Exhibit 2

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 135-3 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 5611
of this District and any court orders. 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 6 

Admit that a "device agent" does not "cover what is ordinarily understood as an 

application." See Markman Hr. 33:12-15. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: 

In addition to Headwater's General Objections, which are incorporated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein, Headwater additionally o~ects to this Request to the extent it requires 

a legal conclusion or requires Headwater to provide a legal opinion without the necessary predicate 

factual information. Headwater further objects to this Request on the gr0101ds that it is vague, 

ambiguous, and overbroad. Headwater further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 

prernatwo expert opinions and to the extent that it seeks to require Headwmer to prematurely 

marshal all of its proof or any proof it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the 

Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Su~ect to aod without waiving the foregoing General aod Specific O~ections, and to the 

extent that it understands this Request, Headwater responds as follows: 

Deny. 

Discovery is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or supplement this 

response as discovery proceeds. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 

Adntit that applications "downloaded from the app store" (see Markman Hr. Tr. 33:5-7) 

are not "device agents." 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: 

In addition to Head.water's General Objections, which are incorporated by reference as 

Su~ect to aod without waiving the foregoing General aod Specific O~ections, and to the 

extent that it understands this Request, Headwater responds as follows: 

Deny. 

Discovery is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or supplement this 

response as discovery proceeds. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9 

Adntit that all applications "downloaded from the app store" (see Markmao Hr. Tr. 33:5-

7) are "device agents." 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 9· 

In addition to Headw-•s Geoeral O~ections, which are inco!J)orated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein, Headwater additionally o~ects to this Request to the extent it requires 

a legal conclusion or requires Headwater to provide a legal opinion without the necessary predicate 

factual information. Headwater further o~ects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, 

ambiguous, and overbroad. Headwater further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 

prernatwo expert opinions and to the extent that it seeks to require Headw- to prematurely 

marshal all of its proof or any proof it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the 

Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, and to the 

extent that it understands this Request, Headwater responds as follows: 

Deny. 

Discovery is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or supplement this 

response as discovery proceeds. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. IO 

though fully set forth herein, Headwater additionally o~ects to this Request to the extent it requires 

a legal conclusion or requires Headwater to provide a legal opinion without the necessary predicate 

factual information. Headwater further objects to this Request on the grcnmds that it is vague, 

ambiguous, and overbroad. Headwater further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 

premature expert opinions and to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to prematurely 

marshal all of its proof or any proof it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the 

Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, and to the 

extent that it understands this Request, Headwater responds as follows: 

Deny. 

Discovery is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or supplement this 

response as discovery proceeds. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8 

Admit that a "device agent" "cover[ s] what is ordinarily understood as an application." 

See Markman Hr. 33:12-15. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: 

In addition to Headwmer's Geoeral O~ections, which are inco!J)orated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein, Headwater additionally o~ects to this Request to the extent it requires 

a legal conclusion or requires Headwater to provide a legal opinion without the necessary predicate 

factual information. Headwater further o~ects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, 

ambiguous, and overbroad. Headwmer further o~ects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 

premature expert opinions and to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to prematurely 

marshal all of its proof or any proof it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the 

Court, or deposition in this matter. 

Adntit that Headw- did not invent push notifications or push messaging. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. IO: 

In addition to Head.water's General Objections, which are incorporated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein, Headwater additionally o~ects to this Request to the extent it requires 

a legal conclusion or requires Headwater to provide a legal opinion without the necessary predicate 

factual information. Headwater further o~ects to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, 

ambiguous, and overbroad. Headwmer further o~ects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 

prernatwo expert opinions and to the extent that it seeks to require Headw- to prematurely 

marshal all of its proof or any proof it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the 

Court, or deposition in this matter. Headw-further o~ects to Headwater further objects to this 

Request on the grounds that it seeks information protected from disclosme by the attorney-client 

privilege, work product doctrine, common interest doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege. 

Su~ect to aod without waiving the foregoing General aod Specific O~ections, aod to the 

extent that it understands this Request, Headwater responds as follows: 

Headwater admits that certain of its inventions relate to push notifications and push 

messaging, but Headwater did not invent all aspects of push notifications or push messaging. 

Discovery is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or supplement this 

response as discovery proceeds. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 

Adntit that ltsOn Inc. did not design, develop, or manufacture any televisions. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11· 

In addition to Headw-•s Geoeral O~ections, which are inco!J)orated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein, Headwater additionally o~ects to this Request to the extent it requires 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 135-3 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 5612
though fully set forth herein, Headwater additiooally objects to this Request to the exteot it requires 

a legal conclusion or requires Headwater to provide a legal opinion without the necessary predicate 

factual information. Headwater further objects to this Request on the grcnmds that it is vague, 

ambiguous, and overbroad. Headwater further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 

premature expert opinions and to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to prematurely 

marshal all of its proof or any proof it intends to rely on at any hearing, trial, submission to the 

Court, or deposition in this matter. Headwater further objects to Headwater further objects to this 

Request on the grmmds that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client 

privilege, work product doclrine, common interest doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objectioos, and to the 

extent that it understands this Request, Headwater responds as follows: 

Admit. 

Discovery is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or supplement this 

response as discovery proceeds. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 27 

Admit that the liceose agreemeots entered into between Headwater and ltsOo, Inc. 

between 2009 and 2017 were not the product of arms-length negotiatioos. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO 27· 

In additioo to Headw-•s General Objectioos, which are incorporated by reference as 

though fully set forth herein, Headwater additiooally objects to this Request to the exteot it requires 

a legal conclusion or requires Headwater to provide a legal opinion without the necessary predicate 

factual information. Headwater further objects to this Request on the grcnmds that it is vague, 

ambiguous, and overbroad. Headwater further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks 

premature expert opinions and to the extent that it seeks to require Headwater to prematurely 

23 

marshal all of its proof or any proof it inteods to rely on at any heariog, trial, submission to the 

Court, or deposition in this matter. Headw-further objects to Headwater further objects to this 

Request on the grcnmds that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client 

privilege, work product doctrine, common interest doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General and Specific Objections, and to the 

extent that it understands this Request, Headwater responds as follows: 

Deny. 

Discovery is ongoing, and Headwater reserves the right to amend or supplement this 

response as discovery proceeds. 

Dated: September 9, 2024 

24 

Respectfully submitted, 

Isl Marc Fenster 

Marc Fenster 

CA State Bar No. 181067 

Email: mfeoster@rsklaw.com 

RezaMinaie 

CA State Bar No. 246953 

Email: nnirzaie@rsklaw.com 

BrianLedahl 

CA State Bar No. 186579 

Email: bledahl@raklaw.com 

BeoWang 

CA State Bar No. 228712 

Email: bwang@raklaw.com 

Adam Hoffman 

CA State Bar No. 218740 

Email: ahoflinan@raklaw.com 

Dale Chang 

CA State Bar No. 248657 

Email: dchang@raklaw.com 

Paui Kroeger 

CA State Bar No. 229074 

Email: pkroeger@raklaw.com 

Neil A Rubin 

Case 2:23-cv-00103-JRG-RSP Document 135-3 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5613