PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, DC
`
`Before The Honorable Mary Joan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1103
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO RECEIVERS
`AND RELATED HARDWARE AND
`SOFTWARE COMPONENTS
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO
`AMEND IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES [MOTION NO. 1103-004]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`L. INTRODUCTION ...ttt ettt sttt ettt et s eee s bt etesntesbeenseeneesneenneas 1
`II. ARGUMENT ...ttt et sttt et et e et e st e et esabeebeeenbeenbeennnas 1
`A. Rovi has no excuse for failing to timely disclose an expert on usage data.............. 1
`
`B. Rovi’s attempt to show “compelling circumstance” rests on
`TNISTEPTESENLALIONS. ..o evtieeiiieeiteeerieeeniteeesteeeseaeeeareeeereeesreesnseeesnseessnseesanseesnsseesnns 3
`. COMCAST WOULD BE PREJUDICED BY AMENDMENT........ccccoeiiiiiiiieeieeeeee, 5
`IV, CONCLUSION. .. oottt ettt ettt et e st e bt et e saeesae et e saeesbeenseeneenteenee e 5
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION
`OF EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I INTRODUCTION
`
`Rovi seeks to amend its expert disclosures to add a witness to perform surveys and provide
`testimony regarding customer usage of the accused features. Rovi’s attempt to amend is
`inexcusably late, and the delay is entirely Rovi’s own doing. Rovi’s attempts to show “compelling
`circumstances” rely on a combination of implausible assertions about the data Rovi claims it
`believed Comcast has, and outright misrepresentations.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`A. Rovi has no excuse for failing to timely disclose an expert on usage data
`
`Rovi must show compelling cause to amend its expert disclosures. The Proposed Schedule
`states that the parties must file their identification of expert witnesses by May 2, 2018. Order
`No. 4, App. A. Now, more than a month later, Rovi seeks leave to amend. With regards to expert
`disclosures, the Ground Rules state that:
`
`On or before the dates set forth in the procedural schedule, a party
`shall disclose to all other parties the identity of any person who is
`retained or employed to provide expert testimony at the hearing and
`shall provide the other parties a written report prepared and signed
`by that witness. Experts who are not disclosed on or before the
`date set forth in the procedural schedule must be approved in
`
`advance by the Administrative Law Judge upon a showing of
`compelling circumstances.
`
`Order No. 2, at Att. B, Rule 5 (emphasis added).
`
`Rovi can offer no excuse — much less a showing of “compelling circumstances” — to justify
`its failure to disclose Dr. Schwartz by the May 2, 2018 deadline for expert disclosures. Rovi asserts
`that its belated disclosure is justified because Rovi reasonably believed, and was misled by
`Comcast into believing, that Comcast had all the customer usage data that Rovi requested during
`discovery.
`
`Neither is true. As discussed below, Comcast never told Rovi that it had customer usage
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION
`OF EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`data for all the accused features.
`
`Ex. A, Excerpt of the Deposition of Peter Nush at 27:17-28:11 (emphasis added).
`Notably, this testimony appears just before the selective quotes on which Rovi relies in its
`
`Rovi Mot. at 5.
`
`—
`[¢]
`[y
`—
`[¢]
`=
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION
`OF EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`It was therefore incumbent on Rovi to timely disclose an expert if Rovi wished to ensure that it
`could present evidence of customer usage. Rovi has only itself to blame for its failure to do so.
`
`B. Rovi’s attempt to show “compelling circumstance” rests on
`misrepresentations
`
`Rovi, in an attempt to show “compelling circumstances” excusing its failure to disclose an
`expert, urges that Rovi was diligent in seeking discovery on customer usage data, and that its
`supposed belief that such data existed was both reasonable, and the result of being misled by
`Comcast. None of this is true.
`
`Comcast never “led Rovi to believe” that customer usage data would be produced.
`Rovi Mot. at 1. To the contrary, Comcast never represented to Rovi that any particular usage data
`existed, beyond any relevant data that had been produced in the prior ITC investigation. For
`example, in response to Request for Production No. 8, Comcast represented that to the extent “non-
`privileged documents existed” they had been produced. Ex. B, Excerpts of Comcast Discovery
`Responses, at No. 8. And in response to Request for Production No. 11, Comcast requested a meet
`and confer regarding its scope. . at No. 11. Similarly, in response to Interrogatory Nos. 9 and
`26, Comcast agreed to produce documents “to the extent non-privileged documents exist.” . at
`Nos. 9 and 26. Interrogatory No. 7 sought information similar to discovery sought in the prior
`investigation, and Comcast therefore responded by stating it would produce responsive documents
`from the prior investigation. . at No. 7. Finally, Comcast completely objected to Interrogatory
`Nos. 24-26, and made no commitment to produce responsive documents in response to these
`requests. . at Nos. 24-26.
`
`In short, Comcast never represented that the data sought existed; Comcast merely agreed
`to produce, and did produce, any data that existed and was relevant to the usage of accused features.
`
`Specifically, on June 1, 2018, Comcast produced search related usage data relating to the *011
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION
`OF EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and ’394 patents and supplemented its responses to Rovi’s Interrogatory Nos. 24-26 to identify
`
`these documents. Ex. B, Excerpts of Comcast Discovery Responses, at Nos. 24-26. In its
`
`supplemental responses, Comcast further explained that _
`
`Furthermore, it was completely unreasonable for Rovi to simply assume that the customer
`usage data existed, based on Comcast’s production in the prior ITC investigation. Rovi urges that
`this data was “comparable” to the data sought in this case. Rovi Mot. at 1. This is not true.
`The prior investigation involved different patents, different accused products, and different
`accused features. Where there was some slight overlap of accused features, Comcast of course
`produced the usage data from the prior case. But Rovi had no reason to conclude that Comcast
`would have usage data for other features that were not at issue in the prior investigation. Indeed,
`in light of Peter Nush’s testimony, discussed above, Rovi knew that Comcast typically did not
`maintain customer usage data, and certainly did not have such data for every feature.
`
`Finally, Rovi was far from diligent in seeking customer usage data, and should not be
`rewarded for its lackadaisical approach with leave to amend its expert witness list. Rovi asserts
`that there were “two months of repeated requests by Rovi” for customer usage data, implying that
`Rovi diligently sought this data prior to the deadline for disclosing experts. Rovi Mot. at 1.
`But it was not until May 1, one day prior to the deadline for disclosing experts, that Rovi first
`wrote to Comcast asserting that Comcast’s discovery responses regarding “usage data” were
`“wholly deficient.” Rovi Mot., Ex. C (May 1, 2018 lItr.) at 1. These allegedly “wholly
`deficient” responses were served April 12. The deficiencies of which Rovi complains in its letter
`
`should have alerted Rovi that its supposed belief that Comcast had all the customer usage data
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION
`OF EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Rovi sought was misplaced. They also should have prompted Rovi to take immediate action. Yet
`Rovi did nothing until the day before expert disclosures were due. Rovi did not promptly seek
`supplementation, much less move to compel. Nor did Rovi disclose an expert, as a precaution, or
`request an extension for such disclosure. Furthermore, Rovi did not even inform Comcast that it
`wished to amend its expert disclosures until May 29, 2018. Ex. C (May 29, 2018 email).
`
`III. COMCAST WOULD BE PREJUDICED BY AMENDMENT
`
`Rovi blithely asserts that Comcast is not prejudiced by Rovi’s attempt to add an expert to
`conduct surveys on customer usage of accused features more than one month after the deadline.
`Rovi asserts that Comcast should have known Rovi would disclose such an expert. Rovi is wrong.
`Experts to conduct surveys to determine the usage of accused features are not a standard feature
`of ITC investigations. And Comcast had no notice, until May 29, 2018, that Rovi sought to use
`such an expert. Ex. C (May 29, 2018 email). As aresult, Comcast has had no opportunity to retain
`and disclose its own rebuttal expert — much less begin the time-consuming process of conducting
`its own surveys. Opening expert reports are due July 2 — less than one month away — including
`the disclosure of any surveys. Order No. 4. It is simply too late to add new experts to conduct
`surveys.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Rovi has failed to show “compelling circumstances” justifying an amendment, more than
`
`a month late, of its expert disclosures. Rovi’s motion should be denied.
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION
`OF EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 18, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Bert C. Reiser
`
`Bert C. Reiser
`
`Jamie D. Underwood
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20004
`
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 328-4600
`Facsimile: (650) 463-2600
`
`Julie M. Holloway
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP
`505 Montgomery Street
`Suite 2000
`
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 391-0600
`Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
`
`Joseph H. Lee
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
`Telephone: (714) 540-1235
`Facsimile: (714) 755-8290
`
`Charles H. Sanders
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone: (617) 948-6000
`Facsimile: (617) 948-6001
`
`Michael A. David
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 906-2968
`Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION
`OF EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael L. Brody
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
`
`Steven M. Anzalone
`
`Paul C. Goulet
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`1800 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-03817
`Telephone: (202) 282-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 282-5100
`
`Michael M. Murray
`Krishnan Padmanabhan
`200 Park Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10166-4193
`Telephone: (212) 294-6700
`Facsimile: (212) 294-4700
`
`Anthony I. Fenwick
`
`David Lisson
`
`DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
`1600 E1 Camino Real
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-2000
`Facsimile: (650) 752-2111
`
`COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND IDENTIFICATION
`OF EXPERT WITNESSES
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`337-TA-1103
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`It is hereby certified that copies of COMCAST RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO
`
`COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERT
`
`WITNESSES [MOTION NO. 1103-004] (PUBLIC VERSION) were served on June 25, 2018
`
`as follows:
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`By EDIS
`
`The Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 317
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`By Hand Delivery and Email:
`Michael.Buckler@usitc.gov
`
`John Shin
`
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 401
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`By Email:
`John.Shin@usitc.gov
`
`Douglas A. Cawley
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`
`By Email:
`Rovi Comcast ITC II@mckoolsmith.com
`
`blevi@levisnotherly.com
`
`/s/ Erika J. Weinstein
`
`Erika J. Weinstein
`
`Litigation Analyst
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO RECEIVERS
`AND RELATED HARDWARE AND
`SOFTWARE COMPONENTS
`
`COMCAST’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANTS ROVI
`CORPORATION, ROVI GUIDES, INC., ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORP., AND VEVEO,
`INC.’S’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO COMCAST (NOS. 1-211)
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.30, 19 C.F.R. § 210.30, Respondents Comcast
`Corporation; Comcast Cable Communications,
`Management, LLC; Comcast Business Communications, LLC; Comcast Holdings Corporation;
`and Comcast Shared Services, LLC (collectively “Comcast” or “Comcast Respondents”) hereby
`submit the following objections and responses to Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides,
`
`Inc., Rovi Technologies Corp., and Veveo, Inc.’s (“Complainants” or “Rovi”) First Set of
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-1103
`
`Requests for Production to Comcast (Nos. 1-211).
`
`LLC; Comcast Cable Communications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`these requests, a supplemental production of those documents will be made on a rolling basis and
`will be substantially completed in accordance with the date set forth in the Procedural Schedule.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
`
`All documents reporting, discussing, or analyzing usage of the Accused Functionalities,
`including on a product-by-product basis, functionality-by-functionality basis, and customer-
`interaction basis (e.g., the number of times certain remote control buttons are pushed, the number
`of times specific programming guide functionality is used, instances where voice commands are
`used, and terms used in relation to voice commands).
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights
`as if specifically alleged herein. Comcast specifically objects to this Request for Production to
`the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work
`product immunity, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Comcast also objects to this
`Request for Production to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or
`defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. Comcast also objects to this Request for
`Production to the extent the documents requested are not in Comcast’s possession, custody,
`and/or control. Comcast objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, over broad and unduly
`burdensome as to its request for “All documents reporting, discussing, or analyzing usage.”
`Comcast objects to this request as over broad and unduly burdensome as to its request for “the
`number of times certain remote control buttons are pushed, the number of times specific
`programming guide functionality is used, instances where voice commands are used, and terms
`
`used in relation to voice commands” and because it is unbounded in time.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Response: Subject to and without waiving any General Objections or Specific
`Objections, to the extent that responsive, relevant, non-privileged documents existed, and were
`within the possession, custody, or control of Comcast, and were located after a reasonable
`search, Comcast has produced them pursuant to the cross-use provisions for document
`production in this Investigation. Comcast is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of
`and the information sought by this Request.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
`
`All documents reporting, discussing, or analyzing use (e.g., amount of use, method of
`use) of the Accused Products and/or Accused Functionalities by subscribers, including
`documents and things sufficient to show the number of Comcast subscribers that use each
`Accused Functionality on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis from January 1, 2016, how each
`user is correlated to a Comcast account, whether Comcast tracks use of the Accused Product, and
`number of uses of each Accused Product to perform the Accused Functionalities.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights
`as if specifically alleged herein. Comcast specifically objects to this Request for Production to
`the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work
`product immunity, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Comcast also objects to this
`Request for Production because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of
`any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or
`proportional to the needs of this case, including because it requests documents regarding
`products initially imported prior to April 1, 2016 that are not within the scope of this
`
`Investigation. Comcast also objects to this Request for Production to the extent the documents
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Comcast objects to this request as vague, ambiguous, over broad and unduly burdensome as to
`its request for “All documents” and “a breakdown of each number between video subscribers,
`Internet subscribers, and voice subscribers.” Comcast also objects to this Request as overly broad
`and unduly burdensome as it seeks information that is unrelated to the Accused Functionalities or
`
`Accused Products and because it 1s unbounded in time.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
`
`Documents and things sufficient to show the average Comcast subscriber usage of each
`Accused Functionality.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights
`as if specifically alleged herein. Comcast specifically objects to this Request for Production to
`the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work
`product immunity, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Comcast also objects to this
`Request for Production to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or
`defense of any party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`evidence or proportional to the needs of this case. Comcast objects to this Request for Production
`as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “average Comcast subscriber usage.” Comcast objects
`to this Request as over broad and unduly burdensome because it is unbounded in time.
`
`Response: Subject to and without waiving any General Objections or Specific
`Objections, Comcast is willing to meet and confer regarding the scope of and the information
`
`sought by this Request.
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 12, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Bert C. Reiser
`
`Jamie D. Underwood
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W.
`Suite 1000
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 328-4600
`Facsimile: (650) 463.2600
`
`Joseph H. Lee
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive
`
`20th Floor
`
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
`Telephone: (714) 540-1235
`Facsimile: (714) 755-8290
`
`Charles H. Sanders
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone: (617) 948-6000
`Facsimile: (617) 948-6001
`
`Michael A. David
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`885 Third Avenue
`
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 906-2968
`Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
`
`Michael L. Brody
`Winston & Strawn LLP
`35 W. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`
`252
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO RECEIVERS | Investigation No. 337-TA-1103
`AND RELATED HARDWARE AND
`SOFTWARE COMPONENTS
`
`COMCAST’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANTS ROVI
`CORPORATION, ROVI GUIDES, INC., ROVI TECHNOLOGIES CORP., AND VEVEO,
`INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO COMCAST (NOS. 1-102)
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.29, 19 C.F.R. § 210.29, Respondents Comcast
`Corporation; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; Comcast Cable Communications
`Management, LLC; Comcast Business Communications, LLC; Comcast Holdings Corporation;
`and Comcast Shared Services, LLC (collectively “Comcast” or “Comcast Respondents™)! hereby
`submit the following objections and responses to Complainants Rovi Corporation, Rovi Guides,
`Inc., Rovi Technologies Corp., and Veveo, Inc.’s (“Complainants” or “Rovi”) First Set of
`
`Interrogatories to Comcast (Nos. 1-102).
`
`! Throughout these Responses, references to “Comcast” refers to at least one named Comcast
`Respondent, and not necessarily all of the named Comcast Respondents. At least Comcast
`Corporation, Comcast Holding Corporation, and Comcast Shared Services, LLC have no
`involvement with any of the allegedly infringing activities.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and any other user equipment that can support any Comcast X1 IPG” as outside the scope of this
`Investigation and as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous.
`Response: Subject to the foregoing exceptions and without waiving its objections,
`
`Comcast states:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Identify and describe the usage by end-users of each Comcast App (a) capable of
`transmitting and/or receiving voice commands or (b) capable of streaming programming,
`including the number of unique users for each product in the United States on an annual basis for
`2016, 2017, and 2018; how each user is correlated to a Comcast account; whether Comcast
`tracks use of the product; and the number of uses, on a month-by-month basis for each of 2016,
`
`2017, and 2018, of the Comcast App to perform the Accused Functionalities.
`
`3 Comcast expects to come to an agreement with Complainants that allows for the use of certain
`documents produced in prior litigation in this Investigation, including the specific documents
`with document production numbers beginning with COM-SDNY-9278 and COM_1001ITC that
`are cited throughout these Responses. However, to the extent that the parties do not reach such
`an agreement, Comcast will make the aforementioned cited documents in these Responses
`available to Complainants for use in this Investigation at an appropriate time.
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights
`as if specifically alleged herein. Comcast specifically objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product
`immunity, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Comcast also objects to this
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any
`party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or
`proportional to the needs of this case, including because it requests information regarding
`products initially imported prior to April 1, 2016 that were subject to a license agreement.
`Comcast also objects to this Interrogatory to the extent the documents or information requested
`are publicly available and/or equally available to the requesting party. Comcast also objects to
`this Interrogatory to the extent the documents requested are not in Comcast’s possession,
`custody, and/or control. Comcast objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`burdensome, vague, and ambiguous as to the phrases “identify and describe the usage by end-
`users” and “how each user is correlated to a Comcast account.” Comcast objects to the phrase
`“Comcast App (a) capable of transmitting and/or receiving voice commands” as not relevant to
`an accused functionality and outside the scope of this Investigation and as overly broad, unduly
`burdensome, vague, and ambiguous. Comcast will limit its response to “usage by end-users of
`each Comcast App . . . (b) capable of streaming programming . . .”.
`
`Response: Subject to the foregoing exceptions and without waiving its objections,
`
`Comcast states:
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`For each of Comcast’s Voice Remotes, identify and describe the product’s operation in
`relation to voice searching, including the software and hardware entities used to receive voice
`commands, interpret voice commands, and convert audio voice commands into electronic
`signals, as well as the APIs and other documentation which describes this operation.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights
`as if specifically alleged herein. Comcast specifically objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product
`immunity, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Comcast also objects to this
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any
`party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or
`proportional to the needs of this case including because it seeks information unrelated to the X1
`voice search functionality accused of infringement. Comcast also objects to this Interrogatory to
`the extent it seeks material subject to third-party confidentiality restrictions. Comcast objects to
`this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous as to the phrase
`
`29
`
`“identify and describe the product’s operation in relation to voice searching.” Comcast objects
`to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome on the grounds that it is unbounded
`
`in time. Comcast will respond as to the current operation of its X1 Voice Remotes.
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Response: Subject to the foregoing exceptions and without waiving its objections,
`
`Comcast states:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`Identify and describe the usage by end-users of each Comcast Voice Remote, including
`the number of unique users for each product in the United States on an annual basis for 2016,
`2017, and 2018; how each user is correlated to a Comcast account; whether Comcast tracks use
`of the product; and the number of uses, on a month-by-month basis for each of 2016, 2017, and
`2018, of the Voice Remote to perform the Accused Functionalities.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights
`as if specifically alleged herein. Comecast specifically objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product
`immunity, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Comcast also objects to this
`Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any
`party and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or
`proportional to the needs of this case including because it seeks information unrelated to the X1
`voice search functionality accused of infringement. Comcast objects to this Interrogatory as
`
`overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous as to the phrase “identify and describe
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the usage by end-users.” Comcast objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly
`burdensome, vague, and ambiguous on the grounds that it seeks information related to
`unspecified “usage” or “users” and seeks information related to “how each user is correlated to a
`Comcast account.” Comcast further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`burdensome on the grounds that it seeks information related to “each Comcast Voice Remote”
`and “each product.” Comcast further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly
`burdensome to the extent that it seeks information regarding any usage prior to April 1, 2016.
`Response: Subject to the foregoing exceptions and without waiving its objections,
`
`Comcast states:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`
`For each Accused Product and Accused Functionality, identify the three persons most
`knowledgeable about the design, structure, function, operation, manufacturing, purchase from
`original equipment manufacturers, and development of each product or functionality and
`
`describe the scope of each identified person’s knowledge.
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatory to the extent the documents or information requested is publicly available and/or
`equally available to the requesting party. Comcast objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad
`and unduly burdensome, vague, and ambiguous, including the phrases “involve any of the
`Accused Features or the Accused Products” and “the nature of the claims or allegations.”
`Response: Subject to the foregoing exceptions and without waiving its objections,
`
`Comcast states:
`
`Dated: April 12,2018 Respectfully submitted,
`
`Bert C. Reiser
`
`Jamie D. Underwood
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`555 Eleventh Street, N.W.
`Suite 1000
`
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 637-2200
`Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 328-4600
`Facsimile: (650) 463.2600
`
`Joseph H. Lee
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive
`
`20th Floor
`
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
`Telephone: (714) 540-1235
`Facsimile: (714) 755-8290
`
`161
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before The Honorable MaryJoan McNamara
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN DIGITAL VIDEO o
`RECEIVERS AND RELATED Investigation No. 337-TA-1103
`HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
`COMPONENTS
`
`COMCAST’S FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`COMPLAINANTS ROVI CORPORATION, ROVI GUIDES, INC., ROVI
`TECHNOLOGIES CORP., AND VEVEQ, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`TO COMCAST (NOS. 22, 24-26, 40, 41, 45, 51)
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.29, 19 C.F.R. § 210.29, Respondents Comcast
`Corporation; Comcast Cable Communications, LLC; Comcast Cable Communications
`Management, LLC; Comcast Business Communications, LLC; Comcast Holdings Corporation;
`and Comcast Shared Services, LLC (collectively “Comcast” or “Comcast Respondents™)! hereby
`submit the following supplemental objections and responses to Complainants Rovi Corporation,
`Rovi Guides, Inc., Rovi Technologies Corp., and Veveo, Inc.’s (“Complainants” or “Rovi”’) First
`
`Set of Interrogatories to Comcast (Nos. 1-102).
`
`! Throughout these Responses, references to “Comcast” refers to at least one named Comcast
`Respondent, and not necessarily all of the named Comcast Respondents. At least Comcast
`Corporation, Comcast Holding Corporation, and Comcast Shared Services, LLC have no
`involvement with any of the allegedly infringing activities.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 22 (June 1, 2018)
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates by reference its Specific Objections to this
`Interrogatory, served on April 12, 2018, as if fully stated herein.
`
`Response: Comcast further responds to this Interrogatory as follows:
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
`
`Identify and describe all groups or divisions within Comcast that track and/or analyze the
`number of times each Accused Product and/or Accused Functionality is used by an end-user,
`including a description of how such usage is tracked, a description of why such usage is tracked,
`and an identification of all reports, summaries, analysis, or other documents disclosing any such
`usage data created on or after April 1, 2016.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24:
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates all of its general objections and reservations of rights
`as if specifically alleged herein. Comecast specifically objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
`seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work product
`
`immunity, or any other applicable privilege or protection. Comcast also objects to this
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Interrogatory because it seeks information that is not relevant to the claim or defense of any party
`and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or proportional to
`the needs of this case, including because it seeks “a description of why such usage is tracked” and
`because it seeks information not limited to the Accused Functionalities. Comcast also objects to
`this Interrogatory to the extent the documents requested are not in Comcast’s possession, custody,
`and/or control. Comcast objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome as
`to the phrases “identify and describe all groups or divisions” and ““an identification of all reports,
`summaries, analysis, or other documents.”
`
`FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24 (June 1, 2018)
`
`Objections: Comcast incorporates by reference its Specific Objections to this
`Interrogatory, served on April 12, 2018, as if fully stated herein.
`
`Response: Comcast further responds to this Interro