Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 13
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 1 of 13
`
`EXHIBIT GG
`EXHIBIT GG
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 6:21-cv-00755-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`GENTEX CORPORATION and INDIGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`
`
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC. and META
`PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS GENTEX CORPORATION AND INDIGO TECHNOLOGIES, LLC’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-15) TO DEFENDANTS
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules CV-26
`
`and CV-33, and the Order Governing Proceedings, Plaintiffs Gentex Corporation and Indigo
`
`Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, submit to
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) the
`
`following interrogatories. Defendants are required to answer each interrogatory separately and
`
`fully in writing, under oath, and to serve a copy of their answers upon Adam D. Harber,
`
`Williams & Connolly LLP, 680 Maine Avenue SW, Washington DC 20024, within 30 days from
`
`service hereof.
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`“Meta” means Meta Platforms, Inc., any past or present officers thereof, directors,
`
`employees, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors and successors, investors,
`
`shareholders, any joint venture to which either may be a party, contractors, consultants,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`representatives, agents, and accountants, including any person who served in any such capacity
`
`at any time.
`
`2.
`
`“Meta Technologies” means Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, any past or
`
`present officers thereof, directors, employees, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors and
`
`successors (including but not limited to Facebook Technologies, LLC and Oculus VR, Inc.),
`
`investors, shareholders, any joint venture to which either may be a party, contractors,
`
`consultants, representatives, agents, and accountants, including any person who served in any
`
`such capacity at any time.
`
`3.
`
`As used herein, the terms “you,” “your,” and “yours,” means Meta and Meta
`
`Technologies, collectively.
`
`4.
`
`As used herein, the term “Oculus Products” means any headset made, used, sold,
`
`offered for sale, and/or imported by you, including but not limited to the Oculus Rift, Oculus Rift
`
`S, Oculus Quest, Oculus Quest 2, and Meta Quest 2.
`
`5.
`
`As used herein, the term “Accused Products” means any products currently
`
`accused of infringement by Plaintiffs in this case, including but not limited to the Oculus Rift S,
`
`Oculus Quest, Oculus Quest 2, and Meta Quest 2, with their respective related instructions,
`
`systems, services, and software.
`
`6.
`
`As used herein, the term “representative” means any consultant, expert, attorney,
`
`contractor, or other person engaged by the designated entity to perform some task or assignment
`
`for the entity.
`
`7.
`
`As used herein, the term “employee” means any director, trustee, officer,
`
`employee, agent, consultant, partner, corporate parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or servant of the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`designated entity, whether active or retired, full-time or part-time, current or former, and
`
`compensated or not.
`
`8.
`
`As used herein, the terms “person” and “entity” mean any natural person and any
`
`other cognizable entity, including, without limitation, corporations, proprietorships, partnerships,
`
`joint ventures, joint marketing entities, businesses, consortiums, clubs, associations, foundations,
`
`governmental agencies or instrumentalities, societies, and orders.
`
`9.
`
`As used herein, the phrase “refer or relate to” shall be understood to apply if the
`
`document evidences, mentions, discusses, constitutes, concerns, relates, refers to (directly or
`
`indirectly), or in any other way pertains to the subject matter of the request.
`
`10.
`
`As used herein, the terms “and” as well as “or” shall be construed either
`
`disjunctively or conjunctively, and references shall be construed either as singular or plural, as
`
`necessary to bring within the scope of these requests any information or documents and things
`
`that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope.
`
`11.
`
`As used herein, the term “all” shall be construed to mean all or any, and the term
`
`“any” shall be construed to mean all or any.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`As used herein, the term “including” means “including but not limited to.”
`
`As used herein, the phrase “Patents-in-Suit” shall be construed to mean United
`
`States Patent Nos. 6,757,068 (the “’068 patent”), 7,301,648 (the “’648 patent”), 8,224,024 (the
`
`“’024 patent”), 6,922,632 (the “’632 patent”), and 7,725,253 (the “’253 patent”), each of which
`
`individually is a “Patent-in-Suit.”
`
`14.
`
`As used here, the phrase “prior art” shall mean the subject matter described in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103, including but not limited to publications, patents, physical devices,
`
`products, prototypes, uses, sales, offers for sale, and any documents evidencing the foregoing.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`15.
`
`As used herein, the term “P2P Pose Solver” means any source code implemented
`
`or used at any time by the Accused Products that combines (i) measurements or information
`
`about the orientation of an object with (ii) data representing two points associated with the object
`
`in an image obtained from a camera (computer vision or other bearing sensors)—to determine
`
`the position or pose of an object, including but not limited to the “P2P pose solver” described in
`
`the Oculus blog post “Tracking Technology Explained: LED Matching,” available at
`
`https://developer.oculus.com/blog/tracking-technology-explained-led-matching/, and all source
`
`code called by or implementing such functionality.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Defendants shall restate each interrogatory in its written response followed
`
`immediately by its response to each interrogatory. Defendants shall answer each interrogatory
`
`separately and fully in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33.
`
`2.
`
`Each interrogatory shall be answered fully unless it is in good faith objected to, in
`
`which event the reasons for your objection shall be stated in detail. If an objection pertains to
`
`only a portion of an interrogatory, or a word, phrase, or clause contained within an interrogatory
`
`request, you are required to state your objection to that portion only and respond to the remainder
`
`of the interrogatory, using your best efforts to do so. Your answers must be signed by the person
`
`providing them, and the objections, if any, are to be signed by the attorney making them.
`
`3.
`
`If, in responding to any of these interrogatories, Defendants encounter any
`
`ambiguity in construing either the interrogatory or a definition or instruction relevant to it,
`
`Defendants shall set forth the matter deemed ambiguous and the construction selected or used in
`
`responding to the interrogatory.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`4.
`
`When the phrase “in detail” is used in these interrogatories, Defendants shall
`
`supply a full description and narrative account of the event, transaction, relationship, thing, or
`
`occurrence inquired into, and include references to specific communications and documents and
`
`to the dates, places, and persons involved.
`
`5.
`
`When the term “identify” is used in these interrogatories, Defendants shall supply
`
`the following information as the context requires:
`
`(a) When “identify” is used with respect to a natural person, Defendants shall state
`
`the person’s full name, last known addresses (physical and e-mail), telephone
`
`number, and present or last known position or business affiliation;
`
`(b) When “identify” is used with respect to any other entity, Defendants shall state its
`
`full name, the address of its principal place of business, its state of incorporation
`
`or organization, and the names of its principals; and
`
`(c) When “identify” is used with respect to a document, Defendants shall state the
`
`name or title of the document, the type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum,
`
`telecopy, chart, etc.), its general subject matter, the date of the document, the
`
`persons to whom it was addressed or sent, and the persons who authored or sent
`
`the document.
`
`6.
`
`When an interrogatory does not specifically request a particular fact, but such fact
`
`or facts are necessary to make the answer to the interrogatory comprehensible, complete, or not
`
`misleading, Defendants shall include such fact or facts as part of its response.
`
`7.
`
`In responding to these interrogatories, if Defendants make any assumption of fact
`
`or law, they shall state each assumption and the basis for each assumption.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`8.
`
`If any interrogatory calls for the identification of any non-written communication
`
`or document claimed to be privileged, Defendants shall state for each non-written
`
`communication or document its date, type (e.g., memorandum, note, letter, etc.), author,
`
`addresses, and a general summary of the subject matter and basis for the privilege claimed.
`
`9.
`
`References to any natural person shall be deemed to include that natural person’s
`
`agents, attorneys, representatives, employees, and successors.
`
`10.
`
`References to any non-natural person (e.g., corporation, partnership, limited
`
`partnership, entity, etc.) shall be deemed to include that entity’s subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions,
`
`successors, and assigns, and its and their respective employees, agents, officers, directors,
`
`attorneys, representatives, and successors.
`
`11.
`
`The definitions and instructions herein are for purposes of discovery requests
`
`only, and do not constitute definitions for purposes of interpreting any licenses, patents, or other
`
`documents at issue in the case.
`
`12.
`
`These interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing so as to require prompt
`
`supplemental responses in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) if Defendants
`
`obtain or discover additional information called for by these interrogatories.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1. Do you contend that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for
`sale, and/or importation of the Accused Products would not infringe, either literally or under the
`doctrine of equivalents, any of the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents, assuming the asserted
`claims to be valid and enforceable? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified “No,”
`then for each claim for which your answer is anything other than an unqualified “No,” state all
`bases on which you contend the asserted claim would not be infringed either literally or under
`the doctrine of equivalents, including any basis upon which you assert that Plaintiffs are
`estopped from asserting infringement by the doctrine of equivalents.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2. Do you contend that any of the asserted claims of the
`Asserted Patents are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102,
`103, or 112? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified “No,” state all bases for your
`contention and identify individually for each challenged claim: (i) the portion(s) of any statutes
`or legal doctrines under which you contend the claim is invalid and all bases for each such
`contention; (ii) any prior art or other references which you contend render the claim invalid
`(either alone or in combination with other references); (iii) by claim charts or otherwise, for each
`reference on which you rely, what disclosures on which you rely for each limitation of the claim;
`and (iv) to the extent you have an obviousness contention, the reference(s) that you contend
`should be modified or combined and all bases for your contention that the person of ordinary
`skill would have had a reason to modify or combine the reference(s) and that there would have
`been a reasonable expectation of success.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3. Assuming that you are found to have infringed any claim
`of the Patents-in-Suit, do you admit that any such infringement was willful? If your answer is
`anything other than an unqualified “Yes,” then for each claim for which your answer is anything
`other than an unqualified “Yes,” state all bases on which you contend that any such infringement
`was not willful.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4. Do you contend that no objective indicia of non-
`obviousness, including without limitation commercial success, long-felt but unresolved need,
`failure of others, copying, or unexpected results, exist with respect to the asserted claims of the
`Asserted Patents? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified “No,” state all bases for
`your contention that there are no such objective indicia.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5. Identify with particularity all persons and documents on
`which you rely to support your contentions identified in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3,
`and 4.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6. State the complete legal and factual basis for each
`Affirmative Defense you identified in your Answer to the Complaint.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7. Identify the three employees of Meta and/or Meta
`Technologies who are the most knowledgeable about each of the following topics: (a) the
`functionality of the Accused Products relating to tracking objects, limbs, parts of limbs, heads, or
`other points; (b) the functionality of the Accused Products relating to sensors (including but not
`limited to cameras, inertial measurement units, and range sensors); (c) the functionality of the
`Accused Products relating to a P2P Pose Solver; (d) Oculus Insight and/or inside-out tracking (or
`any tracking without external sensors); (e) the decision to implement Oculus Insight and/or
`inside-out tracking (or any tracking without external sensors); (f) the marketing of the Accused
`Products; (g) the offering for sale and sale of the Accused Products; (h) the pricing of the
`Accused Products; (i) the revenue generated by the Accused Products; (j) the relationship
`between sales of the Accused Products and revenue from other Meta products and services used
`in conjunction with the Accused Products (including but not limited to advertisements,
`applications, application stores, marketplaces, and accessories); (k) revenue generated from other
`Meta products and services used in conjunction with the Accused Products (including but not
`limited to advertisements, applications, application stores, marketplaces, and accessories); (l) the
`costs of producing the Accused Products; (m) your first awareness of each Patent-in-Suit; and
`(n) the steps, if any, you took to avoid infringement of each Patent-in-Suit.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8. Describe in detail your awareness of the Patents-in-Suit or
`any patent or patent application that resulted in, or shares a priority claim with, any of the
`Patents-In-Suit, including when you first became aware of each such patent or patent application,
`all circumstances surrounding how you became aware of each such patent or patent application,
`and any actions or investigations you undertook in response, and identify the individuals who
`first became aware of patents or patent applications and any individuals involved in such actions
`or investigations.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9. Identify by file path, file name, and line numbers, for each
`Accused Product, the source code associated with the functionality of the Accused Product
`related to (a) tracking objects, limbs, parts of limbs, heads, or other points; (b) receiving
`measurement data from sensors, including but not limited to cameras, inertial measurement units,
`and range sensors; (c) the configuration of sensors, including but not limited to cameras, inertial
`measurement units, and range sensors; and (d) any P2P Pose Solver or the functionality it
`enables, and all authors of any such source code.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10. For any Accused Product that includes (1) Oculus
`Insight and/or inside-out tracking (or any tracking without external sensors) or (2) a P2P Pose
`Solver, explain why you originally included, and why you continue to include, such functionality
`in the Accused Product. Include an explanation of any benefits you or others have assessed to
`such functionality at any time, any preference that customers have voiced for such functionality,
`and any projections of what would happen to sales of the Accused Product if such functionality
`were removed from the Accused Product. As part of your response, identify all material
`documents supporting your response along with the five most knowledgeable persons about your
`response.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11. Describe in detail any due diligence, valuation analysis,
`IP analysis, or other analysis you conducted or received in conjunction with your acquisition of
`Oculus VR, Inc.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 12. Identify and describe in detail all license agreements,
`and proposed license agreements, whether or not ultimately executed, related to the Oculus
`Products or that you contend are relevant to the determination of damages in this action,
`including, but not limited to, license agreements, covenants, releases, and settlements.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 13. Identify and describe in detail all agreements with third
`parties for the provision of technology used in or related to the Accused Products, or that you
`contend are relevant to the determination of damages or infringement in this action.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 14. To the extent that you contend that there exist
`commercially acceptable and available non-infringing alternatives with respect to the Patents-in-
`Suit, identify with particularity such non-infringing alternatives, how each non-infringing
`alternative differs from the Accused Products and why you believe it is non-infringing, the dates
`on which such alternatives were available, the cost of implementation for each, the effect of
`implementation for each, including any studies, tests, or analyses of these costs and effects, and
`any documents on which you intend to rely in connection with each non-infringing alternative.
`INTERROGATORY NO. 15. For any Accused Product, describe in detail your
`contention about the relevant market and competitive substitutes for the Patents-in-Suit, your
`contention about the date of any hypothetical negotiation for each of the Patents-in-Suit, your
`contention about the basis for any consumer demand for the Patents-in-Suit, your contention
`about the appropriate reasonable royalty rate and base including your contention on whether or
`not there is an established royalty, the complete factual and legal bases for all of the foregoing.
`As part of your response, identify all documents supporting your response.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` /s/ Adam D. Harber
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Tel: 903-657-8540
`Fax: 903-657-6003
`mark@themannfirm.com
`
`David I. Berl (pro hac vice)
`Adam D. Harber (pro hac vice)
`Elise M. Baumgarten (pro hac vice)
`Melissa B. Collins (pro hac vice)
`D. Shayon Ghosh (pro hac vice)
`Arthur John Argall III (pro hac vice)
`Andrew G. Borrasso* (pro hac vice)
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: 202-434-5000
`Fax: 202-434-5029
`dberl@wc.com
`aharber@wc.com
`ebaumgarten@wc.com
`mcollins@wc.com
`sghosh@wc.com
`aargall@wc.com
`aborrasso@wc.com
`
` *
`
` Admitted only in Illinois. Practice in the District
`of Columbia supervised by D.C. Bar members
`pursuant to D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49(c)(8).
`
`
`
`11
`
`Dated: April 26, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 70-1 Filed 06/10/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, D. Shayon Ghosh, hereby certify that on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, I caused a copy of
`
`Plaintiffs Gentex Corporation and Indigo Technologies, LLC’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos.
`
`1-15) to Defendants to be served on the following counsel of record in the manner indicated
`
`below:
`
`Jeannie Heffernan
`Bailey Morgan Watkins
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`401 Congress Avenue
`Austin, TX 78701
`jeannie.heffernan@kirkland.com
`bailey.watkins@kirkland.com
`
`Ellisen Shelton Turner
`Joshua Glucoft
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`josh.glucoft@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`BY EMAIL
`
`
`Akshay S. Deoras
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`
`Paige Arnette Amstutz
`SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400
`Austin, TX 78701
`pamstutz@scottdoug.com
`
`
` /s/ D. Shayon Ghosh
`D. Shayon Ghosh
`WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
`725 Twelfth St., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Tel: (202) 434-5000
`Fax: (202) 434-5029
`sghosh@wc.com
`
`
`
`12
`
`