Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 99
`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 1 of 99
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
` Case No. 6:20-cv-1210-ADA
`(Pending in W.D. Tex.)
`
`NON-PARTY UMC GROUP (USA)’S
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC’S
`SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A
`DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MEDIATEK INC. AND MEDIATEK USA
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 2 of 99
`
`
`
`Robert G. Litts (No. 205984)
`CANDESCENT LAW GROUP
`1350 Old Bayshore Hwy, Ste. 520
`Burlingame, CA 94010
`Telephone: (925) 644-1102
`robert.litts@candescentlaw.com
`
`Attorney for Non-Party
`UMC Group (USA)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26, 30, 34 and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, non-party
`UMC Group (USA) hereby responds and objects to the Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a
`Civil Action (“Subpoena”) which was issued by Plaintiff Ocean Semiconductor LLC (“Ocean”
`or “Plaintiff”) in the above-captioned action and served on UMC Group (USA) at its offices in
`Sunnyvale, California on December 22, 2021. The Subpoena seeks deposition testimony from
`UMC Group (USA) on eleven Deposition Topics (each a “Topic” and collectively the “Topics”)
`listed in Attachment A to the Subpoena, and production by UMC Group (USA) of documents,
`electronically stored information (“ESI”), or objects described in forty-five Requests for
`Production of Documents (each a “Request” and collectively the “Requests”) also listed in
`Attachment A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 3 of 99
`
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The following objections and responses are based on UMC Group (USA)’s
`A.
`current knowledge, information and belief after making a reasonable inquiry within the time
`allotted by the Subpoena. UMC Group (USA)’s investigation into this matter is ongoing, and
`UMC Group (USA) is willing to meet and confer with Ocean regarding the scope of the
`documents and deposition testimony sought. UMC Group (USA) reserves the right to
`supplement its objections and responses to the Subpoena to the extent additional or different
`information becomes available.
`UMC Group (USA)’s objections and response to a particular Request or Topic
`B.
`shall not be interpreted as implying that documents responsive to the Request exist or that
`information covered by the Topic is known or reasonably available to UMC Group (USA), or
`that UMC Group (USA) acknowledges the appropriateness of the Request or Topic. Nothing in
`these objections or responses should be construed as a waiver of any rights of UMC Group
`(USA) under applicable rules and governing laws.
`Any production of information by UMC Group (USA) in response to the
`C.
`Subpoena will made pursuant to the Protective Order governing the disclosure of confidential
`information in the underlying action. UMC Group (USA) reserves the right to insist upon
`supplemental protections.
`UMC Group (USA)’s offices are located within the Northern District of
`D.
`California, not within the Western District of Texas where the underlying action is pending.
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, the United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California is the governing district for purposes of the Subpoena and any related
`motions. Nothing in these objections and responses, and no request by UMC Group (USA) for
`additional protections through entry of a supplemental protective order, should be construed as a
`waiver of the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 4 of 99
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the time, place, and manner specified in the
`1.
`Subpoena for appearing for a deposition and producing documents to the extent they are
`inconvenient and unduly burdensome to UMC Group (USA). UMC Group (USA) will appear
`for a deposition and produce documents, if at all, at a time and location, and in a manner, to be
`agreed upon by UMC Group (USA) and Ocean.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it seeks to
`2.
`impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern
`District of California, or any other applicable rule or law.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic the extent it seeks
`3.
`information that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-
`product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it seeks trade
`4.
`secret and/or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. Any
`production of information by UMC Group (USA) in response to the Subpoena will made
`pursuant to the Protective Order governing the disclosure of confidential information in the
`underlying action. UMC Group (USA) reserves the right to insist upon supplemental
`protections.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it seeks
`5.
`information not in UMC Group (USA)’s possession, custody or control.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it seeks
`6.
`information that is available from one or more parties to the underlying action and/or from public
`sources.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it seeks
`7.
`information that is more readily and/or appropriately available from, or confidential to, another
`non-party.
`
`
`
`-3-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 5 of 99
`
`
`
`
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it is
`8.
`duplicative of other discovery already taken or requested in the underlying action.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it seeks
`9.
`information that is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
`the case.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it is
`10.
`overbroad, vague and ambiguous, and/or imposes undue burden or expense upon UMC Group
`(USA).
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent it is not
`11.
`reasonably limited in time and scope.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent that
`12.
`responding or providing testimony would require subjective judgment and/or speculation on the
`part of UMC Group (USA).
`UMC Group (USA) objects to each Request and Topic to the extent that it calls
`13.
`for a legal conclusion.
`
`OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “UMC,” “You,” and “Your” as
`1.
`overbroad, vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, and seeking to impose duties or
`obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at
`least to the extent it covers entities and persons other than UMC Group (USA). For purposes of
`these objections and responses, UMC Group (USA) will interpret these terms to mean only UMC
`Group (USA).
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Plaintiff,” “Ocean
`2.
`Semiconductor,” and “Ocean” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal
`conclusion, providing insufficient identification and specificity, requiring subjective judgment
`and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those
`set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at least to the extent it covers entities and
`
`
`
`-4-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 6 of 99
`
`
`
`persons other than Ocean Semiconductor LLC. For purposes of these objections and responses,
`UMC Group (USA) will interpret these terms to mean only Ocean Semiconductor LLC.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “ASML” as overbroad, vague and
`3.
`ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and specificity,
`requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or obligations
`beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at least to the
`extent it covers entities and persons other than ASML Holding N.V. and ASML Netherlands
`B.V. For purposes of these objections and responses, UMC Group (USA) will interpret this term
`to mean only ASML Holding N.V. and ASML Netherlands B.V.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Applied Materials” as overbroad,
`4.
`vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and
`specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or
`obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at
`least to the extent it covers entities and persons other than Applied Materials, Inc. For purposes
`of these objections and responses, UMC Group (USA) will interpret this term to mean only
`Applied Materials, Inc.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “PDF Solutions” as overbroad,
`5.
`vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and
`specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or
`obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at
`least to the extent it covers entities and persons other than PDF Solutions, Inc. For purposes of
`these objections and responses, UMC Group (USA) will interpret this term to mean only PDF
`Solutions, Inc.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Defendant” and “Defendants” as
`6.
`overbroad, vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient
`identification and specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to
`impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of
`
`
`
`-5-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 7 of 99
`
`
`
`Civil Procedure, at least to the extent it covers entities and persons other than MediaTek Inc.,
`MediaTek USA Inc., NVIDIA Corporation, NXP USA, Inc., Renesas Electronics Corporation,
`Renesas Electronics America, Inc., Silicon Laboratories Inc., STMicroelectronics, Inc., Western
`Digital Technologies, Inc., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., HiSilicon
`Technologies Co., Ltd., Analog Devices, Inc., Infineon Technologies AG, and Infineon
`Technologies Americas Corp. For purposes of these objections and responses, UMC Group
`(USA) will interpret these terms to mean only MediaTek Inc., MediaTek USA Inc., NVIDIA
`Corporation, NXP USA, Inc., Renesas Electronics Corporation, Renesas Electronics America,
`Inc., Silicon Laboratories Inc., STMicroelectronics, Inc., Western Digital Technologies, Inc.,
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., HiSilicon Technologies Co., Ltd., Analog
`Devices, Inc., Infineon Technologies AG, and Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definitions of “Mediatek Infringing
`7.
`Instrumentalities,” “NVIDIA Infringing Instrumentalities,” “NXP Infringing Instrumentalities,”
`“Renesas Infringing Instrumentalities,” “STMicro Infringing Instrumentalities,” “Silicon Labs
`Infringing Instrumentalities,” “Western Digital Infringing Instrumentalities,” “Huawei Infringing
`Instrumentalities,” and “Infringing Instrumentalities” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous,
`calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and specificity, requiring
`subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or obligations beyond or
`inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at least to the extent
`they list product identifiers that are unfamiliar to UMC Group (USA) and therefore would
`require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what product(s) are associated with those product
`identifiers and about the identity of the manufacturer(s) of those products, and to the extent they
`would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what constitutes “similar systems,
`products, devices, and integrated circuits.” UMC Group (USA) further objects to the definitions
`of these terms as overbroad and vague and ambiguous, at least to the extent they improperly
`suggest that any products associated with the listed product identifiers infringe the Asserted
`
`
`
`-6-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 8 of 99
`
`
`
`Patents. Alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents has not yet been adjudicated in the
`underlying action.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definitions of “person,” documents,” “thing,”
`8.
`“sale,” “sold,” “communication,” “identify,” “identity,” “information,” “describe,” “date,”
`“relate to,” “related to,” “relating to,” “concerning,” and “possession,” at least to the extent they
`seek to impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules of the United States District Court for the
`Northern District of California, or any other applicable rule or law. For purposes of these
`objections and responses, UMC Group (USA) will interpret these terms in a manner consistent
`with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules of the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, and any other applicable rules and laws.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Advanced Process Control” and
`9.
`“APC” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient
`identification and specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to
`impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, at least to the extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about
`what constitutes “any computer integrated system or factory automation hardware or software for
`monitoring and/or controlling processes and tools,” to the extent it covers systems, hardware,
`and/or software that has not been identified by Ocean in its pleadings or in its Preliminary
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions in the underlying action and/or
`does not perform the accused functionalities claimed in any of the Asserted Patents, and to the
`extent it is inconsistent with any use of this term or similar terms in any of the Asserted Patents,
`or in any claim construction order or other orders entered in the underlying action.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Fault Detection and
`10.
`Classification” and “FDC” as overbroad, vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion,
`providing insufficient identification and specificity, requiring subjective judgment and
`speculation, and seeking to impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set
`
`
`
`-7-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 9 of 99
`
`
`
`forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at least to the extent it would require UMC Group
`(USA) to speculate about what constitutes “any computer integrated hardware or software for the
`detection and/or classification of manufacturing-related fault events,” to the extent it covers
`systems, hardware, and/or software that has not been identified by Ocean in its pleadings or in its
`Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions in the underlying
`action and/or does not perform the accused functionalities claimed in any of the Asserted
`Patents, and to the extent it is inconsistent with any use of this term or similar terms in any of the
`Asserted Patents, or in any claim construction order or other orders entered in the underlying
`action.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “YieldStar” as overbroad, vague
`11.
`and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and
`specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or
`obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at
`least to the extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what constitutes “any
`and all metrology and inspection systems designed, developed, assembled, and/or manufactured
`by ASML,” “ASML’s optical metrology systems,” “E-beam metrology and inspection systems,”
`and “all models, versions, and their predecessors,” and to the extent it covers systems, hardware,
`and/or software that has not been identified by Ocean in its pleadings or in its Preliminary
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions in the underlying action and/or
`does not perform the accused functionalities claimed in any of the Asserted Patents.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “TWINSCAN” as overbroad,
`12.
`vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and
`specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or
`obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at
`least to the extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what constitutes “any
`and all lithography systems designed, developed, assembled, and/or manufactured by ASML,”
`“ASML’s deep ultraviolet (DUY) lithography systems,” “extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography
`
`
`
`-8-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 10 of 99
`
`
`
`systems,” “lithography systems that utilize more than one wafer table,” and “their predecessors,”
`and to the extent it covers systems, hardware, and/or software that has not been identified by
`Ocean in its pleadings or in its Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions in the underlying action and/or does not perform the accused functionalities claimed
`in any of the Asserted Patents.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “E3” as overbroad, vague and
`13.
`ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and specificity,
`requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or obligations
`beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at least to the
`extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what constitutes “Applied
`Materials’ E3 framework, platform, hardware, and/or software and all equipment modules of E3”
`and “all models, versions, and their predecessors,” and to the extent it covers systems, hardware,
`and/or software that has not been identified by Ocean in its pleadings or in its Preliminary
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions in the underlying action and/or
`does not perform the accused functionalities claimed in any of the Asserted Patents.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “SmartFactory” as overbroad,
`14.
`vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and
`specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or
`obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at
`least to the extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what constitutes
`“Applied Materials’ SmartFactory Productivity Solution framework, platform, hardware and/or
`software and all equipment modules of SmartFactory” and “all models, versions, and their
`predecessors,” and to the extent it covers systems, hardware, and/or software that has not been
`identified by Ocean in its pleadings or in its Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions in the underlying action and/or does not perform the accused
`functionalities claimed in any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`-9-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 11 of 99
`
`
`
`
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Exensio” as overbroad, vague
`15.
`and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and
`specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or
`obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at
`least to the extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what constitutes “PDF
`Solutions’ Exensio framework, platform, hardware and/or software and all equipment modules
`of Exensio” and “all models, versions, and their predecessors,” and to the extent it covers
`systems, hardware, and/or software that has not been identified by Ocean in its pleadings or in its
`Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions in the underlying
`action and/or does not perform the accused functionalities claimed in any of the Asserted
`Patents.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Manufacturing Equipment” as
`16.
`overbroad, vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient
`identification and specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to
`impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, at least to the extent it refers to “TWINSCAN,” “YieldStar,” “E3,”
`“SmartFactory,” and “Exensio,” for the same reasons as provided herein for those terms
`individually, and to the extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what
`constitutes “their respective frameworks, platforms, hardware and/or software and all equipment
`modules.”
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Equipment Manufacturers” as
`17.
`overbroad, vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient
`identification and specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to
`impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, at least to the extent it refers to “Manufacturing Equipment,” for the same
`reasons as provided herein for that term.
`
`
`
`-10-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 12 of 99
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “MES” as overbroad, vague and
`18.
`ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient identification and specificity,
`requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to impose duties or obligations
`beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, at least to the
`extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about what constitutes “any and all
`manufacturing execution system used for monitoring, tracking, and/or documenting the process
`of manufacturing, fabricating, and/or assembling,” to the extent it covers systems, hardware,
`and/or software that has not been identified by Ocean in its pleadings or in its Preliminary
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions in the underlying action and/or
`does not perform the accused functionalities claimed in any of the Asserted Patents, and to the
`extent it is inconsistent with any use of this term or similar terms in any of the Asserted Patents,
`or in any claim construction order or other orders entered in the underlying action.
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the definition of “Product” and “Products” as
`19.
`overbroad, vague and ambiguous, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient
`identification and specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, and seeking to
`impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, at least to the extent it would require UMC Group (USA) to speculate about
`what constitutes “any and all components, subcomponents, auxiliary components, and accessory
`products,” and to the extent it covers systems, hardware, and/or software that has not been
`identified by Ocean in its pleadings or in its Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions in the underlying action and/or does not perform the accused
`functionalities claimed in any of the Asserted Patents.
`OBJECTIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS
`UMC Group (USA) objects to the Instructions in Attachment A to the Subpoena
`1.
`to the extent they seek to impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth
`in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules of the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, or any other applicable rule or law.
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 13 of 99
`
`
`
`
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR
`PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
`
`
`REQUEST NO. 1:
`Documents sufficient to show the use, utilization, installation, implementation, and/or
`deployment of ASML’s TWINSCAN lithography system and/or YieldStar metrology system in
`any of Your manufacturing and/or fabrication facility in connection with Your manufacture,
`fabrication, and/or assembly of any and all Infringing Instrumentalities for any Defendant,
`including the identification of all versions and models of any such system and the location of
`such use, utilization, installation, implementation, and/or deployment including the location of
`any and all such fabrication facilities.
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
`UMC Group (USA) incorporates each of its General Objections, Objections to
`Definitions, and Objections to Instructions herein by reference. UMC Group (USA) further
`objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information that is protected from discovery by the
`attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
`immunity. UMC Group (USA) further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information
`not in UMC Group (USA)’s possession, custody or control.
`UMC Group (USA) further objects to this Request as overbroad, vague and ambiguous,
`imposing undue burden and expense, calling for a legal conclusion, providing insufficient
`identification and specificity, requiring subjective judgment and speculation, seeking information
`that is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, and
`seeking to impose duties or obligations beyond or inconsistent with those set forth in the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure, at least to the extent it seeks information about “ASML’s TWINSCAN
`lithography system and/or YieldStar metrology system,” about “Your manufacturing and/or
`fabrication facility,” about “any and all Infringing Instrumentalities,” and about “any
`Defendant.”
`
`
`
`-12-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 14 of 99
`
`
`
`
`UMC Group (USA) further objects to this Request as seeking information that is more
`readily and/or appropriately available from, or confidential to, another non-party, at least to the
`extent it seeks information about “ASML’s TWINSCAN lithography system and/or YieldStar
`metrology system.”
`UMC Group (USA) further objects to this Request as seeking information that that is
`available from one or more parties to the underlying action, and duplicative of other discovery
`already taken or requested in the underlying action, at least to the extent it seeks information
`about “any and all Infringing Instrumentalities for any Defendant.”
`UMC Group (USA) further objects to this Request as seeking trade secret and/or other
`confidential research, development, or commercial information, at least to the extent it seeks
`information about “use, utilization, installation, implementation, and/or deployment of ASML’s
`TWINSCAN lithography system and/or YieldStar metrology system in any of Your
`manufacturing and/or fabrication facility,” about “Your manufacture, fabrication, and/or
`assembly of any and all Infringing Instrumentalities for any Defendant,” and about
`“identification of all versions and models of any such system and the location of such use,
`utilization, installation, implementation, and/or deployment including the location of any and all
`such fabrication facilities.” Any production of information by UMC Group (USA) in response to
`the Subpoena will made pursuant to the Protective Order governing the disclosure of confidential
`information in the underlying action. UMC Group (USA) reserves the right to insist upon
`supplemental protections.
`Subject to and without waiving these specific objections or the foregoing General
`Objections, Objections to Definitions, and Objections to Instructions, UMC Group (USA)
`responds that following a reasonable search, it has no non-privileged, relevant, responsive
`documents.
`REQUEST NO. 2:
`
`
`
`-13-
`UMC GROUP (USA)’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR
`LLC’S SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01215-ADA Document 56-4 Filed 02/16/22 Page 15 of 99
`
`
`
`
`Purchase or sales orders, invoices, purchase agreements, sales agreements, and/or
`supplier agreements relating to any TWINSCAN and/or YieldStar system(s) as described in
`Request for Production No. 1 between You and ASML.
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
`UMC Group (USA) incorporates each of its General Objections, Objections to
`Definitions, and Objections to