Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 14405
`Case 2:17-cv-00514—JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 14405
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 21
`
`EXHIBIT 21
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514—JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 14405
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 21
`
`EXHIBIT 21
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 14406
`
`
`
`RESTRICTED -- ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT HTC CORPORATION’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF (NOS. 1-15)
`
`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
`
`supplements its response to Defendant HTC Corporation’s (“HTC”) First Set of Interrogatories
`
`to Plaintiff (Nos. 1-15) in writing, under oath, and in accordance with the following definitions
`
`and instructions. 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-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 14407
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13
`
`“joining a communication network corresponding to a group, wherein joining the
`communication network comprises transmitting a message including an identifier corresponding
`to the group”
`
`If You contend that any Instrumentality made by HTC Corp. practices the above quoted
`claim limitation of claims 1 and 54 of the ’838 patent, either directly or indirectly, explain the
`basis for Your contention including a specific element-by-element identification of the specific
`functionality of the HTC Corp. Instrumentality that corresponds to the following elements:
`
`(a) communication network;
`(b) group;
`I message; and
`(d) identifier.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13
`
`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 further objects to this interrogatory on the ground it
`
`seeks information publicly available. AGIS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground it
`
`seeks information not within the custody, possession, or control of AGIS. AGIS further objects
`
`to this interrogatory as it seeks information that is the topic of expert discovery.
`
`AGIS objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information already in HTC’s
`
`possession and is duplicative of information provided in accordance with the Court’s patent
`
`rules.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 14408
`
`
`
`AGIS objects to this interrogatory because the interrogatory is an improper compound
`
`request. AGIS objects to this interrogatory because the interrogatory contains multiple distinct
`
`sub-parts (at least four), each of which counts towards HTC’s total number of interrogatories.
`
`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
`
`directs HTC to the factual and legal bases of HTC’s infringement of the above-quoted claim
`
`limitation as shown in AGIS’s P.R. 3-1 Disclosures, i.e., infringement contentions, which were
`
`served on January 19, 2018.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13 (12/7/2018):
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General and Specific Objections, AGIS
`
`responds as follows:
`
`
`
`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
`
`further states that information responsive to this Interrogatory will be produced in AGIS’s expert
`
`reports in accordance with this Court’s scheduling order. 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.
`
`
`
`458
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 14409
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14
`
`“wherein the first device does not have access to respective Internet Protocol addresses of
`the second devices”
`
`If You contend that any Instrumentality made by HTC Corp. practices the above quoted
`claim limitation of claims 1 and 24 of the ’251 patent, either directly or indirectly, provide the
`basis for Your contention including a specific identification of the specific functionality of the
`HTC Corp. Instrumentality that You allege practices the phrase “does not have access.”
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14
`
`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 further objects to this interrogatory on the ground it
`
`seeks information publicly available. AGIS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground it
`
`seeks information not within the custody, possession, or control of AGIS. AGIS further objects
`
`to this interrogatory as it seeks information that is the topic of expert discovery.
`
`AGIS objects to this interrogatory because it seeks information already in HTC’s
`
`possession and is duplicative of information provided in accordance with the Court’s patent
`
`rules.
`
`AGIS objects to this interrogatory because the interrogatory is an improper compound
`
`request. AGIS objects to this interrogatory because the interrogatory contains multiple distinct
`
`sub-parts (at least four), each of which counts towards HTC’s total number of interrogatories.
`
`Notwithstanding its general and specific objections, AGIS answers as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 14410
`
`
`
`Discovery in this case is still ongoing and AGIS continues to investigate this matter. AGIS
`
`directs HTC to the factual and legal bases of HTC’s infringement of the above-quoted claim
`
`limitation as shown in AGIS’s P.R. 3-1 Disclosures, i.e., infringement contentions, which were
`
`served on January 19, 2018.
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14 (12/7/2018):
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its foregoing General and Specific Objections, AGIS
`
`responds as follows:
`
`
`
`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
`
`further states that information responsive to this Interrogatory will be produced in AGIS’s expert
`
`reports in accordance with this Court’s scheduling order. 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.
`
`
`
`460
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 14411
`
`
`
`Dated: December 7, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As to Objections,
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
`
` /s/ Vincent J. Rubino III
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`N.Y. Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`N.Y. Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`N.Y. Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Alessandra C. Messing
`NY Bar No. 5040019
`Email: amessing@brownrudnick.com
`John A. Rubino
`NY Bar No. 5020797
`Email: jrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`NY Bar No. 5526280
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`Daniel J. Shea Jr.
`NY Bar No. 5430558
`Email: dshea@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 East Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: 903-923-9000
`Facsimile: 903-923-9099
`
`
`
`
`463
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 14412
`Case 2:17-cv-00514—JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 14412
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, AGIS
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`464
`464
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 161-22 Filed 02/13/19 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 14413
`
`
`
`
`
`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:
`
`Miguel J. Bombach
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`
`Matthew C. Bernstein
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`
`James Y. Hurt
`jhurt@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
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant HTC CORPORATION
`
` /s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
` Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
