UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Cameron Elliot
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Certain Electronic Devices, Including
`Streaming Players, Televisions, Set Top
`Boxes, Remote Controllers, and Components
`Thereof
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1200
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S JULY 10, 2020 SUPPLEMENTAL
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`Pursuant to the United States International Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice and
`
`Procedure, 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.27 and 210.29, and the Ground Rules in this Investigation, Roku,
`
`Inc. (“Roku”) supplements its responses to the Complainant’s Third Set of Interrogatories (Nos.
`
`37, 42-46). Discovery is in its early stages and Roku reserves the right to supplement or amend
`
`these objections and responses as discovery progresses and as permitted by 19 C.F.R. § 210.27.
`
`Roku’s response to any interrogatory is not an admission or acknowledgment that such
`
`information is relevant to this action or, where appropriate, that any particular information exists,
`
`is non-privileged, or is admissible in evidence. Roku’s response shall not prejudice its right to
`
`assert at the time of taking testimony, in argument, or at any other subsequent proceeding in this
`
`action, that such information is inadmissible, irrelevant, immaterial, or not the proper basis for
`
`discovery, and is without prejudice to any objection to any future use of such information that
`
`Roku may make. The following responses are based upon information and documentation that is
`
`currently available and specifically known to Roku following a reasonable and ongoing
`1
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`investigation, and are given without prejudice to Roku’s right to produce or rely on subsequently
`
`discovered, uncovered, or learned information. It is anticipated that further discovery,
`
`independent investigation, and analysis may lead to the discovery of additional documents,
`
`supply additional facts, and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual
`
`conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to additions to, changes to, or variation
`
`from the information set forth herein.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`Roku makes the following general objections to Complainant’s Interrogatories, which
`
`Roku expressly incorporates by reference into each of its Responses to Complainant’s
`
`Interrogatories, regardless of whether the general objections are specifically incorporated into the
`
`specific objections and responses below. By providing a specific objection to any interrogatory,
`
`or any of the “Definitions” and “Instructions,” Roku does not waive or otherwise limit these
`
`general objections. Furthermore, reference to these general objections in any specific response,
`
`or with regard to specific “Definitions” and “Instructions,” shall not waive or otherwise limit the
`
`applicability of these general objection to each and every interrogatory and each “Definition”
`
`and “Instructions.” Additionally, Roku’s General Objections set forth in Roku’s Responses to
`
`Complainant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Roku (Nos. 1-5) and Complainant’s Second Set of
`
`Interrogatories to Roku (Nos. 6-32), Complainant’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Roku (Nos.
`
`33-47), and Complainant’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Roku (Nos. 48-51) are hereby
`
`incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
`
`1.
`
`Roku is responding to each interrogatory as it interprets and understands each
`
`interrogatory with respect to the issues in this Investigation. If Complainant asserts a different
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`2
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`interpretation of any interrogatory, Roku reserves the right to supplement or amend its responses
`
`or objections.
`
`2.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory and each of Complainant’s “Instruction” and
`
`“Definitions” to the extent it is inconsistent with or attempts to impose obligations beyond those
`
`imposed by International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Rules (including without limitation 19
`
`C.F.R. §§ 210.27, 210.29, and 210.30), Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Elliot’s Ground
`
`Rules, any applicable Procedural Schedule in this matter, any other relevant Order issued by the
`
`ALJ or the ITC, and any agreement or stipulation between Roku, the other Respondents, and/or
`
`Complainant.
`
`3.
`
`Roku objects to Complainant’s definitions of “Roku,” “You,” “your,” and
`
`“yours,” as overbroad to the extent they include anyone other than Roku, Inc. UEI’s definition
`
`improperly expands the scope of its Interrogatories to include non-parties to this Investigation.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, Roku will construe “Roku” and “You” as referring to Roku, Inc.
`
`4.
`
`Roku objects to the definition of “Respondents” as overbroad to the extent it
`
`includes parties other than the named Respondents. UEI’s definition improperly expands the
`
`scope of its Interrogatories to include non-parties to this Investigation. Unless otherwise noted,
`
`Roku will construe “Respondents” as referring to the named Respondents to the Investigation.
`
`5.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “Imported Roku Products” on the ground that
`
`it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “all Roku products that have been
`
`or are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation in the United States since
`
`2014.” Violation of Section 337 is assessed at the time of the complaint, and per the parties’
`
`agreement, Roku will consider disclosure of technical information for any product imported on
`3
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`or after January 1, 2016. Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories
`
`incorporating the phrase “Imported Roku Products” seek production of information or
`
`documents relating to products that are not accused in this Investigation.
`
`6.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “Imported Accused Products” on the ground
`
`that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “all Respondents’ products that
`
`have been or are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation in the United
`
`States since 2014.” Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories
`
`incorporating the phrase “Imported Accused Products” seek production of information or
`
`documents relating to products that are not accused in this Investigation. Roku further objects to
`
`UEI’s definition to the extent it seeks the production of information or documents not within
`
`Roku’s possession, custody and/or control. Where Interrogatories are directed to “Imported
`
`Accused Products,” Roku will limit its initial responses to the imported Roku products identified
`
`in the Complaint and will meet and confer with Complainant about the relevance of other
`
`products to the Asserted Patents and the subject matter of the Investigation. To the extent
`
`Complainant reasonably requires technical information on certain unaccused or third party
`
`products to determine whether Complainant does, in fact, elect to accuse those products, Roku
`
`will work with Complainant on providing such technical information.
`
`7.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “Imported TCL Products” on the ground that
`
`it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “all of TCL’s products that have
`
`been or are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation in the United States
`
`since 2014.” Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories incorporating
`4
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`the phrase “Imported TCL Products” seek production of information or documents relating to
`
`products that are not accused in this Investigation. Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to
`
`the extent it seeks the production of information or documents not within Roku’s possession,
`
`custody and/or control.
`
`8.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “Imported Hisense Products” on the ground
`
`that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “all of Hisense’s products that
`
`have been or are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation in the United
`
`States since 2014.” Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories
`
`incorporating the phrase “Imported Hisense Products” seek production of information or
`
`documents relating to products that are not accused in this Investigation. Roku further objects to
`
`UEI’s definition to the extent it seeks the production of information or documents not within
`
`Roku’s possession, custody and/or control.
`
`9.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “Imported Funai Products” on the ground that
`
`it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “all of Funai’s products that have
`
`been or are imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation in the United States
`
`since 2014.” Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories incorporating
`
`the phrase “Imported Funai Products” seek production of information or documents relating to
`
`products that are not accused in this Investigation. Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to
`
`the extent it seeks the production of information or documents not within Roku’s possession,
`
`custody and/or control.
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`5
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`10.
`
`Roku objects to Complainant’s definition of “communication” to the extent it is
`
`used, in contravention of the parties’ Joint Electronic Discovery Submission, to seek e-mail and
`
`other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively “e-mail”) as part of general discovery
`
`requests.
`
`11.
`
`Roku objects to the definitions of “person,” “persons,” “document,” “Source
`
`Code,” “communication,” “identify,” “Technical Reference Manual,” and “Public Reference
`
`Manual” as vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated
`
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`12.
`
`Roku objects to the definitions of “regarding,” “entity,” “related to” and “relating
`
`to” as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`13.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information related to
`
`“any,” “all,” “each,” and/or “every” piece of information related to or embraced by that
`
`interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of relevant or admissible evidence.
`
`14.
`
`Roku objects to the definitions of “any,” “all,” “each,” “every,” and “each and
`
`every,” as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it includes “each and every.” Roku further objects
`
`to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories incorporating the phrases “any,” “all,” “each,”
`
`“every,” and “each and every” seek production of “each and every” item of information or
`
`document in this Investigation.
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`6
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`15.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it might be interpreted as
`
`requiring Roku to concede the relevance, materiality, or admissibility of information sought by
`
`the Interrogatories.
`
`16.
`
`Roku objects to the Interrogatories, Instructions, and Definitions to the extent that,
`
`as stated, the Interrogatories, Instructions, and Definitions are vague, ambiguous, indefinite,
`
`and/or fail to describe the categories of information sought or documents to be produced with
`
`reasonable particularity, and to the extent that they employ terms (including undefined terms) or
`
`definitions that render the Interrogatories vague or ambiguous. Except as otherwise stated, Roku
`
`will interpret any such terms based on its understanding of the term’s ordinary usage, if any.
`
`17.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent it fails to describe with reasonable
`
`particularity the information requested.
`
`18.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and/or calls for production of information or documents not relevant to any claim
`
`or defense in this litigation or reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`19.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent it calls for production of
`
`information or documents related to products that are not within the applicable scope of this
`
`Investigation and thus not relevant to any issue in this Investigation.
`
`20.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it calls for production of
`
`information or documents not within the possession, custody, or control of Roku. Roku will only
`
`respond with information within its possession, custody, or control.
`
`21.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it calls for production of
`
`information or documents already in the possession, custody, or control of Complainant or their
`
`counsel, or that are publicly available or equally available to Complainant.
`7
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`22.
`
`Roku objects to these interrogatories on relevance and burden grounds to the
`
`extent they are not limited or overbroad as to time, or to the extent that the time period specified
`
`encompasses time periods not relevant to this Investigation, or to the extent the interrogatories
`
`are not limited in geographic scope.
`
`23.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it would require Roku to
`
`provide information or documents in violation of an applicable foreign law or regulation.
`
`24.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks information, documents,
`
`and/or things protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine,
`
`common-interest privilege, and/or the joint defense privilege, or that is otherwise immune from
`
`discovery. Nothing contained in these responses should be considered a waiver of any privilege
`
`or other basis for objecting to discovery. Roku does not intend to provide information or produce
`
`documents that would divulge any privileged information. Any such disclosure is inadvertent
`
`and shall not be deemed a waiver of any applicable privilege or immunity. Roku expressly
`
`reserves the right to object to the use or introduction of such documents or information or
`
`otherwise to seek the return of such documents and information.
`
`25.
`
`Roku objects to the Instructions to the extent they are inconsistent with or attempt
`
`to impose obligations beyond those imposed by 19 C.F.R. §§ 210.27 and 210.29 and agreements
`
`between Roku, other respondents, and Complainant
`
`26.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, or
`
`confusing due to Complainant’s failure to define terms or failure to describe the information or
`
`documents sought with reasonable particularity.
`
`27.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it uses language calling for a
`
`legal conclusion. Roku’s responses herein shall be to matters of fact only and shall not be
`8
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`construed as stating or implying any conclusions of law concerning the matters referenced in any
`
`interrogatory. Roku’s responses shall not be deemed to constitute admissions (i) that any
`
`particular document or thing exists, is relevant, or admissible in evidence, or (ii) that any
`
`statement or characterization in the Interrogatory is accurate or complete.
`
`28.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that the burden or expense of the
`
`proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the
`
`parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of
`
`the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent it assumes facts not in evidence.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it purports to require the
`
`premature disclosure of expert testimony, evidence, argument, contentions, or any other
`
`disclosure inconsistent with the Ground Rules and any Procedural Schedule in this matter, or the
`
`Commission Rules, or any other applicable law or rule.
`
`31.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent it seeks to compel Roku to
`
`generate or create information and/or documents that do not already exist.
`
`32.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent it purports to require Roku to
`
`disclose information in violation of a legal or contractual obligation of nondisclosure to a third
`
`party. Roku also objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it seeks documents or information
`
`that Roku is not permitted to disclose pursuant to a protective order entered in another action or
`
`proceeding.
`
`33.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is duplicative of and/or seeks
`
`duplicative information as sought by any other Interrogatory.
`
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`9
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`34.
`
`Roku objects to the definition of “UEI” as overbroad to the extent it includes
`
`parties other than the named Complainant, Universal Electronics Inc. UEI’s definition of “UEI”
`
`improperly expands the scope of its Requests to include non-parties to this Investigation. Unless
`
`otherwise noted, Roku will construe “UEI,” as defined above, as referring to Complainant
`
`Universal Electronics Inc.
`
`35.
`
`Roku objects to the definition of “UEI patent” on the ground that it is overbroad,
`
`unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence to extent it includes “any patent owned by UEI.” Roku further objects to UEI’s
`
`definition to the extent Interrogatories incorporating the phrase “UEI patent” seek production of
`
`information or documents related to patents other than the Asserted Patents in this Investigation.
`
`36.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “UEI Domestic Industry Products” on the
`
`ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
`
`the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “any of UEI’s past or current
`
`IR and RF remotes.” Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories
`
`incorporating the phrase “UEI Domestic Industry Products” seek production of information or
`
`documents relating to products that UEI is not relying upon for purposes of domestic industry in
`
`this Investigation. Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent it seeks the production
`
`of information or documents not within Roku’s possession, custody and/or control.
`
`37.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “Samsung Domestic Industry Products” on
`
`the ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “Samsung televisions using
`
`Quickset.” Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories incorporating
`
`the phrase “Samsung Domestic Industry Products” seek production of information or documents
`10
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`relating to products that UEI is not relying upon for purposes of domestic industry in this
`
`Investigation. Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent it seeks the production of
`
`information or documents not within Roku’s possession, custody and/or control.
`
`38.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “Sony Domestic Industry Products” on the
`
`ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead to
`
`the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “Sony televisions using
`
`Quickset.” Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories incorporating
`
`the phrase “Sony Domestic Industry Products” seek production of information or documents
`
`relating to products that UEI is not relying upon for purposes of domestic industry in this
`
`Investigation. Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent it seeks the production of
`
`information or documents not within Roku’s possession, custody and/or control.
`
`39.
`
`Roku objects to UEI’s definition of “Microsoft Domestic Industry Products” on
`
`the ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague, and not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it encompasses “Microsoft Xbox gaming
`
`systems using Quickset.” Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent Interrogatories
`
`incorporating the phrase “Microsoft Domestic Industry Products” seek production of information
`
`or documents relating to products that UEI is not relying upon for purposes of domestic industry
`
`in this Investigation. Roku further objects to UEI’s definition to the extent it seeks the
`
`production of information or documents not within Roku’s possession, custody and/or control.
`
`41.
`
`Roku objects to the definitions of “Third Party” and “Third Parties” as vague and
`
`ambiguous to the extent the definition refers to terms defined in more than one manner and to the
`
`extent the definition requires Roku to have knowledge not in Roku’s possession. Roku will
`
`11
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`construe “Third Party” and “Third Parties” as referring to an entity or entities other than those
`
`that are a party to this investigation.
`
`42.
`
`Roku objects to the definitions of “UEI ITC Complaint” and “Asserted Claims” to
`
`the extent the definition purports to require Roku to alter or clarify the scope of the originally
`
`presented Interrogatories, to assume an alternative interpretation or phrasing, or to provide
`
`additional documentation, in order to respond. Roku reserves its right to supplement or amend
`
`its Responses in the event UEI alters in any way its Complaint or the Asserted Claims.
`
`43.
`
`Roku further objects to the definition of “Asserted Claims” as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the
`
`extent the definition may include claims not asserted against Roku.
`
`44.
`
`Roku objects to the definitions of “Prior Art,” “infringe,” “infringes,” or
`
`“infringed” as seeking a legal conclusion.
`
`45.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks information
`
`relating to opinions on scientific, financial, or legal matters, the opinion of an expert witness,
`
`expert witness reports, materials, or testimony.
`
`46.
`
`Roku objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it prematurely seeks
`
`documents or information relating to Roku’s contentions in this Investigation.
`
`47.
`
`Any of Roku’s responses that it will provide information or produce documents
`
`should not be construed to mean that responsive information or documents in fact exist; only
`
`that, if such relevant, non-privileged, non-objectionable information or documents exists, are in
`
`Roku’s possession, custody, or control, and are located after a reasonable search of the location
`
`or locations where responsive information or documents are likely to be located, such
`
`information or documents will be produced in a timely manner.
`12
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`48.
`
`Roku’s responses below are subject to the General Objections and specific
`
`objections and based on its understanding of the Interrogatories as written and its investigation to
`
`date. Roku does not waive any of its General Objections by providing specific objections below.
`
`Further, no incidental or implied admissions are intended by the responses below, and no
`
`response herein shall be deemed an admission of any factual or legal contention contained in any
`
`individual Interrogatory.
`
`49.
`
`Roku reserves the right to supplement and amend its General Objections, specific
`
`objections, and Responses, if necessary, to reflect additional information.
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
`
`Describe what Roku contends to be the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art that is
`
`applicable to each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Roku incorporates its General Objections as if fully stated herein. Roku also objects to
`
`this Interrogatory as being premature in that Roku’s investigation has just begun and Roku has
`
`not had a full opportunity to collect and/or review the information, if any, called for in this
`
`Interrogatory. Roku objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for a legal conclusion
`
`and/or presents a legal question. Roku objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information that is not within Roku’s possession, custody, or control. Roku further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is in the possession of co-respondents or
`
`third parties that is not in Roku’s possession, custody, or control, or that can more easily be
`
`obtained from other Respondents. Roku further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`seeks confidential business information of other Respondents or third parties that Roku is not
`13
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`permitted to disclose. Roku objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks discovery of
`
`information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or other
`
`applicable privileges and protections against disclosures. Roku objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature to the extent it seeks Roku’s contentions before Roku has had a reasonable
`
`opportunity to conduct discovery and to review documents produced in this action. Roku objects
`
`to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is premature, and imposes a duty on Roku to take a
`
`position on claims that require construction and its proposed construction of those terms
`
`inconsistent with the Ground Rules and any Procedural Schedule entered in this action. Roku
`
`objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it purports to require the premature disclosure of
`
`expert testimony, evidence, argument, contentions, or any other disclosure inconsistent with the
`
`Administrative Law Judge’s Ground Rules, orders in this matter, or the Commission Rules.
`
`Subject to its General Objections and Specific Objections, and based on its investigation
`
`to date, Roku responds as follows:
`
`Roku will provide a response to this contention interrogatory at the time set forth in the
`
`procedural schedule.
`
`Discovery is ongoing, and Roku has not yet completed investigation of the facts relating
`
`to this interrogatory. Roku will amend, modify, and/or supplement this response as its
`
`Investigation continues in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 210.27(f).
`
`JULY 10, 2020 SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 37:
`
`Subject to its General Objections and Specific Objections, and based on its investigation
`
`to date, Roku responds as follows:
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Mui patents, at the time of the
`
`Mui patents’ earliest priority date, would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering
`14
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-01012
`
`

`

`or equivalent degree with two years of work experience relating to communications and
`
`consumer electronics.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Arling patents, at the time of
`
`Arling patents’ earliest priority date, would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or equivalent degree with two years of work experience relating to communications
`
`and consumer electronics.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the Haughawout patents, at the time
`
`of the Haughawout patents’ earliest priority date, would have had a bachelor’s degree in
`
`electrical engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree with two years of work experience
`
`relating to communications or consumer electronics.
`
`Discovery is ongoing, and Roku has not yet completed investigation of the facts relating
`
`to this interrogatory. Roku will amend, modify, and/or supplement this response as its
`
`investigation continues in accordance with 19 C.F.R. § 210.27(f).
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 42:
`
`If Roku contends that one or more claims of any of the Asserted Patents are
`
`unenforceable, state in detail for each such claim the basis for Roku’s contention that the claim is
`
`unenforceable, including all facts, information, and documents that you assert support or are
`
`pertinent to your contention of unenforceability, including but not limited to all evidence you
`
`contend shows any intent to deceive the USPTO.
`
`RESPONSE:
`
`Roku incorporates its General Objections as if fully stated herein. Roku also objects to
`
`this Interrogatory as being premature in that Roku’s investigation has just begun and Roku has
`
`not had a full opportunity to collect and/or review the information, if any, called for in this
`15
`RESPONDENT ROKU, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S THIRD SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 37, 42-46)
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1200
`
`Universal Electronics Inc., Exhibit 2005
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics Inc., IPR2020-010