView Internet
`
`4. The system of claim
`1, wherein the system
`comprises a gateway
`device.
`
`The OVI system is a gateway.
`
`’922 patent, claim 6 OneView Internet
`
`6. The system of claim
`1, wherein the packet
`is received from the
`first network
`interface.
`
`The discussion of claim 1 addresses packets from the user device that the OVI system receives
`from the LAN-side/internal network interface.
`
`’922 patent, claim 12 OneView Internet
`
`The OVI system is a gateway.
`
`
`
`The method of claim
`9, wherein the method
`of dynamically
`managing
`transmission of
`packets is performed
`by a gateway device.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`