EXHIBIT 7 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 9
 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

JENS H.S. NYGAARD 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE DE 

L’AUTOMOBILE, FORMULA ONE 

MANAGEMENT LTD., FORMULA ONE 

WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, MERCEDESBENZ GRAND PRIX LTD., DAIMLER AG, 

LEWIS HAMILTON, RED BULL 

TECHNOLOGY LTD., RED BULL RACING 

LTD., FERRARI S.PA., CHARLES 

LECLERC., and DALLARA AUTOMOBILI 

S.P.A, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00234-ADA 

DEFENDANTS RED BULL TECHNOLOGY LTD. AND RED BULL RACING LTD.’S 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF (NOS. 1‒4) 

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and subject to the 

Local Rules and any discovery plan or other order the Court has entered or may enter, defendants 

Red Bull Racing Ltd. and Red Bull Technology Ltd., through their counsel, request that plaintiff 

Jens H.S. Nygaard answer the following interrogatories, separately and fully, in writing and 

under oath, within thirty (30) days of service. 

DEFINITIONS

1. “Patent-in-Suit” or “’178 patent” means United States Patent No. 7,494,178. 

2. “Related Patent” means any patent application or issued patent filed or issued in 

any country or region that is in any way related to the Patent-in-Suit, including without limitation 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 2 of 9
2 

any parent application, parent patent, application for reexamination, reexamination certificate, 

reissue application, reissue patent, continuation, continuation-in-part, divisional application, 

provisional application, child application, child patent, foreign counterpart patent application, 

foreign counterpart patent, foreign patent or application claiming the same subject matter as the 

Patent-in-Suit, or foreign patent or application related to the Patent-in-Suit by a claim of priority 

(including pending or abandoned applications). 

3. “Document” shall have a comprehensive meaning, in the broadest sense available 

as that term is used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to any 

discovery plan or other order the Court has entered or may enter. 

4. “Communication” means any transmittal (unilateral or bilateral) of information 

(in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise) by oral, written, telephonic, electronic or radio 

frequency transmission, or by any other means. 

5. “Identify” or “identification” with respect to persons means to give, to the extent 

known, the person’s full name, present or last known address, and, with respect to a natural 

person, the present or last known place of employment. “Identify” or “identification” with 

respect to documents means to give, to the extent known, the: (a) type of document; (b) general 

subject matter; (c) date of the document; and (d) author(s), addressee(s), and recipient(s), and the 

production number(s) where produced. “Identify” or “identification” with respect to an entity 

means to give, to the extent known, the entity’s present full name, business name and/or trade 

name, any former names used by such entity, and its present or last known address. 

6. “Asserted Claims” means the claims of the Patent-in-Suit that Plaintiff alleges are 

infringed by one or more of the Accused Products. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 3 of 9
3 

7. “Accused Products” means all Products that Plaintiff alleges infringe or infringed 

any claim of the Patent-in-Suit, including the accused Halo, the accused Aeroscreen, and the 

accused vehicles that include the Halo or the Aeroscreen. 

8. “RBR” means defendant Red Bull Racing Ltd. and its employees, officers, 

representatives, attorneys and agents. 

9. “RBT” means defendant Red Bull Technology Ltd. and its employees, officers, 

representatives, attorneys and agents. 

10. “Plaintiff”, “Nygaard”, “you”, and “your” refers to plaintiff Jens H.S. Nygaard 

and his employees, consultants, partners, attorneys, representatives and agents. 

11. “Product” includes hardware and/or software and shall encompass, without 

limitation, all models, prototypes, and modifications thereof. 

12. “Person” means any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity 

or association. 

13. “Information” means information in any form, including but not limited to 

documentary, electronic, graphical, or tabular, and communicated by any means, including but 

not limited to orally, in writing or via electronic communication. 

14. “Referring,” “related,” “relating” or “concerning” mean related to, regarding, 

concerning, making reference to, pertaining to, mentioning, discussing, representing, embodying, 

illustrating, describing, reflecting, supporting, negating, rebutting, contradicting, evidencing, 

and/or constituting. 

15. “Any” shall be understood in either its most or least inclusive sense as necessary 

to bring within the scope of the interrogatory all responses that might otherwise be construed as 

outside the scope of the interrogatory. 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 4 of 9
4 

16. “Including” means “including without limitation.” 

17. The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or 

conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of a discovery request all responses that 

might otherwise be construed to fall outside its scope. 

18. The use of the singular form of any words includes the plural and vice versa. Any 

pronoun shall be construed to refer to the masculine, feminine, or gender neutral, as appropriate. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

1. Each interrogatory must be answered with your entire knowledge, available from 

all sources, including all information and documents in your possession, custody or control, or in 

the possession, custody or control of any of your agents, officers, employees, partners, 

representatives, and attorneys, or otherwise available to you. 

2. If you cannot answer any interrogatory fully, completely, and in detail, after 

exercising due diligence to make inquiry and secure the information necessary, so state, and: (1) 

answer such interrogatory to the extent possible; (2) specify the portion of such interrogatory that 

you are unable to answer fully, completely, and in detail; and (3) state the reason why such 

portion cannot be answered. If your response is qualified in any particular respect, set forth the 

details of such qualification. 

3. If the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or any other privilege or 

protection is asserted as to any interrogatory, state the following: 

 (a) the specific ground(s) for not responding to the interrogatory in full; 

 (b) the bases for such a claim of privilege or immunity; and 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 5 of 9
5 

 (c) the information, document, or material for which such privilege or immunity is 

asserted, including the name of any document, the name, address and title of its author, each 

addressee, and each person to whom a copy of the document or thing has been sent or received. 

4. If you object to any portion or subpart of a request for information or object to 

providing certain information requested, state your objection and answer any unobjectionable 

portion(s) or subpart(s) of the request for information and/or supply the unobjectionable 

information requested. 

5. To the extent you allege that the meaning of any term in these interrogatories is 

unclear, then you are to assume a reasonable meaning, state that assumed reasonable meaning 

and answer the interrogatory on the basis of that assumed meaning. 

6. If, pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you opt to 

produce documents in lieu of or in addition to a descriptive written response to an interrogatory, 

indicate for each document provided the number of the interrogatory to which it is responsive 

and the production number(s) of the documents identified for each response. 

7. Please take notice that these interrogatories are submitted for the purposes of 

discovery and are not to be taken as waiving any objections to the introduction of any evidence 

on subjects covered by these interrogatories. 

INTERROGATORIES 

Interrogatory No. 1: 

Separately for RBR and RBT, identify and describe in detail each and every instance, 

prior to the commencement of this action, in which Plaintiff had any contact or communication 

with RBR or RBT regarding the ’178 patent, any Related Patent, any Accused Product, or any 

related subject matter, including each instance in which Plaintiff provided notice to RBR or RBT 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 6 of 9
6 

of the ’178 patent, of any Related Patent, or of any contention that RBR or RBT infringed the 

’178 patent or any Related Patent, including the person(s), place(s) and date(s) associated with 

each such instance, and identify all related documents and things and all persons with related 

knowledge. 

Interrogatory No. 2: 

For each Asserted Claim for which you contend that RBR or RBT allegedly has induced 

infringement, state in full the basis for your contention, separately for RBR and RBT, including 

identifying and describing in detail every alleged act of direct infringement that RBR or RBT 

allegedly induced and every alleged act of inducement by RBR or RBT, including your basis for 

contending that RBR or RBT knew about the ’178 patent and knew that the allegedly induced act 

constituted infringement, and your basis for contending that RBR or RBT actively and 

knowingly aided and abetted and specifically intended to cause or encourage the alleged direct 

infringement, and identify all related documents and things and all persons with related 

knowledge. 

Interrogatory No. 3: 

For each Asserted Claim for which you contend that Plaintiff should recover 

infringement damages from RBR or RBT under 35 U.S.C. § 284, state in full the basis for your 

contention, separately for RBR and RBT, including describing the amount and type of damages 

(e.g., lost profits, reasonable royalty, established royalty, ongoing royalty, etc.) that you contend 

should be recovered and the basis for your contention, including in the case of a reasonable 

royalty the royalty base and the royalty rate, how each of the Georgia-Pacific factors affects the 

reasonable royalty, what the smallest saleable unit containing the patented feature is, the portion 

of the value of the Accused Product attributable to the patented feature, and any cost savings or 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 7 of 9
7 

insurance value that result from the patented feature, and identify all related documents and 

things and all persons with related knowledge. 

Interrogatory No. 4: 

For each Asserted Claim for which you contend that RBR or RBT has willfully infringed 

and that Plaintiff should recover enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, state in full the basis 

for your contention, separately for RBR and RBT, including identifying and describing in detail 

every alleged act of willful infringement by RBR or RBT, including your basis for contending 

that RBR or RBT knew about the ’178 patent and willfully infringed and that this conduct 

constituted an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical infringement, and identify all related 

documents and things and all persons with related knowledge. 

Dated: April 16, 2021 /s/ Edgar H. Haug_________________ 

Deron R. Dacus 

State Bar No. 00790553 

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C. 

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

Tyler, TX 75701 

Phone: (903) 705-1117 

Fax: (903) 581-2543 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

Edgar H. Haug (pro hac vice) 

Mark A. Chapman (pro hac vice) 

Roman Khasidov (pro hac vice) 

HAUG PARTNERS LLP 

745 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10151 

Telephone: (212) 588-0800 

Fax: (212) 588-0500 

Attorneys for defendants Red Bull Racing 

Ltd. and Red Bull Technology Ltd.

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has 

been served on all counsel of record on April 16, 2021. 

/s/ Roman Khasidov 

Roman Khasidov 

Case 6:20-cv-00234-ADA Document 267-3 Filed 02/02/22 Page 9 of 9