Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207-3 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 7373
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207-3 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 6 PagelD #: 7373
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207-3 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 7374
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG-RSP
`(Member Case)
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. AND T-MOBILE
`US, INC.,
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`d/b/a UBER,
`
`
`DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 3 & 8
`OF PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of
`
`the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Uber” or “Defendant”) provides these supplemental objections and responses to Interrogatory
`
`Nos. 3 and 8 of Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”) First Set of
`
`Interrogatories (Nos. 1‒9) (hereinafter, the “Interrogatories”) as follows.
`
`These responses reflect Uber’s current knowledge, understanding, and belief respecting the
`
`matters about which inquiry has been made. Discovery in this action is continuing, and
`
`consequently Uber may not yet have identified all information responsive to the Interrogatories.
`
`As discovery in this action proceeds, Uber may discover additional or different information or
`
`documents, and may accordingly amend, modify, supplement, clarify, or further explain these
`
`responses and objections. Further responsive information or documents may be provided in the
`
`course of expert discovery, as well as in connection with new information learned during fact
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207-3 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 7375
`
`The Vehicle Solutions group develops the Uber Fleet app. Tarun Phaugat and Xin Wang
`
`are part of the Vehicle Solutions group, which is based out of Uber’s San Francisco headquarters.
`
`Uber’s investigation is ongoing, and Uber reserves the right to supplement this response if
`
`any new or additional information is identified at a later time and to make any additional objections
`
`that may become apparent.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`For each Uber Accused Product, Identify, on a monthly basis from January 2015 to present:
`the gross revenue, net profits, profit margins, fixed and variable costs, average cost per unit (i.e.,
`application, service, and server) and transfer pricing, and set forth all bases for your response.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`In addition to Uber’s General Objections, Uber objects to this Interrogatory as vague and
`
`ambiguous, in particular with respect to the phrases “profit margins,” “fixed and variable costs,”
`
`and “average cost per unit (i.e., application, service, and server).” Uber objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as requesting information in a manner not kept in Uber’s ordinary course of business,
`
`including to the extent it seeks “average cost per unit (i.e., application, service, and server) and
`
`transfer pricing.” Uber objects to this Interrogatory as vague and ambiguous to the extent it relies
`
`on AGIS’s infringement contentions, which do not sufficiently identify and describe the
`
`functionality of the accused products and/or services that allegedly infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`Uber objects to this Interrogatory as improperly compound by seeking a separate identification of
`
`“gross revenue, net profits, profit margins, fixed and variable costs, average cost per unit (i.e.,
`
`application, service, and server) and transfer pricing.” Uber objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`overboard, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case to the extent it seeks
`
`financial information on a monthly basis from January 2015 to present, as well as to the extent it
`
`seeks financial data that is not relevant and not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of relevant
`
`information. Uber further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information not in
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207-3 Filed 11/05/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 7376
`
`Uber’s possession, custody, or control, and to the extent it seeks information that is publicly
`
`available or is equally available to AGIS.
`
`Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing general and specific objections, Uber
`
`responds as follows:
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Uber will produce records from which the answer to this
`
`Interrogatory can be derived, to the extent that such information is in Uber’s possession, custody,
`
`or control.
`
`Uber’s investigation is ongoing, and Uber reserves the right to supplement this response if
`
`any new or additional information is identified at a later time and to make any additional objections
`
`that may become apparent.
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
`
`Uber further responds as follows:
`
`Uber references the following record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) from which the
`
`answer to this Interrogatory can be derived: UBER_AGIS-00007803.
`
`Uber’s investigation is ongoing, and Uber reserves the right to supplement this response if
`
`any new or additional information is identified at a later time and to make any additional objections
`
`that may become apparent.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4
`
`Identify: (i) any agreements, licenses, or contracts, including attachments or exhibits to
`those documents, relating to any Uber Accused Product, including but not limited to, intellectual
`property license agreements, settlement agreements, and technology agreements; (ii) which of
`these agreements you contend are comparable to an agreement resulting from a hypothetical
`negotiation between You and AGIS, and (iii) the Person(s) most knowledgeable concerning any
`such agreements, licenses, or contracts, and attachments or exhibits to those documents.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207-3 Filed 11/05/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 7377
`
`Dated: August 20, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As to Objections:
`
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`/s/ Mark N. Reiter
`Mark N. Reiter
`Texas State Bar No. 16759900
`mreiter@gibsondunn.com
`Robert A. Vincent
`Texas State Bar No. 24056474
`rvincent@gibsondunn.com
`Nathan R. Curtis
`Texas State Bar No. 24078390
`ncurtis@gibsondunn.com
`Ashbey N. Morgan
`Texas State Bar No. 24106339
`anmorgan@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100
`Dallas, TX 75201-6912
`Telephone: 214.698.3360
`Facsimile: 214.571.2907
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLIAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: 90.934.8450
`Facsimile: 903.934.9257
`Email: melissa@gilliamsmithlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Uber
`Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 25 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 207-3 Filed 11/05/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 7378
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing document was served electronically on August 20, 2021, on all
`
`counsel who have consented to electronic service.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Nathan Curtis
`Nathan Curtis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 26 -
`
`