3rd Pacer--DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT #1


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORP., and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.

DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT #1

Date of Close of Discovery: Not yet set
Identification of the Issue: Defendants Technology Properties Limited and Alliacense
Limited (collectively “TPL”) seek an order compelling Barco to document its search for and
produce all documents responsive to TPL’s RFP Nos. 75, 76, 78, 79, and 80.
Joint Meeting: July 7, 2011, at the Denver International Airport, for approximately 5 hours.
Attestations of Lead Counsel: I have complied with Magistrate Judge Lloyd’s Standing Order
Re: Civil Discovery Disputes.
Dated: July 19, 2011
FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
By: /s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED
Dated: July 19, 2011
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
By: s/ Dan O'Connor
Daniel J. O’Connor
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BARCO, N.V.

I. TPL’S POSITION

A. Description of Dispute and Essential Facts
Barco filed a complaint in December 2008 for declaratory judgment of noninfringement
and invalidity of three patents. In February 2009, Defendants brought counterclaims alleging
infringement. Under Patent Local Rule 3-4, Barco was obligated to produce specifications and
other technical documentation sufficient to show the operation of its accused products. TPL
served its first set of requests for documents on February 25, 2009. From June 2009 through
February 2010, the case was stayed pending reexamination of the patents-in-suit. TPL served a
second set of document requests on January 4, 2011. See Ex. A.1 Requests Nos. 75, 76, 78, 79,
and 80 are the subject of this Report and seek documents, including email communications,
related to the testing, structure, and functionality of the accused products and their
microprocessors. Id. at 4-5.
Barco responded on February 7, 2011, with boilerplate objections based primarily on
overbreadth, relevance, and burden. See Ex. B. Barco has produced only 17,216 pages of
responsive documents, of which none are emails and less than 25% relate to its noninfringement
arguments. During five months of meet and confer involving numerous phone calls, confirming
letters, and a five-hour, in-person meeting of four attorneys, including lead counsel, Barco has
1) adopted ever-shifting positions regarding whether and to what extent it searched for responsive
documents, 2) avoided answering questions, and 3) flatly refused to produce responsive
documents. On July 12, 2011, TPL and Barco reached an impasse on these issues.
B. Chip-Level Documents (RFP Nos. 78, 79, and 80)
The chip-level documents TPL seeks go to the heart of the infringement question.2
Various elements of the asserted claims cover the contents of the integrated circuits contained
within Barco’s products, how these chips connect to other components of the accused products,
and how they are fabricated. The chip-level documents sought are reasonably calculated to
1 TPL’s first set of requests inadvertently misidentified the chips in the Definition section. Barco understood the intended meaning of the requests, however, as it produced at least one responsive datasheet in June 2009, as noted in Section B, below. TPL’s second set of requests clarified the definition of the chips and the requests incorporating it.
2 TPL is also pursuing discovery from Barco’s chip suppliers, subject to subpoenas issued in January 2011.
confirm the presence of such claimed features and guide further discovery. Indeed, Barco agreed
in writing to produce all schematics in response to Request No. 79.3 See Ex. B, at 8.
Through January of this year, more than two years after Barco sued TPL, Barco had
located only two chip-level datasheets. Barco produced one in June 2009, but withheld the other
on the grounds that it was “proprietary to Texas Instruments.” Even after Judge Fogel lifted the
stay, and this Court entered a protective order, TPL had to repeatedly ask Barco for the Texas
Instruments datasheet before Barco produced it on January 13, 2011. In March, Barco produced a
handful of technical manuals for other microprocessors in its accused products.
As meet and confer progressed, Barco continued to deny possession of chip-level
documents, even as it refused to disclose whether and to what extent it had searched for them. In
May, TPL advised Barco that its production of some chip-level documents over the course of
discovery demonstrated a likelihood that additional such documents existed, contrary to Barco’s
representations. TPL also noted that engineers often exchange such documents over email, and
reiterated its request for responsive emails. Barco refused, claiming that having to search Barco’s
servers for email was “unduly burdensome” and irrelevant.
Barco subsequently stated that it had searched for and produced all chip-level documents
in its possession. But at the July 7 in-person meeting, Barco’s counsel admitted that they did not
know the details of any searches Barco had done for relevant chip-level documents. On July 12,
Barco’s counsel advised that Martin Piepers of Barco had overseen a computerized search of one
or more servers for the part numbers of the identified microprocessors, but that he had not
searched engineers’ hard drives or any email files, nor looked for any paper documents. Barco’s
counsel was not aware of whether Barco had searched for documents using anything other than
parts numbers, such as, e.g., chip names, product names, or code names. The apparent failure of
Barco’s counsel to “verify[] that the necessary discovery ha[s] been conducted (including
ensuring that all of the correct locations, servers, databases, repositories, and computers [are]
correctly searched for potentially relevant documents)” does not meet outside counsel’s discovery
obligations set forth in Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. 05-cv-1958-B, 2010 WL
3 Barco is also required to produce these schematics pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-4.
1336937, *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010). Barco’s counsel also claimed that Barco could locate no
relevant emails, but refused to state the basis for that assertion, to confirm whether Barco had
even conducted a thorough search of its email servers, or to provide any additional specificity
regarding the extent of Barco’s search.
Barco can no longer avoid discovery by implausibly claiming it does not have chip-level
documents, while simultaneously refusing to disclose the specifics of its searching, which would
reveal only an inadequate, cursory search. The clear (and until recently, undisputed) relevance of
such documents outweighs any possible burden on plaintiff Barco, particularly as Patent L.R. 3-4
affirmatively requires Barco to produce these documents. The Court should therefore compel
Barco to search for and produce all chip-level documents responsive to Requests 78-80, including
emails or other correspondence, and to detail the specific locations, servers, databases,
repositories, custodians, and computers Barco searched, and the search terms it applied.
C. Product-Level Documents (RFP Nos. 78, 79, and 80)
Barco has been equally delinquent in producing documents showing the operation of
Barco’s accused products. The need for production of such documents is so rote that Patent Local
Rule 3-4 imposes an affirmative obligation on the disclosure of such materials at the outset.
Patent L.R. 3-4 (requiring production of “specifications, schematics, flow charts, … or other
documentation sufficient to show” how the accused products function); see also Cryptography
Research, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, No. C-04-04143 JW (HRL), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
37013, *7 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2005) (accused infringer “must provide enough documentation to
sufficiently show the operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality”).
In January 2011, TPL asked Barco for a date certain on which it would produce all
requested product-level documents, reminding Barco that these documents were also responsive
under Patent L.R. 3-4. After ignoring TPL’s requests, Barco finally, during a March meet and
confer teleconference, seemingly agreed to produce documents depicting and describing the
printed circuit board layout, including part lists, as well as product and engineering specifications,
for each of the 11 accused Barco products. After first denying any such agreement had been
reached, and only after much prodding by TPL, Barco made only a 115-page production of
printed circuit board layouts and parts lists in April. The documents did not, save for a few pages,
even identify the product(s) they covered, rendering them near useless. Despite there being 11
accused products in this case, Barco has produced just six parts lists and four schematic diagrams.
To facilitate the meet-and-confer on the completeness of Barco’s production, TPL asked Barco to
specify the accused products to which each of the product-level documents corresponded, and
when Barco would complete its production for the entirety of the accused products. During the
meeting of counsel on July 7, TPL reiterated its requests that Barco clarify its deficiently labeled
production, and again reminded Barco of its Patent Local Rule 3-4 obligations. Upon further
questioning, Barco could link only three sets of schematics to three accused products and claimed
it had no technical documentation whatsoever for any accused product with a hard drive.4
Barco primarily argues that TPL is not entitled to any technical information regarding
Barco’s products, due to alleged deficiencies in TPL’s infringement contentions,5 and that Barco
will not produce any product-level documents beyond those relating to the microprocessor. This
position is contrary to law where the asserted system claims specify distinct elements found
outside the microprocessor, e.g., “off-chip external clock” and connections to external memory.
Documents disclosing such off-chip elements are squarely relevant, and should have already been
produced pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-4 and TPL’s document requests. Barco’s argument that
it either “knows nothing” when the chips are in a third-party hard drive, or the documents are “not
relevant,” is untenable. Barco’s engineers must confirm that the chips work as intended in the
projectors. They must know that the signals going between the chips and the products’ other
components are properly formatted to facilitate the intended communication, both for the hard
drive chips and for the chips directly installed.Although Barco brought this lawsuit, it has produced virtually no technical documents in support of its contentions that its accused products do not infringe TPL’s patents. Barco’s
4 The chips in two accused products are within Seagate hard drives. But as noted below, the asserted claims implicate various off-chip elements, including clocking signals running from the Barco product to its hard drive. Moreover, Patent L.R. 3-4 obligates Barco to produce documents showing the operation of any aspect of its accused products.
5 Not only is Barco wrong in claiming the contentions are insufficient, but the argument is also untimely, since Barco waived the objection by failing to raise it in its written responses. See Ex. B, at 7-9.
reticence is at odds with its duty to produce discovery in good faith. See Qualcomm Inc. v.
Broadcom Corp., 548 F.3d 1004, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In light of the clear relevance and
critical importance of such information, TPL asks that the Court compel Barco to comply with its
obligations by producing all product-level documents responsive to Requests 78-80.
D. Testing Documents (RFP Nos. 75 and 76)
Throughout meet and confer, TPL has asked Barco for documents related to its testing of
the accused products within the United States and in relation to Barco’s noninfringement
contentions. This is directly relevant to the core issue of infringement because “testing is a use of
the invention that may infringe under § 271(a).” See Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 245
F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citation omitted)). At the July 7 meeting, Barco’s counsel
conceded that they did not know if Barco routinely tested its products in the United States, and
that Barco did not search for such documents. While Barco raised boilerplate objections of burden
and overbreadth, it has not substantiated those arguments.
E. TPL’s Final Proposal
TPL requests that the Court issue an order compelling Barco to produce, within ten days,
(1) all chip-level documents and all product-level documents called for by TPL’s Requests for
Production Nos. 78, 79, and 80; and (2) all testing-related documents responsive to TPL’s
Requests for Production Nos. 75 and 76. TPL further asks the Court to order Barco to provide to
the Court and TPL within 30 days a signed certification stating that (1) Barco has completed a
reasonable, thorough search for responsive documents and has produced all that are in its
possession, custody, or control; (2) the scope of its search for those documents, including
descriptions and lists of the departments, servers, databases, and custodian files searched, and
search terms used; and (3) that the search included all emails, electronic files, and hard-copy files
of all engineers or other employees who worked on any accused product, conducted regular
testing, or participated in Barco’s noninfringement analysis.

II. BARCO’S POSITION

A. Description of Dispute and Essential Facts
TPL overlooks the fundamental fact that Barco does not make or design any of the
accused chips – the instrumentalities that form the sole bases for the allegations of infringement.
Barco makes electrical products, such as projectors, that include as components computer chips
(and a multiplicity of other components) that Barco buys “off the shelf” from third party chip
suppliers. An analogy might be a case wherein Ford Motor Company is sued for infringement of
patents on chemical composition of rubber, based on the rubber used in the tires on Ford cars that
are purchased by Ford from tire manufacturers. Ford may have certain information about the
tires, for example general specifications, but Ford will not have detailed information about the
chemical composition of the rubber in the tires. The company that makes the tires, for example
Firestone, will have that information.
That is similar to what is going on here. Barco uses as a component in some products, for
example, a particular chip made by Texas Instruments. Barco does not have detailed information
about that chip beyond what is needed to know whether it suits Barco’s needs. Texas Instruments,
the maker and designer of the chip in this example, will have the detailed information about the
chip. Yet TPL is expecting Barco to have detailed information and documents about the
microscopic circuitry of the chips it uses as components, but does not make or design. This is the
crux of the problem. TPL has for unknown reasons not bothered, until very recently, to seek the
information it says it needs – detailed information about the circuitry of the chips – from the
source where that information is most likely to be found: the chip makers.
In addition to accused chips that Barco buys and installs in its products from third party
chip suppliers, TPL has also accused chips that are found in hard drives that Barco buys and
installs in some of its products. For these products, Barco’s connection to the chip is even further
removed from the source. Barco buys as a component for some of its products, hard drives which
themselves includes many subcomponents, one of which is the chip that TPL accuses of
infringement. TPL’s position is based on the proposition that there is some likelihood that Barco
will have documents about the details of chips in the hard drives that Barco buys from a third
party drive maker. That proposition is unfounded, and it is wasting a lot of the time of counsel
for Barco and now the court. It also begs the question of why TPL did not simply take discovery
from the maker of the hard drives, in this example, Seagate, to obtain the information TPL seeks.
B. Dispute over "Chip-Level Documents" (RFPs 78, 79, and 80)
TPL incorrectly states that "Barco agreed in writing to produce all schematics in response
to Request No. 79. What Barco said in writing was "If Defendants will clarify this request, Barco
will work with Defendants to produce responsive, non-privileged documents, if any exist." Exh.
B, p. 8. TPL is not actually complaining about Barco's production, but about confirmation of its
searching. This may be understandable if no documents had been found and produced, but TPL
is now asking that Barco search emails for datasheets that might have been sent via email. This is
unduly burdensome, because Barco has already found and produced datasheets for the accused
chips used directly in its products, and because Barco should not be required to search for nonexistent
emails relating to the chips that are only found in hard drives that Barco buys from third
parties. The following chart is illustrative of Barco's production.
ACCUSED CHIP CHIP MAKER PRODUCTION
DDP3020 Texas
Instruments
Barco conducted a computerized search
for this part number, and produced the full
datasheet thus located (63 pages).
DDP1011 Texas
Instruments
Barco conducted a computerized search
for this part number, and produced the full
datasheet thus located (51 pages).
Virtex-5 Xilinx Barco conducted a computerized search
for this part number, and produced all
documents thus located, including the user
guide (385 pages), the configuration user
guide (166 pages), FPGA Datasheet (91
pages), Virtex-5 family overview (13
pages), system monitor user guide (66
pages), design considerations user guide
(112 pages), packaging and pinout
specification user guide (416 pages)
embedded processor block reference
guide (347 pages) and PCB designer's
guide (38 pages), a total of 1,634 pages.
405GP Applied
Microcircuits
Corp.
Barco conducted a computerized search
for this part number, and produced the full
processor user's manual (1278 pages) to
TPL.
TTB4398A0 LSI Logic Barco conducted a computerized search
for this part number and did not locate any
records, which is to be expected since this
chip is part of a Seagate hard drive that
Barco purchases and installs in some
products. This chip is not used or
purchased directly by Barco.
100404226 Agere Barco conducted a computerized search
for this part number and did not locate any
records, which is to be expected since this
chip is part of a Seagate hard drive that
Barco purchases and installs in some
products. This chip is not used or
purchased directly by Barco.
TPL has now subpoenaed the chip makers for documents about the chips. The chip
makers, all US companies, are also available for deposition. The chip makers are certainly the
best source of information regarding the design, structure, and function of their chips. Surely that
source, is "more convenient, less burdensome, [and] less expensive" than having Barco conduct
further exhaustive search based on TPL's speculation.. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
C. Dispute over "Product-Level Documents" (RFPs 78, 79, and 80)
In this report, TPL states that it is also seeking documents "showing the operation of
Barco's accused products." This goes beyond TPL's discovery requests, which ask for "user
manuals" and "service manuals" and "instructions for use" regarding the accused products. Ex.
A, Req. 78 and 80. The other documents requested pertain only to chips (e.g., requests for "block
specifications . . . data sheets … floor plans . . . etc.). There is no such thing as a "block
specification" or "data sheet" or "floor plan" for Barco's projectors. Further, the requested
"product level" documents are not relevant to this case, since TPL's patents are all directed to
microprocessor chips, and not the products in which they are installed. TPL complains that Barco
did not identify the products associated with schematics and parts lists it produced, allegedly
"rendering them near useless." TPL does not mention that Barco verbally informed TPL of this
information prior to the writing of this joint report.
TPL hints that Barco has not complied with P.L.R. 3-4, while not asking the court to
grant relief on that basis. In any event, P.L.R. 3-4 only requires Barco to produce documentation
"sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality
identified by the patent claimant in its Patent L.R. 3-1(c) chart." TPL has not identified any
aspects or elements of any Barco products, as detailed in Barco's Joint Report #2. Simply
accusing a particular product, for example a projector, of infringing does not entitle TPL to all
information regarding the entire operation of the product, especially where infringement is based
on a single component, an accused chip made by a third party. Fusionarc, Inc. v. Solidus
Networks, Inc. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28970, *10 (N.D. Cal. April 5, 2007) (holding that no
documents need be produced under P.L.R. 3-4 "to the extent that Fusionarc has identified no
aspect of defendants' systems as infringing a particular claim."). In Fusionarc, the contentions
were based on "marketing materials" and described the accused systems "only in broad terms."
Id. at *4. The same is true of TPL's contentions, which do not clearly identify any particular
structure in Barco's projectors as infringing. TPL states that it is entitled to additional information
because a few of the asserted claims have limitations in addition to microprocessor chips, such as
an "off-chip external clock" and connections to external memory. However, TPL has not
identified any such elements in the Accused Instrumentality, but has only speculated, without
support, that they are there. TPL also speculates that "Barco's engineers must confirm" how the
accused chips work, again with no support. The following chart is illustrative.

ACCUSED BARCO PRODUCT PRODUCTION

iCon H250/H400/H500
Projectors
Barco has produced the service manual for these projectors (130
pages). Even these, however, are not relevant: TPL has accused
these products of infringing due to alleged use of the Texas
Instruments DDP3020 chip. However, these products do not
contain the DDP3020 chip.
iD R600+ Projector Barco has produced the service manual for this projector (102
pages). Barco has also produced schematics and parts lists for the
PCB assembly that includes the accused DDP3020 chip.
SIM 5R Projector Barco has produced the service manual for this projector (88
pages). Barco has also produced schematics and parts lists for the
PCB assembly that includes the accused DDP3020 chip.
JPEG2000 Circuit Board Barco has produced a sales document showing that only one
JPEG2000 has ever been sold in the U.S. Barco also produced
brochures for this product. Barco does not have schematics for this
board, because Barco simply buys the board from a vendor and
adapts it to its intended encoding function.
SLM R12+ Projector Barco has produced the service manual for this projector (287
Barco has also produced schematics and parts lists for the
PCB assembly that includes the accused DDP1011 chip.
RLM R6+ Projector Barco has produced the service manual for this projector (165
pages). Barco has not located schematics but this is not
unexpected because Barco does not make this projector, but has it
made in Asia and then sells it under Barco's name.
DX-700 Barco has produced the full user guide (230 pages), a quick start
guide, a brochure, and general specifications.
Axon media server Barco has produced a technical specifications document and a
brochure. Because TPL has only accused a chip within a
purchased hard drive of infringing, further technical documents
regarding the overall product are not relevant.
Hog IPC Console Barco has located a number of documents (a handbook, user
manual, etc.) and will be producing them shortly. Because TPL
has only accused a chip within a purchased hard drive of
infringing, further technical documents regarding the overall
product are not relevant.
D. Dispute over "Testing Documents" (RFPs 75 and 76)
This pertains to testing in the United States. Barco has confirmed that it does not test in
the U.S. products it makes outside the U.S. Barco will shortly produce a supporting declaration.
The only products that might be tested in the U.S. are the Axon Media Server, the DX-700, and
the Hog IPC. Barco has located testing documents for the DX-700 and will produce them shortly.
Barco will produce similar U.S. testing documents, if any, for the Axon Media Server and the
Hog IPC.
E. Barco's Final Proposal
Barco has conducted a reasonable search and produced relevant documents regarding the
accused third-party chips. Any further searching is unnecessary, burdensome and is unlikely to
uncover information nearly as pertinent to this case as TPL's subpoenas and other discovery taken
on the chip manufacturers themselves. Further, Barco has produced (or will produce shortly)
technical information regarding its products beyond what is relevant to this case, since TPL's
patents concern chips, not projectors, and TPL has not identified in its Infringement Contentions
any aspects of Barco's projectors as infringing. Barco will produce a declaration that the iCon
series, iD R600, SIM5R, JPEG2000, SLM R12+ and RLM R6+ are not tested in the United
States. Barco will produce testing documents for any products tested in the United States.



EXHIBIT A

John L. Cooper (State Bar No. 050324)
icooper@fbm.corn
Nan E. Joesten (State Bar No. 191288)
njoesten@fbm.com
Eugene Y. Mar (State Bar No. 227071)
emar@fbm.com
Farella Braun & Martel LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Attorneys for Defendants
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DWISION
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiff,
VS.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED,
Defendants.
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
Case No. 5:08-cv-05398 JF
DEFENDANTS' SECOND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO tARCO, N.V.
The Honorable Jeremy Fogel

DEFENDANTS' SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO BARCO,

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendants TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED and
ALLIACENSE LIMITED
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff BARCO, N.V.
SET NUMBER: Two (2)
Case5:08-cv-05398-JF Document207 Filed07/19/11 Page13 of 36
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants
Technology Properties Limited and Alliacense Limited (collectively "TPL") request that Plaintiff
Barco, N.V. ("Barco") serve TPL with its written responses to these requests for production and
produce copies of the documents and things requested below at the law offices of Farella Braun +
Martel LLP, 235 Montgomery Street, San Francisco CA 94104 within 30 days after service
hereof Pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these requests for
documents and things are continuing in nature. If, after producing the requested documents and
things, Barco obtains or becomes aware of any further responsive documents or things, Barco
must produce to TPL such additional documents and things.
DEFINITIONS
1. "BARCO," "YOU," "YOUR," or "YOURS" means plaintiff Barco, N.V., its
predecessors and successors, past and present parents, divisions, subsidiaries, affiliates, and
related companies, and all past and present directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants,
attorneys and others purporting to act on its behalf
2. "COMMUNICATION" means any form of oral or written interchange or
attempted interchange, whether in person, by telephone, by facsimile, by telex, by electronic mail,
or by any other medium.
3. The term "DOCUMENT" is used in the broadest possible sense as interpreted
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and includes, without limitation, all originals and
copies, duplicates, drafts, and recordings of any written, printed, graphic or otherwise recorded
matter, however produced or reproduced, and all "writings," as defmed in Federal Rule of
Evidence 1001, of any nature, whether on paper, magnetic tape, electronically recorded or any
other information storage means, including film and computer memory devices; and where any
such items contain any marking not appearing on the original or are altered from the original, then
such items shall be considered to be separate original documents.
4. The term "RELATE," "RELATES" or "RELATING TO" means concerning,
referring to, summarizing, reflecting, constituting, containing, embodying, pertaining to, involved
with, mentioning, discussing, consisting of, comprising, showing, commenting on, evidencing,

DEFENDANTS' SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO BARCO, - 2 - 23129\2471643.2

describing or otherwise relating to the subject matter.
5. "PATENTS-IN-SUIT" means U.S. Patent Nos. 5,809,336; 5,440,749; and
5,530,890, both individually and collectively.
6. "TPL" means defendant Technology Properties Limited, Patriot Scientific
Corporation, or Alliacense Limited, and any person or entity purporting to act on their behalf or
that Barco believed or understood to be acting on their behalf.
7. "BARCO PRODUCTS" shall mean the goods and/or products of Barco, N.V.,
which are listed in the product reports served on BARCO on February 20, 2009, and April 30,
2010.
8. "BARCO CHIPS" shall mean chips or microprocessors identified as Agere
100404226, AMCC 405GP, LSI Logic LSITTB4398A0, Texas Instruments DDP1011, Texas
Instruments DDP3020 (DarkChip 3), and Xilinx Virtex-5.
9. "RELATED PATENTS" shall mean any patent applications or patents that relate
to or claim priority to any of the Patents-in-Suit.
10. "COMPLAINT" shall mean the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed on
December 1, 2008 (Docket Entry No. 1).
INSTRUCTIONS
1. As used in these Requests for Production, the singular shall include the plural, and
the past tense shall include the present tense, and vice versa; the words "and" and "or" shall be
both conjunctive and disjunctive; the word "all" shall mean "any and all;" the word "including"
shall mean "including without limitation," so as to be most inclusive.
2. DOCUMENTS produced in response to these requests should be produced as they
are kept in the usual course of business or should be organized and labeled to correspond with the
categories in the request.
3. If BARCO contends that a portion of a DOCUMENT is subject to being withheld
under a claim of privilege or immunity from production or that a portion of a DOCUMENT is
non-responsive to the requests below, produce the entire DOCUMENT with any necessary
redactions.
4. If any DOCUMENT is withheld under a claim of privilege or immunity from
production, identify that document as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) .
5. These requests are continuing ; so that if after responding and producing
DOCUMENTS for inspection and copying, BARCO acquires or locates any additional
DOCUMENT falling within the scope of any of the requests herein, BARCO is to produce such
additional DOCUMENTS promptly for inspection and copying.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 72:
All board minutes, board presentations, and other documents from BARCO' s board of
directors meetings concerning BARCO PRODUCTS and/or BARCO CHIPS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73:
All DOCUMENTS including, but not limited to past and present organizational functional
charts, that list or identify the persons employed by YOU who have or had responsibility for the
following functions relating to the BARCO PRODUCTS: (a) manufacturing; (b) marketing; (c)
distribution (d) advertising; (e) sales; (f) product design; (g) product engineering; (h) product
testing; (i) product specifications; (j) product certifications; (k) research and development; (1)
patent activities; and (m) importing and exporting.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74:
All DOCUMENTS concerning BARCO's first use, sale, offer to sell, or importation of the
BARCO PRODUCTS in the United States for any purpose.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75:
All DOCUMENTS concerning any investigation, testing, analysis, or study of the
BARCO CHIPS or BARCO PRODUCTS conducted by or on behalf of BARCO in the United
States.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76:
All DOCUMENTS concerning any investigation, testing, analysis, or study of the
BARCO CHIPS or BARCO PRODUCTS that relate to BARCO's assertion that its products do
not infringe any valid claims of the PATENTS-IN-SUIT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77:
All DOCUMENTS sufficient to show which of YOUR products contain the BARCO
CHIPS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78:
All DOCUMENTS concerning block specifications, datasheets, floor plans, user manuals,
programming manuals, clock tree, I10 protocol specifications, service manuals, CORE manual,
die image, chip packaging information, and timing diagrams for any BARCO CHIP or BARCO
PRODUCT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79:
All system and transistor level schematics, including but not limited to schematics
contained in service manuals for each BARCO CHIP, corresponding to each printed circuit board
in the BARCO CHIP.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80:
One copy of each version (including each paper, magnetic, and electronic version) of all
manuals, user guides, white papers, training guide, brochures, instructions for use, specifications
and licenses (both express and implied) for each model of BARCO PRODUCT, and their
prototypes.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81:
Two representative samples of each model of BARCO PRODUCT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82:
Two samples of each BARCO CHIP contained in any BARCO PRODUCT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83:
All source code and related programming information for each BARCO CHIP contained
within any of YOUR products.
DEFENDANTS' SECOND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO BARCO, - 5 - 23129\2471643.2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84:
All DOCUMENTS concerning statements made by YOU, including
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any prospective customers, referring or relating to the
actual or contemplated capabilities of the BARCO PRODUCTS or BARCO CHIPS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85:
All DOCUMENTS concerning the advertising or promotion of the BARCO PRODUCTS
or BARCO CHIPS. •
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86:
All DOCUMENTS and design files, whether in electronic format or on paper, identifying,
specifying, or characterizing transistor parameters or models used for circuit simulations (such as
Spice or HSpice models, HSIM models, or Spectre models) for any clocking, CPU, and/or I/0
interface circuit in a BARCO PRODUCT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87:
For each BARCO PRODUCT sold by YOU, profit and loss statements on a quarterly
basis for the business division or business unit or business segment most directly responsible for
sales of that BARCO PRODUCT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88:
All DOCUMENTS concerning past sales, manufacturing, researbh, license or
development; present sales, manufacturing, research, licenses or development; and projected or
contemplated future sales, manufacturing, research, license or development of any BARCO
PRODUCT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89:
All DOCUMENTS sufficient to show sales, sales price, revenues, gross margin, net
margin, cost and profit information for each of the BARCO PRODUCTS, broken down by
quarter, including all DOCUMENTS sufficient to explain any acronyms or terminology
employed by YOUR accounting systems since January 2000.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90:
DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR current and former customers,
licensees, and/or resellers of the BARCO PRODUCTS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91:
All DOCUMENTS concerning strategic plans, business plans, business strategies,
licensing plans, licensing proposals, licensing forecasts, prospectuses, market surveys, market
strategies, market analyses, and/or marketing forecasts of customer demand for the BARCO
PRODUCTS.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 92:
DOCUMENTS sufficient to demonstrate YOUR market share in any industry market in
which BARCO PRODUCTS are sold since January 2000.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93:
All DOCUMENTS concerning any license, royalty, technology transfer, or authorization
to use agreements entered into by YOU relating in any way to the BARCO PRODUCTS, whether
or not a formal agreement was ever reached.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 94:
All DOCUMENTS concerning patent licenses or agreements that YOU have entered into
regarding any aspect of semiconductors, including but not limited to, the BARCO CHIPS and the
semiconductors found in the BARCO PRODUCTS.


EXHIBIT B

Daniel J. O’Connor (Pro Hac Vice)
Edward K. Runyan (Pro Hac Vice)
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Tod L. Gamlen (SBN 83458)
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
660 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94303-1044
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BARCO N.V.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
BARCO, N.V.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED,
PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
and ALLIACENSE LIMITED.
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF BARCO, N.V.’S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SECOND REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
BARCO, N.V.
The Honorable Jeremy Fogel
Barco, N.V. (herein “Barco”) hereby states as follows in response to Defendants’
second set of requests for production of documents, Nos. 72-94:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Barco’s investigations of facts concerning this action are continuing. The responses
herein, therefore, are based upon a reasonable investigation of such information and
documents as are presently available to Barco, its employees and agents. Barco anticipates
that further investigation and analysis may supply additional facts and additional meaning to
the known facts. Barco reserves the right to modify or supplement, as appropriate or as
required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable Local Rules, any and all
responses herein as additional facts are ascertained, as additional documents are obtained and
as additional analysis and contentions are formulated. Barco also reserves the right to object
to the admissibility of information and/or documents disclosed in response to these Requests
at the time of trial.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY

Barco objects to the Definitions contained in the Requests as improper to the extent
that the Definitions are overly broad, vague, and ambiguous and to the extent that the
Definitions could lead to the formulations of responses that are either inaccurate when read
against a specific Request or that would create an inaccurate or misleading record. Barco also
objects to the Definitions on the grounds that, as used in the Requests, they would render the
development of a response thereto oppressive, unduly burdensome, unreasonably expensive,
and/or would require an unreasonable investigation on the part of Barco. Barco further objects
because certain of the Definitions, as used in the Requests, seek information that it irrelevant
and/or immaterial, and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Barco will assign to those terms their usual and/ordinary meaning in responding to
the Requests. Specifically, Barco objects to the following terms for which Defendant has propounded
unique proposed definitions:
a) “Barco,” “YOU,”“YOUR,” or “YOURS,” on the basis that the proposed
definitions go beyond the regular and ordinary meaning of these terms, and are
therefore confusing and burdensome. Barco also objects to the proposed
definition as including Barco’s “affiliates, and related companies, and all past
and present directors, officers, employees, agents, consultants, attorneys and
others purporting to act on their behalf.” Rule 34 is only applicable to parties,
and not their attorneys, agents, or other non-parties. See Hickman v. Taylor,
329 U.S. 495, 504 (1947) (“Rule 34, like Rule 33, is limited to parties to the
proceeding, thereby excluding their counsel or agents.”). Barco will not
produce documents on behalf of agents and other non-parties that would fall
under Defendants’ definition of “Barco”, “YOU” and “YOUR” but that are
outside the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.
b) “RELATE,” “RELATES,” or “RELATING TO,” on the basis that the
proposed definitions go beyond the regular and ordinary meaning of these
terms, and are therefore confusing and burdensome.
c) “BARCO PRODUCT” on the basis that the entire products listed in the product
report served on Barco on February 20, 2009 and April 30, 2010 do not contain
the instrumentalities identified in defendants’ Infringement Contentions.
Accordingly, Barco objects to this definition to the extent it defines portions of
Barco products beyond the microprocessors identified and “analyzed” in the
product report defendants served on Barco on February 20, 2009 and April 30,
2010.
d) Barco objects on the basis of relevance and burden to the extent these requests
seek discovery of documents or information relating to sales, operations, or
activities outside the United States.
1. Barco objects to producing information in response to the Requests that is
protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, joint-defense doctrine,
common interest doctrine or any other applicable protection, restriction or immunity from
discovery, including any applicable Protective Order.
2. Barco objects to the Requests on the basis that they are unlimited in time and,
therefore, are burdensome and inclusive of irrelevant subject matter.
3. Barco objects to Requests that seek documents or things that are not in the
possession, custody, or control of Barco or are in the possession, custody or control of
individuals not employed by Barco. Barco is responding to the Requests herein as to
information and documents within the custody and control of Barco or Barco’s employees, not
including all companies or entities that may be affiliated with or related to, Barco.
4. Barco objects to these Requests on the basis of relevance, to the extent they
seek discovery relating to patents other than the patents-in-suit. Unless stated otherwise,
documents produced in response to these Requests will be not be applicable to patents other
than the patents-in-suit.
5. Barco objects to the Requests to the extent they seek documents pertaining to
sales or other financial activities or documents relating to activities outside the United States.
Barco reserves the right to limit its production of such materials to documents relating to
activity in the United States.
board minutes, board presentations, and other documents from BARCO's board of
directors meetings concerning BARCO PRODUCTS and/or BARCO CHIPS.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 3. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous and
unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege. Barco further objects to this request as irrelevant: it is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information..
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 73:
All DOCUMENTS including, but not limited to past and present organizational
functional charts, that list or identify the persons employed by YOU who have or had
responsibility for the following functions relating to the BARCO PRODUCTS: (a)
manufacturing; (b) marketing; (c) distribution (d) advertising; (e) sales; (f) product design; (g)
product engineering; (h) product testing; (i) product specifications; (j) product certifications; (k)
research and development; (l) patent activities; and (m) importing and exporting.
RESPONSE:
Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 5. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous and
unduly burdensome. Barco further objects to this request as irrelevant: it is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 74:
All DOCUMENTS concerning BARCO's first use, sale, offer to sell, or importation of
the BARCO PRODUCTS in the United States for any purpose.
RESPONSE:
Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 9. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous and
unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege. Barco reserves the right to produce summaries or
compilations of the information contained in the documents within the scope of this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 75:
All DOCUMENTS concerning any investigation, testing, analysis, or study of the
BARCO CHIPS or BARCO PRODUCTS conducted by or on behalf of BARCO in the United
States.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 10. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege. Barco further objects to this request as irrelevant: it is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 76:
All DOCUMENTS concerning any investigation, testing, analysis, or study of the
BARCO CHIPS or BARCO PRODUCTS that relate to BARCO's assertion that its products do
not infringe any valid claims of the PATENTS-1N-SUIT.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 11. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege.
Barco also objects to this request because it purports to require production of documents
not in the custody, control, or possession of Barco, but of Barco’s attorneys. Rule 34 is only
applicable to parties, and not their attorneys, agents, or other non-parties. See Hickman v.
Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 504 (1947) (“Rule 34, like Rule 33, is limited to parties to the
proceeding, thereby excluding their counsel or agents.”). Barco will not produce documents
that are outside the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 33.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 77:
All DOCUMENTS sufficient to show which of YOUR products contain the BARCO
CHIPS.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 13. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome. Barco further objects to this request as irrelevant: it is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible information because it seeks information regarding
products that have not been accused of infringement. Barco reserves the right to produce
summaries or compilations of the information contained in the documents within the scope of
this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 78:
All DOCUMENTS concerning block specifications, datasheets, floor plans, user
manuals, programming manuals, clock tree, I/O protocol specifications, service manuals,
CORE manual, die image, chip packaging information, and timing diagrams for any BARCO
CHIP or BARCO PRODUCT.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production Nos. 14, 15, 16, and 19. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad,
vague, ambiguous and unduly burdensome. For example, the scope of defendants’ definition of
“BARCO PRODUCT” goes far beyond the instrumentality accused of infringing. Moreover,
Barco does not design, manufacture, or program any BARCO CHIP and so cannot be certain if
the requested information even exists. Barco also objects to the extent that this request seeks to
invade the attorney-client, joint defense or work product privilege. Barco further objects to this
request as irrelevant: it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
information. Barco further objects to this request because it is unlimited with respect to any
time period. Barco also does not understand what is meant by a “service manual” for a
“BARCO CHIP.” If Defendants will clarify this request, Barco will work with Defendants to
produce responsive, non-privileged documents, if any exist.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 79:
All system and transistor level schematics, including but not limited to schematics
contained in service manuals for each BARCO CHIP, corresponding to each printed circuit
board in the BARCO CHIP.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 15. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, and
ambiguous. Barco does not understand what is meant by a “system-level and transistor level
schematic” or a “service manual” for a “BARCO CHIP”, or what is meant by “each printed
circuit board in the BARCO CHIP.” If Defendants will clarify this request, Barco will work
with Defendants to produce responsive, non-privileged documents, if any exist.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 80:
One copy of each version (including each paper, magnetic, and electronic version) of all
manuals, user guides, white papers, training guide, brochures, instructions for use,
specifications and licenses (both express and implied) for each model of BARCO PRODUCT,
and their prototypes.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 16. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous,
and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint defense or work product
privilege. Barco also objects to this request because it is unlimited with respect to any time
period. Barco also objects to this request as vague with respect to what is meant by a “magnetic
version” of the listed documents. Barco objects to this request as unduly burdensome because
the scope of defendants’ definition of “BARCO PRODUCT” goes far beyond the
instrumentality accused of infringing. Further, this request is unduly burdensome because it
would require the search for and production of hundreds or thousands of pages of documents
that have no relevance to the patents in this case. The patents in this case deal with
microprocessors, which Barco does not make. The information apparently sought by this
request deals with the operation of Barco’s overall products, and would not lead or even be
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information concerning the operation of
microprocessors within Barco’s products. Therefore, the value of this information is greatly
outweighed by the burden of locating it and producing it.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 81:
Two representative samples of each model of BARCO PRODUCT.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request
is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 17. Barco also objects to this request as beyond the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P.
34. Specifically, Rule 34(a)(1)(B) only requires Barco to permit Defendants to “inspect, copy,
test, or sample . . . any designated tangible thing.” The BARCO PRODUCTS specified by
Defendants are expensive but readily available for purchase by Defendants through normal
business channels. Accordingly, Barco will not provide the requested samples but will permit,
at a time and place to be agreed upon by the parties, the non-destructive testing and inspection
of each model of BARCO PRODUCT.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 82:
Two samples of each BARCO CHIP contained in any BARCO PRODUCT.RESPONSE:
Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 18. Barco also objects to this request as beyond the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P.
34. Specifically, Rule 34(a)(1)(B) only requires Barco to permit Defendants to “inspect, copy,
test, or sample . . . any designated tangible thing.” Upon information and belief, the BARCO
CHIPS are expensive but are available on the open market, so Defendants are free to obtain
their own samples of the chips. Accordingly, Barco will not provide the requested samples but
will permit, at a time and place to be agreed upon by the parties, the non-destructive testing and
inspection of each BARCO CHIP, if any, in any BARCO PRODUCT.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 83:
All source code and related programming information for each BARCO CHIP contained
within any of YOUR products.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 19. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, Barco also objects to this request as vague and ambiguous with respect
to what is meant by “source code and related programming information for each BARCO
CHIP.” Barco generally purchases the chips it uses from vendors and does not have access to
their source code and related programming information. If defendants will clarify what is
meant by these terms, Barco will work with defendants to allow for the inspection of any such
information on a controlled basis.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 84:
All DOCUMENTS concerning statements made by YOU, including
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any prospective customers, referring or relating to
the actual or contemplated capabilities of the BARCO PRODUCTS or BARCO CHIPS.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 20. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege. Barco also objects to this request because it is unlimited
with respect to any time period.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 85:
All DOCUMENTS concerning the advertising or promotion of the BARCO
PRODUCTS or BARCO CHIPS.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 21. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege. Barco also objects to this request because it is unlimited
with respect to any time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and subject to
the Preliminary Statement and Specific Objections of General Applicability, Barco will produce
responsive documents, if any, that are not privileged and that do not contain or constitute
attorney work product.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 86:
All DOCUMENTS and design files, whether in electronic format or on paper,
identifying, specifying, or characterizing transistor parameters or models used for circuit
simulations (such as Spice or HSpice models, HSIM models, or Spectre models) for any
clocking, CPU, and/or I/O interface circuit in a BARCO PRODUCT.
RESPONSE:
Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 22. Barco does not make transistors and does not use transistor models for
circuit simulations. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous and
unduly burdensome. Barco further objects to this request as irrelevant: it is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information. The phrase specifying “for any
clocking, CPU, and/or I/O interface circuit in a BARCO PRODUCT” places an undue burden
on Barco to investigate any and all possible circuits that could be considered by Defendants to
fall in this category.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 87:
For each BARCO PRODUCT sold by YOU, profit and loss statements on a quarterly
basis for the business division or business unit or business segment most directly responsible
for sales of that BARCO PRODUCT.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 46. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome. Barco also objects to this request because it is unlimited with respect
to any time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and subject to the Preliminary
Statement and Specific Objections of General Applicability, Barco will produce responsive
documents, if any, that are not privileged and that do not contain or constitute attorney work
product. Barco reserves the right to produce summaries or compilations of the information
contained in the documents within the scope of this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 88:
All DOCUMENTS concerning past sales, manufacturing, research, license or
development; present sales, manufacturing, research, licenses or development; and projected or
contemplated future sales, manufacturing, research, license or development of any BARCO
PRODUCT.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 48. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad and unduly
burdensome based on defendants’ definition of “BARCO PRODUCT”. Barco also objects to
this request as vague, ambiguous, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorneyclient,
joint defense or work product privilege. Barco also objects to this request because it is
unlimited with respect to any time period.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 89:
All DOCUMENTS sufficient to show sales, sales price, revenues, gross margin, net
margin, cost and profit information for each of the BARCO PRODUCTS, broken down by
quarter, including all DOCUMENTS sufficient to explain any acronyms or terminology
employed by YOUR accounting systems since January 2000.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 49. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege. Barco also objects to this request because it is unlimited
with respect to any time period. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing and subject to
the Preliminary Statement and Specific Objections of General Applicability, Barco will produce
responsive documents, if any, that are not privileged and that do not contain or constitute
attorney work product. Barco reserves the right to produce summaries or compilations of the
information contained in the documents within the scope of this request.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 90:
DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all of YOUR current and former customers,
licensees, and/or resellers of the BARCO PRODUCTS.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 50. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome. Barco also objects to this request because it is unlimited with respect
to any time period. Barco further objects to this request as irrelevant: it is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 91:
All DOCUMENTS concerning strategic plans, business plans, business strategies,
licensing plans, licensing proposals, licensing forecasts, prospectuses, market surveys, market
strategies, market analyses, and/or marketing forecasts of customer demand for the BARCO
PRODUCTS.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 51. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege. Barco also objects to this request because it is unlimited
with respect to any time period. Barco further objects to this request as irrelevant: it is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 92:
DOCUMENTS sufficient to demonstrate YOUR market share in any industry market in
which BARCO PRODUCTS are sold since January 2000.

RESPONSE:

Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 52. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, because Barco does not try to determine in what “industry market” it
sells products, and so does not have records that would be responsive to this request. Barco
also objects to this request because it is unlimited with respect to any territory, including
territories outside the United States. Barco further objects to this request as irrelevant: it is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 93:
All DOCUMENTS concerning any license, royalty, technology transfer, or
authorization to use agreements entered into by YOU relating in any way to the BARCO
PRODUCTS, whether or not a formal agreement was ever reached.
RESPONSE:
Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 53. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, joint
defense or work product privilege. Barco also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
confidential information belonging to third parties.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 94:
All DOCUMENTS concerning patent licenses or agreements that YOU have entered
into regarding any aspect of semiconductors, including but not limited to, the BARCO CHIPS
and the semiconductors found in the BARCO PRODUCTS.
RESPONSE:
Barco objects on the grounds that this request is at least partially duplicative of Request
for Production No. 62. Barco also objects to this request as overly broad, vague, ambiguous
and unduly burdensome, and also to the extent that it seeks to invade the attorney-client, jointdefense,
or work product privilege. Barco also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
confidential information belonging to third parties. Barco further objects to this request as
irrelevant: it is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information.
Dated: February 7, 2011 BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
By: s/ Edward K. Runyan
Daniel J. O’Connor
Edward K. Runyan
Baker & McKenzie
130 E. Randolph
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Attorneys for Barco, N.V