IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SPORTSCASTR INC.
`(d/b/a PANDA INTERACTIVE),
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GENIUS SPORTS LTD.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT GENIUS SPORTS
`LTD FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-19)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of
`
`this Court, the Court’s Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP 4.2) – Patent Cases, any other
`
`rules of discovery to which the parties agree in writing, or applicable Court orders, Plaintiff
`
`SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a Panda Interactive) (“Plaintiff” or “Panda”) hereby provide the following
`
`objections and responses to Defendant Genius Sports Ltd. (“Genius” or “Defendant”) First Set of
`
`Interrogatories to Plaintiff served on April 15, 2024.
`
`Plaintiff has not completed its investigation, has not completed its discovery in this action,
`
`and has not completed its preparation for trial. The responses herein are thus based only on
`
`Plaintiff’s knowledge as of the date of these responses. Pursuant to Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement their responses as discovery progresses in this action.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`The objections set forth in this section apply to each of the Interrogatories as if each were
`
`set forth in full response to each Interrogatory. The assertion of the same, similar, or additional
`
`objections in Plaintiff’s specific objections to individual Interrogatories, or the failure to assert any
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 1
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 1
`
`

`

`additional objection to an Interrogatory, does not waive any of Plaintiff’s objections set forth in
`
`this section or the following sections.
`
`1.
`
`These objections are made without waiving or intending to waive, but rather
`
`intending to preserve and preserving: (a) all objections to competency, relevancy, materiality,
`
`privilege, and admissibility as evidence for any purpose in the trial of this or any other action or
`
`any subsequent proceedings; (b) the right to object to the use of any documents (or the subject
`
`matter thereof) that may be produced in the trial of this or any other action or any subsequent
`
`proceedings on any grounds; (c) the right to preserve, prior to production and as a condition of
`
`production, the confidentiality or the proprietary nature of any documents that may be produced
`
`or the subject matter thereof; (d) the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand for
`
`further production or other discovery involving or relating to the subject matter of the
`
`Interrogatories; and (e) the right at any time to revise, supplement, clarify, or amend the responses
`
`and objections to the Interrogatories, if further factual developments or analysis warrants a
`
`modification, or if additional information is obtained or documents are located that are properly
`
`called for by the Interrogatories.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s “Definitions” on the following grounds:
`
`a. Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it defines a term
`
`inconsistent with any definitions of such term in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
`
`any applicable Local Rule or Order of this Court, or to the extent it seeks to create any
`
`obligation to provide information or documents in a manner not required under the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Civil Rules, or other applicable law.
`
`b. Plaintiff objects to the purported definitions in the Interrogatories to the extent
`
`that they require words to be construed in any manner other than their plain meaning. To
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`
`
`PAGE 2
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 2
`
`

`

`the extent that Plaintiff adopts or uses any term or phrase purportedly defined in the
`
`Interrogatories, it does so solely for convenience in responding to the Interrogatories, and
`
`Plaintiff does not accept or concede that any of the terms, phrases, or definitions are
`
`appropriate, descriptive, or accurate.
`
`c. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s definition of “You” and “Your” to the extent it
`
`includes persons or entities outside of Plaintiff’s control, to the extent Defendant requests
`
`documents or materials outside of Plaintiff’s control, and to the extent it includes persons
`
`or entities which are not parties to this action.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is
`
`not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. To the extent the Interrogatories seek any
`
`information or documents outside the scope of discoverable information, the Interrogatories are
`
`overbroad and call for the production of materials that are outside the scope of the issues relevant
`
`to this action, and are not proportional to the needs of this action.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to impose
`
`burdens and obligations on Plaintiff beyond those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the Patent Local Rules, and/or any other applicable statute, rule or Order and as such is not
`
`proportional to the needs of this action.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent that they seek to impose an
`
`obligation on Plaintiff to search for information beyond where such information would be
`
`reasonably likely to be kept in the ordinary course of business, or to search for information in the
`
`files of custodians as to which Plaintiff reasonably expects would result in a production that is
`
`largely duplicative or otherwise of insignificant relevance to the matters at issue in this action.
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`
`
`PAGE 3
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 3
`
`

`

`6.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they purport to require the
`
`production of electronically stored information from sources that are not reasonably accessible
`
`because of undue burden or cost. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B). To the extent that significant
`
`expense and/or assistance of third-party vendors would be required to restore or otherwise render
`
`electronically stored information accessible, Plaintiff objects to producing it.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek documents or
`
`information not in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control, and/or that cannot be located by a
`
`reasonable search.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek documents or
`
`information already in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, whether publicly available or
`
`otherwise equally available to Defendant and to Plaintiff.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that the answer to any
`
`Interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from publicly available documents or things, or
`
`documents or things to be produced by the parties, where the burden of deriving responsive
`
`information from those documents or things is substantially the same for Defendant as it is for
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it calls for documents
`
`or information which may be subject of expert opinion and testimony that is not required to be
`
`disclosed or exchanged at this stage in this action. All of the following responses are given without
`
`prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to procure, rely on, and introduce expert witness testimony, and such
`
`expert’s right to rely on, any documents or information deemed appropriate by that expert in
`
`formulating the expert’s opinion, whether or not identified in these responses.
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`
`
`PAGE 4
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 4
`
`

`

`11.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal
`
`arguments and/or legal conclusions.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it fails to specify
`
`a relevant time period or specifies a time period beyond the scope of this action as overbroad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and calling for information and/or the production of documents that are not
`
`relevant to any party’s claim or defense and not proportional to the needs of this action.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it fails to specify
`
`a relevant geographic scope or specifies a location beyond the geographic scope of this action as
`
`overbroad, unduly burdensome, and calling for information that is not relevant to any party’s claim
`
`or defense and not proportional to the needs of this action.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it requires a response
`
`premised on a construction and understanding of the meaning of certain patent claim terms before
`
`Defendant has identified its proposed claim constructions, and/or before the Court has construed
`
`the meaning and scope of any claim in the patents asserted in this action.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, and
`
`premature to the extent that its meaning or scope may depend on the construction of legal
`
`instruments that have not yet been construed by the Court, including the patents asserted in this
`
`action. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and amend their responses based upon any such
`
`legal construction by the Court.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the consulting expert privilege, the attorney
`
`work product doctrine, or any other applicable restriction upon discovery. Inadvertent disclosure
`
`of any information that is privileged, protected from disclosure, or otherwise immune from
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`
`
`PAGE 5
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 5
`
`

`

`discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or protection or the right to object to the
`
`use of the information that was inadvertently disclosed. Plaintiff reserves the right to recall from
`
`discovery any inadvertently produced document that is protected by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`by the work product doctrine, or by any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity from
`
`disclosure.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks any confidential,
`
`proprietary, and/or trade secret information. Plaintiff further objects to each Interrogatory to the
`
`extent that it seeks information that may contain personal identifying information, implicate
`
`privacy concerns of individuals, and the production of which to Defendant without proper consent
`
`or authorization may violate privacy laws.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to
`
`circumvent any dates that have been or will be established by applicable statute or rule, the local
`
`rules (including local patent rules), or Court Order. To the extent that any Interrogatory conflicts
`
`with these rules and orders, Plaintiff will follow the dates established in the applicable statute or
`
`rule, local rules (including local patent rules), or Court Order.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it is unreasonably
`
`cumulative or duplicative, or to the extent that the information sought may be obtained from
`
`another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information better obtained through requests for document production.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to
`
`require Plaintiff to create documents not already in existence.
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`
`
`PAGE 6
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 6
`
`

`

`22.
`
`Plaintiff objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information
`
`available through less burdensome means of discovery, including through the production of
`
`documents, requests for admission, and/or by a search of publicly available information.
`
`23.
`
`Nothing contained in these objections and responses is an admission regarding the
`
`relevance, materiality, or admissibility of any document or information provided in response to an
`
`Interrogatory, or the truth or accuracy of any factual statement incorporated into the Interrogatory
`
`itself.
`
`24.
`
`Any statement herein that Plaintiff will provide information responsive to any
`
`Interrogatory does not imply that Plaintiff has located information responsive to the Interrogatory,
`
`or that any such documents exist. Rather, any such statement means that Plaintiff will conduct a
`
`reasonable search for responsive information and provide relevant non-privileged information that
`
`are located through that search.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to supplement these General Objections.
`
`Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to supplement their responses to Defendants’
`
`Interrogatories per Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES
`
`Subject to the foregoing General Objections and to the specific objections set forth below,
`
`and without waiving any objections, Plaintiff submits the following responses to Defendant’s
`
`Interrogatories:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`
`For each Accused Product You contend has infringed or is infringing the Asserted Claims,
`describe in detail the complete factual and legal basis for Your contention that Genius Sports
`contributorily infringed or infringes, and/or induced or induces infringement of each Asserted
`Claim, including identifying any alleged direct infringers for any indirect infringement allegations,
`and an identification of each Person with knowledge of, and all Documents relating to, Your
`contentions.
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`
`
`PAGE 7
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 7
`
`

`

`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1 (May 29, 2024)
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference their General Objections. Plaintiff objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`work-product doctrine, expert privilege, common interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privilege or doctrine that limits discovery. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
`
`it seeks information already in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, whether publicly
`
`available or otherwise equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent it seeks to impose an obligation on Plaintiff to perform a search beyond the reasonable
`
`search called for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Patent Local Rules, and/or any other
`
`applicable statute, rule or Order, and, as such, is not proportional to the needs of this action.
`
`Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal arguments and/or legal
`
`conclusions. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for documents or
`
`information which may be subject of expert opinion and testimony that is not required to be
`
`disclosed or exchanged at this stage in this action. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature because fact discovery in this case has just begun and Plaintiff has yet to receive
`
`substantial document productions from Defendant.
`
`Subject to the foregoing objections, Plaintiff respond as follows:
`
`As described in Plaintiff’s Complaint and preliminary infringement charts, which are
`
`hereby incorporated by reference, Genius commits many acts that make it liable for contributorily
`
`infringement and induced infringement of its customers, partners, distributors, end-users, and any
`
`other entity that makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports the Accused Product. In addition, as
`
`set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 2, which is incorporated by reference, Defendant had
`
`actual knowledge of the ’687, ’218, and ’697 patents and of their infringement at least by October
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 8
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 8
`
`

`

`4, 2023, and the ’088 patent at least by April 17, 2024, when they received notice letters from
`
`Plaintiff. Moreover, as set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 19, which is hereby incorporated
`
`by reference, Defendant has been aware of Plaintiff’s products and technology covered by the
`
`Asserted Patents at least since communications between executives began in 2018. Defendant had
`
`constructive knowledge through Plaintiff’s marking at least on Plaintiff’s website, marketing
`
`materials, client contracts, terms of service, and product documents since at least since February
`
`2020. See e.g., SCSTR00003984.
`
`Further, Plaintiff incorporates by reference its complaint and description Genius’s
`
`infringing acts. For example, Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 28-35; 96-105; 140-
`
`149; 195-205; 248-258 from their Amended Complaint.
`
`For example, Defendant’s partners, customers, and end users of its Accused Products and
`
`corresponding systems and services directly infringe the Asserted Patents, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least by using the Accused Products and corresponding systems and
`
`services, as described above.
`
`Defendant has actively induced and are actively inducing infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patents with specific intent to induce infringement, and/or willful blindness to the possibility that
`
`its acts induce infringement, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). For example, Defendant
`
`encourages and induces customers to use Genius Sports in a manner that infringes the Asserted
`
`Patents at least by offering and providing the software and by engaging in activities relating to
`
`selling, marketing, advertising, promotion, installation, support, and distribution of the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`Defendant encourages, instructs, directs, and/or requires third parties—including its
`
`certified partners and/or customers—to use the Accused Products in infringing ways.
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 9
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Defendant further encourages and induces its customers to infringe the Asserted Patents:
`
`1) by widely advertising those services, and providing technical support and instructions to users,
`
`and 2) through activities relating to marketing, advertising, promotion, installation, support, and
`
`distribution of the Accused Products, including its video streaming software, and services in the
`
`United States.
`
`Further, as the entity that provides installation, implementation, and integration of the
`
`Accused Products in addition to ensuring the Accused Product remains operational for each
`
`customer through ongoing technical support, on information and belief, Defendant and/or
`
`Defendant’s partners affirmatively aid and abet each customer’s use of the Accused Products in a
`
`manner that infringes the Asserted Patents.
`
`Defendant also contributes to the infringement of its partners, customers, and end-users of
`
`the Accused Products by providing within the United States or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, constituting a material part of the inventions claimed, and not a staple article
`
`or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses.
`
`The Accused Products have no substantial non-infringing uses because the accused
`
`functionality, including the one-to-many socket architecture and separate channels for video and
`
`event information, is an integral part of the Accused Products and must be performed for the
`
`Accused Products to perform their intended purpose. These functionalities are continually running
`
`when the system is in use and, on information and belief, cannot be removed or disabled (or, if
`
`they could, the system would no longer suitably function for its intended purpose). Moreover, for
`
`the same reasons, without the system and components identified above that practice the Asserted
`
`Patents, that functionality could not be performed.
`
`Additionally, the accused functionality, including the one-to-many socket architecture and
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 10
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 10
`
`

`

`separate channels for video and event information, itself has no substantial non-infringing uses
`
`because the components, modules and methods identified above are a necessary part of that
`
`functionality. For example, without the one-to-many socket architecture, the Accused Products
`
`could not effectively synchronize the event information across multiple viewers. These
`
`functionalities are continually running when the system is in use and cannot be removed or
`
`disabled (or, if they could, the system would no longer suitably function for its intended purpose).
`
`Moreover, for the same reasons, without the system and components identified above that practice
`
`claimed in the Asserted Patents, that functionality could not be performed.
`
`The products, systems, modules, and methods provided by Defendant constitute a material
`
`part of the invention—indeed, they provide all the components, modules, and features that perform
`
`the claimed methods and systems. For example, the Accused Products and accused functionalities
`
`(e.g., the one-to-many architecture) constitute a material part of the inventions claimed because
`
`such architecture is integral to the system as recited in the claims of the Asserted Patents. None of
`
`these products are staple goods—they are sophisticated and customized video-streaming products,
`
`methods, and systems.
`
`The infringing actions of each partner, customer, and/or end-user of the Accused Products
`
`are attributable to Defendant. For example, Defendant directs and controls the activities or actions
`
`of its partners or others in connection with the Accused Products by contractual agreement or
`
`otherwise requiring partners or others to provide information and instructions to customers who
`
`acquire the Accused Products which, when followed, results in infringement. Defendant further
`
`directs and controls the operation of devices executing the Accused Products by programming the
`
`software which, when executed by a customer or end user, performs the claimed method of the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 11
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Plaintiff expects to rely upon expert testimony with respect to the contention that Genius
`
`Sports contributorily infringed or infringes, and/or induced or induces infringement of each
`
`Asserted Claim. Additional responsive and nonprivileged information on this subject will be
`
`provided in expert reports and other submissions at the appropriate time under the Court’s
`
`Scheduling Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Plaintiff has not completed its investigation, have not completed discovery in this action,
`
`and have not completed their preparation for trial. The responses herein are thus based only on
`
`Plaintiff’s knowledge as of the date of these responses. Pursuant to Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.,
`
`Plaintiff reserves the right to further supplement its responses as discovery progresses in this
`
`action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2
`
`Describe in detail the complete factual and legal basis for Your contention that Genius
`Sports willfully infringed or infringes the Asserted Patents as alleged in the Complaint, including
`without limitation the facts that support each basis, including but not limited to the complete factual
`and legal bases for Your contentions that Genius Sports’ alleged infringement was or is knowing
`and that You provided affirmative notice of Genius Sports’ alleged infringement as to each
`Asserted Patent prior to the filing of the Complaint, as asserted in the Complaint, and identify each
`Person with knowledge of, and all Documents relating to, Your contentions.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2 (May 29, 2024)
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference their General Objections. Plaintiff objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`work-product doctrine, expert privilege, common interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privilege or doctrine that limits discovery. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
`
`it seeks information already in Defendant’ possession, custody, or control, whether publicly
`
`available or otherwise equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent it seeks to impose an obligation on Plaintiff to perform a search beyond the reasonable
`
`search called for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Patent Local Rules, and/or any other
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 12
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 12
`
`

`

`applicable statute, rule or Order, and, as such, is not proportional to the needs of this action.
`
`Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal arguments and/or legal
`
`conclusions. Plaintiff further object to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for documents or
`
`information which may be subject of expert opinion and testimony that is not required to be
`
`disclosed or exchanged at this stage in this action. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature because fact discovery in this case has just begun and Plaintiff has yet to receive
`
`substantial document productions from Defendant.
`
`Subject to the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:
`
`As to knowledge, see Plaintiffs’ response to Interrogatory Number 1 above, which is
`
`incorporated by reference. Genius had knowledge of at least the ’687, ’218, and ’697 patents and
`
`of the infringement by several of Genius Sports’ offerings, when it received a notice letter. See
`
`October 4, 2023 Demand Letter. Defendant had actual or constructive notice of infringement of
`
`the ’088 Patent as of April 17, 2024. Moreover, Genius has constructive (if not actual) notice of
`
`the patents and of its infringement at least because Plaintiffs marked their products, since at least
`
`2020. This includes marking in Plaintiffs’ product materials, client contracts, and website
`
`materials. See e.g., SCSTR00003984. Despite its actual and constructive knowledge of the patents
`
`and its infringement, Defendant continued its infringing activities, including making, using,
`
`selling, and offering for sale the accused products, as well as contributing and inducing the
`
`infringement of others.
`
`Furthermore, as set forth in response to Interrogatory No. 19, which is hereby incorporated
`
`by reference, Defendant has been aware of Plaintiff’s products and technology covered by the
`
`Asserted Patents and other IP rights at least since communications between the parties began in
`
`2018. Defendant used this knowledge to copy the patented technology from Plaintiff, knowing the
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 13
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 13
`
`

`

`technology was protected by Plaintiff’s intellectual property. As set forth in more detail in response
`
`to Interrogatory 19, Defendant had access to Plaintiff’s product and even received an in-person
`
`demonstration of the SportsCastr platform under the guise of exploring a potential partnership and
`
`business opportunities. However, Defendant had other motives. After learning of the details of
`
`how Plaintiff’s technology worked, they copied it wholesale and unfairly competed with Plaintiff’s
`
`products, including through use (without compensation) of Plaintiff’s intellectual property, and
`
`engaging in other unlawful conduct to takeaway Plaintiff’s market share.
`
`Plaintiff identifies Kevin April as someone likely to have knowledge concerning the facts
`
`related to this interrogatory.
`
`Plaintiff expects to rely upon expert testimony with respect to the contention that Genius
`
`Sports willfully infringed or infringes each Asserted Claim. Additional responsive and
`
`nonprivileged information on this subject will be provided in expert reports and other submissions
`
`at the appropriate time under the Court’s Scheduling Order and the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`Plaintiff has not completed their investigation, have not completed discovery in this action,
`
`and have not completed their preparation for trial. Plaintiff expects additional information about
`
`Defendant’s knowledge of the patents and its infringement to be within Defendants discovery that
`
`has not yet been produced. The responses herein are thus based only on Plaintiff’s knowledge as
`
`of the date of these responses. Pursuant to Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiff reserves the right
`
`to further supplement its responses as discovery progresses in this action.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`If you contend that any limitations of the Asserted Claims are infringed under the doctrine
`of equivalents, for each such limitation describe in detail the complete factual and legal bases for
`Your contentions, including the identity of any element in the Accused Products that matches the
`function, way, and result of each claimed element, a description of the function, way, and result
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 14
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 14
`
`

`

`that You allege are substantially the same between each Asserted Claim and each Accused Product,
`and identify each Person with knowledge of, and all Documents relating to, Your contentions.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3 (May 29, 2024)
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference their General Objections. Plaintiff objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for information protected by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`work-product doctrine, expert privilege, common interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privilege or doctrine that limits discovery. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent
`
`it seeks information already in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, whether publicly
`
`available or otherwise equally available to Defendant. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to
`
`the extent it seeks to impose an obligation on Plaintiff to perform a search beyond the reasonable
`
`search called for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Patent Local Rules, and/or any other
`
`applicable statute, rule or Order, and, as such, is not proportional to the needs of this action.
`
`Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for legal arguments and/or legal
`
`conclusions. Plaintiff further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for documents or
`
`information which may be subject of expert opinion and testimony that is not required to be
`
`disclosed or exchanged at this stage in this action. Plaintiff also objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`premature because fact discovery in this case has just begun and Plaintiff has yet to receive
`
`substantial document productions from Defendant.
`
`Subject to the foregoing objections, Plaintiff respond as follows:
`
`As described in Plaintiff’s Complaint and preliminary infringement charts, Genius literally
`
`infringes the asserted claims by making, using, offering to sell and selling the systems described
`
`in the preliminary infringement charts. Discovery has just begun and Defendant has not produced
`
`all the technical information for the Accused Products. Nor has Defendant adequately provided or
`
`explained its non-infringement positions for each of the Asserted Claims. Once Defendant has met
`
`RESPONSES & OBJECTIONS TO GENIUS
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (1-19)
`
`PAGE 15
`
`Sportradar 1020
`Page 15
`
`

`

`its obligations, Plaintiff will supplement this response, if necessary.
`
`Plaintiff reserves its right, based on its review of ongoing discovery and its response to any
`
`theories of non-infringement adduced by Defendant, to supplement its theories of infringement
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents and to supplement its response based on the expert reports in
`
`accordance with the Procedural Schedule.
`
`Plaintiff has not completed its investigation, have not completed discovery in this action,
`
`and have not completed their preparation for trial. The responses herein ar