Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 53 PageID #: 5938
`Case 1:13-cv-00919—LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 53 PageID #: 5938
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 53 PageID #: 5939
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 13-919-LPS
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.’S RULE 30(B)(6) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 53 PageID #: 5940
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Defendant” and/or “Google”) objects and responds to Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L. (“Arendi”)’s Notice of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) Deposition of Google
`
`LLC (“the Notice”). Google serves these objections while reserving all rights to assert additional
`
`objections, or to modify these objections, prior to, during, and after any deposition taken pursuant
`
`to the Notice, including objections as to the competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, or
`
`admissibility of testimony, the scope of corporate testimony, and the reasonableness, particularity,
`
`burden, and breadth of each topic within the Notice.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Google objects to the proposed deposition date in the Notice, and also objects to the
`
`proposed location in the Notice. Google agrees to meet and confer with Arendi to determine
`
`mutually acceptable dates and locations for the deposition.
`
`2.
`
`Google objects to the Notice to the extent that it conflicts or is inconsistent with any
`
`order, stipulation, federal or local rule, or agreement setting limits on the length, topics, and/or
`
`other relevant aspect of Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony sought by the Notice
`
`3.
`
`Google may designate one or more corporate witnesses in response to this Notice.
`
`To the extent that Arendi seeks to depose such witnesses in their individual capacity, Google
`
`objects to producing any witness for more than one seven-hour deposition. Should Arendi wish to
`
`depose any Rule 30(b)(6) witness in his or her individual capacity, Arendi must do so at the same
`
`time, and within the same one-day, seven-hour period, as the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
`
`4.
`
`Google makes no incidental or implied admissions by serving these objections and
`
`responses. Accordingly, Arendi shall not construe Google’s objections and responses to any
`
`request as an admission that Google accepts or admits the existence of any facts assumed by the
`
`request, and Arendi shall not construe or attempt to use Google’s responses or objections as
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 53 PageID #: 5941
`
`admissible evidence of any such assumed facts.
`
`5.
`
`Any witness Google designates to testify on its behalf in response to the Notice will
`
`only testify based on Google’s good-faith efforts to conduct a reasonable and diligent search for
`
`responsive information, and will testify without prejudice to Google’s right to produce or rely on
`
`any subsequently discovered information. Google specifically reserves the right to make use of,
`
`or to introduce at any subsequent hearing or trial, information that falls within the topics but is
`
`discovered subsequent to the deposition(s).
`
`6.
`
`Google objects to the Notice to the extent that it requires testimony on matters
`
`subjection to the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or any other applicable
`
`privilege or protection from disclosure. Google claims such privileges and protections to the extent
`
`implicated by each topic, and will exclude privileged and protected information from any testimony
`
`it may offer in response to the Notice. Any disclosure of such protected or privileged information
`
`is inadvertent and is not intended to waive those privileges or protections.
`
`7.
`
`Google objects to the Notice and the topics therein as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, oppressive and oppressive insofar as it purports to require testimony covering topics
`
`and time periods not relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s
`
`claims. Google further objects to the Notice to the extent that it does not “describe with reasonable
`
`particularity the matters for examination” as required by Rule 30(b)(6).
`
`8.
`
`Google objects to the Notice and the topics therein on the ground that the burden
`
`and/or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, the scope of discovery
`
`Arendi seeks is not proportional to the needs of the case, and other forms of obtaining discovery-
`
`e.g., written discovery-are more appropriate and far less burdensome than discovery via a Rule
`
`30(b)(6) deposition. In particular, it is improper to seek Google’s legal contentions and factual
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 5 of 53 PageID #: 5942
`
`bases therefor via a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Google objects to any topic seeking corporate
`
`testimony on such improper subject matters.
`
`9.
`
`Google objects to the Notice to the extent it purports to seek testimony based on
`
`information not within Google’s possession, custody, or control. By agreeing to present a witness
`
`for any of the topics in the Notice, Google does not represent that it has information or knowledge
`
`responsive to such topics.
`
`10.
`
`Discovery is not yet complete and Google’s investigation relating to this lawsuit is
`
`continuing. Google’s responses to the Notice, and any deposition testimony it provides in response
`
`to the Notice, are based upon and reflect the current state of its knowledge, and are made without
`
`prejudice to Google’s production and use of subsequently discovered evidence or interpretations
`
`thereof. Google reserves the right to produce, and/or use any evidence discovered subsequent to
`
`any depositions in response to the Notice.
`
`11.
`
`Google will only provide testimony regarding confidential information under the
`
`confidentiality provisions recited in the Stipulated Protective Order, and only to the extent that such
`
`testimony does not violate any applicable right to privacy, third-party confidentiality restrictions,
`
`and any other applicable Order, law, rule, or agreement. Google objects to the Notice to the extent
`
`that it purports to impose on Google any obligation that is different from or greater than any
`
`obligation imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United
`
`States Court for the District of Delaware.
`
`12.
`
`Google objects to the Notice’s definition of “You”, “Google” or “Defendant” as
`
`overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to cover unidentified third-parties
`
`that are not controlled by Google. For purposes of the Notice, Google defines “You,” “Google,”
`
`or “Defendant” as Google LLC, but does not include any Google employees acting on their own
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 6 of 53 PageID #: 5943
`
`behalf.
`
`13.
`
`Google objects to the Notice’s definition of “Asserted Patents” and “Patents-in-
`
`Suit” as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it covers patents that no longer remain
`
`in the current litigation and that never specifically were asserted against Google. For purposes of
`
`the Notice, Google defines “Asserted Patents” and “Patents-in-Suit” as U.S. Patent Nos. 7,917,843;
`
`8,306,993; 7,496,854; 7,921,356.
`
`14.
`
`Google objects to the Notice’s definition of “Accused Products” on the ground that
`
`the definition is overbroad and unduly burdensome. For purposes of the Notice, Google defines
`
`“Accused Products” as the applications, programs, and devices in Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a)
`
`Disclosure that also have been appropriately charted in Arendi’s infringement contentions. For
`
`purposes of this Notice, Google will not include in the “Accused Products” definition, any device,
`
`application (such as Google Translate, Google Assistant and Google News), or program (a) not
`
`listed in Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a) Disclosure, and/or (b) listed in Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a)
`
`Disclosure, but for which Arendi did not subsequently provide complete infringement contentions.
`
`15.
`
`Google objects to the Notice’s definition of “Accused Devices” on the ground that
`
`the definition is overbroad and unduly burdensome. For purposes of the Notice, Google defines
`
`“Accused Devices” as the devices listed in Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a) Disclosure that also have been
`
`appropriately charted in Arendi’s infringement contentions. For purposes of this Notice, Google
`
`will not include in the “Accused Devices” definition, any device listed in Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a)
`
`Disclosure for which Arendi did not provide a complete infringement contention chart with regard
`
`to a specifically asserted claim.
`
`16.
`
`Google objects to the Notice’s definition of “Linkify Functions” on the ground that
`
`the definition is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous. For purposes of the Notice,
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 7 of 53 PageID #: 5944
`
`Google defines “Linkify Functions” as the functionality that has been appropriately charted in
`
`Arendi’s infringement contentions. For purposes of this Notice, Google will not include in the
`
`“Linkify Functions” definition, any functionality for which Arendi did not provide a complete
`
`infringement contention chart with regard to a specifically asserted claim.
`
`17.
`
`Google objects to the Notice’s definition of “Accused Applications” on the ground
`
`that the definition is overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, and seeks irrelevant
`
`information. For purposes of the Notice, Google defines “Accused Applications” as the as the
`
`applications listed in Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a) Disclosure that also have been appropriately charted
`
`in Arendi’s infringement contentions. For purposes of this Notice, Google will not include in the
`
`“Accused Applications” definition, any application (such as Google Translate, Google Assistant
`
`and Google News) or program (a) not listed in Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a) Disclosure, and/or (b) listed
`
`in Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a) Disclosure, but for which Arendi did not subsequently provide complete
`
`infringement contentions.
`
`18.
`
`Google objects to Arendi’s definition of “all” and “each” on the ground that the
`
`definition is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
`
`19.
`
`Google objects to Arendi’s definition of “and” and “or” on the ground that the
`
`definition is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
`
`20.
`
`Google objects to Arendi’s definition of “any” on the ground that the definition is
`
`overbroad and unduly burdensome.
`
`21.
`
`Google objects to Arendi’s definition of “relate,” “relating,” or “related” as
`
`overbroad and unduly burdensome.
`
`22.
`
`Google objects to Arendi’s definition of “document” on the ground that the
`
`definition is overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it includes any “electronically-stored
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 8 of 53 PageID #: 5945
`
`matter” that is not required to be preserved pursuant to this Court’s Default Standard for Discovery,
`
`Schedule A.
`
`23.
`
`Google objects to Arendi’s definition of “sale,” “sales,” “sell” or “sold” on the
`
`ground that the definition of these terms is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks irrelevant
`
`information.
`
`24.
`
`Google objects to Arendi’s definition of “preinstalled” to the extent the definition
`
`includes any software, program and/or application that is not identified on Arendi’s Paragraph 4(a)
`
`Disclosure and not also properly charted in Arendi’s infringement contentions.
`
`25.
`
`Google objects to Arendi’s definition of “identify” on the ground that the definition
`
`is overbroad and unduly burdensome.
`
`26.
`
`Each of the foregoing objections is applicable to, and incorporated by reference in,
`
`the individual responses set forth below. Without waiving these objections, and subject to them,
`
`Google responds to Arendi’s specific deposition topics as set forth below.
`
`27.
`
`Under the Stipulated Scheduling Order, Arendi is entitled to depose Google for up
`
`to 40 hours. Given the number, and the breadth of 30(b)(6) topics within this Notice, it would be
`
`impossible to cover all topics in the allotted 40 hours. Accordingly, Google objects to the topics
`
`as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent Arendi is requiring Google to select and prepare
`
`witnesses for every topic without advance notice as to which specific topics actually will be
`
`covered during depositions. For example, Arendi has listed 23 different devices, which can run
`
`multiple operating system versions, and 17 different applications as possibly infringing (in some
`
`unspecified manner). Even if Arendi spent 15 minutes exploring only those combinations of
`
`device, operating system, and application that actually have been charted, the 40 hour allotment
`
`for depositions would be exceeded. Thus, without advance notice, Google is only able to provide
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 9 of 53 PageID #: 5946
`
`witnesses with general, high-level understandings as to certain topics.
`
`28.
`
`Google objects to this notice, and to each topic, to the extent it purports to require
`
`any designated witness to be prepared to testify on behalf of Google regarding the contents of any
`
`specific document that is not identified with specificity in the notice or topic. If Arendi requires
`
`testimony regarding any specific document(s) allegedly relating to a topic, then Arendi must
`
`identify with specificity such document(s) sufficiently in advance of any deposition so as to permit
`
`a designated Google witness to be adequately prepared. If Arendi fails to make such a specific
`
`identification of documents in advance of any deposition, then any designated Google witness may
`
`not be in a position to offer any testimony on behalf of Google with respect to a document provided
`
`at the deposition, and such witness may only be in a position to offer general testimony regarding
`
`particular subject matter.
`
`
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEPOSITION TOPICS
`
`
`In addition to and without waiving its General Objections, Google specifically objects to
`
`the topics identified in the Notice as follows:
`
`TOPIC NO. 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.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 1:
`
`
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 1 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous
`
`to the extent that “Accused Products” purports to cover applications, programs, and/or devices that
`
`have not been specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of infringement
`
`in this litigation, were not properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions, or are not
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 10 of 53 PageID #: 5947
`
`relevant to Google’s defenses. Google further objects to this topic as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome insofar as it purports to require testimony covering time periods not relevant to
`
`Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims. Google further objects
`
`to this topic as overly broad and unduly burdensome as it seeks Google’s characterization of
`
`revenue for tax purposes, which is information that is not relevant to Arendi’s claims against
`
`Google, or Google’s defense to Arendi’s claims.
`
`
`
` Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the Google financial documents relating to the
`
`Accused Products that are produced by Google in this case.
`
`TOPIC NO. 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.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 2:
`
`
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 2 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that “Accused Products” purports to cover applications, programs, and/or
`
`devices that have not been specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of
`
`infringement in this litigation, were not properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions,
`
`or are not relevant to Google’s defenses. Google further objects to this topic as overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require testimony covering time periods not
`
`relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the Google financial documents relating to the
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 11 of 53 PageID #: 5948
`
`Accused Products that are produced by Google in this case.
`TOPIC NO. 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.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 3:
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 3 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that “Accused Products” purports to cover applications, programs, and/or
`
`devices that have not been specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of
`
`infringement in this litigation, were not properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions,
`
`or are not relevant to Google’s defenses. Google also objects to this topic as overly broad to the
`
`extent it seeks information regarding “other revenue-generating products of Google,” which are
`
`products that are not properly identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures or properly charted in
`
`Arendi’s infringement contentions. Google further objects to this topic as overly broad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require testimony covering time periods not relevant
`
`to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims. Google additionally
`
`objects to the terms “methods for valuing,” “collection of user data,” and “contribution to other
`
`revenue-generating products of Google” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
`
`burdensome.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about Google’s “methods for valuing” the Accused
`
`Products, and generally about the Google financial documents relating to Accused Products that
`
`are produced by Google in this case.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 12 of 53 PageID #: 5949
`
`TOPIC NO. 4:
`
`As to sales, use, or monetization of the Accused Products, Google’s revenues, assigned
`
`costs, profit margins, and total profits.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 4:
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 4 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that “Accused Products” purports to cover applications, programs, and/or
`
`devices that have not been specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of
`
`infringement in this litigation, were not properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions,
`
`or are not relevant to Google’s defenses. Google further objects to this topic as overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require testimony covering time periods not
`
`relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims. Google
`
`additionally objects to the term, “assigned costs,” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly
`
`burdensome.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the Google financial documents relating to the
`
`Accused Products that are produced by Google in this case.
`
`TOPIC NO. 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.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 13 of 53 PageID #: 5950
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 5:
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 5 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that “Accused Products” purports to cover applications, programs, and/or
`
`devices that have been specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of
`
`infringement in this litigation, were not properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions,
`
`or are not relevant to Google’s defenses. Google further objects to this topic as overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require testimony covering time periods not
`
`relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims. Google also
`
`objects to this topic as unduly burdensome and improper to the extent it calls for corporate
`
`testimony concerning legal contentions, legal opinions, and expert opinions. Google also objects
`
`to this topic, consistent with its General Objections, to the extent that it purports to encompass
`
`information and seek testimony on matters protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product
`
`doctrine, the common interest privilege, or third-party confidentiality. Google further objects to
`
`this topic as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require testimony
`
`covering “non-United States sales, uses, subscriptions, monetization, costs, or revenues,” which is
`
`a topic not relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the Google financial documents relating to the
`
`Accused Products that are produced by Google in this case.
`
`TOPIC NO. 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
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 14 of 53 PageID #: 5951
`
`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.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 6:
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 6 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that “Accused Products” purports to cover applications, programs, and/or
`
`devices that have not been specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of
`
`infringement in this litigation, were not properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions,
`
`or are not relevant to Google’s defenses. Google further objects to this topic as overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require testimony covering time periods not
`
`relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims. Google also
`
`objects to this topic, consistent with its General Objections, to the extent that it purports to
`
`encompass information and seek testimony on matters protected by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, or third-party confidentiality. Google
`
`further objects because this topic does not describe with reasonable particularity the matters for
`
`examination, and a deposition is the least appropriate discovery method to seek information about
`
`the creation of documents. Google also objects that it would be burdensome and oppressive to
`
`prepare a corporate designee to memorize and testify about numerous detailed aspects of all
`
`“financial records and summary documents produced in this litigation” related to the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 15 of 53 PageID #: 5952
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the Google financial documents relating to the
`
`Accused Products that are produced by Google in this case.
`
`TOPIC NO. 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.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 7:
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 7 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that “Accused Products” purports to cover applications, programs, and/or
`
`devices that have not been specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of
`
`infringement in this litigation, were not properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions,
`
`or are not relevant to Google’s defenses. Google also objects to this topic as unduly burdensome
`
`and improper to the extent it calls for corporate testimony concerning legal contentions, legal
`
`opinions, and expert opinions.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the patent agreements produced in this litigation.
`
`TOPIC NO. 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.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 8:
`
`
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 8 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 16 of 53 PageID #: 5953
`
`ambiguous to the extent that it purports to cover products outside of the scope of “Accused
`
`Products,” “Accused Devices,” and “Accused Applications” that have been specifically identified
`
`in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of infringement in this litigation and were properly
`
`charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions. Google also objects to this topic as overly broad
`
`to the extent that Arendi does not limit its request for information about license, settlement, and
`
`royalty agreements to only those relating to patents. Google further objects to this topic as overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require testimony covering time
`
`periods not relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the patent agreements produced in this litigation.
`
`TOPIC NO. 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.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 9:
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 9 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that it purports to cover products outside of the scope of “Accused
`
`Products,” “Accused Devices,” and “Accused Applications” that have been specifically identified
`
`in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of infringement in this litigation and were properly
`
`charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions. Google further objects to this topic as overly
`
`broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require testimony covering time
`
`periods not relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims.
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 17 of 53 PageID #: 5954
`
`Google further objects because this topic does not describe with reasonable particularity the
`
`matters for examination.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the patent agreements produced in this litigation.
`
`TOPIC NO. 10:
`
`Any patents or proprietary technology owned or exclusively licensed by Google relating
`
`to the Accused Applications or Linkify Functions.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 10:
`
`
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 10 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that it purports to cover products outside of the scope of “Accused
`
`Products,” “Accused Devices,” “Accused Applications,” and “Linkify Functions” that have been
`
`specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of infringement in this
`
`litigation and were properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions. Google further
`
`objects to this topic as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it purports to require
`
`testimony covering time periods not relevant to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s
`
`defenses to Arendi’s claims.
`
`
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the patent agreements produced in this litigation. To
`
`the extent that Arendi identifies any specific Google-owned or Google-licensed patents that it
`
`wishes to inquire about, Google will evaluate the propriety of designating a witness to testify
`
`concerning those patents once they are identified with specificity.
`
`TOPIC NO. 11:
`
`From 2007 to the present, Google’s evaluation of patents or other proprietary technology
`
`

`

`Case 1:13-cv-00919-LPS Document 193-1 Filed 12/12/19 Page 18 of 53 PageID #: 5955
`
`relating to the Accused Products, and the methodologies used by Google for determining values
`
`or royalty rates for licensing of such technology.
`
`OBJECTION TO TOPIC NO. 11:
`
`Google objects that Topic No. 11 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and
`
`ambiguous to the extent that it purports to cover products outside of the scope of “Accused
`
`Products” that have been specifically identified in Arendi’s 4(a) Disclosures as being accused of
`
`infringement in this litigation and were properly charted by Arendi in its infringement contentions.
`
`Google also objects to this topic, consistent with its General Objections, to the extent that it
`
`purports to encompass information and seek testimony on matters protected by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, work-product doctrine, the common interest privilege, or third-party confidentiality.
`
`Google also objects to this topic as unduly burdensome and improper to the extent it calls for
`
`corporate testimony concerning legal contentions, legal opinions, and expert opinions. Google
`
`further objects to this topic as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive as it requires
`
`testimony covering a time period after the expiration of the Patents-in-Suit, which is not relevant
`
`to Arendi’s claims against Google, or Google’s defenses to Arendi’s claims.
`
`Subject to these objections and without waiving them, Google will designate one or more
`
`corporate witnesses to testify generally about the patent agreements produced in this litigation. To
`
`the extent that Arendi identifies any specific Google-owned or Google-licensed patents that it
`
`wishes to inquire about, Google will evaluate the propriety of designating a witness to t