Douglas G. Muehlhauser (SBN 179495)
`doug.muehlhauser@knobbe.com
`Mark Lezama (SBN 253479)
`mark.lezama@knobbe.com
`Alexander J. Martinez (SBN 293925)
`alex.martinez@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: 949-760-0404
`Facsimile: 949-760-9502
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GUEST-TEK INTERACTIVE
`ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.
`CV16-08033 AB (FFMx)
`
`NOMADIX’S RESPONSES TO
`GUEST-TEK’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`Honorable André Birotte Jr.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`GUEST TEK EXHIBIT 1024
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix, IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
`Nomadix hereby responds to Defendant Guest-Tek Interactive Entertainment’s
`First Set of Interrogatories.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Nomadix bases its responses to these interrogatories on information
`currently available to Nomadix and located by Nomadix after a reasonable
`investigation. Discovery is ongoing, and Nomadix may supplement or otherwise
`amend its responses as more information becomes available. For example, Guest-
`Tek has not produced complete source code. In general, Guest-Tek’s responses to
`Nomadix’s outstanding discovery requests may change Nomadix’s responses to
`these interrogatories.
`Nomadix will respond to the unobjectionable portions of each interrogatory.
`In doing so, Nomadix may provide information also responsive to objectionable
`portions of an interrogatory; but Nomadix maintains its objections and does not
`agree to provide further information responsive to the objectionable portions. More
`generally, by responding to an interrogatory, Nomadix does not waive any of its
`objections, and in particular, Nomadix does not concede that Guest-Tek is entitled
`to further discovery on the matters to which the interrogatory pertains. Likewise,
`by responding to an interrogatory, Nomadix does not concede any factual or legal
`assertions set forth or assumed in the interrogatory. Moreover, Nomadix does not
`waive any evidentiary objections at trial.
`OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL INTERROGATORIES
`Nomadix objects to Guest-Tek’s discovery requests to the extent that
`1.
`they seek information protected by the attorney–client privilege, information
`protected as work product or trial-preparation material, or information protected by
`any other applicable privilege or immunity. The specific objections stated below
`invoking the attorney–client privilege, work-product or trial-preparation protection,
`
`- 1 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`or any other applicable privilege or immunity do not limit the generality of this
`objection in any way.
`Nomadix objects to Guest-Tek’s requests to the extent that they
`2.
`incorporate Guest-Tek’s instructions concerning identification of privileged and
`otherwise-protected materials. Guest-Tek’s instructions would impose obligations
`beyond those that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the parties’ stipulated
`discovery order impose.
`
`SPECIFIC RESPONSES
`
`INTERROGATORY 1:
`Identify each Network Service and Network Device which you contend
`constitutes a Licensed Network Device or Licensed Network Service under the
`License Agreement. This identification shall be as specific as possible. Each
`product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name and model number.
`Each method or process shall be identified by name or by the product, device, or
`apparatus which, when used, allegedly results in the practice of the claimed
`method or process.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 1:
`Nomadix incorporates its Objections Applicable to All Interrogatories.
`Nomadix further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`protected from disclosure by the attorney–client privilege or work-product
`immunity, including the protections of Rules 26(b)(3) and (4). Guest-Tek’s
`production of technical documents is incomplete, and Guest-Tek has not yet
`responded to Nomadix’s interrogatories. Nomadix needs at least that discovery to
`respond to this interrogatory. The foregoing objections and Nomadix’s Preliminary
`Statement qualify the following:
`The following are Licensed Network Devices and their processes are
`Licensed Network Services:
`
`- 2 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`• all versions of OneView Internet at any U.S. property during any
`License Quarter;
`• all versions of RendezView at any U.S. property during any License
`Quarter;
`• all versions of Mercury at any U.S. property during any License
`Quarter;
`• all Head-End Processors (HEPs) installed at any U.S. property at the
`time of, or after, Guest-Tek’s acquisition of assets of iBAHN General
`Holdings Corporation or other iBAHN entities; and
`• all Golden Tree or GTC devices at any U.S. property during any
`License Quarter.
`INTERROGATORY 2:
`For each Network Device and Network Service identified in response to
`Interrogatory No. 1, identify each claim of each patent that you contend reads on
`the Network Device or Network Service’s structure, functionality, or operation,
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 2:
`Nomadix incorporates its Objections Applicable to All Interrogatories.
`Nomadix further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`protected from disclosure by the attorney–client privilege or work-product
`immunity, including the protections of Rules 26(b)(3) and (4). Guest-Tek’s
`production of technical documents is incomplete, and Guest-Tek has not yet
`responded to Nomadix’s interrogatories. Nomadix needs at least that discovery to
`respond to this interrogatory. In particular, Guest-Tek has not produced HEP,
`Mercury, or GTC source code; and Guest-Tek has yet to identify any quarters
`corresponding to the RendezView code it has produced. Depending on Guest-
`Tek’s response to Nomadix’s interrogatories 2 and 3, Nomadix may identify
`additional patent claims in response to this interrogatory. To the extent this
`- 3 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`interrogatory concerns any patent that is not a Licensed Patent or a Bandwidth
`Management Patent and that does not belong to a Patent Family (as those terms are
`defined in the License Agreement), it seeks information that is neither relevant to
`the claims or defenses pleaded in this case nor proportional to the needs of the
`case. To the extent this interrogatory asks Nomadix to identify patent claims in
`connection with devices or services (1) whose status as a Licensed Network
`Device or Licensed Network Service is not disputed or (2) with respect to which
`royalties are not disputed based on claim scope, the interrogatory seeks
`information that does not change the outcome of the case and that is therefore
`neither relevant to the claims or defenses pleaded in this case nor proportional to
`the needs of the case. For example, as far as Nomadix is aware, Guest-Tek has not
`disputed that at least RendezView and GTC are each a Licensed Network Device
`or Licensed Network Service; accordingly Nomadix objects to identifying claims
`from the Licensed Patents for these devices and services that would not affect the
`royalty analysis. Similarly, when Guest-Tek has identified properties with HEPs in
`quarterly reports (Schedule B), it has not disputed that it owes full royalties under
`clause 2.4 of the License Agreement; accordingly Nomadix objects to identifying
`claims from the Licensed Patents for these devices and services that would not
`affect the royalty analysis. Nomadix needs Guest-Tek to complete its document
`production and to respond to Nomadix’s interrogatories so that it can assess the
`extent to which there is any royalty dispute based on claim scope for RendezView,
`HEP, and GTC. The foregoing objections and Nomadix’s Preliminary Statement
`qualify the following:
`At least the following claims read on OneView Internet:
`
`Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,266,266
`U.S. Patent No. 8,725,899
`
`Claims
`1, 24
`1, 10
`
`- 4 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 8,606,917
`U.S. Patent No. 6,868,399
`U.S. Patent No. 7,953,857
`U.S. Patent No. 8,626,922
`
`
`Claims
`1, 11
`1, 6, 13, 18
`1, 9
`1, 9
`
`As indicated in Nomadix’s Preliminary Statement, Nomadix may amend or
`supplement its response after receiving or reviewing discovery from Guest-Tek
`and as Nomadix continues to investigate the issues and facts of this case.
`INTERROGATORY 3:
`For each patent claim identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, identify
`specifically where and how each limitation of each patent claim is found within
`each purported Licensed Network Device and Licensed Network Service, and
`specify whether each limitation of each patent claim is alleged to be literally
`present or present under the doctrine of equivalents.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY 3:
`Nomadix incorporates its Objections Applicable to All Interrogatories.
`Nomadix further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information
`protected from disclosure by the attorney–client privilege or work-product
`immunity, including the protections of Rules 26(b)(3) and (4). Nomadix
`incorporates its objections to interrogatory 2. In particular, Nomadix emphasizes
`that Guest-Tek’s production of technical documents is incomplete, and Guest-Tek
`has not yet responded to Nomadix’s interrogatories. Nomadix needs at least that
`discovery to respond to this interrogatory. In particular, Guest-Tek has not
`produced HEP, Mercury, or GTC source code; and Guest-Tek has yet to identify
`any quarters corresponding to the RendezView code it has produced. Depending
`on Guest-Tek’s response to Nomadix’s interrogatories 2 and 3, Nomadix may
`identify additional patent claims in response to interrogatory 2 and may
`- 5 -
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`