PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT. Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A.

Similar documents
Case 2:12-cv TSZ Document 21 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 5 The Honorable Mary Alice Theiler

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the

Case 9:15-cv KAM Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2015 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 2:17-cv RAJ Document 36 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:17-cv TSZ Document 30 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 11

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY. Peter S. Holmes, Kent C. Meyer, Jessica Nadelman, Attorneys of Record for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. * Case No. 17-cv-2006-EH * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Case 2:15-cv TSZ Document 15 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Interval Licensing LLC v. ebay, Inc. et al Doc. 84 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11

Case: 5:17-cv DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/06/17 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 1

Case 5:14-cv DMG-DTB Document 110 Filed 08/27/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:925

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

Case 1:06-cv DFH-TAB Document 11 Filed 05/24/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION. Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. No. Plaintiff, Defendants.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order Vacating February 6, 2009 Claim Construction Order [107]; Order on New Claim Construction;

Case 1:15-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2015 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:09-cv NBF Document 347 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:05-cv DF-CMC Document 364 Filed 06/26/2007 Page 1 of 9

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF CASS, NORTH DAKOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. Plaintiffs, Defendants.

Case 9:16-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/31/2016 Page 1 of 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ANSWER

Case 2:16-cv JCC Document 9 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

I. ANSWER. COMES NOW Defendant IMPULSE MEDIA GROUP, INC. in the above-captioned

FORM 4. RULE 26(f) REPORT (PATENT CASES) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

POTENTIAL PATENT APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 21 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 2:15-cv RSM Document 1 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION, AKRON

Case 2:06-cv RSM Document 38 Filed 10/16/2007 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. Plaintiff, Defendants.

Case 2:15-cv MJP Document 21 Filed 02/11/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION

Case3:10-cv WHA Document1105 Filed05/08/12 Page1 of 8

PART OF THE QUINTESSENTIALLY GROUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DOCKET CONTROL ORDER STEP ACTION RULE DATE DUE 1

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case3:12-cv VC Document28 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT YAKIMA

Case 4:07-cv CW Document 39 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:15-cv WHA Document 31 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner

Case 2:16-cv RAJ Document 8 Filed 03/30/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 3:06-cv JSW Document 192 Filed 12/21/2007 Page 1 of 9

Case 3:06-cv JSW Document 203 Filed 02/12/2008 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:13-cv WYD-MEH Document 28 Filed 02/20/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:16-cv CMH-TCB Document 25 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 159

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV RYSKAMP/VITUNAC

Case 1:16-cv AKH Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 21. Case No.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case 2:14-cv MJP Document 1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 13

2:13-cv PDB-MKM Doc # 33 Filed 10/06/14 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 305 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks

Case 1:07-cv MRB Document 6 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

APPENDIX I SAMPLE INTERROGATORIES

3. Accout means your deposit account with us to which you are authorized to make a deposit using a Capture Device.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner

11 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 3:15-cv AA Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 14-cv Plaintiff, Defendant.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Plaintiff, Case No. 2:09-CV Hon. Marianne O.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

CAUSE NO. 18-C STREETS TO SHEETS ANIMAL IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW RESCUE Plaintiff, v. NO. 1

AGREED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

End User License Agreement

Case 3:15-cv RBL Document 12 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 74 Filed 06/27/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON


PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 52

1 THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. ZILLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1

Transcription:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ARRIVALSTAR S.A. AND MELVINO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00977-TSZ Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant. PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies Limited request that Defendant Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ( Sound Transit ) answer the following interrogatories under oath and within the time provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A. ArrivalStar or Plaintiffs means the named plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies Limited, their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives. Sound Transit or Defendant means the named Defendant Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority and any business entities, agents, attorneys, representatives, employees and all other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of, or who are subject to the direction or control of, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. A. Document is used in the broadest sense consistent with the definition set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). The term document includes, without limitation, physical objects and things, such as research and development samples, prototype devices, production samples and the like, as well as hard copies and electronic copies of computer production software, computer

files and electronic mail (email). A draft, translation or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. B. The 781 patent means United States Patent No. 7,030,781 entitled Notification system and method that informs a party of vehicle delay, issued April 18, 2006. C. The term Accused Product(s) means Sound Transit s delay alert notification system and any other Sound Transit system that tracks the location of a vehicle or vehicles and transmits to a mobile communications device, via email or text message, a message or messages indicating the proximity of a vehicle or vehicles from a particular location. D. If, in responding to these interrogatories, Defendant elects to avail itself of the procedure authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Plaintiff requests that for each interrogatory so answered, Defendant specify the particular document or documents by production number from which the answer may be derived or ascertained. E. If Defendant does not answer any interrogatory in full, please state the precise reason for failing to do so. If a legal objection is made, please set forth the specific nature of the grounds for that objection. F. If only a portion of any interrogatory will not be answered, please provide a complete answer to the remaining portion of the interrogatory and state the reasons or grounds for Defendant s inability or refusal to complete the answer. If an interrogatory can be answered only in part on the basis of information available at the time of the response, please provide an answer on the basis of that information, indicate that Defendant s answer is so limited and provide a further response when further information becomes available.

G. If Defendant learns at any time that any response to any of these interrogatories is incomplete or incorrect, Plaintiffs request that Defendant immediately serve amended responses that are complete and correct pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. H. If Defendant finds the meaning of any term in these interrogatories unclear, Defendant shall assume a reasonable meaning, state what the assumed meaning is and respond to the interrogatory according to the assumed meaning. INTERROGATORIES 1. For each Accused Product which has been made, used or sold by Defendant, explain how and by whom the products were developed, including without limitation, the chronology of the research from conception to the development of the product through any commercial use of the product and identify all persons believed to have significant knowledge of the foregoing. 2. State all facts known to Defendant which allegedly render the 781 patent invalid or unenforceable, including a description and identification of any and all alleged prior art that serves as a basis for the allegation and identify those persons having personal knowledge of such facts. 3. Identify all of Sound Transit s financial plans and marketing plans for the Accused Product, including actual or anticipated gross margin, profits, income or sales volume resulting from the use or implementation of the Accused Product. 4. Identify the employee(s) or agent(s) of Defendant who first became aware of, or who acquired any knowledge regarding the 781 patent and, for each such person identified, describe when, and the circumstances under which, the person first acquired knowledge, or

became aware of the 781 patent as well as the person s actions, if any, in response to such information or knowledge. 5. Please describe and identify any investigation, evaluation or analysis conducted to determine whether any vehicle tracking system used or created by Sound Transit would infringe any claim of the 781 patent and provide the precise date(s), persons involved and results of any such investigation, evaluation or analysis. 6. For each of Interrogatories above, identify the individual within Defendant s employ who is believed to be the most knowledgeable with respect to the subject matter of each Interrogatory, and each individual who was consulted in connection with providing answers to the above Interrogatories. Dated: September 20, 2012 /s/ Anthony E. Dowell Anthony E. Dowell aedowell@dowellbaker.com Geoffrey D. Smith gsmith@dowellbaker.com DOWELL BAKER, P.C. 201 Main St., Suite 710 Lafayette, IN 47901 (765) 429-4004 (765) 429-4114 (fax) ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS ARRIVALSTAR S.A. and MELVINO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the September 20, 2012, a copy of the foregoing was sent via United States mail to counsel for Defendants: Via email only to: Brian C. Park, WSBA No. 25584 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel.: (206) 386-7542 Fax: (206) 386-7500 BCPark@stoel.com Nathan C. Brunette (pro hac vice) 900 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 2600 Portland, OR 97204 Tel.: (503) 224-3380 Fax: (503) 220-2480 NCBrunette@stoel.com /s/ Anthony E. Dowell