Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 40
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 40
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 40
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`v.
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11586-IT
`
`FITBIT INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S 30(B)(6) NOTICE
`OF ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
`
`Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit” or “Defendant”) hereby serves these Objections and Responses to
`
`Plaintiff Philips North America, LLC (“Plaintiff” or "Philips") 30(b)(6) Notice of Oral and
`
`Videotaped Deposition (“the Notice”), which were served on August 24, 2020.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1.
`
`These General Objections to Definitions and Instructions are incorporated by
`
`reference in response to each Topic and are not waived with respect to any response.
`
`2.
`
`Fitbit objects to the Instructions, Definitions, and Topics to the extent they seek to
`
`impose any requirement or obligation on Fitbit beyond those requirements or obligations set
`
`forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable local rules, or any order issued by
`
`the Court in this action.
`
`3.
`
`Fitbit objects to the Notice to the extent it seeks testimony protected by the
`
`attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, common interest doctrine, or any other
`
`applicable privilege.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 3 of 40
`
`4.
`
`Fitbit objects to the Notice to the extent it seeks testimony that is not relevant,
`
`outside the scope of the claims or defenses of any party, or not reasonably likely to lead to the
`
`discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`5.
`
`Fitbit objects to the notice to the extent that the requests are overly broad and
`
`beyond the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure insofar as they purport to require Fitbit
`
`to testify about information that is not within the knowledge of Fitbit nor within the possession,
`
`custody, or control of Fitbit.
`
`6.
`
`Fitbit objects to the Notice to the extent that the requests are overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome insofar as they are unlimited in time.
`
`7.
`
`Fitbit objects to the Notice to the extent that the requests seek publically available
`
`information that is equally accessible to the Plaintiffs, as it is to Fitbit.
`
`8.
`
`Fitbit objects to the Notice to the extent that it seeks discovery of information
`
`already produced in this action.
`
`9.
`
`Any agreement by Fitbit to provide a witness or witnesses to testify in response to
`
`a topic is not an admission that responsive information in fact exists.
`
`10.
`
`Fitbit objects to the term “all” concerning a particular subject or subject matter.
`
`Fitbit objects to conducting a search of this breadth on the grounds of undue burden and not
`
`being reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`11.
`
`Fitbit objects to the Notice to the extent it requires identification of a specific
`
`number of persons knowledgeable about a topic.
`
`12.
`
`Fitbit objects to the Notice to the extent it seeks information that is duplicative of
`
`other discovery requests or seeks information more appropriately addressed in Fitbit’s written
`
`contention or interrogatory responses. Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 4 of 40
`
`Ltd., 2014 WL 5786492, *4-5 (D. Mass. Sept. 24, 2014) (“A party may properly resist a Rule
`
`30(b)(6) deposition on the grounds that the information sought is more appropriately
`
`discoverable through contention[s]”); Fidelity Management & Research Co. v. Actuate Corp.,
`
`275 F.R.D. 63, 63-64 (D. Mass. Jun. 28, 2011) (“it is not clear that a 30(b)(6) deposition is the
`
`best method for obtaining” “facts which form the basis of [] claims and asserted affirmative
`
`defenses” (emphasis original)).
`
`13.
`
`The objections made herein are made without waiving any other objections.
`
`Fitbit expressly reserves the right to alter, amend, update, and/or supplement its objections at a
`
`later time.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 1:
`
`The factual bases concerning Your contention that each Accused Product does not infringe the
`’007 Patent, including whether:
`
`(a) each Accused Product infringes by direct infringement, induced infringement, and/or
`contributory infringement; and
`
`(b) each limitation is present literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents in each Accused
`Product.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal
`
`conclusions and/or information that is properly the subject of expert testimony, opinions, and/or
`
`reports. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery
`
`requests served on Fitbit and/or more appropriately addressed in Fitbit’s written contention
`
`responses. Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co Ltd., 2014 WL 5786492,
`
`*4-5 (D. Mass. Sept. 24, 2014) (“A party may properly resist a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 5 of 40
`
`grounds that the information sought is more appropriately discoverable through contention[s]”);
`
`Fidelity Management & Research Co. v. Actuate Corp., 275 F.R.D. 63, 63-64 (D. Mass. Jun. 28,
`
`2011) (“it is not clear that a 30(b)(6) deposition is the best method for obtaining” “facts which
`
`form the basis of [] claims and asserted affirmative defenses” (emphasis original)).
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding the factual bases
`
`supporting the Accused Product’s lack of direct infringement and certain aspects of Fitbit’s lack
`
`of contributory infringement of the ’007 Patent. Fitbit will not designate a witness to testify
`
`regarding factual bases supporting the Accused Product’s lack of infringement under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, because Fitbit cannot discern Philips’ allegations with respect to claim limitations
`
`allegedly present under the doctrine of equivalents. See nCube Corp. v. Seachange Int'l, Inc., 436
`
`F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The party asserting infringement must present ‘evidence and
`
`argument concerning the doctrine and each of its elements.’” (emphasis original)).
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 2:
`
`The factual bases concerning Your contention that each Accused Product does not infringe the
`’233 Patent, including whether:
`
`(a) each Accused Product infringes by direct infringement, induced infringement, and/or
`contributory infringement; and
`
`(b) each limitation is present literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents in each Accused
`Product.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 2:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal
`
`conclusions and/or information that is properly the subject of expert testimony, opinions, and/or
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 6 of 40
`
`reports. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery
`
`requests served on Fitbit and/or more appropriately addressed in Fitbit’s written contention
`
`responses. Trustees of Boston University, 2014 WL 5786492 at *4-5; Fidelity Management &
`
`Research Co., 275 F.R.D. at 63-64.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding the factual bases
`
`supporting the Accused Product’s lack of direct infringement and certain aspects of Fitbit’s lack
`
`of contributory infringement of the ’233 Patent. Fitbit will not designate a witness to testify
`
`regarding factual bases supporting the Accused Product’s lack of infringement under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, because Fitbit cannot discern Philips’ allegations with respect to claim limitations
`
`allegedly present under the doctrine of equivalents. See nCube Corp. v. Seachange Int'l, Inc., 436
`
`F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The party asserting infringement must present ‘evidence and
`
`argument concerning the doctrine and each of its elements.’” (emphasis original)).
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 3:
`
`The factual bases concerning Your contention that each Accused Product does not infringe the
`’377 Patent, including whether:
`
`(a) each Accused Product infringes by direct infringement, induced infringement, and/or
`contributory infringement; and
`
`(b) each limitation is present literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents in each Accused
`Product.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 3:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal
`
`conclusions and/or information that is properly the subject of expert testimony, opinions, and/or
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 7 of 40
`
`reports. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery
`
`requests served on Fitbit and/or more appropriately addressed in Fitbit’s written contention
`
`responses. Trustees of Boston University, 2014 WL 5786492 at *4-5; Fidelity Management &
`
`Research Co., 275 F.R.D. at 63-64.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding the factual bases
`
`supporting the Accused Product’s lack of direct infringement and certain aspects of Fitbit’s lack
`
`of contributory infringement of the ’377 Patent. Fitbit will not designate a witness to testify
`
`regarding factual bases supporting the Accused Product’s lack of infringement under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, because Fitbit cannot discern Philips’ allegations with respect to claim limitations
`
`allegedly present under the doctrine of equivalents. See nCube Corp. v. Seachange Int'l, Inc., 436
`
`F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The party asserting infringement must present ‘evidence and
`
`argument concerning the doctrine and each of its elements.’” (emphasis original)).
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 4:
`
`Your policies and procedures for generating, maintaining, and disposing of records.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 4:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding Fitbit’s policies for
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 8 of 40
`
`generating, maintaining, and disposing of records based on Fitbit’s understanding of “record” in
`
`view of the needs of the case.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 5:
`
`The facts and circumstances surrounding any investigations, analyses, or efforts relating to any
`attempts to, plans to, and/or analyses of ways to design around any claim of any of the Asserted
`Patents, and the results of such investigations, analyses, or efforts, including whether and why
`any design-around alternative was incorporated into any Accused Product.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 5:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal conclusions.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts on
`
`investigations, analyses, or efforts to design around claims of any Asserted Patents, to the extent
`
`such non-privileged facts or such investigations, analyses, or efforts exist.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 6:
`
`The facts and circumstances surrounding any business decisions made by Fitbit and/or other
`actions taken in response to learning of any of the Asserted Patents and other patents claiming
`overlapping priority, and/or the filing of this Action.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 6:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 9 of 40
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts on
`
`business decisions taken in response to learning of the Asserted Patents or the filing of this
`
`Action, to the extent any such non-privileged facts or such business decisions exist.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 7:
`
`The facts and circumstances surrounding any communication between You and any person
`concerning Philips or any of the Asserted Patents and other patents claiming overlapping
`priority.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 7:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts on
`
`communications concerning this Action or the Asserted Patents, to the extent any such non-
`
`privileged facts or such communications exist.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 8:
`
`The marketing and sales of each of the Accused Products including, but not limited to:
`
`a. For each Accused Product: the sales, offers for sale, gross and net revenues, costs of goods
`sold, gross and net profits, expenses, and any discounts for each Accused Product, broken down
`by year and month, from the time period of the introduction of each Accused Product to present.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 10 of 40
`
`b. Your annual budgets, financial projections and forecasts relating to revenues, costs, sales
`volumes and profits for the Accused Products, from the time period of the introduction of each
`Accused Product to present.
`
`c. The profitability and expected profitability of each Accused Product.
`
`d. Your decision to market, sell, license, distribute, promote, and/or offer to sell each Accused
`Product.
`
`e. Your pricing strategies, policies and procedures for each Accused Product.
`
`f. All sales, marketing and/or business plans, market segments, predictions concerning the past,
`present, or future size of the market, competitors, and market share, development of strategies for
`marketing for each Accused Product.
`
`g. Your strategy to differentiate each of the Accused Products from competitors’ products.
`
`h. Your marketing efforts and materials related to the benefits, drawbacks, value, and/or
`importance of each Accused Product.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 8:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding the marketing and sales
`
`of the Accused Products.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 9:
`
`Fitbit’s organizational structure for the following areas: engineering, design, and research and
`development; manufacture, fabrication, and assembly; and marketing, sales, and promotion.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 9:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 11 of 40
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it seeks a witness to testify regarding persons and
`
`issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding Fitbit’s organizational
`
`structure.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 10:
`
`The facts and circumstances surrounding any claim for indemnification or potential
`indemnification Fitbit has made or will make relating to this Action, including the entity from
`which indemnification was, is, or will be sought or to which indemnification was, is, or will be
`given.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 10:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts on
`
`any claim for indemnification Fitbit has made relating to this Action, to the extent any such non-
`
`privileged facts or such claims exists.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 11:
`
`The facts and circumstances surrounding any communications relating to this Action between
`Fitbit and any third party involved in the design, development, manufacture, distribution, or
`importation of each of the Accused Products since Philips’s filing of the Complaint in this
`Action, including communications relating to the allegations made in this Action and any effect
`this Action might have on Fitbit’s continued manufacture and sale of the Accused Products.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 12 of 40
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 11:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it seeks a witness to testify regarding patents,
`
`persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts on
`
`communications about this Action between Fitbit and third-parties involved in the design,
`
`development, manufacture, distribution, or importation of Accused Products since Philips’ filing
`
`of the Complaint in this Action, to the extent any such non-privileged facts or such
`
`communications exist.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 12:
`
`The factual bases for Your contention that any of the Asserted Patents are invalid under any
`subsection of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 12:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal
`
`conclusions and/or information that is properly the subject of expert testimony, opinions, and/or
`
`reports. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery
`
`requests served on Fitbit and/or more appropriately addressed in Fitbit’s written contention
`
`responses. Trustees of Boston University, 2014 WL 5786492 at *4-5; Fidelity Management &
`
`Research Co., 275 F.R.D. at 63-64.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 13 of 40
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding certain factual bases
`
`supporting Fitbit’s assertion that the Asserted Patents are invalid. Fitbit will not designate a
`
`corporate witness to testify as to any ultimate legal conclusion.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 13:
`
`The factual bases for Your assertion that Fitbit is “entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs under
`35 U.S.C. 285 and Rule 11.”
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 13:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal
`
`conclusions.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`not designate a witness to testify on this Topic.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 14:
`
`The factual bases concerning the secondary considerations of non-obviousness of the Asserted
`Patents.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 14:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic on the grounds that no objective
`
`indicia of non-obviousness exist and Philips has not met its burden to identify evidence of the
`
`same. Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal conclusions and/or
`
`information that is properly the subject of expert testimony, opinions, and/or reports. Fitbit
`
`further objects to this Topic to the extent it is duplicative of other discovery requests served on
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 14 of 40
`
`Fitbit and/or more appropriately addressed in Fitbit’s written contention responses. Trustees of
`
`Boston University, 2014 WL 5786492 at *4-5; Fidelity Management & Research Co., 275
`
`F.R.D. at 63-64.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding certain factual bases
`
`that there is no industry praise, commercial success, or long felt need for the claimed features.
`
`Fitbit will not designate a corporate witness to testify as to any ultimate legal conclusion.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 15:
`
`The facts and circumstances concerning when Fitbit first became aware of the Asserted Patents
`or any other patents claiming overlapping priority to the Asserted Patents, including the
`individuals involved and the original source of information from which Fitbit learned of them.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 15:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal conclusions
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify as to when Fitbit first became
`
`aware of the Asserted Patents.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 16:
`
`Knowledge by people developing the Accused Products of competitive or related products,
`including reference to such products and review of technical information relating to such
`products.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 15 of 40
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 16:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Fitbit further objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to
`
`“knowledge . . . including reference to such products[.]”
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts
`
`regarding competitive or related products, to the extent any such non-privileged facts exist.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 17:
`
`Fitbit’s policies with regards to determining whether or not any of its products, including the
`Accused Products, practice the patents of other or infringe upon the intellectual property of
`others, including patent searches, and communications related to such efforts.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 17:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal conclusions.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts on
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 16 of 40
`
`Fitbit’s policies relating to determining whether its products practice the patents of others, to the
`
`extent any such non-privileged facts or any such policies exists.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 18:
`
`Fitbit’s efforts to stay apprised of intellectual property that might relate to its products and
`services.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 18:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Fitbit further objects to this Topic to the extent that it seeks legal conclusions. Fitbit further
`
`objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to “intellectual property
`
`that might relate to its products and services.”
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts on
`
`Fitbit’s efforts to stay apprised of intellectual property that might related to its products or
`
`services, to the extent any such non-privileged facts or any such efforts exists.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 19:
`
`Fitbit’s efforts to clear each of the Accused Products of potential patent infringement, including
`patent searches, and communications related to such efforts in regards to the Asserted Patents or
`other patents claiming overlapping priority.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 19:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 17 of 40
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Fitbit further objects to this Topic on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous as to “clear each
`
`of the Accused Products of potential patent infringement[.]”
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify on any non-privileged facts on
`
`Fitbit’s efforts to prevent the Accused Products from infringing the patents of others, to the
`
`extent any such non-privileged facts or any such efforts exists.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 20:
`
`Fitbit’s refusal to take a royalty-bearing license under the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 20:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as overbroad and not proportional to
`
`the needs of the case, including to the extent it is not limited in time or duration and seeks a
`
`witness to testify regarding patents, persons, entities, and issues not relevant to this litigation.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`not designate a witness to testify on this Topic.
`
`DEPOSITION TOPIC NO. 21:
`
`Fitbit’s implementation of GPS functionality in each of the Accused Products.
`
`RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 21:
`
`Fitbit objects to this Topic to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other applicable
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-11586-FDS Document 319-2 Filed 02/23/22 Page 18 of 40
`
`privileges or protections. Fitbit further objects to this Topic as duplicative of other discovery
`
`requests served on Fitbit and/or of Fitbit’s Local Rule 16.6(d)(4) disclosures.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Fitbit will
`
`designate one or more witnesses reasonably prepared to testify regarding Fitbit’s implementation
`
`of GPS receivers in the Accused Pro