Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126-9 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 8810
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126-9 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 8810
`
`
` EXHIBIT 7
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126-9 Filed 01/28/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 8811
`
`
`
`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 126-9 Filed 01/28/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 8812
`
`
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome
`
`because it seeks information beyond the scope of HTC’s P.R. 3-3 disclosures, i.e., invalidity
`
`contentions, which were served on March 15, 2018.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is not relevant to any
`
`claims or defenses of any party to this action, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`AGIS contends that the asserted issued claims of the ’251, ’055, and ’838 Patents are
`
`subject to pre-AIA law. For example, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examined the ’251
`
`patent’s application under pre-AIA law (August 25, 2015 Office Action) and issued the ’251
`
`patent after issuing a July 7, 2016 Notice of Allowance which expressly identified the ’251
`
`patent’s application as being subject to pre-AIA law [see AIA (First Inventor to File) Status:
`
`NO]. While each of the ’251, ’055, and ’838 Patents has an actual filing date of after March 16,
`
`2013, each of the issued claims of the ’251, ’055, and ’838 Patents has an effective filing date, as
`
`evidenced on the face of each patent, of September 21, 2004. Accordingly, each of the issued
`
`claims of the ’251, ’055, and ’838 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. 17
`
`Identify all communications made by any representative or individual associated with any
`AGIS Company to any representative or individual associated with HTC Corporation or HTC
`America, Inc. that pre-date June 21, 2017.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`not proportional to the needs of the case because the burden or expense of the proposed
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126-9 Filed 01/28/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 8813
`
`
`
`discovery outweighs its likely benefit. AGIS further 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 further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground it
`
`seeks information not within the custody, possession, or control of AGIS. AGIS objects to the
`
`term “any AGIS company” as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and uncertain.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome
`
`because it seeks information beyond the scope of this case, e.g., “all communications made by
`
`any representative or individual associated with any AGIS company to any representative or
`
`individual associated with HTC Corporation or HTC America, Inc.”
`
`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 reserves the right to supplement the response to this Interrogatory to identify additional
`
`documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 18
`
`Describe, in full, the date on which AGIS contends that HTC Corporation received notice
`of each of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’970 patents, including: (a) the date of the notice; (b) the
`form that the notice was in (e.g., whether it was a hand-delivered letter, an e-mail, or was made
`verbally, etc.); (c) all documents reflecting the notice; (d) the person who received the notice; (e)
`the person who sent the notice; (f) the patent identified in the notice; and (g) how the notice put
`HTC Corporation on notice of an allegedly infringing act.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein.
`
`AGIS further objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case because the burden or expense of the
`
`proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126-9 Filed 01/28/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 8814
`
`
`
`AGIS further 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 because it is cumulative and/or duplicative of other
`
`discovery requests. AGIS further objects to this Interrogatory on the ground it seeks information
`
`not within the custody, possession, or control of AGIS.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome
`
`because it seeks information beyond the scope of HTC’s P.R. 3-3 disclosures, i.e., invalidity
`
`contentions and amended invalidity contentions, which were served on March 15, 2018 and May
`
`25, 2018, respectively.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is not relevant to the
`
`claims or defenses of any party to this action, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`HTC received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, at least of the date of the Complaint. The
`
`Complaint identifies the Patents-in-Suit and the infringing activity HTC has and continues to
`
`engage in. 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. 19
`
`AGIS has accused Find My Device and Device Manager (Find My Device’s predecessor)
`of infringing the ’970 patent. Find My Device is not installed on any HTC Corporation-made
`phone and Device Manager (Find My Device’s predecessor) and was only available from a
`Google owned and operated website accessible only via a web browser. Explain AGIS’s basis,
`and identify all documents in support of AGIS’s basis, for alleging that HTC Corporation
`directly infringes the ’970 patent.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126-9 Filed 01/28/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 8815
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 19
`
`AGIS hereby incorporates the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. AGIS
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and
`
`not proportional to the needs of the case because the burden or expense of the proposed
`
`discovery outweighs its likely benefit. AGIS further 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 is premature to the extent that
`
`discovery is not complete.
`
`AGIS objects to this Interrogatory 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 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 includes a non-infringement allegation
`
`that “Find My Device is not installed on any HTC Corporation-made phone and Device Manager
`
`(Find My Device’s predecessor).”
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`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.) (the “Complaint”); see 2018-11-28 Letter Rubino to Bernstein re
`
`970 Patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126-9 Filed 01/28/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 8816
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`