Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Background

Gesture Technology Partners, LLC (GTP) asked the court to require Apple, Inc. to supplement its answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 3 and 11. An interrogatory is a written question that one party sends to another during discovery, the pretrial process for obtaining information relevant to a lawsuit. The questions concerned products allegedly accused of infringing the ’949 patent.

Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2

Interrogatory No. 1 sought the name and model number of each accused product. Interrogatory No. 2 sought identification of components in those products that were recited in claim 4 of the ’949 patent. GTP argued that Apple had not provided a candid narrative answer and wanted a chart listing the names and model numbers of sensors and cameras in the 35 accused products.

Apple responded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), which permits a party to answer an interrogatory by identifying business records when the information can be found there and the burden of finding it is substantially the same for both parties. The court explained that a party challenging this method must first show that the records do not adequately provide the information or that extracting it is too difficult. The responding party then must show that the records contain the answers and that the burden of finding them is substantially equal.

The court held that Apple’s responses satisfied Rule 33(d). GTP had already created a chart using information Apple provided, and the court found that the information was not too difficult to extract. The court also noted Apple’s representation that it would not dispute information contained in the user guides.

Interrogatory No. 3

Interrogatory No. 3 requested identification of every application preloaded on, or available for download on, the accused products that could detect, process, interpret, respond to, or be controlled by gestures. GTP argued that Apple had refused to identify any application.

Apple responded that, apart from applications GTP had identified in its supplemental infringement contentions, Apple was not aware of any applications meeting the description in the interrogatory. The court found that answer complete because it responded to the question and was complete in itself.

Interrogatory No. 11 and disposition

Interrogatory No. 11 sought licensing agreements concerning the applications identified in Interrogatory No. 3, including agreements Apple entered as a licensor or licensee. The parties agreed that Apple would provide the agreements after the district judge issued a protective order. Because of that agreement, the court found no live dispute concerning Interrogatory No. 11.

The court denied GTP’s request to compel Apple to supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 3 and 11. The order resolved ECF No. 84.