Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 5551
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO RULE 30(b)(6)
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, on October 16, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., at the offices of Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, LLP,
`
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501, Wilmington, DE, or at some other time and place as may be agreed
`
`upon by counsel, counsel for Arendi S.A.R.L. will take the videotaped deposition(s) of the
`
`designated representative(s) of Google best able to testify as to the matters set forth in Exhibit 1.
`
`Google has a duty to designate one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons
`
`with sufficient knowledge to testify fully regarding the topics listed in Exhibit 1. No later than ten
`
`business days prior to the deposition, Google shall identify the person(s) who will testify on its
`
`behalf pursuant to this notice and the matter(s) about which each person will testify.
`
`The deposition(s) will be taken before a Notary Public or some other officer authorized
`
`by law to administer oaths for use at trial. The above deposition(s) will be videotaped and will
`
`continue from day to day until completed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 5552
`
`
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`
`
`/s/ Beth A. Swadley
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Eve H. Ormerod (No. 5369)
`Beth A. Swadley (No. 6331)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`bswadley@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`Dated: August 26, 2019
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Stephen Susman
`Seth Ard
`Beatrice Franklin
`Max Straus
`SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, New York 10019
`Tel: (212) 336-8330
`ssusman@susmangodfrey.com
`sard@susmangodfrey.com
`bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com
`mstraus@susmangodfrey.com
`
`John Lahad
`SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77002-5096
`Tel: (713) 651-9366
`jlahad@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kemper Diehl
`SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
`Seattle, WA 98101-3000
`Tel: (206) 516-3880
`kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 5553
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`Definitions
`
`1. The terms “You,” “Google,” or “Defendant” mean collectively and/or individually
`Google LLC and its subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, successors, or assignees, and their
`respective officers, directors, employees, and agents.
`
`2. The terms “Plaintiff” or “Arendi” refer to Arendi S.A.R.L., including any officers,
`agents, employees, representatives, and all persons acting on its behalf.
`
`3. The terms “Asserted Patents” and “Patents-in-Suit” refer to the patents identified in the
`complaint in Your action. When any patent is referred to herein, that reference is
`intended to include the application on which it issued, its entire prosecution history,
`and all foreign counterparts, including foreign applications and foreign prosecution
`histories.
`
`4. The term “Accused Products” refers to the products identified in the most recently
`amended disclosure (including any supplemental disclosures and amendments to such
`supplements) made pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) of the Default Standard for Discovery.
`
`5. The term “Accused Devices” refers to those Accused Products for which a Device
`Name, Device Type, OS and/or Year is listed in Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s most recently
`amended disclosure (including any supplemental disclosures and amendments to such
`supplements) made pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) of the Default Standard for Discovery.
`
`6. The term “Linkify Functions” refers to any function or combination of functions that
`receive text information, analyze or parse text, and convert text expressions into
`selectable links or similarly active text. This includes but is not limited to Google
`LLC’s Linkify, Smart Linkify, TextClassifier, and TextView, and Apple Data Detector
`functions.
`
`7. The term “Accused Applications” refers to any applications that are preinstalled on the
`Accused Devices that include any “Linkify Functions” including but not limited to:
`
`a. messaging program(s) that display, create or manage text, SMS, or instant
`messaging
`b. email program(s) that display, create or manage email
`c. web browser(s) that display, create or manage a web page
`d. calendar and task program(s) that display, create or manage calendar items
`e. task program(s) that display, create or manage task list items
`f. contacts program(s) that display, create or manage contact entries, or address book
`entries
`g. text editor program(s) that display, create or manage text documents
`h. slides program(s) that display, create or manage slides documents
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 5554
`
`i. spreadsheet program(s) that display, create or manage spreadsheet documents
`
`8. The terms “all” and “each” shall be construed as “and,” “each,” and “and/or.”
`
`9. The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively
`as necessary to bring within the scope of the topic all responses that might otherwise
`be construed outside of its scope.
`
`10. The term “any” should be understood in either its most or least inclusive sense as will
`bring within the scope of the topic all responses that might otherwise be construed to
`be out of its scope.
`
`11. The terms “relate,” “relating,” or “related” mean in any way, directly or indirectly, in
`whole or in part, relating to, concerning, referring to, discussing, mentioning,
`regarding, pertaining to, describing, reflecting, containing, analyzing, studying,
`reporting on, commenting on, evidencing, constituting, setting forth, considering,
`recommending, modifying, amending, confirming, endorsing,
`representing,
`supporting, qualifying, terminating, revoking, refuting, undermining, canceling,
`contradicting, or negating.
`
`12. The term “person” refers both to natural persons and entities including individual
`proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, associations, joint ventures, and other
`organizations, and the acts and knowledge of a person include the acts and knowledge
`of that person’s directors, officers, members, employees, representatives, agents, and
`attorneys.
`
`13. The term “document” means documents and tangible things, including electronically
`stored information and email, within the full scope of the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure.
`
`14. The term “communication” means any disclosure, transfer, or exchange of information
`or opinion, however made.
`
`15. The word “preinstalled” refers to software, programs and/or applications (including
`operating systems) that are a) loaded and/or installed on a device before that device is
`sold and/or offered for sale to an end user (but excluding the resale and/or offering for
`resale of a used device by an end user), b) loaded and/or installed on a device in a
`factory setting, c) present on a device at the time an end user (other than an end user
`who acquires ownership and/or possession of a used device from another end user)
`acquires ownership and/or possession of that device for the first time, and/or d) are
`automatically loaded and/or installed on a device when that device is first turned on
`and/or initialized and/or set up and/or activated by an end user.
`
`16. The terms “sale,” “sales,” “sell” or “sold” shall include sales, licenses, leases, loans,
`consignments, distribution to resellers or others (including, but not limited to, to Your
`related and affiliated entities) and all other methods of product distribution whether
`direct or indirect, and whether the product is distributed singly or in combination with
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5555
`
`or as part of another product, and whether or not revenue was or will be received
`therefrom.
`
`17. The term “Related Cases” means the following cases filed in the District of Delaware,
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. HTC Corp., et al., 12-CV-1600; Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, 13-
`919-LPS; Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Oath Holdings Inc. et al., 13-CV-920; Arendi S.A.R.L. v.
`Motorola Mobility LLC, 12-CV-1601-LPS; Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Microsoft Mobile Inc.,
`12-CV-1599; Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., 12-CV-1598-
`LPS; Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., 12-CV-1595-LPS; Arendi S.A.R.L.
`v. Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., et al., 12-CV-1602; Arendi S.A.R.L. v.
`Blackberry Ltd., et al., 12-CV-1597-LPS.
`
`18. “Identify” or “identity of” when used with reference to:
`
`a. An individual person, means to state his or her full name, present or
`last known employer, job title, general job description, present or
`last known residence addresses and telephone number, and present
`or last known business addresses and telephone number;
`
`b. A business entity, means to state the full name and address of the
`entity and the names and positions of the individual or individuals
`connected with such entity who have knowledge of the information
`required;
`
`c. A document, means to identify the document by bates number, or if
`it is not bates numbered, to state the type of document (letter,
`memorandum, email, etc.), its dates, author(s) or originator(s),
`addressee(s), all individuals who received copies of the document,
`the identity of persons known or presumed by You to have present
`possession, custody, or control thereof, and a brief description of the
`subject matter and present location;
`
`d. A product, system, or method, means to specify a part number, trade
`name, catalog name, version number, and any other designation
`used to refer to the product, system, or method.
`
`Topics
`
`1. How Google realizes, recognizes, and classifies revenues from the Accused Products,
`including a description of Google’s methodology for characterizing revenue as U.S. or
`international for U.S. tax purposes.
`
`2. Google’s accounting practices pertaining to the Accused Products, including Google’s
`methods of accounting for revenues, costs, profits, methods or depreciation, allocation
`of expenses, inventory measurements, profit allocation, losses, and assignments of
`debt.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 5556
`
`3. Google’s methods for valuing the Accused Products with respect to their contributions
`to good will, user retention, advertising revenue, collection of user data, and/or
`contribution to other revenue-generating products of Google.
`
`4. As to sales, use, or monetization of the Accused Products, Google’s revenues, assigned
`costs, profit margins, and total profits.
`
`5. The amount of sales, use, subscriptions, monetization, costs, or revenues related to the
`Accused Products purportedly occurring within the United States, the basis for any
`contention that other sales, uses, subscriptions, monetization, costs, or revenues related
`to the Accused Products occur outside the United States, and the amount of such non-
`United States sales, uses, subscriptions, monetization, costs, or revenues.
`
`6. As to the financial records and/or summary documents produced by Google in this
`litigation that purport to reflect Google’s revenues, profits or losses from sales, use, or
`monetization of the Accused Products, the circumstances under which those records
`were generated, the accounting methods and practices employed in generating such
`records, the underlying data from which such records were generated, the explanation
`of any terms or legends in such records, and reconciliation of those figures to those
`publicly disclosed in Google’s SEC filings, including the definitions and amounts of
`any deductions and allowances necessary for reconciliation.
`
`7. License agreements, settlement agreements, and royalty agreements relating to the
`Accused Products or to Google’s damages contentions that Google, or its affiliates or
`assigns, has entered into from 2007 to the present or that cover that period.
`
`8. License agreements, settlement agreements, and royalty agreements relating to any
`aspect of Google’s products involving recognition of all or part of names, addresses,
`phone numbers, calendar
`information,
`flight numbers, email addresses,
`package/parcel/letter tracking information in text capable of being displayed on a
`screen.
`
`9. License agreements, settlement agreements, and royalty agreements relating to the use
`of names, addresses, phone numbers, calendar information, flight numbers, email
`addresses, package/parcel/letter tracking information in or by the Accused Products or,
`for Accused Products that are Accused Devices, applications installed on the Accused
`Products.
`
`10. Any patents or proprietary technology owned or exclusively licensed by Google
`relating to the Accused Applications or Linkify Functions.
`
`11. From 2007 to the present, Google’s evaluation of patents or other proprietary
`technology relating to the Accused Products, and the methodologies used by Google
`for determining values or royalty rates for licensing of such technology.
`
`12. Google’s policies and practices concerning licensing, including any standard or
`preferred terms for license agreements and the process by which Google determines
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 5557
`
`the nature, scope, and terms of license agreements in which Google or its affiliates or
`assigns is a licensee.
`
`13. From 2007 to the present, Google’s marketing and financial plans, market studies,
`reports, forecasts, surveys, strategies, and projections for the sale, use, or monetization
`of the Accused Products, including a general description of Google’s media and
`advertising campaigns relating to the Accused Products.
`
`14. Your advertisements, public presentations, or public statements that reference or show
`the Linkify Functions of the Accused Products or Accused Applications.
`
`15. The importance of the Accused Products to Google’s revenues, profit, and strategy.
`
`16. The importance of any specific component or feature of the Accused Products,
`including any Linkify Function, to pricing, sales or marketing of the Accused Products,
`and any analysis within Google concerning the same including any analysis that a
`particular sale was made in whole or in part because of such component or feature.
`
`17. The importance of Linkify Functions to pricing, sales or marketing of products that
`compete with the Accused Products.
`
`18. Surveys, studies, research, or analyses done by or on behalf of You regarding royalty
`rates for license rights to intellectual property.
`
`19. Cost/benefit analyses related to the inclusion/exclusion of Linkify Functions in the
`Accused Products.
`
`20. Your patent-clearing policies and procedures, as well as policies and procedures for
`reviewing potential licensing needs.
`
`21. Your analysis of competitors in the marketplace for the Accused Products, including
`competitor assessments, product comparisons, feature assessments, and market share
`analyses.
`
`22. Consumer/customer surveys and market research that relate to the Accused Products,
`including how such surveys are conducted, what functionalities are important to
`consumers, and any consumer/customer preferences as to the performance and
`characteristics of the Accused Products.
`
`23. Your marketing of the features of the Accused Applications.
`
`24. How Your customers use and configure the Accused Applications.
`
`25. For all Accused Products sold since 2010, the extent to which Your customers use any
`of the functionality depicted or described in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Infringement
`Contentions or Supplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 5558
`
`26. Any and all products that You contend are acceptable non-infringing alternatives or
`design around alternatives to those in each of the Accused Products and all information
`about such non-infringing alternatives or design-around alternatives, including but not
`limited to when such alternatives were designed and developed; whether they were ever
`sold or implemented, by whom, the number of units sold, and the time period that they
`were on sale; the cost to design (including costs associated with engineering, costs such
`as royalties associated with the inclusion of other intellectual property to facilitate any
`proposed alternative, time/delay to market) and to manufacture such alternatives, as
`well as the price at which they were sold; all performance characteristics of such
`alternatives, why such alternatives do not infringe the Asserted Claims; and all reasons
`why any such alternative would be an acceptable substitute.
`
`27. The capability, configuration, and operation of the Accused Applications and Linkify
`Functions of the Accused Devices.
`
`28. The capability, configuration, and operation of the Accused Products that are not
`Accused Devices, including the Linkify Functions of those Accused Products.
`
`29. The Accused Devices as shipped or delivered to customers, including: (a) a detailed
`description of the functionality, operation, capability, and configuration of any aspects
`or elements of the Accused Devices; and (b) a detailed description of any feature of the
`Accused Devices related to the recognition (in whole or part) in an electronic document
`or recognition (in whole or part) in an electronic document and subsequent use (in
`whole or part) of telephone numbers; addresses; email addresses; dates, days and/or
`times; flight numbers and/or other identifiers for a trip made by a common carrier;
`tracking codes for shipments and/or couriers; and/or names in or by any program or
`application preinstalled on the Accused Devices.
`
`30. The Accused Products that are not Accused Devices as transmitted, transferred,
`downloaded or otherwise delivered to customers, including: (a) a detailed description
`of the functionality, operation, capability, and configuration of any aspects or elements
`of the Accused Products; and (b) a detailed description of any feature of the Accused
`Products related to the recognition (in whole or part) in an electronic document or
`recognition (in whole or part) in an electronic document and subsequent use (in whole
`or part) of telephone numbers; addresses; email addresses; dates, days and/or times;
`flight numbers and/or other identifiers for a trip made by a common carrier; tracking
`codes for shipments and/or couriers; and/or names.
`
`31. The use of Linkify Functions in or by any program or application preinstalled on an
`Accused Device and in or by any Accused Product that is not an Accused Device.
`
`32. The promotion of Linkify Functions for use in or by any program or application
`preinstalled on an Accused Device.
`
`33. The history, versions, and releases of the Accused Products, including but not limited
`to the dates and differences in features and functionalities among such versions and
`releases.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 5559
`
`34. The history, versions, and releases of the source code You produced as part of this
`litigation.
`
`35. All differences between any Accused Product and the Representative Product(s)
`depicted and/or described in Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions and
`Supplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions that You contend are material to
`the functionality accused in those contentions.
`
`36. The identity, location, and format of the documents disclosing the operation,
`characteristics, and functionality of the Accused Products.
`
`37. The person(s) most directly responsible for designing, architecting, engineering and/or
`authorizing the source code or technical materials for the Accused Products.
`
`38. The inception, planning, development, and execution of each of the Accused Products,
`including why that Accused Product was developed, what key features distinguished it
`from other products, why such key features were developed, the persons involved in
`developing such key features, what market and technical studies were made in
`connection with the development, and what were the goals and target customers for
`that Accused Product.
`
`39. All differences between the functionality of the Accused Applications operating on
`each Accused Device and the functionality of the Accused Applications operating on
`the Representative Product(s) depicted and/or described in Plaintiff’s Preliminary
`Infringement Contentions and Supplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`that You contend are material to the functionality accused in those contentions.
`
`40. All differences between the Linkify Functions provided within the operating system of
`each Accused Device and the Linkify Functions provided within the operating system
`of the Representative Product(s) depicted and/or described in Plaintiff’s Preliminary
`Infringement Contentions and Supplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions
`that You contend are material to the functionality accused in those contentions.
`
`41. All differences between the functionality of any version of each Accused Product that
`is not an Accused Device and the version of that Accused Product depicted and/or
`described in Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions and Supplemental
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions that You contend are material to the
`functionality accused in those contentions.
`
`42. How, when, and through whom Google first became aware of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`43. All investigations, studies, discussions, actions, and decisions by You in light of Your
`knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`44. How Your response to knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit deviated from or accorded with
`Your intellectual property policies.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 150 Filed 08/26/19 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 5560
`
`45. Training (whether written or oral) You provide to customers regarding the Accused
`Applications or regarding the Accused Products that are not Accused Devices.
`
`46. Whether You produced documents to Plaintiff in this case as those documents were
`kept in the usual course of business, and the extent (if any) to which You produced
`documents other than as they were kept in the usual course of business.
`
`47. If documents were not produced as they were kept in the usual course of business, the
`identification of the particular production requests in response to which the documents
`were produced and the Bates ranges for each relevant request.
`
`48. The identity, location, and nature of the files that were the source of the documents You
`produced to Plaintiff in this action, and a description by Bates range of the documents
`produced from each file and location.
`
`49. The identity, job function, office location, and employer of the custodians whose
`documents You produced to Plaintiff in this action, and a description by Bates range of
`the documents produced from each custodian’s files.
`
`50. The status of Your document production efforts, including a description of the files or
`document repositories that You have not yet searched or from which you have not yet
`produced responsive documents but which You will search or from which You intend
`to produce responsive documents.
`
`51. Potentially responsive documents that have not yet been produced, including the reason
`for non-production.
`
`52. The steps taken by You to preserve and collect documents potentially relevant to this
`lawsuit.
`
`53. Communications You have had with anyone regarding this lawsuit, including potential
`fact witnesses or entities who may assist You in obtaining a license to the Patents-in-
`Suit.
`
`54. Communications You have had with other defendants in the Related Cases or in Arendi
`SARL v. HTC Corp., et al., 18-cv-1725 (W.D. Wash.), except communications solely
`between Your outside counsel and the outside counsel of other defendant(s).
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`