UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY Inc.,
`ASSA ABLOY Residential Group, Inc., August Home, Inc., HID Global
`Corporation, and ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CPC Patent Technologies PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`Case No. IPR2022-01006 (Patent No. 9,665,705)
`Case No. IPR2022-01045 (Patent No. 9,269,208)
`Case No. IPR2022-01089 (Patent No. 9,269,208)
`Case No. IPR2022-01093 (Patent No. 8,620,039)
`Case No. IPR2022-01094 (Patent No. 8,620,039)
`________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 1
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY Inc.,
`ASSA ABLOY Residential Group, Inc., August Home, Inc., HID Global
`Corporation, and ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CPC Patent Technologies PTY LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`Case No. IPR2022-01006 (Patent No. 9,665,705)
`Case No. IPR2022-01045 (Patent No. 9,269,208)
`Case No. IPR2022-01089 (Patent No. 9,269,208)
`Case No. IPR2022-01093 (Patent No. 8,620,039)
`Case No. IPR2022-01094 (Patent No. 8,620,039)
`________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-5)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 1
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.51 and Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, Petitioners ASSA ABLOY AB, ASSA ABLOY Inc., ASSA
`
`ABLOY Residential Group, Inc., August Home, Inc., HID Global Corporation, and
`
`ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc. (“Petitioners”) hereby object and provide
`
`the following responses to Patent Owner CPC Patent Technologies PTY LTD.’s
`
`(“Patent Owner”) Interrogatories to Petitioners (Nos. 1-5) as follows:
`
`Petitioners respond to Patent Owner’s Interrogatories as they interpret and
`
`understand each Interrogatory set forth therein. If Patent Owner subsequently
`
`asserts an interpretation of any Interrogatory that differs from Petitioners’
`
`understanding of that Interrogatory, Petitioners reserve the right to supplement,
`
`revise, amend, or modify its objections and/or responses.
`
`These answers are made solely for the purpose of IPR2022-01006, IPR2022-
`
`01045, IPR2022-01089, IPR2022-01093, and IPR2022-01094 (“Petitioners’
`
`IPRs”). No incidental or implied admissions are intended by the answers herein.
`
`Petitioners’ responses to these Interrogatories do not constitute admissions relative
`
`to the existence of any documents or information, to the relevance or admissibility
`
`of any documents or information, or to the truth or accuracy of any statement or
`
`characterization contained in Patent Owner’s requests. The fact that Petitioners
`
`have answered part or all of any Interrogatory is not intended to be, and shall not
`
`be construed to be, a waiver by Petitioners of any part of any objection to any
`
`
`
`1
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 2
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`Interrogatory. All objections as to relevance, authenticity, or admissibility of any
`
`document are expressly reserved.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Petitioners object to each Interrogatory to the extent that it is
`
`inconsistent with, or imposes obligations beyond those required by, the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5), 37 C.F.R. § 42.51, or the agreed-
`
`upon scope of each Interrogatory as between Petitioners and Patent Owner.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners object to these Interrogatories as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent that they
`
`are not within the scope of permissible discovery as set forth in the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5), or 37 C.F.R. § 42.51.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioners object to these Interrogatories to the extent that the
`
`information requested is not currently within the possession, custody, or control of
`
`Petitioners.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioners object to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call
`
`for disclosure of information that is not ascertainable by means of a reasonably
`
`diligent search, including without limitation information that is not maintained by
`
`Petitioners in the normal course of business or that is no longer maintained by
`
`Petitioners.
`
`2
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 3
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Petitioners object to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek
`
`to compel Petitioners to generate or create information and/or documents that do
`
`not already exist.
`
`6.
`
`Petitioners object to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are
`
`harassing or would lead to unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of
`
`these proceedings.
`
`7.
`
`Petitioners object to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work-
`
`product doctrine, the common-interest privilege, and/or any other applicable
`
`privilege, immunity, or protection. Nothing contained in Petitioners’ responses is
`
`intended to be, or in any way shall be deemed, a waiver of any such applicable
`
`privilege or doctrine.
`
`8.
`
`Petitioners object to these Interrogatories on the grounds that they are
`
`vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the
`
`case to the extent that they require Petitioners to construe, interpret, or define
`
`unclear terms in these Interrogatories.
`
`9.
`
`Petitioners’ agreement to produce any category of information or
`
`documents is not a representation that any such documents or information in that
`
`category actually exist in Petitioners’ possession, custody, or control, or can be
`
`
`
`3
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 4
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`located through a reasonable search, or that such documents or information are
`
`relevant or proportional to the needs of Petitioners’ IPRs.
`
`10. Petitioners object to any effort by Patent Owner to seek production of
`
`emails in connection with any of its discovery requests. See PTAB Consolidated
`
`Trial Practice Guide, Appendix C, Section 6.
`
`11. Petitioners object to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
`
`purport to require Petitioners to anticipate Patent Owner’s future claims or
`
`defenses and/or other developments in Petitioners’ IPR petitions. Petitioners
`
`provide these responses to Patent Owner’s Interrogatories based solely on the
`
`information presently known to Petitioners. Petitioners’ responses herein are given
`
`without prejudice to Petitioners’ right to amend or supplement in accordance with
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Petitioners object to Patent Owner’s Instructions to the extent they
`
`purport to create requirements or obligations beyond the requirements set forth in
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5), or 37 C.F.R. § 42.51.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioners object to the Instructions to the extent that they seek
`
`information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-product
`
`doctrine, common-interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or
`
`exemption.
`
`
`
`4
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 5
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Petitioners object to the definition of “You,” “Your,” and
`
`“Petitioners” as overly broad to the extent that Patent Owner includes within its
`
`definition persons or entities that are separate and distinct from Petitioners and that
`
`are not parties to these proceedings. Petitioners interpret the terms “You,” “Your,”
`
`and “Petitioners” as referring to the Petitioners as defined above.
`
`4.
`
`For purposes of these Responses, and consistent with Patent Owner’s
`
`“Definitions,” the term “district court litigation” means the following district court
`
`action: ASSA ABLOY AB et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty. Ltd. and Charter
`
`Pacific Corp Ltd., Civ. 3:22-cv-694 (D. Conn.)
`
`RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General Objections and Objections to
`
`Definitions and Instructions, Petitioners’ responses are based upon current
`
`information and belief as a result of reasonable searches and inquiries:
`
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`After performing a reasonable search, identify any ASSA ABLOY products
`
`identified in the Complaint filed in the district court litigation that were submitted to
`
`Apple, and identify whether the products were submitted to Apple for
`
`compliance/certification or for other reasons and, if for other reasons, what those
`
`reasons were.
`
`
`
`5
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 6
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`Response to Interrogatory No. 1
`
`Petitioners incorporate by reference the General Objections and the
`
`Objections to Definitions and Instructions set forth above.
`
`Petitioners object to Interrogatory No. 1 as not relevant to real-party-in-
`
`interest issues in these proceedings. Petitioners further object to this Interrogatory
`
`as requesting information that cannot be located through a reasonable search.
`
`Petitioners object to the terms “ASSA ABLOY products” and “submitted” as
`
`vague and ambiguous. Subject to, and without waiving these objections,
`
`Petitioners respond as follows:
`
`The following ASSA ABLOY product(s) identified in the Complaint filed in
`
`the district court litigation were sent to Apple for compliance purposes: HID Mobile
`
`Access software; Hardware and software components associated with Student ID in
`
`Apple Wallet; Hardware and software components associated with Employee badge
`
`in Apple Wallet; Hardware and software components associated with Hotel keys in
`
`Apple Wallet.
`
`The following ASSA ABLOY product(s) identified in the Complaint filed in
`
`the district court litigation were submitted to Apple for certification purposes: at
`
`least one exemplary product from the August Smart Lock family of products; and at
`
`least one exemplary product from the Yale Assure Lock family of products.
`
`
`
`6
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 7
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`Petitioners reserve the right to supplement and/or amend their response to
`
`this Interrogatory to the extent that any further responsive information is later
`
`discovered.
`
`Interrogatory No. 2
`
`After performing a reasonable search, identify any insurance policy or
`
`policies of ASSA ABLOY that name Apple as an additional insured.
`
`Response to Interrogatory No. 2
`
`Petitioners incorporate by reference the General Objections and the
`
`Objections to Definitions and Instructions set forth above.
`
`Petitioners object to this Interrogatory as unduly burdensome not relevant to
`
`real-party-in-interest issues in these proceedings. Petitioners further object to this
`
`Interrogatory as requesting information that cannot be located through a reasonable
`
`search. Petitioners object to the term “additional insured” as vague and
`
`ambiguous. Subject to, and without waiving these objections, Petitioners respond
`
`as follows:
`
`As best this Interrogatory can be understood, Petitioners do not have any
`
`insurance policy or policies that name Apple as an additional insured.
`
`Interrogatory No. 3
`
`Identify any communications between Apple and ASSA ABLOY pertaining
`
`to any of the ASSA ABLOY IPRs. In responding to this Interrogatory, the parties
`
`
`
`7
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 8
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`agree that there is no need to identify any communications between ASSA ABLOY
`
`and Apple that relate solely to the issue of ASSA ABLOY seeking Apple’s
`
`permission to produce relevant agreements in response to CPC’s discovery request.
`
`Response to Interrogatory No. 3
`
`Petitioners incorporate by reference the General Objections and the
`
`Objections to Definitions and Instructions set forth above.
`
`Petitioners have not had any communications with Apple, directly or through
`
`counsel, regarding any of IPR2022-01006, IPR2022-01045, IPR2022-01089,
`
`IPR2022-01093, and IPR2022-01094, other than communications that relate solely
`
`to Petitioners seeking Apple’s permission to produce documents in response to
`
`CPC’s discovery request.
`
`Regarding the lack of communications between Apple and Petitioners
`
`relating to Petitioners’ IPRs, Petitioners further respond as follows:
`
`• Apple had no role whatsoever in Petitioners’ IPRs.
`
`• Petitioners never informed Apple that the IPR petitions were being
`
`prepared, never communicated with Apple regarding the substance of
`
`the IPR petitions, and never told Apple when or why the IPR petitions
`
`would be filed.
`
`• Petitioners provide all direction to their outside counsel regarding the
`
`IPRs and the district court litigation between Petitioners and Apple.
`
`
`
`8
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 9
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`• Apple previously filed its own IPR petitions regarding the subject
`
`patents (IPR2022-00600, IPR2022-00601, and IPR2022-00602).
`
`Petitioners likewise had no involvement whatsoever in Apple’s IPR
`
`petitions. Petitioners never knew that Apple’s IPR petitions were being
`
`prepared or that they would be filed.
`
`• Petitioners did not file any of Petitioners’ IPR petitions at Apple’s
`
`behest. Apple never requested that Petitioners file any IPR petitions
`
`challenging any of the patents-at-issue.
`
`• Apple has never had any control or say whatsoever in Petitioners’ IPR
`
`petitions.
`
`• Apple has not contributed financially or in any other manner to any of
`
`Petitioners’ IPR petitions.
`
`Interrogatory No. 4
`
`Identify any communications between Apple and ASSA ABLOY related to
`
`the validity or invalidity of the ’208 patent, the ’705 Patent, or the ’039 Patent. In
`
`responding to this Interrogatory, the parties agree that there is no need to identify
`
`any communications between ASSA ABLOY and Apple that relate solely to
`
`Apple’s subpoena to HID Global in connection with the CPC v. Apple action. For
`
`clarity, however, ASSA ABLOY will identify any communications with Apple that
`
`includes substantive discussion regarding any of the alleged the prior art sought in
`
`
`
`9
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 10
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`the subpoena, such as communications that identify or characterize such prior art or
`
`discuss whether and how such prior art affects the validity of any claim of any of
`
`the CPC Patents.
`
`Response to Interrogatory No. 4
`
`Petitioners incorporate by reference the General Objections and the
`
`Objections to Definitions and Instructions set forth above.
`
`Petitioners and other ASSA ABLOY entities have not had any
`
`communications with Apple, directly or through counsel, regarding the validity or
`
`invalidity of the ’208 patent, the ’705 Patent, or the ’039 Patent. ASSA ABLOY
`
`has had communications with Apple that relate solely to Apple’s subpoena to HID
`
`Global in connection with the CPC v. Apple action, but in these communications
`
`there was no substantive discussion regarding any of the alleged prior art or how it
`
`affects the validity of any claim of any patent. Petitioners further respond as
`
`follows:
`
`• Apple had no role whatsoever in Petitioners’ district court litigation
`
`against CPC.
`
`• Petitioners never informed Apple that Petitioners’ district court
`
`litigation against CPC was being prepared, never communicated with
`
`Apple regarding the substance of Petitioners’ district court litigation,
`
`
`
`10
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 11
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`and never told Apple when or why Petitioners’ district court litigation
`
`would be filed.
`
`• Petitioners provide all direction to their outside counsel regarding the
`
`IPRs and the district court litigation between Petitioners and Patent
`
`Owner/CPC.
`
`• Neither Apple nor Patent Owner provided Petitioners with notice of
`
`CPC’s 2021 patent infringement lawsuit against Apple.
`
`• Petitioners have not provided any guidance, funding, or direction to
`
`Apple regarding Patent Owner’s patent infringement lawsuit against
`
`Apple. Apple has not provided any guidance, funding, or direction to
`
`Petitioners regarding Petitioners’ district court litigation against CPC.
`
`Interrogatory No. 5
`
`Identify any communications between ASSA ABLOY and Apple related to
`
`indemnification or obligation to indemnify based on assertion of any of the CPC
`
`Patents.
`
`Response to Interrogatory No. 5
`
`Petitioners incorporate by reference the General Objections and the
`
`Objections to Definitions and Instructions set forth above.
`
`There have been no communications between Petitioners and Apple, directly
`
`or through counsel, relating to indemnification or obligation to indemnify based on
`
`
`
`11
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 12
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`assertion of any of U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705, U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208, or U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,620,039.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 26, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` / Dion M. Bregman /
`Dion Bregman (Reg. No. 45,645)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 13
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`I, Yon Sohn, am the Associate General Counsel of HID Global Corporation.
`
`I have read the foregoing interrogatories and the answers to those interrogatories,
`
`which are true according to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Dated the 26th day of October, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`
`
`
`Yon Sohn
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 14
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), lead counsel for Petitioners hereby certifies
`
`that on October 27, 2022, a complete and entire copy of the foregoing Petitioners’
`
`Responses to Patent Owner’s Interrogatories (Nos. 1-5) was served via electronic
`
`mail on Patent Owner’s counsel of record in IPR2022-01006, IPR2022-01045,
`
`IPR2022-01089, IPR2022-01093, and IPR2022-01094:
`
`Andrew C. Ryan (ryan@cantorcolburn.com)
`Steven M. Coyle (scoyle@cantorcolburn.com)
`Nicholas A. Geiger (ngeiger@cantorcolburn.com)
`
`
`
`Dated: October 27, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` / Dion M. Bregman /
`Dion Bregman (Reg. No. 45,645)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASSA ABLOY Ex. 1022 - Page 15
`ASSA ABLOY AB v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`IPR2022-01006 - U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705
`
`
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
