Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
`5916
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
`5917
`
`Jessica M. Kaempf
`jkaempf@fenwick.com | 206.389.4550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 16, 2024
`
`
`
`VIA EMAIL (CARDER@NELBUM.COM)
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`Nelson Bumgardner Conroy
`3131 West 7th, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`
`Re:
`
`R2 Solutions LLC v. Databricks, Inc.
` No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM (E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`Dear Carder:
`
`I write in response to your August 6, 2024 Letter. As an initial matter, Databricks has already
`provided significant discovery in this case, including technical documents and source code for the
`accused functionality as required by P.R. 3-4. Indeed, Databricks has produced 12,556
`documents, comprising 95,204 pages, and all versions of source code for the accused Apache
`Spark functionality. In contrast, R2 has produced just 28 documents. R2’s document production
`is deficient, and we request that you be prepared to address R2’s discovery deficiencies on our
`meet-and-confer.
`
`R2’s Request for Source Code
`
`letter acknowledges, Databricks has produced source code for the accused
`As your
`functionality—Apache Spark. Your letter does not explain what other source code R2 is
`requesting or explain why any other source code is relevant. Databricks requests that R2 identify
`with specificity the accused functionality for which source code has not been produced, what
`specific source code R2 is now requesting, and how that source code is purportedly proportional
`to the needs of the case.
`
`Moreover, to the extent any internal Databricks source code becomes relevant to the issues in
`this case, the parties will need to amend the Court’s default protective order (Dkt. 18) to provide
`a protocol for making source code available for inspection and adequately protect Databricks’
`Highly Confidential information, including source code. Databricks will not make its confidential
`source code available for inspection until an amended protective order that provides sufficient
`protection is in place. To the extent R2 is able to articulate a need for such source code,
`Databricks will provide a modified protective order for your consideration.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
`5918
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 2
`
`R2’s Document Requests
`
`Again, Databricks has already produced 12,556 documents, comprising 95,204 pages. Databricks
`has complied with its discovery obligations. R2 makes no effort to address that production, or
`explain why the documents already produced is insufficient. Further, R2 makes no effort to
`explain why the requested categories are relevant, proportional to the needs of the case
`(particularly in light of the over 12,000 documents already produced), and otherwise
`discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A), Databricks will
`provide its objections and responses to such Requests in due course then produce responsive,
`discoverable documents on a rolling basis thereafter.
`
`R2’s Discovery Deficiencies
`
`R2 has failed to produce documents as required by P.R. 3-2. Pursuant to P.R 3-2, “the party
`claiming patent infringement must produce to each opposing party or make available for
`inspection and copying: (1) [d]ocuments … sufficient to evidence each discussion with, disclosure
`to, or other manner of providing to a third party, or sale of or offer to sell, the claimed invention
`prior to the date of application for the patent in suit …; (2) [a]ll documents evidencing the
`conception, reduction to practice, design, and development of each claimed invention, which
`were created on or before the date if application for the patent in suit or the priority date
`identified pursuant to P.R. 3-1(e), whichever is earlier; and (3) [a] copy of the file history for each
`patent in suit.”
`
`To date, R2 has only produced the patent-in-suit and their associated file histories, patent
`assignments, two patent license agreements, one patent sale agreement,1 and IPR decisions
`related to the patent-in-suit. R2 has not produced any documents related to “discussions” with
`any third party regard these license and sales agreements as required by P.R. 3-2. Moreover, R2
`has not produced
`
` which is referenced in a
`
`
`1 R2 has produced the following assignment, license and sale agreements:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
`5919
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 3
`
`document that R2 produced. (See R2_DB_002055–002057). Databricks requests that R2
`immediately produce all documents regarding “discussions” and communications related to the
`, and all other assignment, license and sale agreements (see, e.g., fn. 1).
`Databricks further requests that R2 immediately produce all other agreements relating to the
`patent-in-suit, or confirm that the
`, and the produced assignment, license and
`sale agreements (see fn. 1) are the only agreements relating to the patent-in-suit.
`
`Moreover, aside from the prosecution history, R2 has not produced any documents evidencing
`the conception, reduction to practice, design, and development of the claimed inventions of the
`patent-in-suit as required by P.R. 3-2. Databricks requests that R2 immediately produce all such
`documents, or confirm that it does not have any such documents.
`
`Finally, R2 has not produced any other relevant documents. Databricks will serve Requests for
`Production as appropriate, but in the interim, please refer to Exhibit A, attached hereto, which
`provides an initial list of categories of documents that Databricks believes are relevant, and
`requests a complete production of responsive documents from R2.
`
`We are available to meet to discuss the above as necessary.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`Jessica M. Kaempf
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JMK:ga
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
`5920
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 4
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`In addition to P.R. 3-2 documents, Databricks requests that R2 produce the documents identified
`in the list below.
`
`As used herein, the terms “you” or “R2” means Plaintiff R2 Solutions LLC, and its predecessors,
`parents, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents, and attorneys, and each person
`acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.
`
`As used herein, the term “Excalibur IP” means Excalibur IP, LLC and includes any past and
`present parents, predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, entities under common ownership,
`affiliates, divisions, associated organizations, joint ventures, and all present and former officers,
`directors, trustees, employees, staff members, agents, or other representatives, including
`counsel and patents agents, in any country.
`
`As used herein, the term “Databricks” means Defendant Databricks, Inc., and its predecessors,
`parents, subsidiaries, directors, officers, employees, agents, and attorneys, and each person
`acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.
`
`As used herein, the term “’610 patent” or “patent-in-suit” means U.S. Patent No. 8,190,610.
`Requests referring to “each asserted claim in the patent-in-suit” require responsive documents
`for the ’610 patent. The term “asserted claim(s)” means any and all claims of the patent-in-suit
`that R2 contends Databricks infringes.
`
`As used herein, the term “related patents/applications” means any and all patents, patent
`applications and/or patent publications concerning subject matter similar to the claimed subject
`matter of the patent-in-suit; by way of example only, related patents/applications include any
`patent document that (i) claims priority from the patent-in-suit, (ii) is identified as priority for the
`patent-in-suit, or (iii) claims priority to any application to which the patent-in-suit claims priority.
`
`As used herein, the term “accused products” means any service, product, apparatus, device,
`technology, process, method, feature, component, software, hardware, firmware, application,
`source code, web page or pages, and any associated functionality, or any combination thereof,
`that you contend infringes any claim of the patent-in-suit.
`
`As used herein, the term “named inventor” means any of the inventors named on the patent-in-
`suit or its related patents/applications, including Ali Dasdan, Hung-Chih Yang, and Ruey-Lung
`Hsiao.
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
`5921
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 5
`
`As used herein, the term “related proceeding” means cases in which R2 has asserted
`infringement of related patents from the same patent family as the patent-in-suit or their related
`patent/applications, including but not limited to: R2 Solutions LLC v. Workday, Inc., Civil Action
`No. 21-cv-00093 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions LLC v. Target, Civil Action No. 21-cv-00092 (E.D. Tex.);
`R2 Solutions LLC v. Walmart Inc., Civil Action No. 21-cv-00091 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. Deezer
`SA, Civil Action No. 21-cv-00090 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Civil
`Action No. 21-cv-00123 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. The Charles Schwab Corp., Civil Action No. 21-
`cv-00122 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Civil Action No. 21-cv-00174 (E.D.
`Tex.); R2 Solutions v. iHeartMedia, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-cv-00552 (W.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v.
`Expedia Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-cv-00628 (W.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. Agoda Co. Pte. Ltd.,
`Civil Action No. 21-cv-00944 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. Booking.com Transport Ltd, Civil Action
`No. 21-cv-00943 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. Booking.com BV, Civil Action No. 21-cv-00942 (E.D.
`Tex.); R2 Solutions v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 21-cv-00941
`(E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. FedEx Corporation Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 21-cv-00940 (E.D.
`Tex.); R2 Solutions v. Citigroup Tech., Inc., Civil Action No. 22-cv-00357 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v.
`Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Civil Action No. 22-cv-00356 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. CVS
`Health Corp., Civil Action No. 22-cv-00354 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. American Airlines, Inc., Civil
`Action No. 22-cv-00353 (E.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v. CVS Health Corp., Civil Action No. 22-cv-00354
`(E.D. Tex.); Allegiant Travel Co. v. R2 Solutions, Civil Action No. 22-cv-00828 (D. Nev.); R2 Solutions
`v. Hilton Domestic Operating Co. Inc., Civil Action No. 22-cv-02761 (N.D. Tex.); R2 Solutions v.
`Cloudera, Inc., Civil Action No. 23-cv-01205 (W.D. Tex.); FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. v. R2
`Solutions LLC, IPR2022-01405 (P.T.A.B.); American Airlines, Inc. v. R2 Solutions LLC, IPR2023-
`00689 (P.T.A.B.); Cloudera, Inc. v. R2 Solutions, LLC, IPR2024-00303 (P.T.A.B.); Databricks, Inc. v.
`R2 Solutions LLC, IPR2024-00659 (P.T.A.B.).
`
`As used herein, the term “communication(s)” shall refer to all written, oral, telephonic, or other
`inquiries, dialogues, discussions, conversations, interviews, correspondence, consultations,
`negotiations, agreements, understandings, meetings, letters, notes, telegrams, advertisements,
`press releases, computer mail, email, and all other documents evidencing any verbal or nonverbal
`interaction between person or entities.
`Please produce the following documents:
`
`
`1. All documents related to the patent-in-suit.
`
`2. All documents and things constituting or relating to any embodiment of any purported
`invention disclosed, described, or claimed in the patent-in-suit, regardless of whether
`such embodiment was commercialized,
`including without
`limitation notes,
`correspondence, memoranda, reports, samples, advertisements, literature, drawings,
`schematic designs and diagrams, and block diagrams.
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
`5922
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 6
`
`3. All documents relating to how any covered product practices any alleged invention
`described or claimed in the patent-in-suit.
`
`
`4. All patents, publications, or things provided to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`during the prosecution of the patent-in-suit and any related patents or applications.
`
`5. All documents supporting, refuting, or relating to your contention that Databricks
`infringes the patent-in-suit.
`
`
`6. All documents and communications relating to any sale, license, or other disposition
`of any alleged invention claimed in the patent-in-suit.
`
`7. All documents that refer or relate to the first description in a printed document or
`publication, or the first public use, sale, or offer for sale, of the subject matter
`described in the patent-in-suit or any related patents/applications.
`
`
`
`8. All documents relating to ownership of the patent-in-suit, including without limitation
`all documents constituting or referring to any assignment or other transfer of
`ownership, all documents relating to any proposed or actual sale, license, or other
`assignment of any rights or interest in the patent-in-suit, and all documents relating
`to your purchase of the patent-in-suit and related negotiations.
`
`9. All documents and communications relating to any proposed or actual sale, license,
`or other assignment of any rights or interest in the patent-in-suit, including, but not
`limited to, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`10. All documents and communications relating to the acquisition and assignment of any
`right or interest in the patent-in-suit, including without limitation documents
`identifying each person holding any such right or interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
`5923
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11. All documents relating to any comparison between any product or service and the
`claims or subject matter of the patent-in-suit.
`
`12. All documents constituting or relating to any communication between R2 and any
`person concerning the scope or construction of the patent-in-suit as well as all
`documents constituting or relating to any communication between Excalibur IP and
`any person concerning the scope or construction of the patent-in-suit.
`
`
`13. All documents referring to the above-captioned litigation.
`
`14. Copies of all settlement agreements related to the patent-in-suit or related
`patents/applications.
`
`15. All documents and communications related to any settlement agreement(s) related
`to the patent-in-suit or related patents/applications.
`
`
`16. Copies of any license agreement(s) relating to the patent-in-suit or related
`patents/applications, including any draft license agreements.
`
`17. All documents and communications related to any license(s), offer(s) to license,
`release(s) of liability, or covenant(s) not to sue involving the patent-in-suit or related
`patents/applications.
`
`18. All pleadings and other documents related to any litigation, inter partes review
`proceeding, post grant review proceeding, or covered business method proceeding in
`which validity of any claim of the patent-in-suit or any related patents/applications
`was challenged.
`
`19. Copies of all alleged prior art relied on by any party in challenging the validity of any
`claim of the patent-in-suit or any related patents/applications in any litigation, inter
`partes review proceeding, post grant review proceeding, or covered business method
`proceeding.
`
`20. Copies of any finding, opinion, decision, or ruling by any judicial or administrative body
`relating to the validity, enforceability, or infringement of the patent-in-suit or any
`related patents or applications.
`
`
`21. Copies of all invalidity contentions, including invalidity claim charts, served upon R2
`or Excalibur IP in the related proceedings or otherwise received by R2 or Excalibur IP
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
`5924
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 8
`
`relating to any claim of the patent-in-suit or any related patents/applications,
`including any alleged prior art served to, produced to, or otherwise received by R2 or
`Excalibur IP in conjunction with any such contentions.
`
`22. All documents relating to any alleged evidence of secondary considerations of non-
`obviousness of any of the alleged inventions claimed in the patent-in-suit, including
`but not limited to, commercial success, long-felt need, attempts by others, failure of
`others, commercial acquiescence, licensing, professional approval, copying, or
`laudatory statements by others regarding the inventions claimed in the patent-in-suit.
`
`23. Copies of all infringement contentions served by R2 or Excalibur IP or otherwise
`provided to any person by R2 or Excalibur IP relating to the patent-in-suit or any
`related patents/applications
`
`24. Copies of all infringement contentions served by R2 or Excalibur IP or otherwise
`provided to any person by R2 or Excalibur IP in a litigation involving the patent-in-suit
`or any related patents/applications including, but not limited to, infringement
`contentions served by R2 or Excalibur IP in the related proceedings.
`
`25. All communications relating to any attempt by R2 or Excalibur IP or any other person
`to enforce the patent-in-suit or related patents or applications, including but not
`limited to documents relating to instances in which R2 or Excalibur IP took the position
`that a person infringed the patent-in-suit.
`
`26. Copies of any communications asserting infringement of the patent-in-suit or related
`patents/applications, from R2 to any person against whom R2 filed suit in 2024,
`including any documents accompanying such communications.
`
`
`27. Copies of any communications offering a license to the patent-in-suit or related
`patents/applications, from R2 to any person against whom R2 filed suit in 2024,
`including any documents accompanying such communications.
`
`28. All documents related to R2’s pre-suit investigation(s) of allegedly infringing activities
`of any party against whom R2 filed suit in 2024 asserting infringement of the patent-
`in-suit, including but not limited to any research of the accused products via
`archive.org.
`
`29. All documents related to R2’s investigation(s) of allegedly infringing activities of any
`party against whom R2 filed suit in 2024 asserting infringement of the patent-in-suit,
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
`5925
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 9
`
`
`
`which took place after filing such suit, including but not limited to any research of the
`accused products via archive.org.
`
`30. All documents constituting or relating to any agreement between you and the named
`inventors of the patent-in-suit or Excalibur IP and the named inventors of the patent-
`in-suit, including, but not limited to, any employment agreement, consulting
`agreement, confidentiality agreement, assignment, license, or any agreement
`entered into in connection with this action or any other actual or potential legal
`action.
`
`31. All documents authored, co-authored, edited, authorized, or otherwise prepared by
`or at the direction of any named inventor, whether or not publicly available, relating
`to the subject matter disclosed or claimed in the patent-in-suit.
`
`32. All documents relating to Databricks.
`
`33. All documents created by Databricks in your possession, custody, or control.
`
`34. All documents supporting, refuting, or relating to your contention that you have
`suffered damages as a result of any alleged infringement by Databricks of the patent-
`in-suit, including but not limited to any evidence of lost sales or lost profits.
`
`
`35. All documents relating to any computation, calculation, or estimation of damages or
`reasonable royalties claimed in this action.
`
`
`related
`their
`the patent-in-suit,
`to
`relating
`agreements
`license
`36. All
`patents/applications, other patents, or comparable technology, including draft license
`agreements.
`
`37. All patent, technology, or intellectual property license agreements that you contend
`are reasonably comparable (in technological subject matter, license terms, or
`otherwise) to a license that would have resulted from a hypothetical negotiation
`between and among R2 and Databricks related to the patent-in-suit as of the time of
`the first alleged infringement by Databricks, and all documents relating to such
`agreements.
`
`
`38. All documents and communications related to efforts to license the patent-in-suit, its
`related patents/applications, other patents, or comparable technology, including
`without limitation licensing proposals, offers, settlement offers, negotiations, notice
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
`5926
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 10
`
`letters, claim charts, draft and final licenses or agreements, exhibits, demand letters,
`and cease and desist letters.
`
`
`39. All documents showing the licensing revenue associated with the patent-in-suit
`including, but not limited to, any monthly, quarterly, and/or annual reports detailing
`the licensing revenue associated with the patent-in-suit.
`
`
`40. All documents relating to any valuation of the patent-in-suit, including but not limited
`to any valuation, analysis, study, or projection regarding the patent-in-suit.
`
`
`41. All documents and communications relating to any strategy to monetize the patent-
`in-suit.
`
`42. All documents and communications relating to final or draft agreements to purchase
`or sell, or offer to purchase or sell the patent-in-suit.
`
`43. All documents and communications relating to any due diligence you performed prior
`to obtaining interest in the patent-in-suit.
`
`44. All documents relating to the research, development, testing, financing, and/or
`marketing of any products and/or service that you contend embodies and/or
`practices any claim of the patent-in-suit, including without limitation marketing
`requirements documents, budgets, business plans, marketing plans, forecasts, financial
`reports and management reports.
`
`45. For the patent-in-suit, all documents concerning sales, offers for sale, leasing,
`licensing, sales forecasts, budgets, expenses, costs, and profitability of any allegedly
`patent-practicing product and/or service developed, offered, marketed or sold by R2
`or Excalibur IP or any of its either R2 or Excalibur IP’s predecessors.
`
`
`46. All documents, communications, and things related to any actual or potential sale,
`license, acquisition, transfer, and/or assignment of the patent-in-suit or related
`patents/applications (whether consummated or not) by R2, Excalibur IP, or any of
`itsR2 or Excalibur IP’s predecessors.
`
`47. All versions of products, devices, components, software, hardware, firmware,
`applications, source code, prototypes, and physical devices conceived, developed,
`manufactured, delivered, sold, offered for sale, or advertised by any entity, you or on
`your behalf that you claim embody any claims of the patent-in-suit or related
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
`5927
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 11
`
`patents/applications or the subject matter of the patent-in-suit or related
`patents/applications.
`
`
`48. All documents, communications, and things related to any products, devices,
`components, software, hardware, firmware, applications, source code, prototypes,
`and physical devices conceived, developed, manufactured, delivered, sold, offered for
`sale, or advertised by any entity, you or on your behalf that you claim embody any
`claims of the patent-in-suit or related patents/applications or the subject matter of
`the patent-in-suit or related patents/applications.
`
`
`49. All documents related to the research, development, testing, financing, or marketing
`of any product or service that you contend embodies or practices any claim of the
`patent-in-suit,
`including, without
`limitation, proposals, contractor or vendor
`agreements, product requirements documents, source code, technical documents,
`marketing requirements documents, budgets, bills of material, business plans,
`marketing plans, surveys, forecasts, financial reports, and management reports.
`
`
`50. All analyses, descriptions, summaries, presentations, forecasts, projections or
`business plans relating to your actual, attempted, or planned generation of revenue
`based on the provision or license of allegedly practicing products.
`
`51. All documents related to the value of any product you allege practices and/or
`embodies any claim of the patent-in-suit.
`
`52. All monthly, quarterly, and annual financial statements (including without limitation
`prospectuses, income statements, profit and loss statements, balance sheets, and
`source and use of funds statements) created for your management, directors, actual
`or potential investors, or other persons relating to the revenues, expenses, or profits
`of R2 from the sale, lease, or licensing of any allegedly practicing product developed,
`offered, marketed or sold by R2.
`
`53. For the patent-in-suit, documents sufficient to show (on a monthly basis) the number
`of units sold, costs of sales, indirect costs, average selling price, gross margins,
`operating margins, contribution margins, or profits from the sale, lease, or licensing
`of any allegedly patent-practicing product developed, offered, marketed or sold by
`R2.
`
`
`54. All documents relating to any alleged commercial success of any product you allege
`practices and/or embodies any claim of the patent-in-suit, including but not limited
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
`5928
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 12
`
`to documents sufficient to show a nexus between such commercial success and the
`elements of the particular claim or claims allegedly practiced.
`
`
`55. All documents relating to any non-infringing alternatives or acceptable substitutes for
`any alleged invention described or claimed in the patent-in-suit.
`
`56. All documents relating to any marking of any products and/or services you allege
`practice and/or embody any claim of the patent-in-suit (including third-party
`products), including without limitation all documents relating to or evidencing the
`date and manner in which each product was first marked.
`
`57. All documents supporting, refuting, or relating to your contention that you are
`entitled to attorneys fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`58. All documents referring or relating to market demand for any alleged invention
`claimed in the patent-in-suit.
`
`59. All documents demonstrating, referring to, or relating to the attempt or failure of
`others to arrive at any alleged invention claimed in the patent-in-suit.
`
`60. All documents that relate to the level of skill in the art relevant to the patent-in-suit.
`
`61. Documents sufficient to show the organizational structure of R2 since its inception,
`including organizational charts identifying the names, job titles, and/or duties of R2’s
`directors, officers and employees and corporate organizational charts identifying any
`parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of R2.
`
`
`62. Documents sufficient to show the past and present policy or policies of R2 or Excalibur
`IP, if any, concerning retention, preservation, or destruction of documents.
`
`
`63. All documents provided to or by any person who will be called to give testimony in
`this under Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
`
`64. All documents identified or relied upon or referred to in preparing your responses to
`any discovery served upon you by Databricks in this litigation.
`
`65. All documents identified, relied upon, or referred to in preparing subpoenas,
`interrogatories, requests for admission, or any other discovery request in this
`litigation.
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
`5929
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 13
`
`66. All communications with any R2 investor or Excalibur IP investor about the patent-in-
`suit or any lawsuit involving the patent-in-suit or any related patents/applications.
`
`67. Copies of all correspondence between R2, Excalibur IP, or R2 or Excalibur IP’s
`attorneys and any person against whom R2 or Excalibur IP filed suit, or contemplated
`filing suit, involving the patent-in-suit or any related patents/applications.
`
`68. All documents and communications prepared for any meeting between R2 or its
`attorneys and investors of R2 related to any litigation involving the patent-in-suit.
`
`69. All communications with any declarant submitting a declaration on behalf of you or
`any current or past holder of any interest in the patent-in-suit in any Patent Office
`proceeding involving the patent-in-suit and any documents received from or provided
`to the declarant relating to that declaration.
`
`70. All communications with any declarant submitting a declaration on behalf of you or
`any current or past holder of any interest in the patent-in-suit in any prior litigation or
`other related proceeding involving the patent-in-suit and any documents received
`from or provided to the declarant relating to that declaration.
`
`71. All documents you intend to rely on at trial in the above-captioned litigation or in any
`related proceeding.
`
`
`72. Documents sufficient to identify the name, title, and relationship of current officers,
`directors, and management at R2.
`
`73. A copy of any employment agreement or contract, consulting agreement or contract,
`or other arrangement between R2 and each current officer or principal manager.
`
`74. Documents sufficient to show the past and present policy or policies of R2, if any,
`related to patent licenses or licensing.
`
`
`75. All documents on which you intend to rely on to prove any claim or affirmative
`defense asserted by you in the above-captioned litigation.
`
`76. All documents related to R2’s identification of potential defendants to sue in 2025 for
`infringement of the patent-in-suit.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 84-5 Filed 02/12/25 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
`5930
`
`
`Carder W. Brooks
`August 16, 2024
`Page 14
`
`77. All documents related to any product, software, and/or hardware that you contend
`practice or embody (or have at any time practiced or embodied) any alleged invention
`described or claimed in any asserted claim(s) of the patent-in-suit.
`
`78. To the extent not produced in response to the foregoing requests for production, all
`documents and things that demonstrate, evidence, establish, or refute the allegations
`in R2’s affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims.
`
`
`79. All documents from or otherwise relating to related proceedings and any other legal
`proceedings (including foreign proceedings and proceedings before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board and International Trade Commission) involving the patent-in-suit
`and its related patents/applications, including: pleadings; deposition transcripts; trial
`transcripts; declarations; Rule 26(a) disclosures; yours and/or the other party(ies)’s
`responses to requests for production, interrogatories, or requests for admissions;
`motions; contentions; and expert reports or expert analyses relating to the
`infringement, damages, validity, or enforceability of the patent-in-suit.
`
`80. Documents sufficient to show R2’s current capitalization and assets and R2’s
`capitalization and assets at formation.
`
`
`81. Documents sufficient to show Acacia Research Group LLC’s current capitalization and
`assets and Acacia Research Group LLC’s capitalization and assets at formation.
`
`82. Documents sufficient to show Acacia Research Corporation’s current capitalization
`and assets and Acacia Research Corporation’s capitalization and assets at formation.
`
`83. All documents identifying any claim or assertion by R2 that Hadoop practices any
`asserted claim of the patent-in-suit or any related patents/applications.
`
`
`84. All documents and communications related to the contribution of Hadoop, the
`patent-in-suit, or any related patents/applications to open source software including,
`but not limited to, through the Apache Software Foundation.
`
`
`85. All documents and communications related to your contention of whether or not
`Yah