UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VARTA MICROBATTERY GMBH,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00051-JRG
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
` LEAD CASE
`
`Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-00029-JRG
`
`SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO VARTA
`MICROBATTERY GMBH’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-10)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendant Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. (“Samsung”) hereby serves its Objections and Responses to Plaintiff VARTA
`
`Microbattery GmbH’s (“VARTA”) First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-10).
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`The following General Objections apply to each individually numbered interrogatory set
`
`forth in VARTA’s Interrogatories and shall have the same force and effect as if set forth in full in
`
`each of Samsung’s specific responses below:
`
`1.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent they purport to impose obligations on Samsung that
`
`exceed Samsung’s obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence, and/or any applicable Local Rules or Court order.
`
`2.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent they seek information or documents protected by the
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 1 of 22
`EVE Energy v. VARTA
`IPR2022-01484
`
`

`

`attorney-client privilege or by the work product doctrine, prepared in anticipation of litigation or
`
`for trial, or subject to any other applicable privilege, protection, immunity, or restriction upon
`
`discovery.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent they seek information that is neither relevant to the
`
`claims or defenses in this action, nor proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`4.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent they are overbroad and unduly burdensome.
`
`5.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories to the extent they unreasonably
`
`include multiple, discrete subparts in a single interrogatory. Samsung will consider each subpart
`
`to be a separate interrogatory for purposes of calculating the number of interrogatories utilized
`
`by VARTA.
`
`6.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent that they would require Samsung to search for and
`
`provide information and documents that are not in Samsung’s possession, custody, or control, or
`
`to create documents that are not currently in Samsung’s possession.
`
`7.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent that they purport to require Samsung to draw or express
`
`legal conclusions about any document, thing, or event.
`
`8.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories to the extent they fail to specify a
`
`relevant timeframe for which VARTA requests information, to the extent the specified period is
`
`irrelevant, or includes time periods for which VARTA would not be entitled to collect any
`
`damages.
`
`2
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 2 of 22
`
`

`

`9.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous, and unclear, including
`
`VARTA’s use of terms or phrases that are not defined or not susceptible to any single meaning.
`
`Samsung will not speculate on the meaning of such terms or phrases. Samsung’s failure to object
`
`to a term or phrase defined in VARTA’s Interrogatories shall not be construed to mean that
`
`Samsung understands and/or agrees with the definition.
`
`10.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
`
`duplicative, is publicly available, and/or is available to VARTA from a more convenient, less
`
`burdensome, or less expensive source than Samsung, or the burden or expense of the proposed
`
`discovery outweighs its likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in
`
`controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in this action, and the
`
`importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.
`
`11.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent they seek information that Samsung is under an
`
`obligation to third parties not to disclose, or information otherwise subject to confidentiality
`
`restrictions of a third party. Samsung will provide such information only if the terms of such
`
`obligation are satisfied, and only pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order.
`
`12.
`
`Samsung objects, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), to providing narrative
`
`responses to the Interrogatories where VARTA can derive the information sought from
`
`documents Samsung produces, and where the burden to derive such information from those
`
`documents is substantially the same for VARTA as it is for Samsung.
`
`
`
`3
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 3 of 22
`
`

`

`13.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories to the extent they seek premature
`
`contentions, expert testimony, or disclosures otherwise governed by the Local Rules and this
`
`Court’s Docket Control Order. Samsung’s investigation, discovery, and analysis are ongoing,
`
`and its responses are based on its present investigation and information presently available to
`
`Samsung. Samsung reserves the right to produce evidence of subsequently discovered facts, and
`
`to modify, supplement, or otherwise change or amend its responses to these interrogatories as
`
`necessary.
`
`14.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein as overbroad and irrelevant to the extent they seek information
`
`concerning foreign activities falling outside the geographic scope of United States patent laws.
`
`15.
`
`Samsung objects to the definitions of “Samsung,” “SEA,” “You,” “Your,” and
`
`“Yours” as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, unclear, and seeking
`
`information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of any party to this action, nor
`
`proportional to the needs of the case. Samsung also objects to these definitions as overbroad and
`
`unduly burdensome to the extent that they include persons or entities that are separate and
`
`distinct from Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The responses herein are made on behalf of
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. only.
`
`16.
`
`Samsung objects to the definition of “Accused Products” as vague, overbroad,
`
`and unduly burdensome. Samsung will respond in accordance with its obligations under the
`
`applicable rules governing this action and to the extent understood by Samsung.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung objects to the definition of “Microbattery” and “Microbatteries” as
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome. Samsung will respond in accordance with its obligations
`
`under the applicable rules governing this action and to the extent understood by Samsung.
`
`
`
`4
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 4 of 22
`
`

`

`18.
`
`Samsung objects to the definition of “Asserted Patents” as overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome. Samsung will respond in accordance with its obligations under the
`
`applicable rules governing this action and to the extent understood by Samsung.
`
`19.
`
`Samsung objects to the definition of “identify” as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome. Samsung will respond in accordance with its obligations under the applicable rules
`
`governing this action.
`
`20.
`
`Samsung objects to VARTA’s Interrogatories and to each instruction and
`
`definition contained therein to the extent they purport to require Samsung to search for and
`
`identify “each,” “any,” and/or “all” information. Consistent with its obligations under the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Samsung will identify responsive, nonprivileged information,
`
`to the extent such information exists and is located after a reasonable search.
`
`21.
`
`Nothing in Samsung’s responses and objections shall be deemed an admission by
`
`Samsung regarding the existence of any information, the relevance, authenticity, materiality, or
`
`admissibility of any information, for any purpose, or the truth or accuracy of any statement or
`
`characterization contained in any interrogatory. Where Samsung responds by identifying
`
`documents or individuals with knowledge concerning a particular subject matter identified in an
`
`interrogatory, such response shall not be construed as an admission concerning the accuracy of
`
`VARTA’s characterization of the subject matter. Samsung expressly reserves the right to object
`
`to the use of these responses, the subject matter contained herein, or the documents produced in
`
`connection herewith during any subsequent proceeding, including during trial of this or any other
`
`action.
`
`22.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference the general objections set forth above into
`
`each of its responses, whether or not repeated therein, as well as any specifically stated
`
`
`
`5
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 5 of 22
`
`

`

`objections. Samsung may repeat a general objection for emphasis or some other reason, but the
`
`failure to repeat any general objection does not waive any general objection to VARTA’s
`
`Interrogatories. Samsung does not waive its right to amend its objections.
`
`
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Describe in detail the design, development and/or consideration of any performance
`requirements for each Accused Product, including performance requirements of the power
`supply utilizing the Microbattery in each Accused Product, and identify three persons most
`knowledgeable of such design, development and/or consideration.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`In addition to the general objections, which are incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set forth herein, Samsung objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`seeking the disclosure of information that is not proportional to the needs of the case. Samsung
`
`objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unclear, and inherently
`
`subjective particularly in its use of the phrases “consideration of” and “performance
`
`requirements.” Samsung also objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent
`
`that it calls for information that is available to Varta from public or other sources and/or
`
`information that is redundant of publicly available information. Samsung further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is not in the possession, custody, or
`
`control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely
`
`seeks to elicit expert testimony. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad to the
`
`extent it is not limited to the functionality at issue in this case. Samsung objects to this
`
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that Samsung is under an obligation to third
`
`parties not to disclose, or information otherwise subject to confidentiality restrictions of a third
`
`party – Samsung will provide such information only if the terms of such obligation are satisfied,
`
`
`
`6
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 6 of 22
`
`

`

`and only pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. Subject to and without waiving the
`
`foregoing specific and general objections, Samsung responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), to the extent such documents exist and can be located
`
`following a reasonable search, Samsung will produce relevant, responsive, nonimmune, and non-
`
`privileged documents from which Varta may ascertain the requested information.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its Initial Disclosures (including any supplements
`
`thereto). Samsung also incorporates the documents produced pursuant to Local Patent Rule 3-
`
`4(a).
`
`Investigation and discovery are ongoing in this case. The objections and responses are
`
`based upon information currently available to Samsung, and are made without prejudice to
`
`Samsung’s right to use or rely on any subsequently discovered information. Samsung
`
`specifically reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, and/or correct this response during
`
`discovery.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Identify all products made, sold, offered for sale and/or imported in the United States by You
`that includes, has installed in, or is provided with any Microbattery.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`In addition to the general objections, which are incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set forth herein, Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad,
`
`unclear, and inherently subjective particularly in its use of the term(s)/phrase(s) “provided with.”
`
`Samsung also objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for
`
`information that is available to Varta from public or other sources and/or information that is
`
`redundant of publicly available information. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the
`
`
`
`7
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 7 of 22
`
`

`

`extent that it seeks information that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Samsung.
`
`Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent there is no designated time period.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections, Samsung
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Samsung identifies the Samsung Galaxy Buds® and Galaxy Buds+ as incorporating the
`
`ICR 1254 and ICR 1454 batteries. Samsung is not aware of any Samsung product that includes
`
`the M1254S2.
`
`Investigation and discovery are ongoing in this case. The objections and responses are
`
`based upon information currently available to Samsung, and are made without prejudice to
`
`Samsung’s right to use or rely on any subsequently discovered information. Samsung
`
`specifically reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, and/or correct this response during
`
`discovery.
`
` INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Describe in detail Your relationship with each manufacturer and/or supplier of Microbatteries
`including identifying the date(s) of Your first contact with the manufacturer and/or supplier, the
`individuals involved with all contacts and communications with the manufacturer and/or supplier,
`and all documents including supply or other agreements and licenses between You and each
`manufacturer and/or supplier.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`In addition to the general objections, which are incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set forth herein, Samsung objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`seeking the disclosure of information that is not proportional to the needs of the case. Samsung
`
`objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege or attorney work product doctrine, prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, or
`
`subject to any other applicable privilege, protection, immunity, or restriction upon discovery.
`
`Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the
`
`
`
`8
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 8 of 22
`
`

`

`extent it requests “all documents,” and the identification of “individuals involved with all
`
`contacts and communications,” including those that may be cumulative, irrelevant, redundant, or
`
`burdensome to locate. Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overly broad,
`
`unclear, and inherently subjective particularly in its use of the term(s)/phrase(s) “relationship”
`
`and “involved with.” Samsung objects to this interrogatory as containing multiple subparts,
`
`making the interrogatory inherently ambiguous, confusing, and unduly burdensome. Samsung
`
`further objects to this interrogatory to the extent there is no specified time period. Samsung
`
`further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it is not limited to the functionality
`
`at issue in this case. Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that
`
`Samsung is under an obligation to third parties not to disclose, or information otherwise subject
`
`to confidentiality restrictions of a third party – Samsung will provide such information only if the
`
`terms of such obligation are satisfied, and only pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections, Samsung
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Samsung identifies the following documents from
`
`which Varta may ascertain the requested information: SAMSUNG-VAR00000237 –
`
`SAMSUNG-VAR00000255.
`
`Investigation and discovery are ongoing in this case. The objections and responses are
`
`based upon information currently available to Samsung, and are made without prejudice to
`
`Samsung’s right to use or rely on any subsequently discovered information. Samsung
`
`specifically reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, and/or correct this response during
`
`discovery.
`
`
`
`9
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 9 of 22
`
`

`

` INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`For each element of each asserted claim of the Asserted Patents, state whether that element is present
`in the Accused Products or, if You contend that such element is not present, state all facts, reasons,
`details, and distinctions why such element is not present either literally or under the doctrine of
`equivalents, and identify all documents, testing, and analysis supporting Your contention.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`
`In addition to the general objections, which are incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set forth herein, Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, prepared in anticipation of
`
`litigation or for trial, or subject to any other applicable privilege, protection, immunity, or
`
`restriction upon discovery. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome to the extent it requests “all facts, reasons, details, and distinctions,” and “all
`
`documents, testing, and analysis,” including those that may be cumulative, irrelevant, redundant,
`
`or burdensome to locate. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further
`
`objects to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks to elicit expert testimony.
`
`Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks Samsung’s
`
`contentions, including eliciting Samsung’s claim construction positions; Samsung’s investigation
`
`is ongoing and Samsung will provide its contentions consistent with its obligations under the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and the Docket Control Order. Samsung
`
`objects to this interrogatory as containing multiple subparts, making the interrogatory inherently
`
`ambiguous, confusing, and unduly burdensome. Samsung objects to this request as improperly
`
`attempting to shift any burden to Samsung. Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks information that Samsung is under an obligation to third parties not to disclose, or
`
`
`
`10
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 10 of 22
`
`

`

`information otherwise subject to confidentiality restrictions of a third party – Samsung will
`
`provide such information only if the terms of such obligation are satisfied, and only pursuant to
`
`the terms of the Protective Order. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and
`
`general objections, Samsung responds as follows:
`
`Samsung contends that its accused products do not infringe, and have not infringed,
`
`under any theory, any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, and Samsung has not
`
`contributed to or induced any such infringement. The burden of proof to establish infringement
`
`lies with Varta. Samsung does not infringe the asserted claims at the very least because Varta
`
`has not met its burden of proving infringement. Furthermore, the construction of certain terms in
`
`the Asserted Patents – which will take place following the Court’s claim construction hearing –
`
`will influence the determination of non-infringement. See Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., No. 216CV01314-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 9937763, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2017) (denying
`
`motion to compel response to non-infringement interrogatory prior to claim construction because
`
`E.D. Tex. “does not require non-infringement contentions” and “has consistently recognized that
`
`answers to contention interrogatories change over the time as theories of liability and non-
`
`infringement crystallize . . . [and] are often best left until the close of fact discovery.”) (emphasis
`
`added). Moreover, Varta’s Interrogatories seek to expand the scope of accused products, so a
`
`complete investigation cannot be undertaken in parallel.
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), to the extent such documents exist and can be located
`
`following a reasonable search, Samsung will produce relevant, responsive, nonimmune, and non-
`
`privileged documents from which Varta may ascertain the requested information.
`
`Samsung also incorporates by reference its Initial Disclosures (including any supplements
`
`thereto).
`
`
`
`11
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 11 of 22
`
`

`

`Investigation and discovery are ongoing in this case. The objections and responses are
`
`based upon information currently available to Samsung, and are made without prejudice to
`
`Samsung’s right to use or rely on any subsequently discovered information. Samsung
`
`specifically reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, and/or correct this response during
`
`discovery.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`Set forth and describe in detail all facts, reasons, and legal bases for any Affirmative Defenses and/or
`Counterclaims asserted in Your Answer.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`
`In addition to the general objections, which are incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set forth herein, Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, prepared in anticipation of
`
`litigation or for trial, or subject to any other applicable privilege, protection, immunity, or
`
`restriction upon discovery. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome to the extent it requests “all facts, reasons, and legal bases,” including those
`
`that may be cumulative, irrelevant, redundant, or burdensome to locate. Samsung also objects to
`
`this interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for information that is available
`
`to Varta from public or other sources and/or information that is redundant of publicly available
`
`information. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`
`that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to this
`
`interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks to elicit expert testimony. Samsung further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion. Samsung further objects
`
`to this interrogatory to the extent it prematurely seeks Samsung’s contentions, including eliciting
`
`Samsung’s claim construction positions; Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will
`
`
`
`12
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 12 of 22
`
`

`

`provide its contentions consistent with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the Local Rules, and the Docket Control Order. Samsung objects to this interrogatory as
`
`containing multiple subparts, making the interrogatory inherently ambiguous, confusing, and
`
`unduly burdensome. Samsung objects to this request as improperly attempting to shift any
`
`burden to Samsung.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections, Samsung
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its forthcoming invalidity contentions, pursuant to
`
`Local Patent Rule 3-3. Further, Samsung incorporates by reference is response to Varta’s
`
`Interrogatory No. 4.
`
`Varta’s claim for injunctive relief is barred because there exists an adequate remedy at
`
`law, and Varta’s claims otherwise fail to meet the requirements for such relief. Varta’s claims are
`
`barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel based on statements, representations, and
`
`admissions made during prosecution of the patent applications resulting in the Asserted Patents.
`
`Varta’s claims for damages are statutorily limited or barred by 35 U.S.C. § 286. To the extent
`
`that Varta and any alleged predecessors-in-interest to the Asserted Patents failed to properly
`
`mark any relevant products as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287 or otherwise give proper notice that
`
`Samsung’s actions allegedly infringed the Asserted Patents, Samsung is not liable to Varta for
`
`the acts alleged to have been performed before it received notice that it was allegedly infringing
`
`the Asserted Patents. Varta cannot prove the case is exceptional and justifies an award of
`
`attorneys’ fees against Samsung under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`Varta is in possession of key facts related to certain of Samsung’s Affirmative Defenses.
`
`To retrieve such facts, Samsung has issued interrogatories to Varta, the response to which will
`
`
`
`13
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 13 of 22
`
`

`

`inform Samsung’s response to this interrogatory. Samsung will supplement its response at an
`
`appropriate time after receiving such information from Varta over the course of discovery.
`
`Investigation and discovery are ongoing in this case. The objections and responses are
`
`based upon information currently available to Samsung, and are made without prejudice to
`
`Samsung’s right to use or rely on any subsequently discovered information. Samsung
`
`specifically reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, and/or correct this response during
`
`discovery.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`Describe in detail how You first became aware of each of the Asserted Patents including identifying
`the date, circumstances, and Persons through which You first learned of the Asserted Patents and
`describe any assessments or analyses relating to potential infringement, validity, and/or
`enforceability of the Asserted Patents.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`
`In addition to the general objections, which are incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set forth herein, Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected
`
`by the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine, prepared in anticipation of
`
`litigation or for trial, or subject to any other applicable privilege, protection, immunity, or
`
`restriction upon discovery. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome to the extent it requests “any assessments or analyses,” including those that
`
`may be cumulative, irrelevant, redundant, or burdensome to locate. Samsung also objects to this
`
`interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent that it calls for information that is available to
`
`Varta from public or other sources and/or information that is redundant of publicly available
`
`information. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`
`that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung objects to this
`
`interrogatory as containing multiple subparts, making the interrogatory inherently ambiguous,
`
`
`
`14
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 14 of 22
`
`

`

`confusing, and unduly burdensome. Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information that Samsung is under an obligation to third parties not to disclose, or information
`
`otherwise subject to confidentiality restrictions of a third party – Samsung will provide such
`
`information only if the terms of such obligation are satisfied, and only pursuant to the terms of
`
`the Protective Order.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections, Samsung
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Samsung was aware of the Asserted Patents at least as early as February 5, 2020, the date
`
`Varta filed its Complaint in this litigation. See D.I. 1.
`
`Investigation and discovery are ongoing in this case. The objections and responses are
`
`based upon information currently available to Samsung, and are made without prejudice to
`
`Samsung’s right to use or rely on any subsequently discovered information. Samsung
`
`specifically reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, and/or correct this response during
`
`discovery.
`
` INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Separately for each Accused Product, state the sales and profits of the Accused Product in the United
`States on a monthly basis, including, without limitation, the number of units sold, revenues, gross
`profits, net profits, the costs associated with making and selling each Accused Product, and projected
`future sales in the United States through at least the year 2030, and identify the documents relating to
`and the Persons most knowledge about the same.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`In addition to the general objections, which are incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set forth herein, Samsung objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`seeking the disclosure of information that is not proportional to the needs of the case. Samsung
`
`further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent that it
`
`requires the gathering and preparation of information and documents not kept in the ordinary
`
`
`
`15
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 15 of 22
`
`

`

`course of business. Samsung objects to this interrogatory as containing multiple subparts,
`
`making the interrogatory inherently ambiguous, confusing, and unduly burdensome. Samsung
`
`further objects to this interrogatory to the extent there is no specified time period, or the provided
`
`time period is irrelevant and/or includes periods for which Varta would not be entitled to collect
`
`any damages. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it is not
`
`limited to the functionality at issue in this case.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections, Samsung
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), to the extent such documents exist and can be located
`
`following a reasonable search, Samsung will produce relevant, responsive, nonimmune, and non-
`
`privileged documents from which Varta may ascertain the requested information, once Varta
`
`finalizes the list of Accused Products.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its Initial Disclosures (including any supplements
`
`thereto).
`
`Investigation and discovery are ongoing in this case. The objections and responses are
`
`based upon information currently available to Samsung, and are made without prejudice to
`
`Samsung’s right to use or rely on any subsequently discovered information. Samsung
`
`specifically reserves the right to supplement, amend, modify, and/or correct this response during
`
`discovery.
`
` INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Separately, for each Accused Product, identify the date of first manufacture, sale, and/or offer for
`sale in, and/or importation into, the United States.
`
`
`
`16
`
`VARTA Ex. 2032 Page 16 of 22
`
`

`

`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`In addition to the general objections, which are incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`set forth herein, Samsung objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent that it
`
`calls for information that is available to Varta from public or other sources and/or information
`
`that is redundant of publicly available information. Samsung objects to this interrogatory as
`
`containing multiple subparts, making the interrogatory inherently ambiguous, confusing, and
`
`unduly burdensome. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it is
`
`not limited to the functionality at issue in this case.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing specific and general objections, Samsung
`
`responds as follows:
`
`The Galaxy Buds® were first shipped in the United States in February 2019. The Galaxy
`
`Buds+ were first shipped in the United States