`
`________________
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`• 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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01045 - U.S. Patent No. 9,269,208
`
`