`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-1293-LPS
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited, Chervon North
`America, Inc.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`One World Technologies, Inc., Techtronic
`Industries Co. Ltd.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 8-11)
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Defendants One World
`
`Technologies, Inc. and Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. (collectively, “One World”) set forth their
`
`objections and responses to Plaintiffs Chervon (HK) Limited and Chervon North America, Inc.’s
`
`(collectively, “Chervon”) Second Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”) as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`One World’s responses to Chervon’s Interrogatories are made to the best of One
`
`World’s present knowledge, information and belief. One World reserves the right to supplement
`
`and amend these responses should future investigation indicate that such supplementation or
`
`amendment is necessary. One World’s responses should in no way be considered prejudicial in
`
`relation to further discovery, research, analysis or production of evidence.
`
`2.
`
`One World’s responses are made solely for the purpose of and in relation to this
`
`action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections including, but not limited to,
`
`objections concerning privilege, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety and admissibility.
`
`All objections are reserved and may be interposed at any time.
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`One World incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth
`
`below into each and every specific response. From time to time a specific response may repeat a
`
`general objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to include any general
`
`objection in any specific response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any general objection to
`
`that response.
`
`4.
`
`By responding to Chervon’s Interrogatories, One World does not waive any
`
`objection that may be applicable to: (a) the use, for any purpose, by Chervon of any information
`
`or documents given in this response to Chervon’s Interrogatories; or (b) the admissibility,
`
`relevancy or materiality of any of the information or documents at issue in this case.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`5.
`
`One World objects to each and every Interrogatory, and to Chervon’s instructions
`
`and definitions, to the extent that they purport to impose additional burdens or duties on One
`
`World that exceed the scope of reasonable and permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure or the Local Rules for the District of Delaware.
`
`6.
`
`One World objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product
`
`immunity doctrine, or any other applicable law, protection or doctrine. Nothing contained herein
`
`is intended to be or should be construed as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
`
`work product protection or any other applicable privilege, protection, or doctrine.
`
`7.
`
`One World objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent it seeks the
`
`disclosure of confidential information or documents prior to the entry of a protective order in this
`
`matter. One World will not agree to produce confidential information or documents until a
`
`protective order is entered.
`
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`8.
`
`One World objects to the definition of “You,” “Your,” “One World,” or
`
`“Defendants” as vague, overly broad, and beyond the scope of discovery, and to the extent these
`
`definitions are deemed to include any other entity beyond One World Technologies, Inc. or
`
`Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd. One World will treat all references to “You,” “Your,” “One
`
`World,” or “Defendants” as meaning “One World Technologies, Inc. or Techtronic Industries
`
`Co. Ltd.”
`
`9.
`
`One World objects to the definition of “Accused Product,” to the extent it seeks
`
`information beyond the specifically identified accused products in Chervon’s Complaint and/or
`
`forthcoming infringement contentions, as overly broad and outside the scope of this litigation.
`
`10.
`
`Any failure to repeat all or any part of the General Objections in a specific
`
`response shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of such objection.
`
`11.
`
`These General Objections are incorporated in full into each response below.
`
`Subject to these general objections, and subject to additional objections made to specific
`
`Interrogatories below, One World responds as follows:
`
`SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`For each Asserted Claim and each Accused Product identified in Plaintiffs’ initial
`infringement contentions, identify on an Asserted Claim-by-Asserted Claim basis all claim
`limitations or elements You admit or do not dispute are present in the Accused Products, and all
`claim limitations or elements You contend are absent from the Accused Products, setting forth in
`detail the basis for any contention that a limitation or element is absent, including any specific
`evidence that You assert proves or demonstrates that a particular claim limitation or element is not
`present in any Accused Product.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`One World objects to this Interrogatory as improper to the extent it seeks information
`
`protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. One World further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as compound as it has multiple discrete subparts. One World further
`
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as Plaintiff’s definition of “accused products” fails to identify the
`
`accused products with particularity. One World further objects to this Interrogatory as premature
`
`because this investigation is in its early stages, and One World is still developing its defenses.
`
`One World further objects to this Interrogatory as wrongly shifting the burden of proof to One
`
`World.
`
`Subject to and without waiving any general and specific objections, One World responds
`
`to this Interrogatory as follows:
`
`One World denies infringement of any claims of any of the Patents-in-Suit. This
`
`litigation is in an early stage, and One World’s investigation is ongoing. One World will present
`
`its burden of proof contentions and its non-burden of proof contentions at the appropriate time as
`
`dictated by the Scheduling Order or as otherwise agreed by the parties. One World reserves the
`
`right to supplement or amend its response as discovery and inquiry continue.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`Identify and describe all facts and information relating to any customer complaints,
`injuries, lawsuits, malfunctions, consumer warnings, consumer certifications, consumer
`notifications, product recalls, and/or any other safety-related issues involving any Accused
`Product.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`One World objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is not relevant to the
`
`claims or defenses in this action. One World further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available and/or
`
`already in Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. One World further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as being overly broad and unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of
`
`the case. One World further objects to this Interrogatory as improper to the extent it seeks
`
`information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine. One World
`
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome as it seeks
`
`information regarding “all” facts and information. One World further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as vague as to the terms “customer complaints,” “injuries,” “consumer
`
`certifications,” “consumer notifications,” and “other safety-related issues.” One World further
`
`objects to this Interrogatory as Plaintiff’s definition of “accused products” fails to identify the
`
`accused products with particularity.
`
`Subject to and without waiving any general and specific objections, One World responds
`
`to this Interrogatory as follows:
`
`One World is not aware of any injuries, lawsuits, consumer warnings, consumer
`
`certifications, consumer notifications, product recalls, and/or any other safety-related issues
`
`involving any of the Accused Products. One World will produce responsive, non-privileged
`
`documents pursuant to F.R.C.P. 33(d), if any exist, from which information sought by this
`
`interrogatory can be ascertained, to the extent such documents relate to accused features or
`
`components. One World reserves the right to supplement or amend its response as discovery and
`
`inquiry continue.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`Identify, on an Accused Product-by-Accused Product basis, each Person or Entity who
`manufactures, imports, offers for sale, sells, and/or supplies each Accused Product (including
`components and materials for each Accused Product), including the names of all distributors and
`all online and retail stores in the United States through which Defendants offer for sale and/or
`sell the Accused Products, and state the locations where each Accused Product (including
`components and materials for each Accused Product) has been manufactured, imported from,
`offered for sale, sold, or supplied by or for Defendants.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`One World objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome because
`
`it seeks information regarding “each” Person or Entity. One World further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory as compound as it has multiple discrete subparts. One World further objects to this
`
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`Interrogatory as Plaintiff’s definition of “accused products” fails to identify the accused products
`
`with particularity. One World further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent it seeks information that is publicly available and/or already in
`
`Plaintiff’s possession, custody, or control. One World further objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`being overly broad and unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
`
`Subject to and without waiving any general and specific objections, One World responds
`
`to this Interrogatory as follows:
`
`All of the Accused Products are manufactured by Techtronic Industries (Dongguan) Co.
`
`Ltd. and Techtronic Industries Vietnam Manufacturing Company Limited:
`
`Techtronic Industries (Dongguan) Co. Ltd
`No.1, Chuang Ke Road
`Hou Jie Town Industrial Park
`Hou Jie Town, Dongguan City
`Guang Dong Province 523945
`
`
`Techtronic Industries Vietnam Manufacturing Company Limited
`9A VSIP II-A, Street 27
`Singapore IIA Industrial Zone
`Tan Uyen Town,
`VIETNAM
`
`
`All of the Accused Products are imported and distributed by Homelite Consumer
`
`Products, Inc.:
`
`Homelite Consumer Products, Inc.
`100 Innovation Way
`Anderson, SC 29621
`
`The Home Depot is the only authorized retailer of all the Accused Products. One World
`
`will produce responsive, non-privileged documents pursuant to F.R.C.P. 33(d), if any exist, from
`
`which information sought by this interrogatory can be ascertained. One World reserves the right
`
`to supplement or amend its response as discovery and inquiry continue.
`
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`Identify and describe in detail any communication between You and any Person or Entity
`relating to Chervon, any of the Patents-in-Suit, or the Litigation.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
`
`One World objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information that is
`
`not relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. One World further objects to this
`
`Interrogatory to the extent it requests information regarding products or services outside of the
`
`scope of this case. One World further objects to this Interrogatory as being overly broad and
`
`unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. One World further objects to
`
`this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome because it seeks information regarding
`
`“any” communication, “any” Person, and “any” Entity relating to Chervon, and “any” of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. One World further objects to this Interrogatory as improper to the extent it
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
`
`Subject to and without waiving any general and specific objections, One World responds
`
`to this Interrogatory as follows:
`
`One World is willing to meet and confer to narrow the scope of this Interrogatory.
`
`
`
` Dated: March 16, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`/s/ Denise S. Kraft
`Denise S. Kraft (No. 2778)
`denise.kraft@dlapiper.com
`Brian A. Biggs (No. 5591)
`brian.biggs@dlapiper.com
`Erin E. Larson (No. 6616)
`erin.larson@dlapiper.com
`1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 468-5700
`Facsimile: (302) 394-2341
`
`
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`Sean C. Cunningham (pro hac vice)
`sean.cunningam@dlapiper.com
`Erin Gibson (pro hac vice)
`erin.gibson@dlapiper.com
`David R. Knudson (pro hac vice)
`david.knudson@dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Phone: 619.699.2700
`Fax: 619.699.2701
`
`Damon M. Lewis (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`500 Eighth Street NW
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: 202.799.4573
`Facsimile: 202.799.5362
`damon.lewis@dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`One World Technologies, Inc. and Techtronic
`Industries Co. Ltd.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Denise S. Kraft, do hereby certify that on this 16th day of March, 2020, I caused a true
`
`and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 8-11) to be served on the
`
`following attorneys of record in the manner indicated:
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`The Nemours Bldg.
`1007 North Orange Street, Ste. 1200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 661-7000
`schladweilerb@gtlaw.com
`
`Michael A. Nicodema
`Greenberg Traurig LLP
`500 Campus Drive, Ste. 400
`Florham Park, NJ 07932
`(973) 360-7900
`nicodemam@gtlaw.com
`
`James J. Lukas, Jr.
`Matthew J. Levinstein
`Callie J. Sand
`Benjamin P. Gilford
`77 West Wacker Drive, Ste. 3100
`Chicago, IL 60601
`(312) 456-8400
`lukasj@gtlaw.com
`levinsteinm@gtlaw.com
`sandc@gtlaw.com
`gilfordb@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Denise S. Kraft
`
`Denise S. Kraft (I.D. No. 2778)
`
`
`
`
`WEST\289516558.1
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Chervon (HK) Limited
`Exhibit 2008 - Page 9
`
`