IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`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
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
