Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20141003_0003315.NCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 06:43:35
Document Index: 125431785

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 92', '§1651', '§1781', 'art.\n15', 'art.\n17', '§ 287']

| Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP
Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP
GOOGLE INC., Plaintiff,v.ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM U.S. LP, and MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendants.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Charles K. Verhoeven, Sean Pak, Kristin J. Madigan, San Francisco, California.
Victoria F. Maroulis, Redwood Shores, California, Patrick D. Curran, New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiff GOOGLE INC.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTER ROGATORY TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE OF ONTARIO, CANADA
On September 29, 2014, Google Inc. filed this unopposed motion for issuance of letters rogatory to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada. After considering the papers, the Court GRANTS Google's motion.
The Court's prior order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer (Docket No. 58) lays out the underlying factual background in great detail, and so the Court provides only the procedural history relevant to the present motion.
On June 26, 2014, this Court entered a case management order. Docket No. 88. Under that order, the deadline to complete fact discovery is January 23, 2015 with trial scheduled for September 14, 2015. Id . Google has served subpoenas for production of documents on Nortel Networks, Nortel's American subsidiary, and for the named inventors of the disputed patents. This motion requests letters rogatory for the following Canadian residents and entities:
(1) Nortel Networks Corporation (Nortel);
(2) Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, and Jaspreet Harit, former Nortel employees and the in-house attorneys who prosecuted the patent applications that issued as the '551, '937 and '591 patents;
(3) Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton and Bruce Dale Stalkie, former Nortel employees and named inventors on the disputed patents;
(4) Mitch A. Brisebois and Laura A. Mahan, former Nortel employees and named inventors on the disputed patents; they are also the named inventors of the '944 patent, which Google has asserted as part of its invalidity defense for the '572 patent; and
(5) Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank and John Eric Lumsden, named inventors of the '927 patent.
"[T]he term letters rogatory denotes a formal request from a court in which an action is pending, to a foreign court to perform some judicial act. Examples are requests for the taking of evidence, the serving of a summons, subpoena, or other legal notice, or the execution of a civil judgment. In United States usage, letters rogatory have been commonly utilized only for the purpose of obtaining evidence. Requests rest entirely upon the comity of courts toward each other, and customarily embody a promise of reciprocity. The legal sufficiency of documents executed in foreign countries for use in judicial proceedings in the United States, and the validity of the execution, are matters for determination by the competent judicial authorities of the American jurisdiction where the proceedings are held, subject to the applicable laws of that jurisdiction."
22 C.F.R. § 92.54.
The legal standard by which a court considers letters rogatory is succinctly explained in Barnes and Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp , 2012 WL 1808849, at * 2 (N.D. Cal.):
A court has inherent authority to issue letters rogatory.... Whether to issue such a letter is a matter of discretion for the court. When determining whether to exercise its discretion, a court will generally not weigh the evidence sought from the discovery request nor will it attempt to predict whether that evidence will actually be obtained. A court's decision whether to issue a letter rogatory, though, does require an application of Rule 28(b) in light of the scope of discovery provided for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28(b), "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense - including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter."
The discovery Google requests is relevant and discoverable under the standard set in Rule 26. Google asserts that it is unable to obtain the information held by these individuals and entities through any other means. Google also asserts that given the case management schedule for discovery, it is unable to wait to seek these letters rogatory for these individuals and entities until after Rockstar has completed its document production and Google has the opportunity to depose them. Google represents that Rockstar does not oppose this motion.
Having considered the motion on the papers, the motion for issuance of letters rogatory (Docket No. 134) is GRANTED.
The Court orders that after the Court signs the Letter Rogatory, the clerk shall authenticate the Court's signature by affixing the Court's seal thereto, and the Letter Rogatory be thereafter returned by the clerk to counsel for Google so that the Letter Rogatory may be promptly transmitted to the Appropriate Judicial Authority of Canada for execution.
LETTER ROGATORY TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE OF ONTARIO, CANADA FOR NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION, JEAN-PIERRE FORTIN, ANGELA DE WILTON, JASPREET HARIT, YEE-NING CHAN, BRIAN FINLAY BEATON, BRUCE DALE STALKIE, MITCH A. BRISEBOIS, LAURA A. MAHAN, PAUL MICHAEL BRENNAN, BRIAN CRUICKSHANK, AND JOHN ERIC TO THE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CANADA:
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California presents its compliments to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and respectfully requests international judicial assistance to obtain evidence to be used in the above-captioned civil action proceeding before this Court. This Court has determined that it would further the interests of justice if by the proper and usual process of your Court, you summon an adequate representative of Nortel Networks Corporation, and Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden, to appear before a person empowered under Ontario law to administer oaths and take testimony forthwith, to give testimony under oath or affirmation by questions and answers upon oral examination in respect of the matters and issues identified in Schedules A-X, and permit the parties to create a written transcript and video recording of such testimony. This Court has also determined that it would further the interests of justice if by the proper and usual process of your Court, you summon Nortel Networks Corporation, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden to produce copies of the documents in their possession, custody or control that are identified in Schedules A-X.
The applicant for this letter is Google Inc. Canadian counsel is available to answer any questions the Canadian Court may have.
This request is made pursuant to Rule 4(f)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651 and 28 U.S.C. §1781 (permitting the transmittal of letters rogatory through the district courts and the Department of State); the Ontario Evidence Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 23; and the Canada Evidence Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. C-5. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, is a competent court of law and equity which properly has jurisdiction over this proceeding, and has the power to compel the attendance of witnesses and production of documents both within and outside its jurisdiction. On information and belief, Nortel Networks Corporation carries on business in Canada, within the Province of Ontario. On information and belief, Nortel Networks Corporation has or is likely to have possession of the documents specified in Schedule A and knowledge of the subject matter specified in Schedule B herein.
The testimony and production of documents are intended for use at trial or directly in the preparation of trial, and in the view of this Court, will be relevant to claims and defenses in the case, including Plaintiff Google Inc.'s allegations of non-infringement of the asserted patents.
This request is made with the understanding that it will in no way require any person to commit any offense, or to undergo a broader form of inquiry than he or she would if the litigation were conducted in a Canadian court. The requesting Court is satisfied that the evidence sought to be obtained through this request is relevant and necessary and cannot reasonably be obtained by other methods. Because this Court lacks authority to compel participation of these persons and, such participation being necessary in order that justice be served in the above-captioned proceedings, this Court respectfully requests assistance from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
3. PERSON TO WHOM THE EXECUTED REQUEST IS TO BE RETURNED
A response is requested as soon as possible, in order to ensure that the evidence may be obtained before the deadline for discovery in this case, currently set for January 23, 2015.
5. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CASE (ARTICLE 3(B))
The evidence requested relates to the action Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP, Case No. 13-5933 (N.D. Cal.), United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The parties and their representatives are listed herein as follows:
6. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
a. Nature and Purpose of the Claims
Nortel's facilities in Canada were the "primary centre for R&D" before Nortel declared bankruptcy in 2009. (Declaration of Kristin J. Madigan in Support of Google's Motion of Issuance of Letters Rogatory (hereinafter "Madigan Decl.") Ex. 20 ¶ 30.) U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 838, 551, 6, 333, 973, 6, 037, 937, 6, 128, 298, 6, 463, 131, 6, 765, 591, and 6, 937, 572 (the "patents-in-suit") were assigned to Nortel, Nortel Networks Ltd., and Northern Telecom Ltd. (Madigan Decl. Exs. 2-8.) They were later acquired by Rockstar through an auction of Nortel's intellectual property assets that took place in 2011. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 1 ¶ 13-14; 28; 33; 39; 45; 51; 57; 63.) In June 2011, Apple, Microsoft, and three other technology companies founded Rockstar's predecessor company, Rockstar Bidco, LP. ( Id. ¶ 13.) In July 2011, Rockstar Bidco participated in an auction conducted by Nortel for a patent portfolio that comprised over 6, 000 patents, including the patents-in-suit. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 9 ¶ 9.) Rockstar Bidco won the auction and subsequently transferred the patents to Rockstar. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 1 ¶ 13-14; 28; 33; 39; 45; 51; 57; 63.)
On October 31, 2013, Rockstar filed infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas (the "Texas actions") against ASUS, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE (the "OEM Defendants")-but not Google.[1] In the Texas actions, Rockstar alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit, but limited its infringement allegations to the Android operating system, developed by Google. Six of the seven asserted patents are software patents, which Rockstar asserts against seven diverse functionalities on the Android platform. Rockstar accuses Android's "Mobile Hotspot functionality" of infringing the '298 patent; Android's "VPN management functionality" of infringing the '591 patent; Android's "Messaging and Notification functionality" of infringing the '131 patent; Android's "integrated notification message center" of infringing the '973 patent; Android's "Location Services functionality" of infringing the '572 patent; and Android's "navigable graphical user interface (navigable GUI') that permits a user to manipulate and control the contents of the display to maximize the use of display real estate" of infringing the '937 patent. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 1 ¶ 20.) The seventh patent, U.S. Patent No. 5, 838, 551, is a hardware patent. ( Id. ¶ 21.) Rockstar accuses Android devices "includ[ing] at least one electronic package comprising a component that is located between an EMI shield and a ground member for performing shielding operations" where "[t]he EMI shield is incorporated into the electronic package, which is then mounted to a circuit board" of infringing the '551 patent. ( Id. ) For every one of its software patents, and even for its sole hardware patent, Rockstar limits its infringement assertions to devices running Google's Android operating system.
On December 23, 2013, Google filed this action (the "California action") seeking a declaration that Google does not infringe the patents-in-suit. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 1.) In response to Google's allegations of non-infringement in the California action, Rockstar filed counterclaims, including infringement of the patents-in-suit. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 9.) In response to Rockstar's counterclaims, Google raised the defenses of invalidity and unenforceability. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 10.) After Google filed the California action, Rockstar added Google as a defendant in one of the Texas actions, Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., and Google Inc. , Case No. 13-900, Docket No. 19 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2013).
b. Nortel Networks Corporation
Nortel Networks Corporation is Nortel's Canadian parent corporation, and the "primary centre for R&D" for Nortel prior to declaring bankruptcy in 2009. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 20 ¶ 30.). Nortel Networks Corporation ("Nortel") is the original assignee of asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 037, 937 and 6, 128, 298. (Madigan Decl. Exs. 3-4.) It is also the parent corporation of Nortel Networks Ltd., the original assignee of asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 333, 973, 6, 463, 131, 6, 765, 591, and 6, 937, 572, and the successor corporation of Northern Telecom Ltd., the original assignee of asserted U.S. Patent No. 5, 838, 551. (Madigan Decl. Exs. 2, 5-8.) Nortel has relevant information regarding the validity and enforceability of the patents-in-suit, and potentially, information regarding alleged infringement by Google. This information is directly relevant to Rockstar's allegations of patent infringement and Google's defenses that the patents-in-suit are invalid and unenforceable. Nortel also has relevant information regarding the value of the patents-in-suit from analyses and evaluations conducted in connection with its efforts to sell, license, and otherwise monetize the patents-in-suit. Google seeks unique information from Nortel, and Nortel's valuations of its own patents is perhaps the most telling evidence on this issue. Furthermore, Nortel has information and firsthand knowledge regarding the 2011 auction for its intellectual property assets, which include the patents-in-suit. This information may be relevant to the determination of patent damages in the form of a reasonable royalty if the patents-in-suit are found valid, infringed, and enforceable.
c. Jean Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, and Jaspreet Harit
Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, and Jaspreet Harit are former Nortel employees and the in-house attorneys who prosecuted the patent applications that issued as the '551, '937 and '591 patents, respectively. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 19 at 4-7.) Accordingly, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, and Jaspreet Harit have information regarding analyses and evaluations of the validity and enforceability of the '551, '937 and '591 patents. They may also have information regarding analyses of potential infringement by third parties, including Google. Such information is directly relevant both to Rockstar's infringement claims and to Google's defenses.
d. Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, and Laura A. Mahan
Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, and Laura A. Mahan are former Nortel employees and named inventors on the patents-in-suit. (Madigan Decl. Exs. 2, 3, 5, 6.) In its Rule 26(f) disclosures, Rockstar identified these individuals as people who "may have knowledge regarding the conception and reduction to practice" of the claimed inventions. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 19 at 4-6.) These individuals have information regarding the conception and reduction to practice of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit, and the priority date Rockstar asserts for those inventions. Such information is directly relevant both to Rockstar's infringement claims and to Google's validity defenses.
In addition to their role as named inventors on two of the patents-in-suit, Mitch A. Brisebois and Laura Mahan are also named inventors on U.S. Patent No. 6, 310, 944. (Madigan Decl. Exs. 15.) Google has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6, 310, 944 as part of its invalidity contentions relating to the '572 patent. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 12 at 48.) These two individuals have information regarding the conception and reduction to practice of this alleged prior art.
e. Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden
Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden are the three named inventors of U.S. Patent No. 6, 888, 927. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 17.) There are no other named inventors on the patent. ( Id. ) Google has asserted this patent as part of its invalidity contentions relating to U.S. Patent No. 6, 937, 572. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 12 at 49.) These three individuals have information regarding the conception and reduction to practice of this alleged prior art. Further, as former Nortel employees working on apparently similar subject matter, these individuals may possess information regarding Rockstar's asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 6, 937, 572, including related commercial products, inventorship, development efforts, and diligence in reduction to practice by Nortel. Such information is directly relevant to Google's invalidity defenses.
7. EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED AND PURPOSE
The evidence to be obtained consists of documents for use at trial or in preparing for trial in this matter. Google has also requested oral testimony from an adequate representative of Nortel, and from Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden. I conclude that Nortel, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden have information that is directly relevant to damages, Google's claims that the patents-in-suit are not infringed, and Google's defenses that the patents-in-suit are invalid and unenforceable, which Google cannot obtain by any other means.
The Court concludes that it is in the interests of justice for an adequate representative of Nortel, and for Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden to be examined on the topics listed in Schedules A-X and to produce the documents listed in Schedules A-X. On the issue of the documents to be produced in Schedules A-X, the Court appreciates that some of the documents requested could be in the possession, custody, or control of Rockstar. However, the Court considers production of the documents in Schedules A-X to be fair, appropriate and necessary in the circumstances having regard to the litigation timetable in this proceeding. With regard to the litigation timetable, Rockstar has not yet completed its production of relevant documents, and under this Court's Case Management Order, fact discovery does not close until January 23, 2015. It would be inefficient, cumbersome and contrary to a proper administration of justice and use of judicial resources to require Google to first obtain a complete document production from Rockstar and only then seek Letters of Request for production from Nortel, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden.
I appreciate that some of the documents in Schedules A-X, and the testimony sought in Schedules A-X, may call for confidential, or trade secret information. Under the Northern District of California Patent Local Rules, until the Court issues a different order, the Patent Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model Protective Order governs this case, and extends to the document productions or testimony of third parties including Nortel. A copy of the governing protective order is attached. (Madigan Decl. Ex. 21.)
Nortel, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden all reside in Ontario and, upon information and belief, are neither domiciled nor doing business in the United States.[2] Thus, this Court cannot directly compel them to provide the requested testimony.
It is, therefore, respectfully requested that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice compel Nortel, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden to produce documents responsive to the requests for production in Schedules A, C, E, G, I, K, M, O, Q, S, U, and W to this Letter of Request, to the extent that they are in their possession, custody, or control, and are not privileged under the applicable laws of Canada or the United States. This Court also requests that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice compel the appearance of Nortel, through a knowledgeable corporate representative, to testify under oath, concerning the topics set forth in Schedule B to this Letter of Request. This Court also requests that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice compel the appearance of Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden to testify under oath, concerning the topics set forth in Schedules D, F, H, J, L, N, P, R, T, V, and X to this Letter of Request.
The requested documents and testimony are needed for use at trial in connection with the parties' claims and defenses. While this Court expresses no view at this time as to the merits in the above-captioned case, it believes the evidence sought here will be relevant to and either probative or disprobative of material facts relevant to the parties' claims and defenses.
8. IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF THE ENTITIES AND PERSONS TO BE EXAMINED
The identity and address of the entities and persons to be examined is set forth below. The addresses provided are based on currently available information, and may be supplemented.
9. STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH THE PERSON WILL BE EXAMINED
This Court requests that questioning be permitted of an adequate representative of Nortel regarding the topics listed in Schedule B to this Letter of Request. This Court requests that questioning be permitted of Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden regarding the topics listed in Schedules D, F, H, J, L, N, P. R, T, V, and X to this Letter of Request.
10. DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE TO BE EXAMINED
It would further the interests of justice if you would summon Nortel, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden to produce or make available for inspection the documents set forth in Schedules A, C, E, G, I, K, M, O, Q, S, U, and W to this Letter of Request.
11. REQUIREMENT THAT THE EVIDENCE BE GIVEN ON OATH OR AFFIRMATION
It would further the interests of justice if, by the proper and usual process of your Court, you summon Nortel, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden to appear before a person empowered under Ontario law to administer oaths and take testimony and give testimony under oath or affirmation on the topics listed in Schedules B, D, F, H, J, L, N, P, R, T, V, and X by questions and answers upon oral examination at a convenient location in Toronto.
12. SPECIAL PROCEDURES OR METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED
The examinations shall be conducted pursuant to the discovery rules as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the United States, except to the extent such procedure is incompatible with the laws of Canada. This Court further requests: (1) that the examination be taken orally; (2) that the examination be taken before a commercial stenographer and videographer selected by Google; (3) that the videographer be permitted to record the examination by audiovisual means; (4) that the stenographer be allowed to record a verbatim transcript of the examination; (5) that the examination be conducted in English, or, if necessary, with the assistance of an interpreter selected by Google; (6) that, if the examination is conducted through an interpreter, verbatim transcripts of the proceeding in both English and French be permitted; (7) that the witness be examined for no more than ten and a half (10.5) hours if the witness requires an interpreter or seven (7) hours if the witness does not require an interpreter; (8) that the time allotted for the examination be divided equally between Rockstar and Google; and (9) that the witness be examined as soon as possible.
In the event that the evidence cannot be taken according to some or all of the procedures described above, this Court requests that it be taken in such manner as provided by the laws of Canada for the formal taking of testimonial evidence.
13. REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION
We respectfully request that any order made by the Court will require the examining party to send notice of the time and place for the taking of testimony, and to provide copies of the transcript and video recording of such deposition and copies of the documents produced to the parties' representatives as identified in Section 5 above and to:
14. REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OR PARTICIPATION OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL OF THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY AT THE EXECUTION OF THE LETTER OF REQUEST
15. SPECIFICATION OF PRIVILEGE OR DUTY TO REFUSE TO GIVE EVIDENCE UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN
Under the laws of the United States, a witness has a privilege to refuse to give evidence if to do so would disclose a confidential communication between the witness and his or her attorney that was communicated specifically for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and which privilege has not been waived. United States law also recognizes a privilege against criminal self-incrimination. Other limited privileges on grounds not applicable here also exist, such as communications between doctors and patients, husband and wife, and clergy and penitent. Certain limited immunities are also recognized outside the strict definition of privilege, such as the limited protection of work product created by attorneys during or in anticipation of litigation.
The fees and costs incurred in the execution of this Request which are reimbursable will be borne by the above-named Plaintiff, Google.
Google is willing to reimburse the reimbursable fees and costs incurred by Nortel, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela De Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden in complying with any order of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario giving effect to this Request for International Judicial Assistance.
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED BY NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION
It is respectfully requested that Nortel Networks Corporation be compelled to produce the following documents that are in its possession, custody, or control, and which are not privileged under Canadian or U.S. law:
1. All documents regarding the patents-in-suit, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 838, 551, 6, 333, 973, 6, 037, 937, 6, 128, 298, 6, 463, 131, 6, 765, 591, and 6, 937, 572, any related patents/applications, or the subject matter in suit, including all documents regarding the patentability, novelty, non-obviousness, scope, validity, invalidity, enforceability, unenforceability, infringement or non-infringement of any claim in any of the patents-in-suit or related patents/applications, including any analyses, evaluations, or searches conducted by you or any third party, or by any person on behalf of you or any third party.
2. All communications with any Rockstar entity or any Rockstar shareholder (including Apple Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Sony Corporation of America, Ericsson, EMC Corporation or Blackberry Ltd.), regarding the patents-in-suit, any related patents/applications, or the subject matter in suit, including communications regarding any potential or actual litigation regarding the patents-in-suit, including this litigation, or the decision to file any patent-infringement litigation and/or enter any license agreement.
3. All documents regarding the July 2011 auction for Nortel's intellectual property assets that relate directly or indirectly to the patents-in-suit, related patents/applications, or the subject matter in suit, including any such documents provided in any clean room or electronic data room by Nortel or Nortel's advisors to potential investors or buyers in connection with the July 2011 auction.
4. All documents relating in any way to any efforts you made to license, sell, monetize, or otherwise generate revenue from the patents-in-suit, related patents/applications, or the subject matter in suit, either directly or as part of a broader portfolio, including: all license agreements, all acquisition agreements, cross licenses, covenants not to sue, or non-assertion agreements that cover any of the patents-in-suit, all offers to license or sell any of the patents-in-suit to any third party, all documents (including draft agreements) regarding the negotiation of any agreement, royalties for, or acquisition of the patents-in-suit; and all presentations, mailings, meeting minutes, infringement analyses, validity analyses, notice letters, cease and desist letters, proposals, offers, term sheets, and letters of intent.
5. Documents sufficient to show Nortel's assessment of the value of Nortel's intellectual property portfolio offered in the residual patent sale and any segment thereof, including (but not limited to) any valuations of the patents-in-suit, related patents/applications, and any valuations that include or subsume the value of the foregoing, whether such valuations were performed by Nortel, any Rockstar entity, or any third party.
6. All documents regarding the sales, revenue, income, profit, gross margin, costs, expenses, forecasts, projections, budgets, or commercialization efforts for any Nortel product, system, or method that embodies any claim of the patents-in-suit, including Nortel's capacity to manufacture, market, and sell any Nortel product, system, or method that embodies any claim of the patents-in-suit, and the incremental sales, revenue, income, or profit attributable to the use of the technology claimed in any of the patents-in-suit in any Nortel product, system, or method.
7. All documents regarding the marketing, promotion, competitive analysis, or market analysis regarding any Nortel product, system, or method that embodies any claim of the patents-in-suit, including surveys, analyses of market demand or market share (either projected or actual), advertising materials, promotional or sales materials, marketing plans, press releases, and analyst reports.
8. All documents regarding business plans, strategic plans, operating plans, marketing plans, financial plans, production plans, sales plans and capital or investment plans regarding any Nortel product, system, or method that embodies any claim of the patents-in-suit.
9. All documents regarding the demand for any feature(s), functionality(ies), and/or attribute(s) embodied in any claim of the patents-in-suit, including consumer surveys, market studies, market performance analyses, competitive analyses and assessments, outside consultant reports, and any research or study regarding whether the technology in any of the patents-in-suit drives consumer demand for any Nortel product, system, or method.
10. All documents regarding the presence or absence of any non-infringing alternatives or substitutes for any claim of the patents-in-suit, including documents concerning any investigation regarding the characteristics of any non-infringing alternative, the reasons why the alternative is non-infringing, and the time and cost to develop or implement any non-infringing alternative.
11. All documents regarding the research, design, development or testing of any claim of the patents-in-suit, related patents/applications, or the subject matter in suit, including but not limited to all handwritten or typed notes, laboratory notebooks, inventor notebooks, computer programs, source code or data.
12. All documents regarding the alleged conception, any alleged diligence from conception to reduction to practice, and any actual reduction to practice of any claim in the patents-in-suit, including inventor notes, documents regarding the role of any person involved in the conception and/or reduction to practice of any claim, and any communications with third parties concerning the technology claimed in any of the patents-in-suit.
13. All documents regarding the performance, advantages, disadvantages, problems, features, commercial or technical benefits, improvements, commercial success, long-felt need, praise or acclaim regarding the technology claimed in any of the patents-in-suit.
14. All documents regarding any prior art, including prior art submitted or cited to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office during the prosecution of any of the patents-in-suit or related patents/applications, and publications or references asserted by third parties to be prior art, or evaluated by you as potential prior art, including Nortel's awareness of prior art, the date and circumstances pursuant to which Nortel first learned of such prior art, and any effort by or on behalf of Nortel to locate prior art.
15. All documents regarding the filing and prosecution of the patents-in-suit or related patents/applications, including but not limited to all draft and final versions of such applications, office actions, draft and final versions of responses to office actions, and all communications regarding the filing and prosecution of such patent applications, including those communications kept by any prosecuting attorneys.
16. All documents regarding Nortel's formal or informal policies, procedures, practices, or guidelines for licensing, sublicensing or assigning rights to patents, including the patents-in-suit, related patents/applications, or any patent related to the subject matter in suit, and for the preparation and filing of patent applications, including any policies or procedures regarding invention disclosures, when to file patent applications, patent prosecution, and the citation of prior art.
17. Documents sufficient to identify every attempt by Nortel or any party acting on behalf of Nortel to enforce the patents-in-suit, either in the United States or abroad, including all documents regarding the assertion, potential assertion, or potential for assertion against any third party, including Google, any accusation of infringement of any of the claims of any of the patents-in-suit by any person, all documents regarding any decision to file or decline to file any potential or actual litigation or other claim regarding any of the patents-in-suit or related patents/applications, and all documents regarding any settlement, whether executed or considered, relating to any adversarial proceeding in the United States or abroad involving the patents-in-suit, related patents/applications, or any patent related to the subject matter in suit.
18. All documents regarding any damage or harm Nortel allegedly suffered as a result of the sale, offer for sale, or use of any Google product or service alleged to infringe the patents-in-suit.
19. All documents sufficient to show Nortel's first awareness of Google's activities that form the basis of any allegation that Google infringes any of the patents-in-suit, including all documents regarding the timing or delay of potential legal claims based on any of the patents-in-suit, including the circumstances regarding that timing or delay, and any actual or potential prejudice regarding that timing or delay.
20. All documents regarding any inspection, testing, evaluation, or analysis of any product or service of Google showing how such product or service of Google compares to one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, and all documents regarding any claim that Google infringes or has infringed the patents-in-suit or that Google copied the technology claimed in any of the patents-in-suit.
21. A copy of any source code or software that embodies or reflects any of the systems or methods claimed in the patents-in-suit or related patents/applications.
22. All documents regarding the marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287 of any products, services, systems, or methods with any of the patents-in-suit or related patents/applications.
23. Documents regarding your document retention policies and practices, including all documents regarding any destruction of any documents otherwise responsive to these document requests and your efforts to preserve, retain or destroy documents, including practices or policies regarding schematic diagrams, technical specifications, source code, invention disclosures, documents regarding inventions, patents and patent applications, and electronic mail.
24. All documents and things, including communications and source code, regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 987, 100; 6, 333, 973; 6, 084, 951; 6, 310, 944; 6, 853, 713; 6, 888, 927; or 5, 796, 170; or Meridian Mail, VISIT Messenger, Nortel Companion, Bay Area Optivity Configurator 2.0, and New Oaks Communications Extranet Switches.
25. All documents and things, including communications, sufficient to show the time period during which Meridian Mail, VISIT Messenger, Nortel Companion, Bay Area Optivity Configurator 2.0, and New Oaks Communications Extranet Switches were manufactured, sold, licensed, or otherwise made available in the United States and the quantity manufactured, sold, licensed, or otherwise made available in the United States.
26. All documents and things, including communications, sufficient to show the time period during which any feature or product embodying U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 987, 100; 6, 333, 973; 6, 084, 951; 6, 310, 944; 6, 853, 713; 6, 888, 927; or 5, 796, 170 were manufactured, sold, licensed, or otherwise made available in the United States and the quantity manufactured, sold, licensed, or otherwise made available in the United States.
27. All documents and things, including communications, prior to January 5, 2000 regarding (i) U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 987, 100; 6, 333, 973; or 6, 084, 951, or Meridian Mail and VISIT Messenger; (ii) the subject matter of the '131 patent; or (iii) user notification of incoming communication events, including representative samples of software and hardware, executable software, manuals, technical plans, diagrams, workbooks, manuals, published articles, publications, and user guides.
28. All documents and things, including communications, prior to December 29, 2000 regarding (i) U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 310, 944; 6, 853, 713; or 6, 888, 927, or Nortel Companion; (ii) the subject matter of the '572 patent; or (iii) call trace on a packet-switched network, including representative samples of software and hardware, executable software, manuals, technical plans, diagrams, workbooks, manuals, published articles, publications, and user guides.
29. All documents and things, including communications, prior to April 23, 1997 regarding (i) Meridian Mail and VISIT Messenger; (ii) the subject matter of the '973 patent; or (iii) user notifications of different message types, including representative samples of software and hardware, executable software, manuals, technical plans, diagrams, workbooks, manuals, published articles, publications, and user guides.
30. All documents and things, including communications, prior to April 2, 1999 regarding (i) Bay Area Optivity Configurator 2.0 and New Oaks Communications Extranet Switches; (ii) the subject matter of the '591 patent; or (iii) any graphical user interface for managing virtual private networks, including representative samples of software and hardware, executable software, manuals, technical plans, diagrams, workbooks, manuals, published articles, publications, and user guides.
31. All documents and things, including communications, prior to August 1, 1996 regarding (i) the subject matter of the '551 patent; or (ii) EMI shielding of an electronic package.
32. All documents and things, including communications, prior to April 24, 1996 regarding (i) the subject matter of the '298 patent; or (ii) routing using network address translation.
33. All documents and things, including communications, prior to December 4, 1997 regarding (i) the subject matter of the '937 patent; or (ii) any graphical user interface for managing virtual private networks.
34. All documents regarding the licensing model and study referenced in the expert report of James E. Malackowski in In re Nortel Networks Inc. , No. 09-10138-KG, Docket No. 13655 at 25-26, 33-34 (Bankr. D. Del. May 28, 2014).
35. All documents related to Topic Nos. 1-34 subject to sealing or redaction in any Nortel bankruptcy action, including (1) the documents in Schedule A1 ("Post-Petition Asset Sale Documents, " Docket No. 13554-1), Schedule A2 ("License and Other Confidential Agreements, " Docket No. 13554-1) and Schedule B ("Third Party Documents, " Docket No. 13554-2) to the Order Providing Directions and Establishing Procedures for Sealing Trial Exhibits, Redacting Pretrial Submissions, and Protecting Confidential Information from Public Disclosure During Trial (Docket No. 13554), as well as (2) Schedule A (Docket No. 13729-1), Schedule A1 ("Post-Petition Asset Sale Documents, " Docket No. 13729-2) and Schedule A2 ("License and Other Confidential Agreements, " Docket No. 13729-3) to the Supplementary Order Providing Directions and Establishing Procedures for Sealing Trial Exhibits, Redacting Pretrial Submissions, and Protecting Confidential Information from Public Disclosure During the Trial (Docket No. 13729) in In re Nortel Networks Inc., et al. , No. 09-10138-KG (Bankr. D. Del.).
The word "document" or "documents" above should be interpreted in its broadest sense and include(s), but is not limited to, handwritten or electronic notes, memoranda, e-mails, calendar invitations and appointments, records of meetings, promotional and sales materials, planning and strategy documents, focus group information, press releases, analyst reports, competitive analyses, schematics, engineering drawings, product and performance specifications, teardown specifications, operational and service manuals, technical guides, electronic recordings, instant messages, phone messages, call recordings, source code and electronic files.
TOPICS FOR THE DEPOSITION OF NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION
It is respectfully requested that Nortel Networks Corporation be compelled to testify (via corporate designee), under oath or affirmation, on the following topics for use at trial:
1. Any comparison, analyses, or evaluations concerning the patentability, novelty, non-obviousness, scope, validity, invalidity, enforceability, unenforceability, or infringement of the patents-in-suit, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 838, 551, 6, 333, 973, 6, 037, 937, 6, 128, 298, 6, 463, 131, 6, 765, 591, and 6, 937, 572, or related patents/applications.
2. Nortel's assessment of the value of Nortel's intellectual property portfolio offered in the residual patent sale and any segment thereof, including (but not limited to) any valuations of the patents-in-suit, related patents/applications, and any valuations that include or subsume the value of the foregoing, whether such valuations were performed by Nortel, any Rockstar entity, or any third party.
3. The July 2011 auction for Nortel's intellectual property assets.
4. Meetings, discussions, and communications with Rockstar, any Rockstar shareholder, any Nortel advisor, Google, or any third party regarding the July 2011 auction of Nortel's intellectual property assets, Google, or this litigation.
5. The sales, revenue, income, profit, gross margin, costs, expenses, forecasts, projections, budgets, marketing, promotion, or analyses of market demand, market share, or competition concerning any Nortel product, system, or method that embodies any claim of the patents-in-suit, including the incremental sales, revenue, or profit attributable to the use of the technology claimed in any of the patents-in-suit in any Nortel product, system, or method.
6. The demand for any feature(s), functionality(ies), and/or attribute(s) embodied in any claim of the patents-in-suit, including any research or study regarding whether the technology in any of the patents-in-suit drives consumer demand for any Nortel product, system, or method.
7. Any non-infringing alternatives or substitutes for any claim of the patents-in-suit, including any investigation regarding the characteristics of any non-infringing alternative, the reasons why the alternative is non-infringing, and the time and cost to develop or implement any non-infringing alternative.
8. The conception, alleged diligence from conception to reduction to practice, reduction to practice, research, design, development, and testing of any claim of the patents-in-suit.
9. The performance, advantages, disadvantages, problems, features, commercial or technical benefits, improvements of the technology, commercial success, long-felt need, praise or acclaim concerning the technology of the patents-in-suit.
10. The filing and prosecution of the patents-in-suit or related patents/applications, including any affirmative steps taken by the applicants to meet their duty of candor and good faith to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including any errors or potential errors in any of the patents-in-suit.
11. Nortel's practices and policies for the preparation and filing of patent applications, patent licensing, and document retention.
12. Every attempt by Nortel or by any party acting on Nortel's behalf to enforce any of the patents-in-suit, either in the United States or abroad, including any analysis, evaluation, or discussion regarding the assertion, potential assertion, or potential for assertion of any of the patents-in-suit, against any third party including Google, and any settlement, whether executed or considered, relating to any adversarial proceeding in the United States or abroad involving the patents-in-suit, related patents/applications, or any patent related to the subject matter in suit.
13. Any claim by you that Google infringes, has infringed, or copied the technology claimed in any of the patents-in-suit, including Nortel's first awareness of Google's activities that form the basis of any allegation that Google infringes any of the patents-in-suit, any investigation conducted by you or on your behalf of any Google product or service that relates to the technology of the patents-in-suit, and any damage or harm Nortel allegedly suffered as a result of the sale, offer for sale, or use of any Google product or service.
14. U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 987, 100; 6, 333, 973; 6, 084, 951; 6, 310, 944; 6, 853, 713; 6, 888, 927; or 5, 796, 170; or Meridian Mail, VISIT Messenger, Nortel Companion, Bay Area Optivity Configurator 2.0, and New Oaks Communications Extranet Switches.
15. The labeling or marking with patent information any product, service, system, or method sold, marketed, or commercialized that embodies any claim of the patents-in-suit.
16. The documents produced in response to the letters rogatory.
17. Prior art to the patents-in-suit, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 5, 838, 551, 6, 333, 973, 6, 037, 937, 6, 128, 298, 6, 463, 131, 6, 765, 591, and 6, 937, 572.
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED BY JEAN-PIERRE FORTIN
It is respectfully requested that Jean-Pierre Fortin be compelled to produce the following documents that are in its possession, custody, or control, and which are not privileged under Canadian or U.S. law:
1. All documents that refer or relate to U.S. Patent No. 5, 838, 551 (the "'551 patent"), including any documents that relate to the scope of the claimed inventions, the development of the claimed inventions, the drafting of the '551 patent, the terms used in the '551 patent, inventorship of the '551 patent, prosecution of the '551 patent, and any opinions, analyses and/or investigations of infringement of the '551 patent. For greater certainty, this includes all documents that include, refer or relate to:
a. the priority claim made in the '551 patent, including the conception and/or reduction to practice of any invention disclosed, described, or claimed in the '551 patent, and diligence between the date of conception and reduction to practice of any alleged invention described, disclosed, or claimed in the '551 patent;
b. the purported inventions disclosed, described, or claimed in the '551 patent, including the first written description, and the first disclosure of any alleged invention described, disclosed, or claimed in the '551 patent;
c. the design or development of any alleged invention described, disclosed, or claimed in the '551 patent, including any invention disclosure forms and prototypes;
d. communications with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, foreign patent offices, including the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, foreign patent agents, or third parties regarding the prosecution of the '551 patent;
e. any reference cited during prosecution of the '551 patent;
f. any analyses or efforts to draft the '551 patent or design products or systems embodying the subject matter disclosed or claimed in the '551 patent around prior art products, systems or patents;
g. the work you did in connection with the prosecution of the '551 patent such as billing records or time sheets.
2. All documents relating to prior art to the '551 patent, including all documents that refer or relate to any EMI shielding of an electronic package. For greater certainty, this includes all documents that include, refer or relate to:
a. prior art to the '551 patent submitted to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office or any foreign patent office, including the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, during the prosecution of the '551 patent;
b. the work you did searching for prior art to the '551 patent, including publications or references evaluated by you as potential prior art and all textbooks, articles, or other sources consulted, gathered, or reviewed in drafting or prosecuting the '551 patent;
c. any U.S. or foreign patents or patent applications filed prior to August 1, 1996 relating to EMI shielding of an electronic package, or any alleged invention disclosed, described or claimed in the '551 patent;
d. any publications, sale, offer for sale, or public use prior to August 1, 1996 of EMI shielding of an electronic package, or any alleged invention disclosed, ...