Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 281 PageID #: 15115
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 281 PageID #: 15115
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`EXHIBIT 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 2 of 281 PageID #: 15116
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0516-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
`OBJECTIONSAND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF (NOS. 12-15)
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court, Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`(“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”) hereby responds to Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple” or “Defendant”)
`
`Third Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 12-15). These Interrogatories are continuing in
`
`nature and require supplementation in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as
`
`follows:
`
`These responses are made solely for the purposes of this action, and are made without
`
`waiving, or intending to waive, the right at any time to revise, correct, modify, supplement or
`
`clarify any response provided herein or the right to object on any proper grounds to the use of
`
`these responses, for any purpose in whole or in part, in any subsequent proceedings or any other
`
`action. The right to raise any applicable objections at any time is expressly reserved. A response
`
`to any interrogatory herein should not be taken as an admission or acceptance of the existence of
`
`any facts set forth or assumed by such interrogatory, or that such response constitutes admissible
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 3 of 281 PageID #: 15117
`
`(cid:3)
`
`evidence. The responses herein reflect only the present state of AGIS’s investigation and the
`
`present state of discovery. Except as otherwise indicated, an objection and/or response to a
`
`specific interrogatory does not imply that facts responsive to the interrogatory exist.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`AGIS incorporates by reference the general and specific objections in AGIS’s Objections
`
`and Responses to Apple’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 1-10), dated December 4,
`
`2017, AGIS’s Supplemental Objections and Responses to Apple’s First Set of Interrogatories to
`
`Plaintiff (Nos. 1-10), dated February 15, 2018, AGIS's Second Supplemental Objections and
`
`Responses to Apple's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 1-10), dated March 16, 2018,
`
`and AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Defendant Apple Inc.’s Second Set of Interrogatories
`
`to Plaintiff (No. 11) served March 30, 2018, AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Defendant
`
`Apple Inc.’s Third Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 12-15) served June 1, 2018, AGIS’s
`
`Objections and Responses to Defendant Apple Inc.’s Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff
`
`(No. 16) served May 18, 2018; AGIS’s Third Supplemental Objections and Responses to Apple’s
`
`First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 1-10) served August 18, 2018; AGIS’s Objections
`
`and Responses to Apple’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 17-22) served August 20,
`
`2018; AGIS’s Supplemental Objections and Responses to Apple’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories to
`
`Plaintiff (Nos. 17-22) served September 12, 2018; AGIS’s Fourth Supplemental Objections and
`
`Responses to Apple’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 1-10) served September 17,
`
`2018; AGIS’s Supplemental Objections and Responses to Apple’s Third Set of Interrogatories to
`
`Plaintiff (Nos. 12-15) served September 21, 2018; AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Apple’s
`
`Sixth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 23-24) served September 24, 2018; AGIS’s Second
`
`Supplemental Objections and Responses to Apple’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 4 of 281 PageID #: 15118
`
`(cid:3)
`
`17-22) served September 27, 2018; AGIS’s Third Supplemental Objections and Responses to
`
`Apple’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 17-22) served October 15, 2018; AGIS’s
`
`Fifth Supplemental Objections and Responses to Apple’s First Set of Interrogatories to
`
`Plaintiff (Nos. 1-10) served October 22, 2018, AGIS’s Fourth Supplemental Objections and
`
`Responses to Apple’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff (Nos. 17-22) served October 24,
`
`2018; and AGIS’s Objections and Responses to Apple’s Seventh Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff
`
`(No. 25) served October 24, 2018, and further objects as follows:
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 5 of 281 PageID #: 15119
`
`(cid:3)
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S
`THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF (NOS. 12-15)
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 12
`
`Identify each person and entity over whose documents and materials AGIS Software
`Development LLC has control.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`further objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege. AGIS further
`
`objects to this Topic on the ground it seeks information publicly available. AGIS objects to this
`
`topic as vague, ambiguous and confusing. AGIS objects to the definition of “control” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overbroad, and uncertain. AGIS objects to the term “entity” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`and uncertain.
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`Discovery in this case is still ongoing and AGIS continues to investigate this matter.
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC maintains documents and materials of AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13
`
`Separately, for each of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055, 9,445,251, 9,467,838, and 9,749,829,
`state whether or not AGIS contends that the asserted claims are governed by pre-America
`Invents Act 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (that is, the versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that
`were in effect prior to March 16, 2013). If AGIS contends that any of U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,408,055, 9,445,251, 9,467,838, and 9,749,829 is governed by pre-America Invents Act 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, state the complete factual and legal bases for such contention.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`further objects to this interrogatory as containing multiple distinct subparts, each of which count
`
`(cid:3)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 6 of 281 PageID #: 15120
`
`(cid:3)
`
`towards Apple’s total number of interrogatories, and AGIS is willing to meet and confer to
`
`properly narrow the scope of the interrogatory. AGIS objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks identification and production of documents based on legal conclusions or questions of pure
`
`law. AGIS further objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege.
`
`AGIS further objects to this request as premature at least to the extent it seeks expert opinion or
`
`testimony, and AGIS will not produce such information until the appropriate time under this
`
`Court’s scheduling order. AGIS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it purports to
`
`require AGIS to identify “complete factual and legal bases” concerning requested subject matter.
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`AGIS contends that the asserted claims of the ’251, ’055, ’838, and ’829 Patents are
`AGIS contends that the asserted claims of the ’251, ’055, ’838, and ’829 Patents are
`
`subject to pre-AIA law. While each of the ’251, ’055, ’838, and ’829 Patents has an actual filing
`subject to pre-AIA law. While each of the ’251, ’055, ’838, and ’829 Patents has an actual filing
`
`date of after March 16, 2013, each of the ’251, ’055, ’838, and ’829 Patents has an effective
`date of after March 16, 2013, each of the ’251, ’055, ’838, and ’829 Patents has an effective
`
`
`filing date, as evidenced on the face of each patent, of September 21, 2004. The ’251, ’055,nn
`filing date, as evidenced on the face of each patent, of September 21, 2004. The ’251, ’055,
`
`’838, and ’829 Patents and their respective applications do not contain, and did not contain at any
`’838, and ’829 Patents and their respective applications do not contain, and did not contain at any
`
`time, a claim to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
`time, a claim to a claimed invention having an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
`
`See, e.g., ’251 Patent File History, Office Action Appendix filed on August 25, 2015
`
`(“Application Identified as a Pre-AIA Application”). Each respective application of the ’251,
`
`’055, ’838, and ’829 Patents identified in the Domestic Benefit/National Stage Information
`
`section of the ADS as a continuation (CON) or divisional (DIV) of an application filed before
`
`March 16, 2013, indicating that each application should be examined under pre-AIA law because
`
`it does not contain, or did not contain at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an
`
`effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See, e.g., ’251 Patent File History, Application
`
`(cid:3)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 7 of 281 PageID #: 15121
`
`(cid:3)
`
`
`
`Data Sheet filed on February 27, 2015. Accordingly, each application of the ’251, ’055, ’838, Accordingly, each application of the ’251, ’055, ’838,
`
`
`and ’829 Patents was properly identified as pre-AIA application and each of the ’251, ’055, ’838, A
`and ’829 Patents was properly identified as pre-AIA application and each of the ’251, ’055, ’838,
`
`and ’829 Patents are subject to pre-AIA law.
`and ’829 Patents are subject to pre-AIA law.
`
`Discovery in this case is still ongoing and AGIS continues to investigate this matter.
`
`AGIS reserves the right to supplement or amend its response to this interrogatory.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14
`
`Identify any reference cited and relied upon by Apple in its December 1, 2017 invalidity
`contentions that AGIS contends is not prior art for purposes of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (e.g.,
`because is not a printed publication, was not in public use, was not available to the public, or for
`any other reason) and the complete factual and legal bases for such contention.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`further objects to this interrogatory as containing multiple distinct subparts, each of which count
`
`towards Apple’s total number of interrogatories, and AGIS is willing to meet and confer to
`
`properly narrow the scope of the interrogatory. AGIS objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks production of documents or information that is in the public domain and, therefore, of no
`
`greater burden for Apple than Plaintiff to obtain. AGIS objects to this interrogatory to the extent
`
`it seeks identification and production of documents based on legal conclusions or questions of
`
`pure law. AGIS further objects to this request as premature at least to the extent it seeks expert
`
`opinion or testimony, and AGIS will not produce such information until the appropriate time
`
`under this Court’s scheduling order. AGIS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`
`purports to require AGIS to identify “complete factual and legal bases” concerning requested
`
`subject matter. AGIS further objects to this Topic on the ground it seeks information not within
`
`the custody, possession, or control of AGIS. AGIS further objects to this Topic on the ground it
`
`seeks information not within the custody, possession, or control of AGIS. AGIS objects to this
`
`(cid:3)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 8 of 281 PageID #: 15122
`
`(cid:3)
`
`interrogatory to the extent it is overly broad and/or unduly burdensome, and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case. AGIS objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for confidential
`
`and/or proprietary information of any individual or entity other than AGIS.
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`Discovery in this case is still ongoing and AGIS continues to investigate this matter. The
`
`Patents-in-Suit are presumed valid, and it is Defendant’s burden to establish invalidity by clear
`
`and convincing evidence. The Asserted Claims are valid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`AGIS’s discovery, investigation and analysis are ongoing. Moreover, Apple continues to
`
`produce documents that appear to be related to, among other things, the subject of this
`
`Interrogatory. AGIS reserves the right to supplement or amend its response to this interrogatory.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
`
`
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is irrelevant, overly broad, and
`
`unduly burdensome because Apple no longer asserts many of the references cited and formerly
`
`relied upon by Apple in its December 1, 2017 invalidity contentions. Apple elected a final
`
`subset of alleged prior art on August 29, 2018, and this Response addresses only the elected
`
`references.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows: The
`
`following references are not prior art to the respective patents-in-suit as contended by Apple in
`
`its August 29, 2018 election of prior art references:
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent No. 7,609,669 to Sweeney is not prior art because the filing date
`
`listed on the face of the patent is February 14, 2005.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 9 of 281 PageID #: 15123
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent Application No. 08/0219416 to Roujinsky is not prior art because
`
`the filing date listed on the face of the published patent application is February 15, 2008.
`
`While Roujinsky appears to claim priority to August 10, 2006 and/or August 15, 2005 on
`
`the face of the patent application, the features for which Apple relies on in Roujinsky are
`
`not adequately supported under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the descriptions
`
`corresponding to the alleged priority dates.
`
`(cid:129) AGIS’s LifeRing product is not prior art because Apple has not alleged or shown that the
`
`invention was in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date
`
`of application for patent in the United States, and Apple has not alleged that it was in
`
`public use, on sale, or offered for sale more than a year prior to the earliest filing date of
`
`each of the patents-in-suit. AGIS’s LifeRing product and its prototypes are not prior art
`
`because Apple alleges that the product was made available to the public “at least by
`
`October 30, 2005.” Apple has not shown that the LifeRing product and its prototypes
`
`were “in public use” or “on sale.” Apple has not shown that any LifeRing documents are
`
`printed publications.
`
`(cid:129) The Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below system is not prior art because
`
`Apple has not alleged or shown that the invention was in public use or on sale in this
`
`country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United
`
`States, and Apple has not alleged that it was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale
`
`more than a year prior to the earliest filing date of each of the patents-in-suit. The Force
`
`XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below is not prior art because Apple has not shown
`
`that the Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below was in “public use” or “on
`
`sale.” The Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below system is not prior art
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 10 of 281 PageID #:
`15124
`
`(cid:3)
`
`because Apple has not shown that any purported use was “ready for patenting.” The
`
`Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below system is not prior art because Apple
`
`has not shown that any purported use constitutes “the invention,” occurred before the
`
`critical date, and was in fact public. The Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below
`
`system is not prior art because the documents cited in Apple’s invalidity contentions do
`
`not show sufficiently that the purported use was neither accessible to the public nor
`
`commercially exploited. The Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below system is
`
`not prior art because Apple has not shown that there existed a sale, or offer to sell, more
`
`than 1 year before the effective filing date of the U.S. application and the subject matter
`
`of the sale, or offer to sell, fully anticipated the claimed inventions in the patents-in-suit
`
`or would have rendered the claimed inventions obvious by its addition to the prior art.
`
`The Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below documents cited by Apple are not
`
`themselves prior art because Apple has not asserted the Force XXI Battle Command,
`
`Brigade and Below documents as printed publications and the Force XXI Battle
`
`Command, Brigade and Below documents are not printed publications.
`
`(cid:129) U.S. Patent No. 7,353,034 to Haney is not prior art because the filing date listed on the
`
`face of the patent is April 4, 2005.
`
`(cid:129) The ActiveCampus system is not prior art because Apple has not alleged or shown that
`
`the invention was in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the
`
`date of application for patent in the United States, and Apple has not alleged that it was in
`
`public use, on sale, or offered for sale more than a year prior to the earliest filing date of
`
`each of the patents-in-suit. The ActiveCampus system is not prior art because Apple has
`
`not shown that the ActiveCampus was in “public use” or “on sale.” The ActiveCampus
`
`(cid:3)
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 11 of 281 PageID #:
`15125
`
`(cid:3)
`
`system is not prior art because Apple has not shown that any purported use was “ready
`
`for patenting.” The ActiveCampus system is not prior art because Apple has not shown
`
`that any purported use constitutes “the invention,” occurred before the critical date, and
`
`was in fact public. The ActiveCampus system is not prior art because the documents cited
`
`in Apple’s invalidity contentions do not show sufficiently that the purported use was
`
`neither accessible to the public nor commercially exploited. The ActiveCampus system is
`
`not prior art because Apple has not shown that there existed a sale, or offer to sell, more
`
`than 1 year before the effective filing date of the U.S. application and the subject matter
`
`of the sale, or offer to sell, fully anticipated the claimed inventions in the patents-in-suit
`
`or would have rendered the claimed inventions obvious by its addition to the prior art.
`
`The ActiveCampus documents cited by Apple are not themselves prior art because Apple
`
`has not asserted the ActiveCampus documents as printed publications and the
`
`ActiveCampus documents are not printed publications.
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent Application No. 2007/0281690 to Altman is not prior art because the
`
`filing date listed on the face of the published patent application is June 1, 2006.
`
`(cid:129) The Navizon system is not prior art because Apple has not alleged or shown that the
`
`invention was in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date
`
`of application for patent in the United States, and Apple has not alleged that it was in
`
`public use, on sale, or offered for sale more than a year prior to the earliest filing date of
`
`each of the patents-in-suit. The Navizon system is not prior art because Apple alleges that
`
`the system was made available to the public “at least by October 30, 2005, and no later
`
`than February 20, 2006.” The Navizon system is not prior art because Apple has not
`
`shown that the Navizon was in “public use” or “on sale.” The Navizon system is not prior
`
`(cid:3)
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 12 of 281 PageID #:
`15126
`
`(cid:3)
`
`art because Apple has not shown that any purported use was “ready for patenting.” The
`
`Navizon system is not prior art because Apple has not shown that any purported use
`
`constitutes “the invention,” occurred before the critical date, and was in fact public. The
`
`Navizon system is not prior art because the documents cited in Apple’s invalidity
`
`contentions do not show sufficiently that the purported use was neither accessible to the
`
`public nor commercially exploited. The Navizon system is not prior art because Apple
`
`has not shown that there existed a sale, or offer to sell, more than 1 year before the
`
`effective filing date of the U.S. application and the subject matter of the sale, or offer to
`
`sell, fully anticipated the claimed inventions in the patents-in-suit or would have rendered
`
`the claimed inventions obvious by its addition to the prior art. The Navizon documents
`
`cited by Apple are not themselves prior art because Apple has not asserted the Navizon
`
`documents as printed publications and the Navizon documents are not printed
`
`publications.
`
`(cid:129) The Automatic Packet/Position Reporting system is not prior art because Apple has not
`
`alleged or shown that the invention was in public use or on sale in this country, more than
`
`one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States, and Apple has not
`
`alleged that it was in public use, on sale, or offered for sale more than a year prior to the
`
`earliest filing date of each of the patents-in-suit. The Automatic Packet/Position
`
`Reporting system is not prior art. The Automatic Packet/Position Reporting system is not
`
`prior art because Apple has not shown that the Automatic Packet/Position Reporting was
`
`in “public use” or “on sale.” The Automatic Packet/Position Reporting system is not prior
`
`art because Apple has not shown that any purported use was “ready for patenting.” The
`
`Automatic Packet/Position Reporting system is not prior art because Apple has not shown
`
`(cid:3)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 13 of 281 PageID #:
`15127
`
`(cid:3)
`
`that any purported use constitutes “the invention,” occurred before the critical date, and
`
`was in fact public. The Automatic Packet/Position Reporting system is not prior art
`
`because the documents cited in Apple’s invalidity contentions do not show sufficiently
`
`that the purported use was neither accessible to the public nor commercially exploited.
`
`The Automatic Packet/Position Reporting system is not prior art because Apple has not
`
`shown that there existed a sale, or offer to sell, more than 1 year before the effective
`
`filing date of the U.S. application and the subject matter of the sale, or offer to sell, fully
`
`anticipated the claimed inventions in the patents-in-suit or would have rendered the
`
`claimed inventions obvious by its addition to the prior art. The Automatic Packet/Position
`
`Reporting documents cited by Apple are not themselves prior art because Apple has not
`
`asserted the Automatic Packet/Position Reporting documents as printed publications and
`
`the Automatic Packet/Position Reporting documents are not printed publications.
`
`
`
`Discovery in this case is still ongoing and AGIS continues to investigate this matter. The
`
`Patents-in-Suit are presumed valid, and it is Defendant’s burden to establish invalidity by clear
`
`and convincing evidence. The Asserted Claims are valid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`AGIS’s discovery, investigation and analysis are ongoing. Moreover, Apple continues to
`
`produce documents that appear to be related to, among other things, the subject of this
`
`Interrogatory. AGIS reserves the right to supplement or amend its response to this interrogatory.
`
`SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 (10/25/18):
`
`
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is irrelevant, overly broad, and
`
`unduly burdensome because Apple no longer asserts many of the references cited and formerly
`
`relied upon by Apple in its December 1, 2017 invalidity contentions. Apple elected a final
`
`(cid:3)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 14 of 281 PageID #:
`15128
`
`(cid:3)
`
`subset of alleged prior art on August 29, 2018, and this Response addresses only the elected
`
`references.
`
`
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows: The
`
`following references are not prior art to the respective patents-in-suit as contended by Apple in
`
`its August 29, 2018 election of prior art references:
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent Application No. 2003/0217109 to Ordille is not prior art because
`
`while Ordille appears to claim priority to May 15, 2001 on the face of the patent
`
`application, the features for which Apple relies on in Ordille are not adequately supported
`
`under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the descriptions corresponding to the alleged priority
`
`date.
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent No. 7,386,589 to Tanumihardja is not prior art because while the
`
`filing date listed on the face of the patent is June 27, 2001, the features for which Apple
`
`relies on in Tanumihardja are not adequately supported under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a)
`
`by the descriptions corresponding to the alleged priority date.
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent No. 5,692,032 to Seppanen is not prior art because while the filing
`
`date listed on the face of the patent is November 27, 1995, the features for which Apple
`
`relies on in Seppanen are not adequately supported under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the
`
`descriptions corresponding to the alleged priority date.
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent Application No. 2006/0178128 to Eaton is not prior art because
`
`while Eaton appears to claim priority to December 19, 2003 on the face of the patent
`
`application, the features for which Apple relies on in Eaton are not adequately supported
`
`under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the descriptions corresponding to the alleged priority
`
`date.
`
`(cid:3)
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 15 of 281 PageID #:
`15129
`
`(cid:3)
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent No. 6,148,332 to Brewer is not prior art because while the filing
`
`date listed on the face of the patent is April 24, 1996, the features for which Apple relies
`
`on in Brewer are not adequately supported under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the
`
`descriptions corresponding to the alleged priority date.
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent No. 6,816,878 to Zimmers is not prior art because while the filing
`
`date listed on the face of the patent is February 11, 2000, the features for which Apple
`
`relies on in Zimmers are not adequately supported under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the
`
`descriptions corresponding to the alleged priority date.
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent Application No. 2002/0115453 to Poulin is not prior art because
`
`while Poulin appears to claim priority to February 16, 2001 on the face of the patent
`
`application, the features for which Apple relies on in Poulin are not adequately supported
`
`under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the descriptions corresponding to the alleged priority
`
`date.
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent No. 6,867,733 to Sandhu is not prior art because while the filing date
`
`listed on the face of the patent is April 9, 2001, the features for which Apple relies on in
`
`Sandhu are not adequately supported under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the descriptions
`
`corresponding to the alleged priority date.
`
`(cid:129) United States Patent No. 7,271,742 to Sheha is not prior art because while the filing date
`
`listed on the face of the patent is March 1, 2002, the features for which Apple relies on in
`
`Sheha are not adequately supported under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(a) by the descriptions
`
`corresponding to the alleged priority date.
`
`
`
`Additionally, to the extent Defendants seek to combine references for obviousness, there
`
`is no motivation to combine any of the references set forth by Defendants. AGIS’s discovery,
`
`(cid:3)
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 16 of 281 PageID #:
`15130
`
`(cid:3)
`
`investigation and analysis are ongoing. AGIS reserves the right to supplement or amend its
`
`response to this interrogatory.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 15
`
`Identify each reference cited and relied upon by Apple in its December 1, 2017 invalidity
`contentions that AGIS contends does not disclose one or more limitations of one or more
`asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and, for each reference, identify the limitations
`that AGIS contends are not disclosed by the reference and the complete factual and legal bases
`for such contention.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`further objects to this interrogatory as containing multiple distinct subparts, each of which count
`
`towards Apple’s total number of interrogatories, and AGIS is willing to meet and confer to
`
`properly narrow the scope of the interrogatory. AGIS objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`
`seeks identification and production of documents based on legal conclusions or questions of pure
`
`law. AGIS further objects to this request as premature at least to the extent it seeks expert
`
`opinion or testimony, and AGIS will not produce such information until the appropriate time
`
`under this Court’s scheduling order. AGIS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`
`purports to require AGIS to identify “complete factual and legal bases” concerning requested
`
`subject matter. AGIS further objects to this Topic on the ground it seeks information not within
`
`the custody, possession, or control of AGIS. AGIS objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`overly broad and/or unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`Discovery in this case is still ongoing and AGIS continues to investigate this matter. The
`
`Patents-in-Suit are presumed valid, and it is Defendant’s burden to establish invalidity by clear
`
`and convincing evidence. The Asserted Claims are valid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
`
`(cid:3)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 244-15 Filed 12/18/18 Page 17 of 281 PageID #:
`15131
`
`(cid:3)
`
`because each of the references included in Defendants’ invalidity contentions fails to disclose at
`
`least one limitation of each Asserted Claim. Additionally, to the extent Defendants seek to
`
`combine references for obviousness, there is no motivation to combine any of the references set
`
`forth by Defendants. AGIS’s discovery, investigation and analysis are ongoing. AGIS reserves
`
`the right to supplement or amend its response to this interrogatory.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`reserves the right to supplement this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks a response for
`
`additional references. AGIS states that this response is both premature and subject to further
`
`supplementation, in view of the final election of claims, the Court's Markman Order, and future
`
`expert testimony.
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`Each of the prior art references fails to disclose one or more limitations of the claims of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit at least because one or more of the prior art references are not prior art.
`
`The elected references fail to disclose and/or suggest claims 3, 5, and 8 of the ’970 Patent
`
`for at least the following non-limiting, exemplary reasons.
`
`ORDILLE fails to disclose and/or suggest claims 3, 5 and 8 of the ’970 Patent for at least
`
`the follow