Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Documer113tUEDIE VETESJQEI/OBHQ Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 5305
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 120-2 Filed 11/08/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 5305
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 120-2 Filed 11/08/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 5306
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:19-cv-0036-RWS
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-16)
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.
`
`(“Maxell”), through its undersigned counsel, hereby objects and responds to Defendant Apple
`
`Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-16) (“Interrogatories”) served by Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple” or “Defendant”) on June 27, 2019, as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`These answers are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each answer is
`
`subject to all objections, as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, and admissibility,
`
`and to any and all other objections on any grounds that would require the exclusion of any
`
`statements contained herein if such interrogatory were asked of, or statements contained herein
`
`were made by a witness present and testifying in Court, all of which objections and grounds are
`
`expressly reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
`
`2.
`
`Maxell’s responses are based upon information presently available to and located
`
`by Maxell. Maxell has not completed its investigation of the facts relating to this case, discovery
`
`in this action, or its preparation for trial. The responses are given without prejudice to Maxell’s
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 120-2 Filed 11/08/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 5307
`
`
`39). Maxell further identifies the following persons with knowledge of Apple’s willfulness:
`
`
`
`.
`
`Maxell reserves the right to amend, supplement, or otherwise change its response to this
`
`interrogatory should any additional information become available.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`If you contend that you are entitled to injunctive relief of any kind in this litigation, state
`
`in detail the factual and legal bases for your contention. Include in your response to this
`
`interrogatory, without limitation, the identity of all persons with knowledge of and all documents
`
`and things supporting your contention.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`
`Maxell incorporates herein its Preliminary Statement and General Objections set forth
`
`above. Maxell objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject
`
`to and protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint
`
`defense privilege, the common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity. Maxell objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information or
`
`documents that are premature and contrary to the procedure set forth in the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, or any scheduling order entered in this case. Maxell further objects to this interrogatory to
`
`the extent that it seeks a legal conclusion and/or presents a question of law. Maxell further
`
`objects that this interrogatory calls for information that will be the subject of expert opinion
`
`before the time for disclosure of expert opinions set forth by the Docket Control Order. Maxell
`
`further objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and neither relevant nor
`
`
`
`14
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 120-2 Filed 11/08/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 5308
`
`
`proportional to the needs of the case, including, for example, to the extent it seeks to the extent it
`
`seeks “the identity of all persons with knowledge of and all documents and things supporting
`
`your contention.” Maxell further objects that the information sought by this interrogatory is
`
`outside the possession, custody, or control of Maxell.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, to the
`
`extent Maxell understands this interrogatory and based on its current knowledge, Maxell
`
`responds as follows: The decision on whether injunctive relief is warranted is based on the
`
`consideration of four primary factors: (1) whether Plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; (2)
`
`whether remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for
`
`that injury; (3) whether, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and
`
`defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) whether the public interest would be
`
`disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
`
`Maxell has suffered irreparable injury as a result of Apple’s infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patents which cannot be adequately compensated by money damages. Maxell has worked
`
`diligently to preserve its patent rights, including the Asserted Patents in this case, through the
`
`courts when necessary. Maxell’s licensees, the users of the technology of the Asserted Patents,
`
`compete for market share with Apple. These licensees took a license from Maxell so that they
`
`could rely on the advantages of the technology of the Asserted Patents in order to gain a
`
`competitive edge in the marketplace. Apple’s use of the technology of the Asserted Patents
`
`without a license threatens and erodes the market share of Maxell’s licensees and encourages
`
`third parties to also improperly use the technology of the Asserted Patents without a license. This
`
`in turn has a direct and substantial impact on Maxell as a licensor, including loss of commercial
`
`negotiating power, increased legal fees and time in negotiating with such third parties, and
`
`
`
`15
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 120-2 Filed 11/08/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 5309
`
`
`damaged relationships with Maxell’s licensees who paid for the competitive advantage of the
`
`Asserted Patents. See, e.g., Mytee Prods. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 Fed. Appx. 882, 887-88
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction and finding that
`
`market harm to plaintiff’s franchisees would irreparably harm plaintiff); Robert Bosch LLC v.
`
`Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142, 1153-55 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding irreparable harm based on
`
`indirect competition through mass merchandisers, automotive specialty retailers, and original
`
`equipment manufacturers). Money damages would not be adequate to compensate Maxell for the
`
`injury caused by Apple’s infringing conduct.
`
`The full extent to which the foregoing eBay factors is satisfied is dependent in large part
`
`on discovery that is yet to be produced in this case. For example, Apple has not yet produced full
`
`discovery regarding its business or regarding components incorporated into the Accused
`
`Products. Such discovery impacts the degree of competition between the parties in suit, the
`
`adequacy of remedies available at law, the balance of hardships, and the impact on public
`
`interest.
`
`Maxell further states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), it has
`
`produced documents from which Apple may ascertain relevant information responsive to this
`
`interrogatory, including license agreements. Such documents include but are not limited to those
`
`bearing Bates
`
`nos. MAXELL_APPLE0107420
`
`– MAXELL_APPLE0107529
`
`and
`
`MAXELL_APPLE0190027 – MAXELL_APPLE0190064. Maxell further identifies
`
`
`
` as a person with knowledge of Maxell’s licensees.
`
`Maxell reserves the right to amend, supplement, or otherwise change its response to this
`
`interrogatory should any additional information become available.
`
`
`
`16
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`