IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`FINTIV, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No.: 1:19-01238-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF FINTIV, INC.’S FIRST AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
`AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO FINTIV, INC. (NOS. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12,
`14 & 16)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Fintiv, Inc.
`
`(“Fintiv” or “Plaintiff”) hereby provides its First Amended and Supplemental Responses to
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple” or “Defendant”) First Set of Interrogatories to Fintiv (Nos. 1, 3,
`
`4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 & 16):
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`All General Objections are hereby incorporated into each specific response. Any
`
`objection or lack of objection to any portion of an interrogatory is not to be deemed an admission.
`
`2.
`
`Fintiv objects to each and every definition, instruction, and/or interrogatory to the
`
`extent that it purports to impose duties or obligations upon Fintiv in excess of or different from the
`
`rules and obligations imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the
`
`Western District of Texas, and any other rules or applicable law.
`
`3.
`
`Fintiv objects to each and every definition, instruction, and/or interrogatory as
`
`Apple Ex. 1034, p. 1
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Fintiv is not currently aware of any license agreements, settlement agreements, covenants
`
`not to sue, releases or dismissals related to the ’125 Patent. Other than this litigation, there are no
`
`complaints related to the ’125 Patent.
`
`Fintiv refers Apple to Fintiv’s Initial Disclosures, served November 14, 2019, which lists,
`
`for example, Mike Love and Charlie Wigg as persons with knowledge regarding Fintiv’s business
`
`activities, commercialization, and licensing activities as they relate to the ’125 Patent.
`
`Discovery and Fintiv’s investigation in this case are ongoing, and Fintiv expressly reserves
`
`the right to amend and/or supplement this response, if necessary, as further information is
`
`discovered in this matter.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Fintiv incorporates by reference its objections and responses to Interrogatory No. 6
`
`(above). Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Fintiv responds as follows:
`
`Based on Fintiv’s investigation to date and Fintiv’s interpretation of the information
`
`requested by this interrogatory, Fintiv is not aware of efforts to monetize the ’125 Patent.
`
`Discovery and Fintiv’s investigation in this case are ongoing, and Fintiv expressly reserves
`
`the right to amend and/or supplement this response, if necessary, as further information is
`
`discovered in this matter.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Describe in detail any Fintiv Communications with Apple, including when and how You
`first provided actual notice of the Asserted Patent and any alleged infringement of the Asserted
`Patent to Apple, including but not limited to all facts and circumstances relating to the statements
`reported
`by
`Forbes
`on
`March
`25,
`2019
`(available
`at
`https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2019/03/25/once-hot-startup-at-center-of-investment-
`fraud-allegations-moves-to-enforce-it-patents/#2b69c748796c) concerning the lawsuit against
`Apple in which Adolfo Salume, Fintiv’s chairman, stated that Fintiv “[had] a private
`negotiation...with Apple” before suing Apple, and identify all Documents and Things (by Bates
`number) that You allege provided any notice and identify all Documents and Things (by Bates
`number) and all Persons with knowledge concerning the foregoing.
`
`20
`
`Apple Ex. 1034, p. 2
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Fintiv incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Fintiv
`
`objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case because it is unrelated and not relevant to the claims and defenses of this
`
`action. Fintiv objects to this interrogatory vague, ambiguous, calling for speculation, and subject
`
`to multiple interpretations in its use of the terms “actual notice.” Fintiv further objects to this
`
`interrogatory as vague, overbroad, oppressive, unreasonably burdensome, and disproportionate to
`
`the needs of this case as it purports to require Fintiv to identify “all Persons with knowledge,”
`
`describe “all facts and circumstances,” and “[d]escribe in detail any Fintiv Communications.”
`
`Fintiv objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not proportional
`
`to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks “all Documents and Things.” Fintiv objects to this
`
`interrogatory as compound to the extent it contains discrete subparts that each count separately
`
`toward the total number of interrogatories allowed by the Court’s Agreed Order Governing
`
`Proceedings (Dkt. 39). Fintiv objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks discovery of
`
`information or material that is outside the possession, custody, or control of Fintiv. Fintiv objects
`
`to this interrogatory as it is not limited in time and/or scope to information relevant to the present
`
`litigation. Fintiv objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it purports to require information
`
`or material that is already in Apple’s possession, known or disclosed to Apple, or which is equally
`
`available to Apple independently of Fintiv. Fintiv objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product immunity,
`
`settlement privilege and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity from discovery. Fintiv
`
`hereby applies all such privileges and/or immunities.
`
`Subject to, and without waiving the foregoing objections, Fintiv responds as follows:
`
`21
`
`Apple Ex. 1034, p. 3
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Discovery and Fintiv’s investigation in this case are ongoing, and Fintiv expressly reserves
`
`the right to amend and/or supplement this response, if necessary, as further information is
`
`discovered in this matter.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Fintiv incorporates by reference its objections and responses to Interrogatory No. 8
`
`(above). Subject to the General and Specific Objections, Fintiv responds as follows:
`
`Based on Fintiv’s investigation to date, Fintiv is not aware of any direct communications
`
`between Fintiv and Apple prior to December 21, 2018 (the filing of Fintiv’s Original Complaint)
`
`regarding infringement of the ’125 Patent.
`
`Discovery and Fintiv’s investigation in this case are ongoing, and Fintiv expressly reserves
`
`the right to amend and/or supplement this response, if necessary, as further information is
`
`discovered in this matter.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Describe in detail the time, cost, effort, or other investment that was made or spent to
`develop the alleged inventions claimed by the Asserted Patent, including without limitation:
`identification of the dates or time periods in which time, cost, effort, or other investment was
`expended, and a breakdown by month, quarter, or other available time period of the time and costs
`incurred, and identify all Documents and Things (by Bates number) and all Persons with
`knowledge concerning the foregoing.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Fintiv incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Fintiv
`
`objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case to the extent it calls for “a breakdown by month, quarter, or other available
`
`time period of the time and costs incurred.” Fintiv objects to this interrogatory vague, ambiguous,
`
`calling for speculation, and subject to multiple interpretations in its use of the terms “cost,”
`
`“effort,” “investment,” “made,” and “spent.” Fintiv objects to this interrogatory as overbroad,
`
`22
`
`Apple Ex. 1034, p. 4
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`Dated: February 24, 2020
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
`By: /s/ Andy Tindel
`
`J. Mark Mann (Texas Bar No. 12926150)
`mark@themannfirm.com
`G. Blake Thompson (Texas Bar No. 24042033)
`blake@themannfirm.com
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 W. Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`913 Franklin Ave., Suite 201
`Waco, Texas 76701
`Telephone: (903) 657-8540
`Facsimile: (903) 657-6003
`Andy Tindel (Texas Bar No. 20054500)
`atindel@andytindel.com
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`112 E. Line Street, Suite 304
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Telephone: (903) 596-0900
`Facsimile: (903) 596-0909
`Craig D. Cherry (Texas Bar No. 24012419)
`ccherry@haleyolson.com
`HALEY & OLSON, P.C.
`100 N. Ritchie Road, Suite 200
`Waco, Texas 76712
`Telephone: (254) 776-3336
`Facsimile: (254) 776-6823
`
`Jonathan K. Waldrop (CA Bar No. 297903)
`(Admitted in this District)
`jwaldrop@kasowitz.com
`Darcy L. Jones (CA Bar No. 309474)
`(Admitted in this District)
`djones@kasowitz.com
`Marcus A. Barber (CA Bar No. 307361)
`(Admitted in this District)
`mbarber@kasowitz.com
`John W. Downing (CA Bar No. 252850)
`(Admitted in this District)
`jdowning@kasowitz.com
`Heather S. Kim (CA Bar No. 277686)
`(Admitted in this District)
`hkim@kasowitz.com
`Jack Shaw (CA Bar No. 309382)
`(Admitted in this District)
`jshaw@kasowitz.com
`
`32
`
`Apple Ex. 1034, p. 5
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`

`

`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone: (650) 453-5170
`Facsimile: (650) 453-5171
`
`Daniel C. Miller (NY Bar No. 4232773)
`(Admitted in this District)
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`1399 New York Avenue NW, Suite 201
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 760-3400
`Facsimile: (202) 760-3401
`Email: dcmiller@kasowitz.com
`
`Rodney R. Miller (Texas Bar No. 24070280)
`(Admitted in this District)
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`1349 West Peachtree Street N.W., Suite 1500
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Telephone: (404) 260-6080
`Facsimile: (404) 260-6081
`Email: rmiller@kasowitz.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINTIV, INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically
`
`to all counsel of record, on this 24th day of February, 2020.
`
` /s/ Andy Tindel
`Andy Tindel
`
`33
`
`Apple Ex. 1034, p. 6
`Apple v. Fintiv
`IPR2020-00019
`
`