Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 270-3 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 5
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 270-3 Filed 01/05/22 Page1of5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 270-3 Filed 01/05/22 Page1of5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 270-3 Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-cv-11586-IT
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 1-9)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Philips
`
`North America LLC (“Philips”), by and through its attorneys, hereby responds and objects to
`
`Defendant Fitbit, Inc.’s (“Fitbit”) First Set of Interrogatories as follows:
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`Philips objects to each and every definition, production request, and instruction to
`
`the extent Fitbit seeks to impose requirements or any burdens inconsistent with or in addition to
`
`Philips’s obligations under the applicable rules, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the Local Rules, any order of this Court, or any stipulation or agreement between the parties.
`
`2.
`
`Philips objects to each and every interrogatory, definition, and instruction to the
`
`extent it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and/or irrelevant to the subject matter
`
`of this action. Philips further objects to each and every interrogatory, definition, and instruction
`
`to the extent it is not proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the
`
`issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the party’s relative resources, the
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 270-3 Filed 01/05/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`by either party in this litigation, or via the disclosure of expert testimony in accordance with any
`
`Scheduling Order governing this case.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9
`
`For each asserted claim, state whether You contend Fitbit has jointly infringed the claim
`
`with other persons or entities, and if so, for each such claim identify each such person or entity,
`
`identify which person or entity You contend performs each limitation of the claim, identify
`
`whether you contend Fitbit directs or controls the performance of the other persons or entities
`
`along with any agency relationship or contracts for such performance and any conditions for
`
`participation or receipt of benefit upon such performance, identify whether you allege Fitbit and
`
`the other persons or entities form a joint enterprise along with the agreement among the members
`
`of the group, the common purpose to be carried out by the group, the community of pecuniary
`
`interest in that purpose among the members, and the equal right to a voice in the direction of the
`
`enterprise that gives an equal right of control, and identify all persons with knowledge of such
`
`facts and all documents (by bates number) and things evidencing or pertaining to such facts.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9
`
`In addition to its General Objections, which are incorporated herein by reference, Philips
`
`further objects to this interrogatory as seeking information protected from discovery due to the
`
`attorney client privilege and/or attorney work product. Philips further objects to this
`
`interrogatory because it is inconsistent with the requirements of the Local Rules and the Court’s
`
`Scheduling Order. Philips further objects to this interrogatory to the extent a full response
`
`requires further discovery from Fitbit. Philips further objects to this interrogatory as premature
`
`to the extent a full response may rely on expert testimony.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 270-3 Filed 01/05/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`Subject to and without waiving its General and Specific Objections, Philips responds as
`
`follows:
`
`In addition to directly infringing through its development and use of the Accused
`
`Products, and/or by prototyping and testing functionality of the Accused Products that infringe
`
`one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit, Fitbit jointly infringes with its customers and
`
`subscribers with the establishment and operation of solutions covered by the Patents-in-Suit. For
`
`example, Fitbit’s customers use their Fitbit devices, Fitbit account, and the Fitbit App jointly
`
`with Fitbit by downloading and activating the required software to a mobile device and
`
`additionally utilize software on Fitbit’s servers, which enable functionality that may be relevant
`
`to infringement of the Asserted Patents. Fitbit customers receive a clear benefit from their use of
`
`the software and services made available by Fitbit, and those benefits are conditioned upon
`
`downloading, installing, and using Fitbit software and services.
`
`Philips also refers Fitbit to its disclosures under L.R. 16.6(d)(1).
`
`Philips investigation is ongoing and Philips may supplement the response to this
`
`interrogatory, whether by express supplementation of this response, further documents produced
`
`by either party in this litigation, or via the disclosure of expert testimony in accordance with any
`
`Scheduling Order governing this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 270-3 Filed 01/05/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 10, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Eley O. Thompson
`Lucas I. Silva (BBO 673,935)
`Ruben J. Rodrigues (BBO 676,573)
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`111 Huntington Avenue
`Suite 2500
`Boston, MA 02199-7610
`Phone: (617) 342-4000
`Fax: (617) 342-4001
`lsilva@foley.com
`
`
`
`Eley O. Thompson (pro hac vice to be filed)
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`321 N. Clark Street
`Suite 2800
`Chicago, IL 60654-5313
`Phone: (312) 832-4359
`Fax: (312) 832-4700
`ethompson@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
` Philips North America LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
