Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 439-3 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 24243
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 439-3 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 24243
`
`EXHIBIT 32
`
`EXHIBIT 32
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 439-3 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 24244
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`NO. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S TENTH SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND
`RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF MAXELL, LTD.’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-9)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Apple
`
`Inc. (“Apple”) submits the following objections and responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-9 of
`
`Maxell, Ltd.’s (“Maxell’s”) First Set of Interrogatories (“Requests”).
`
`The following responses are based on information currently known to Apple. While
`
`Apple has undertaken a diligent investigation in responding to Maxell’s Requests, Apple may
`
`need to modify, supplement, or amend these responses as more information becomes available.
`
`Apple anticipates that as this case proceeds, further information, documents, theories, and
`
`contentions may be discovered by Apple. Without in any way obligating itself to do so, Apple
`
`expressly reserves the right to modify, supplement, or amend any or all of these responses, as
`
`well as the right to use in discovery and at trial any information or documents omitted from these
`
`responses as a result of mistake, inadvertence, or oversight.
`
`By these responses, Apple does not intend to waive, and does not waive, any objection to
`
`admitting these responses or any documents produced into evidence, in whole or in part. Rather,
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TENTH SUPP. OBJS. AND RESPS. TO
`MAXELL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROG. (NOS. 1-9)
`NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 439-3 Filed 07/24/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 24245
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY 8:
`
`If You contend that acceptable, non-infringing alternatives to the inventions claimed in
`
`the Patents-in-Suit have existed or exist, specifically describe each alternative, state when it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TENTH SUPP. OBJS. AND RESPS. TO
`MAXELL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROG. (NOS. 1-9)
`NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`91
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 439-3 Filed 07/24/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 24246
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`became available, describe in detail the basis for Your contention that it is non-infringing, and
`
`identify all Documents related to this contention.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 8 (Updated March 31, 2020):
`
`Apple objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from
`
`disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the common-interest
`
`privilege, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(A), or any other privilege or immunity. Apple objects to this
`
`interrogatory as calling for a legal conclusion. Apple objects to this interrogatory as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and incomprehensible, at least as to the
`
`phrase “acceptable, non-infringing alternatives.” Apple objects to this interrogatory as
`
`premature in that it seeks Apple’s contentions and analysis before Apple has completed its
`
`investigation and discovery related to non-infringement issues, before Apple has conducted
`
`expert discovery on non-infringement, before the parties have offered their claim construction
`
`positions, and before the Court has construed the claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Apple objects to
`
`this interrogatory as prematurely requesting discovery of expert witness testimony and opinions
`
`before the time for such disclosures set forth in this Court’s Docket Control Order (D.I. 46, 232).
`
`See, e.g., Promethean Insulation Tech. LLC v. Sealed Air Corp., No. 2:13-cv-1113-JRG-RSP,
`
`2015 WL 11027038, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2015) (“A party is not entitled to obtain early
`
`disclosure of expert opinions via interrogatory.”); Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks
`
`Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-00033-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 427 at 2 (E.D. Tex. January 8, 2016) (“In
`
`responding to interrogatories, a party is not required to disclose its experts’ opinions in advance
`
`of the deadline for serving expert reports” (internal quotations and modifications omitted));
`
`Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. AOL LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-555, Dkt. No. 260 at 1 (E.D. Tex.
`
`May 26, 2010). Apple further objects to this interrogatory on the basis that Maxell’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TENTH SUPP. OBJS. AND RESPS. TO
`MAXELL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROG. (NOS. 1-9)
`NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`92
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 439-3 Filed 07/24/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 24247
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`Interrogatory. In view of the Court’s Order, Apple discloses the following possible non-
`
`infringing alternatives or substitutes for the claimed inventions of the asserted claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents that were available at least by the priority date of each respective Asserted
`
`Patent.
`
`’317 Patent, Claims 1, 3, 13 and 17; ’999 Patent, Claims 1-3; ’498 Patent, Claims 3
`
`and 13:
`
`• One non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to perform the
`
`function of “getting location information denoting a present place of said portable
`
`terminal” using components other than the claimed structure for the means-plus-function
`
`term “a device for getting location information denoting a present place of said portable
`
`terminal,” including, for example, performing said function without using “a wireless or
`
`cellular antenna, a GPS, a PHS, or the like; a data receiver; and a CPU for analyzing
`
`received data; or equivalents thereof.”
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to perform the
`
`function of “getting a direction information denoting an orientation of said portable
`
`terminal” using components other than the claimed structure for the means-plus-function
`
`term “a device for getting a direction information denoting an orientation of said portable
`
`terminal,” including, for example, by detecting direction information using GPS data.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to perform the
`
`functions of “getting a location information of another portable terminal … via a
`
`connected network” and “retrieving a route from said present place to said destination”
`
`using components other than the claimed structure for the means-plus-function terms “a
`
`device for [getting a location information of another portable terminal … / retrieving a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TENTH SUPP. OBJS. AND RESPS. TO
`MAXELL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROG. (NOS. 1-9)
`NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`94
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 439-3 Filed 07/24/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 24248
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`route from said present place to said destination],” including, for example, by retrieving
`
`data via a connected network using a cellular and/or WiFi device that does not include a
`
`Personal Handyphone System (PHS) terminal or equivalent.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to provide
`
`instructions for walking navigation without displaying “a relation of said direction and a
`
`direction from said present place to said destination” by, for example, displaying only the
`
`direction from the device’s present location to the destination.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to provide
`
`instructions for walking navigation without having the “display change[] according to a
`
`change of said direction of said portable terminal orientation for walking navigation,”
`
`including, for example, by having a fixed display direction.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to provide
`
`instructions for walking navigation without displaying “a distance between said present
`
`place and said destination … with a number” by, for example, indicating the distance
`
`graphically or audibly, or not indicating the distance.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to provide
`
`instructions for walking navigation without displaying “said route with a bent line using
`
`symbols denoting starting and ending points and displays symbols denoting said present
`
`place on said route” by, for example, not using a “bent line” in the display, not using
`
`“symbols denoting starting and ending points,” or not displaying “symbols denoting said
`
`present place on said route.”
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to provide
`
`instructions for walking navigation without displaying “a direction from said present
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TENTH SUPP. OBJS. AND RESPS. TO
`MAXELL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROG. (NOS. 1-9)
`NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`95
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 439-3 Filed 07/24/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 24249
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`video information of the second digital information of the videophone call” but instead
`
`performs both functions.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to have a
`
`processor that does not “switch[] a function of processing video information of the first
`
`digital information to a function of processing video information of the second digital
`
`information of the videophone call” when it “receives the inbound videophone call notice
`
`while displaying the first digital information on the display,” but instead switches
`
`processing upon the user accepting the inbound videophone call.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute to the alleged invention is to perform a
`
`method without performing the steps of “rendering the camera and microphone
`
`operative” and “displaying information indicating the outbound videophone call on the
`
`display” at the same time, but, for example, performing the steps at different times.
`
` ’306 Patent, Claims 6, 12, 14, and 15:
`
`• One non-infringing alternative or substitute is to cause “alerting on incoming of a signal”
`
`without using a “ringing sound” by, for example, using a visual notification, a vibration
`
`notification, a non-ringing audio notifications, or other known notification mechanisms.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute is to use a “ringing sound generator” that
`
`does not have “a plurality of patterns made of combination of at least two sound sources”
`
`by, for example, having only one sound source capable of generating different ringing
`
`sounds.
`
`• Another non-infringing alternative or substitute is to use a “ringing sound generator” that
`
`does not have “a plurality of patterns of sound generation protocols therewith” by, for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE’S TENTH SUPP. OBJS. AND RESPS. TO
`MAXELL’S FIRST SET OF INTERROG. (NOS. 1-9)
`NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`103
`
`
`
`