Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-5 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 8581
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-5 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 8581
`
`
` EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-5 Filed 01/28/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 8582
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0514-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION., ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S OBJECTIONS
`AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT HTC CORPORATION’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF (NOS. 16-25)
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”) hereby responds
`
`to Defendant HTC Corporation’s (“HTC” or “Defendant”) Second Set of Interrogatories to
`
`Plaintiff (Nos. 16-25) in writing, under oath, and in accordance with the following definitions
`
`and instructions, within thirty (30) days of the date of service thereof, November 7, 2018. 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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-5 Filed 01/28/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 8583
`
`
`
`AGIS further states that information responsive to this Interrogatory will be produced in
`
`AGIS’s expert reports in accordance with this Court’s scheduling order. Discovery in this case is
`
`still ongoing and AGIS continues to investigate this matter. AGIS reserves the right to
`
`supplement the answer to this Interrogatory upon the resolution of the above objections.
`
`Further, the statement “Find My Device is not installed on any HTC Corporation-made
`
`phone and Device Manager (Find My Device’s predecessor)” conflicts with statements made
`
`during the deposition of Steven Teng and presented in Exhibits 11- See Teng Deposition
`
`Transcript at 71:15-74:24; 82:5-85:20; 63:6-19.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 20
`
`HTC Corporation does not make, use, offer to sell, or sell smartphones in the United
`States or import smartphones into the United States. For each of the asserted claims of the ’055,
`’251, ’838, and ’970 patents, separately identify the party or parties that AGIS contends directly
`infringe each patent, and which activity or activities from 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (i.e., “makes . . .
`within the United States”, “uses . . . within the United States,” “offers to sell . . . within the
`United States,” “sells . . . within the United States,” or “imports into the United States”)
`constitute the infringing acts. Identify the documents that demonstrate these activities.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`and not proportional to the needs of this case because the burden or expense of the proposed
`
`discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory on the ground it seeks information that is the topic of
`
`expert discovery.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is properly the subject of
`
`expert reports before the deadline for such disclosures.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-5 Filed 01/28/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 8584
`
`
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory because it is cumulative and duplicative as it seeks the
`
`discovery of information that HTC has already obtained through AGIS’s Disclosure of Asserted
`
`Claims and Infringement Contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-1.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections, AGIS incorporates by
`
`reference as if fully set forth herein its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions and Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, served
`
`on January 19, 2018 and May 25, 2018, respectively. AGIS will supplement its response to this
`
`Interrogatory, if necessary, once the Court and/or the parties clarify the scope of the claims by
`
`virtue of the claim construction process.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 21
`
`Explain AGIS’s basis, and identify all documents in support of AGIS’s basis, for
`contending that HTC Corporation induces others to infringe each of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and
`’970 patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), including an identification of the party or parties that
`perform the alleged direct infringement and an identification of the activities conducted by HTC
`Corporation that you claim demonstrate a specific intent of HTC Corporation to encourage direct
`infringement, including HTC Corporation’s knowledge of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’970 patents,
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute direct infringement of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’970
`patents, and the affirmative steps taken by HTC Corporation to bring about direct infringement.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`and not proportional to the needs of this case because the burden or expense of the proposed
`
`discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-5 Filed 01/28/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 8585
`
`
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory on the ground it seeks information that is the topic of
`
`expert discovery.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is properly the subject of
`
`expert reports before the deadline for such disclosures.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory because it is cumulative and duplicative as it seeks the
`
`discovery of information that HTC has already obtained through AGIS’s Disclosure of Asserted
`
`Claims and Infringement Contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-1.
`
`AGIS identifies the following documents from which information responsive to this
`
`Interrogatory may be obtained: AGIS Software Development, LLC v. HTC Corporation, 2:17-cv-
`
`00514-JRG, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017) (the “Complaint”); see 2018-11-28 Letter Rubino
`
`to Bernstein re 970 Patent.
`
`AGIS further states that information responsive to this Interrogatory will be produced in
`
`AGIS’s expert reports in accordance with this Court’s scheduling order. Discovery in this case is
`
`still ongoing and AGIS continues to investigate this matter. AGIS reserves the right to
`
`supplement the answer to this Interrogatory upon the resolution of the above objections.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 22
`
`Claims 1 and 54 of the ’838 patent require the following claim limitations:
`
`“participating in the group, wherein participating in the group includes sending
`first location information to a first server and receiving second location
`information from the first server”
`
`and
`
`“sending, to a second server, a request for second georeferenced map data
`different from the first georeferenced map data”
`
`Identify: (a) whether AGIS alleges that an HTC Corporation-made phone or a server performs
`the “sending, to a second sever;” (b) what accused instrumentality AGIS contends is the claimed
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-5 Filed 01/28/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 8586
`
`
`
`“first server;” and (c) what accused instrumentality AGIS contends is the claimed “second
`server.”
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome,
`
`and not proportional to the needs of this case because the burden or expense of the proposed
`
`discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory on the ground it seeks information that is the topic of
`
`expert discovery.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is properly the subject of
`
`expert reports before the deadline for such disclosures.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory because it is cumulative and duplicative as it seeks the
`
`discovery of information that HTC has already obtained through AGIS’s Disclosure of Asserted
`
`Claims and Infringement Contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-1.
`
`Subject to and without waiving its general and specific objections, AGIS incorporates by
`
`reference as if fully set forth herein its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions and Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, served
`
`on January 19, 2018 and May 25, 2018, respectively. AGIS will supplement its response to this
`
`Interrogatory, if necessary, once the Court and/or the parties clarify the scope of the claims by
`
`virtue of the claim construction process.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-5 Filed 01/28/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 8587
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 7, 2018, a true and correct copy of the above and
`
`foregoing document has been served by email on:
`
`Matthew C. Bernstein
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`
`Eric Hugh Findlay
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`FINDLAY CRAFT PC
`102 N. College Avenue, Suite 900
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`Brian Craft
`bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`FINDLAY CRAFT PC
`102 N. College Avenue, Suite 900
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`
`James Y. Hurt
`jhurt@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`
`Miguel Jose Bombach
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP - San Diego
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-3334
`
`Kyle Ryan Canavera
`kcanavera@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP - San Diego
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-3334
`
`Attorneys for Defendant HTC Corporation
`
` /s/ Vincent J. Rubino III
`
` Vincent J. Rubino III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`