`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`PAICE LLC and THE ABELL FOUNDATION
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE A.G., and
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 19-CV-3348-SAG
`
`DEFENDANTS BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG AND
`BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC’S RESPONSES TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-28)
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Local Rule 104, Defendants
`
`Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (“BMWAG”) and BMW of North America, LLC (“BMWNA”)
`
`(collectively, “BMW”) hereby provide the following responses and objections to the First Set of
`
`Interrogatories propounded by Plaintiffs Paice LLC (“Paice”) and the Abell Foundation, Inc.
`
`(“Abell”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “Paice”).1 Discovery is ongoing, and BMW reserves the
`
`right to further supplement or amend these responses as discovery progresses.
`
`The following responses are based upon information and documentation that is currently
`
`available and specifically known to BMW following a reasonable and ongoing investigation.
`
`These responses are given without prejudice to BMW’s right to produce or rely on subsequently
`
`discovered, uncovered, or learned information. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent
`
`1 Unless stated otherwise, responses to these Interrogatories are submitted on behalf of both BMWAG and
`BMWNA.
`
`1
`
`Defendants Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and BMW of North America, LLC’s
`Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-28)
`
`EAST\174029981.1
`
` 1
`
`PAICE 2006
`BMW v. Paice
`IPR2020-00994
`
`
`
`custody, or control of Plaintiffs or their counsel, or that are publicly available or equally available
`
`to Plaintiffs and, therefore, are of no greater burden for Plaintiffs to obtain than for BMW to obtain.
`
`BMW objects to this Interrogatory as compound, and therefore counting as more than one
`
`interrogatory under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, and as
`
`BMW understands the Interrogatory, BMW responds as follows:
`
`As presently advised, BMW has identified no employees that recall having any such
`
`communications. However, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) and to the extent that it has any non-
`
`privileged documents in its possession, custody, and control from which responsive information
`
`within the non-objectionable scope of this Interrogatory can be obtained, BMW may produce such
`
`documents and will supplement this response to identify Bates ranges associated with those
`
`documents after such documents are produced.
`
`BMW further states that it is continuing to investigate the subject matter of this
`
`Interrogatory and reserves the right to supplement its response if it locates any non-privileged,
`
`relevant information or documents responsive to this Interrogatory in accordance with the
`
`procedures and timetables established by the Court’s Scheduling Order and the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, and after BMW has been afforded an adequate opportunity to investigate Paice’s
`
`allegations through discovery in this Action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
`
`Identify and describe in detail the circumstances under which You first became aware of
`Paice and Abell and state the date(s) when You first had notice of each of the Asserted Patents and
`describe the method(s) by which You received such notice, including in Your answer an
`identification of all persons involved.
`
`37
`
`Defendants Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and BMW of North America, LLC’s
`Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-28)
`
`EAST\174029981.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 27:
`
`In addition to its General Objections, BMW specifically objects to this Interrogatory
`
`because it calls for information already in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiffs or their
`
`counsel, or that are publicly available or equally available to Plaintiffs and, therefore, are of no
`
`greater burden for Plaintiffs to obtain than for BMW to obtain. BMW objects to this Interrogatory
`
`as compound, and therefore counting as more than one interrogatory under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, and as
`
`BMW understands the Interrogatory, BMW responds as follows:
`
`BMW incorporates its Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 25 and 26.
`
`BMWAG further responds that sometime in 2006 it was contacted by Toyota regarding a
`
`request for information pertinent to Toyota’s litigation with Paice. However, BMWAG did not
`
`learn of the Asserted Patents at that time. BMWAG notes that, between 2006 and 2012, it had no
`
`commercially available hybrid vehicles. As presently advised, BMWAG’s first knowledge of the
`
`Asserted Patents occurred when it received a letter to Dr. Jurgen Reul from Paice in February
`
`2019.
`
`BMWNA further answers that it was aware of Paice sometime in 2009 when it was asked
`
`to participate in an amicus brief in the Toyota litigation. However, BMWNA did not learn of the
`
`Asserted Patents at that time. As presently advised, BMWNA’s first knowledge of the Asserted
`
`Patents occurred when it was sued in this case.
`
`BMW further states that it is continuing to investigate the subject matter of this
`
`Interrogatory and reserves the right to supplement its response if it locates any non-privileged,
`
`relevant information or documents responsive to this Interrogatory in accordance with the
`
`38
`
`Defendants Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and BMW of North America, LLC’s
`Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-28)
`
`EAST\174029981.1
`
`3
`
`
`
`procedures and timetables established by the Court’s Scheduling Order and the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, and after BMW has been afforded an adequate opportunity to investigate Paice’s
`
`allegations through discovery in this Action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
`
`Identify and describe any internal monitoring performed by You or others on Your behalf
`of Paice or Paice’s past litigations with respect to hybrid vehicle technology, and identify all
`supporting documents and persons most knowledgeable.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 28:
`
`In addition to its General Objections, BMW specifically objects to this Interrogatory
`
`because it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product
`
`doctrine, the common interest privilege, joint-defense privilege, or any other applicable privilege.
`
`BMW objects to this Interrogatory because it calls for information not relevant to the claims and
`
`defenses at issue in this Action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. BMW objects to this Interrogatory because it requests that BMW create or produce
`
`information that BMW does not maintain in the ordinary course of its business or it requests that
`
`BMW create or produce information in a particular format or at a particular level of detail that
`
`BMW does not maintain in the ordinary course of its business. BMW objects to this Interrogatory
`
`as compound, and therefore counting as more than one interrogatory under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, and as
`
`BMW understands the Interrogatory, BMW responds as follows:
`
`BMW is not aware of any non-privileged information responsive to this Interrogatory other
`
`than as noted in its Response to Interrogatory No. 27
`
`39
`
`Defendants Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and BMW of North America, LLC’s
`Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-28)
`
`EAST\174029981.1
`
`4
`
`