Free Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAFETY BRAKING CORPORATION, MAGNETAR TECHNOLOGIES CORP., and G&T CONVEYOR CO., Plaintiffs, v. SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC., TIERCO MARYLAND, INC., GREAT AMERICA LLC, KKI, LLC, MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC, PARK MANAGEMENT CORP., RIVERSIDE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., SIX FLAGS OVER GEORGIA II, L.P., SIX FLAGS ST. LOUIS LLC, TEXAS FLAGS, LTD., ASTROWORLD, L.P., DARIEN LAKE THEME PARK AND CAMPING RESORT, INC., ELITCH GARDENS, L.P., BUSCH ENTERTAINMENT CORP., CEDAR FAIR LP, PARAMOUNT PARKS, INC., KNOTT'S BERRY FARM, KINGS ISLAND COMPANY, CEDAR FAIR, UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LTD., UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP, Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-127-***

PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS 1. Plaintiffs Safety Braking Corporation ("Safety Braking"), G&T Conveyor

Co. ("G&T"), and Magnetar Technologies Corporation ("Magnetar"), herein referred to collectively as "Plaintiffs," respectfully apply for the issuance by the Court of two Letters of Request filed concurrently herewith, seeking the assistance of the judicial authorities

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 2 of 7

of Switzerland for purposes of obtaining witness testimony and documents from two Swiss residents. 2. This Application is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, the Hague

Convention of 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, T.I.A.S. 7444, 23 U.S.T. 2555, reprinted in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1781, ("the Hague Convention") and Rules 28 and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Issuance of a Letter of Request under the Hague Convention is the proper

method for seeking testimony and documents of persons residing abroad. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28; Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 788-90 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 4. Plaintiffs seek evidence from Patrick Spieldiener and Walter Bolliger

(collectively referred to herein as "the witnesses"). Each of the witnesses is a Swiss resident. Patrick Spieldiener is the President of Intamin AG ("Intamin"), a company that designs and manufactures amusement rides. Walter Bolliger is President of Bolliger and Mabillard Consulting Engineers, Inc. ("B&M"), a company that designs and manufactures amusement rides. 5. As Presidents of their respective companies, it is expected that the

witnesses have within their possession, custody, or control, documents detailing the design, sale, and manufacturing, of amusement rides to Defendant companies, including several rides that infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,277,125 ("the `125 patent") or U.S. Patent No. 6,659,237 ("the `237 patent"). 6. Plaintiffs anticipate that the testimony and documents requested from the

witnesses will provide necessary information regarding: (1) technical specifications of infringing rides manufactured and sold by Intamin and B&M to Defendants in this

2

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 3 of 7

litigation, (2) financial data for infringing rides manufactured and sold by Intamin and B&M to Defendants in this litigation, (3) possible prior art to one or more patents in this litigation, and (4) reasonable royalty rates for similar patents licensed by Intamin or B&M. 7. Therefore, Plaintiffs request that the Court approve and sign the attached

Letters of Request. Plaintiffs further request that after the Court has signed the Letters of Request, that the Clerk of this Court authenticate the Court's signature under the seal of this Court, and that the Letters of Request be thereafter returned by the Clerk to counsel for Plaintiffs. Counsel will finalize translations of the Letters of Request and promptly cause the Letters of Request to be transmitted to the appropriate judicial authorities in Switzerland, in conformity with Article 2 of the Hague Convention. 8. The undersigned attorneys stand ready to reimburse this Court

and/or the judicial authorities of Switzerland for any expenses incurred in connection with the execution of these Letters of Request. 9. In accordance with Local Rule 7.1.1, counsel for Plaintiffs has conferred

with counsel for Defendants and Defendants have indicated that they will not oppose this Application for Issuance of Letters of Request. ARGUMENT 10. Plaintiffs seek evidence from two Presidents of Swiss companies that

design and manufacture amusement rides, Intamin and B&M. Intamin and B&M, as designers and manufacturers of several infringing amusement rides, have documents and information essential to Plaintiffs' claims and defenses. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek to compel testimony and document production through the Hague Convention.

3

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 4 of 7

I.

THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF REQUEST IS THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING FOREIGN EVIDENCE 11. The Hague Convention requests that signatory nations, such as the United

States and Switzerland, respond to requests from other signatories for evidence related to civil or commercial matters. 23 U.S.T. 2555. Such requests are styled as a Letter of Request. A Letter of Request is directed to the foreign judicial authority in order to enlist the cooperation of the courts of that nation in compelling evidence from witnesses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b). Letters of Request for the examination of witnesses are properly issued pursuant to the Hague Convention when, as here, the information is "significant to the resolution" of the litigation. See DBMS Consultants v. Computer Assocs. Int'l Inc., 131 F.R.D. 367, 369 (D. Mass. 1990). 12. Federal courts have statutory power under 28 U.S.C. § 1781 and also

"inherent" authority to issue letters of request to foreign countries. See United States v. Reagan, 453 F.2d 165, 172 (6th Cir. 1971); see also 28 U.S.C. 1651 ("All Writs Act") and Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b). Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this application and issue the attached proposed Letters of Request. II. PLAINTIFFS REQUIRE FOREIGN EVIDENCE-TAKING TO FULLY AND FAIRLY PRESENT ITS DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS AT TRIAL 13. Plaintiffs' infringement allegations are based on rides that are operated at

amusement parks owned and/or operated by Defendants, that meet all limitations of claims in the `125 patent and the `237 patent. The rides were manufactured by several different companies, including Intamin and B&M. 14. The witnesses are Swiss residents and Presidents of Intamin and B&M.

Intamin and B&M designed, manufactured, and sold amusement rides that infringe

4

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 5 of 7

claims of the `125 patent and the `237 patent. These rides were provided to Defendants for use in amusement parks operated by Defendants. Plaintiffs anticipate that the testimony and documents requested from the witnesses will provide necessary information regarding: (i) the technical design of amusement rides provided to Defendants that infringe the `125 patent and the `237 patent; (ii) the purchase price, cost of design, and cost of production of amusement rides provided to Defendants that infringe the `125 patent and the `237 patent; (iii) identification of possible prior art to the `125 patent and the `237 patent; and (iv) information regarding the past licensing of patents covering similar technology to that claimed in the `125 patent and the `237 patent. 15. The witnesses, as Swiss citizens, are outside the subpoena power of the

United States. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court issue the attached proposed Letters of Request seeking judicial assistance from the appropriate judicial authorities of Switzerland to obtain testimony and documents from the witnesses. III. CONCLUSION 16. The questions and document requests in the attached proposed Letters of

Request are narrowly tailored to obtain relevant testimony and evidence and are necessary in order for Plaintiffs to fully and fairly present their claims and defenses at trial. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this Application and issue the attached Letters of Request to the appropriate Swiss authorities.

5

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 6 of 7

/s/ Geoffrey A. Zelley Francis DiGiovanni (#3189) Geoffrey A. Zelley (#4939) CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9141 Scott R. Miller CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 355 S. Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 787-2500 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dated: October 19, 2007

6

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 19, 2007, I caused to be electronically filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification that such filing is available for viewing and downloading to counsel of record on the Court's CM/ECF registrants for this case. I further certify that on October 19, 2007, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served upon the following in the manner indicated: BY E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Jack B. Blumenfeld Rodger D. Smith II Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 [email protected] [email protected] BY E-MAIL David B. Bassett Amr O. Aly Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 [email protected] [email protected] Paul V. Storm Terrell R. Miller Christopher J. Kling Bank of America Plaza 901 Main Street, Suite 7100 Dallas, TX 75202 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] William F. Lee James B. Lampert Donald R. Steinberg Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 [email protected] [email protected]

/s/ Geoffrey A. Zelley Geoffrey A. Zelley (#4939)

7

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 1 of 86

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAFETY BRAKING CORPORATION, MAGNETAR TECHNOLOGIES CORP., and G&T CONVEYOR CO., Plaintiffs, v. SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC., TIERCO MARYLAND, INC., GREAT AMERICA LLC, KKI, LLC, MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC, PARK MANAGEMENT CORP., RIVERSIDE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., SIX FLAGS OVER GEORGIA II, L.P., SIX FLAGS ST. LOUIS LLC, TEXAS FLAGS, LTD., ASTROWORLD, L.P., DARIEN LAKE THEME PARK AND CAMPING RESORT, INC., ELITCH GARDENS, L.P., BUSCH ENTERTAINMENT CORP., CEDAR FAIR LP, PARAMOUNT PARKS, INC., KNOTT'S BERRY FARM, KINGS ISLAND COMPANY, CEDAR FAIR, UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LTD., UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP, Defendants. Civil Action No. 07-127-***

PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS The United States District Court for the District of Delaware presents its compliments to the judicial authorities of Switzerland and requests assistance in obtaining evidence to be used in civil proceedings before this Court. The request is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, Chapter I of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters ("the Hague Convention"), to which both the United States and the Swiss

1

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 2 of 86

Confederation are parties, the Regulation on Judicial Assistance in Civil Matters (ZRHO) and Rules 28 and 30 of the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, this Court requests assistance in compelling testimony and documents from a witness located in the canton of Schwyz in relation to the above-named action. The Court asserts that the evidence sought is directly relevant and necessary to the issues in dispute. This Request fully complies with Swiss reservations under the Hague Evidence Convention. Trial in this action is scheduled to commence on February 2, 2009. The particulars of this Hague Evidence Request are as follow: 1. Sender Hon. Mary Pat Thynge United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 N. King Street, Room 6100 Wilmington, DE 19801 U.S.A. (CIV NO. 07-127-***) 2. Central Authority of the Requested State: The Federal Justice and Police Department International Judicial and Extrajudicial Assistance Bundesrain 20 3003 Bern Switzerland Tel: 011-41-31-322-4310 Fax: 011-41-31-322-5380 Plaintiffs' U.S. Legal Representative: Francis DiGiovanni Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 U.S.A.

3.

Person to whom the executed request is to be returned

2

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 3 of 86

On behalf of: Hon. Mary Pat Thynge United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 N. King Street, Room 6100 Wilmington, DE 19801 U.S.A. 4. In conformity with Article 3 of the Convention, the undersigned applicant has the honor to submit the following request: 5. Requesting judicial authority: Hon. Mary Pat Thynge United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 N. King Street, Room 6100 Wilmington, DE 19801 U.S.A. The Swiss Confederation

To the competent authority of: 6.

Names and addresses of the parties and their representatives: a. Plaintiffs SAFETY BRAKING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation with offices in California; MAGNETAR TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation with offices in California; G&T CONVEYOR COMPANY, a Florida corporation with offices in Florida and Texas; Plaintiffs' U.S. Legal Representatives: Francis DiGiovanni, Esq. Geoffrey A. Zelley, Esq. CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899

3

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 4 of 86

U.S.A. Tel: 1.302.658.9141 Fax: 1.302.658.5614 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Scott Miller, Esq. CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ 333 S. Grand Avenue Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 U.S.A. Tel: 1.213.787.2500 Fax: 1.213.687.0498 Email: [email protected] b. Defendants SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS, INC., a Delaware corporation with offices in New York; TIERCO MARYLAND, INC. a Delaware corporation; GREAT AMERICA LLC, an Illinois company; KKI, LLC, a Delaware company; MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC, a California company; PARK MANAGEMENT CORP., a California company; RIVERSIDE PARK ENTERPRISES, a Massachusetts company; SIX FLAGS OVER GEORGIA II, L.P., a Delaware partnership; SIX FLAGS ST. LOUIS LLC, a Missouri company; TEXAS FLAGS, LTD., a Texas partnership;

4

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 5 of 86

ASTROWORLD, L.P., a Delaware partnership; DARIEN LAKE THEME PARK AND CAMPING RESORT INC., a New York corporation; ELITCH GARDENS, L.P., a Colorado partnership; CEDAR FAIR LP, a Delaware partnership; PARAMOUNT PARKS, INC., a Delaware corporation; KNOTT'S BERRY FARM, a California partnership; KINGS ISLAND COMPANY, a Delaware company; CEDAR FAIR, an Ohio partnership; UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LTD., a Florida partnership; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLLP, a Delaware partnership; Above-named Defendants' U.S. Legal Representatives: William F. Lee, Esq. James B. Lampert, Esq. Donald R. Steinberg, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 U.S.A. Tel: +1.617.526.6000 Fax: +1.617.526.5000 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

5

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 6 of 86

David B. Bassett, Esq. Amr O. Aly, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 U.S.A. Tel: +1.212.230.8800 Fax: +1.212.230.8888 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq. Rodger D. Smith, II, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT AND TUNNELL LLP 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Tel: +1.302.658.9200 Fax: +1.302.658.3989 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] BUSCH ENTERTAINMENT CORP., a Delaware corporation; Above-named Defendant's U.S. Legal Representatives: Paul V. Storm, Esq. Christopher J. Kling, Esq. Terrell R. Miller, Esq. Storm LLP 901 Main Street Suite 7100 Dallas, TX 75202 U.S.A. Tel: +1.214.347.4700 Fax: +1.214.347.4799 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore

6

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 7 of 86

POTTER ANDERSON AND CORROON LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 U.S.A. Tel: +1.302.984.6000 Fax: +1.302.658.1192 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 7. Nature and purpose of the proceedings and summary of the facts:

PARTIES Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Safety Braking Company ("Safety Braking") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with a place of business in California. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Magnetar Technologies Corporation ("Magnetar") is a Nevada corporation with a place of business in California. Plaintiff/Counterdefendant G&T Conveyor Co. ("G&T") is a Florida corporation with a place of business in Florida. Plaintiffs Safety Braking, Magnetar, and G&T are collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiffs." Defendant/Counterclaimant Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc. ("SFTP") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. Defendant/Counterclaimant Tierco Maryland, Inc. ("Tierco") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. Defendant/Counterclaimant Great America LLC ("Great America") is a company organized and existing under the laws of Illinois. Defendant/Counterclaimant KKI, LLC ("KKI") is a company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. Defendant/Counterclaimant Magic Mountain LLC ("Magic Mountain") is a company organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. Defendant/Counterclaimant Park Management Corporation ("PMC") is a corporation

7

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 8 of 86

organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. Defendant/Counterclaimant Riverside Park Enterprises ("Riverside") is a company organized and existing under the laws of the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Defendant/Counterclaimant Six Flags Over Georgia II, L.P. ("SFOG") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Defendant/Counterclaimant Six Flags St. Louis LLC ("SFSL") is a company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Missouri. Defendant/Counterclaimant Texas Flags, Ltd. ("Texas Flags") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas. Defendant/Counterclaimant Astroworld, L.P. ("Astroworld") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Defendant/Counterclaimant Darien Lake Theme Park and Camping Resort, Inc. ("Darien Lake") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. Defendant/Counterclaimant Elitch Gardens, L.P. ("Elitch Gardens") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Colorado. Defendant/Counterclaimants SFTP, Tierco, Great America, KKI, Magic Mountain, PMC, Riverside, SFOG, SFSL, Texas Flags, Astroworld, Darien Lake, and Elitch Gardens are collectively referred to herein as "Six Flags." Defendant/Counterclaimant Cedar Fair LP ("CFLP") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Defendant/Counterclaimant Paramount Parks, Inc. ("Paramount") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Knott's Berry Farm ("Knott's") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of California. Defendant/Counterclaimant Kings Island Company ("Kings") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

8

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 9 of 86

state of Delaware. Defendant/Counterclaimant Cedar Fair ("CF") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Ohio. Defendant/Counterclaimants CFLP, Paramount, Knott's, Kings, and CF are collectively referred to herein as "Cedar Fair." Defendant/Counterclaimant Universal City Development Partners Ltd. ("UCDP") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Florida. Defendant/Counterclaimant Universal City Studios LLLP ("UCS") is a partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Defendant/Counterclaimants UCDP and UCS are collectively referred to herein as "Universal." Defendant/Counterclaimant Busch Entertainment Corp. ("Busch") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT Plaintiffs initiated a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Defendants Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Universal, and Busch on March 1, 2007, pursuant to the Patent Laws of the United States, 25 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Universal, and Busch have infringed, and continue to infringe, United States Patent Number 5,277,125 ("the `125 patent") (Annex C; Exhibit 1) through Defendants' use for commercial purposes roller coasters and other amusement devices incorporating all of the limitations of at least one claim within the `125 patent. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants Universal and Cedar Fair have infringed, and continue to infringe, United States Patent Number 6,659,237 ("the `237 patent") (Annex C; Exhibit 2) through Universal and Cedar Fair's

9

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 10 of 86

use for commercial purposes roller coasters and other amusement devices incorporating all of the limitations of at least one claim of the `237 patent. Plaintiffs seek a judgment that Defendants Six Flags, Cedar Fair, Universal, and Busch have infringed the `125 patent and that the infringement was deliberate and willful; that Defendants be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling, or importing within the United States all devices incorporating all of the limitations of at least one claim within the `125 patent; for damages; reasonable attorneys fees, and such other relief as the Court deems proper. Plaintiffs further seek a judgment that Defendants Cedar Fair and Universal have infringed the `237 patent and that the infringement was deliberate and willful; that Defendants Cedar Fair and Universal be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling, or importing within the United States all devices incorporating all of the limitations of at least one claim within the `237 patent; for damages; reasonable attorneys fees, and such other relief as the Court deems proper. SIX FLAGS, CEDAR FAIR, AND UNIVERSAL'S DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS In their Answer and Counterclaims, the Defendants denied that any devices used by Six Flags, Cedar Fair, or Universal infringe the `125 patent and assert that the `125 patent is invalid and unenforceable. The Cedar Fair and Universal Defendants denied that any devices used by Cedar Fair infringe the `237 patent and assert that the `237 patent is invalid and unenforceable. Defendants Six Flags, Cedar Fair, and Universal asserted several affirmative defenses, including equitable estoppel, laches, implied or actual contract, incorrect inventorship, and others.

10

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 11 of 86

As Counterclaims, Six Flags, Cedar Fair, and Universal sought dismissal of the Complaint of Plaintiffs; declaration of invalidity for the `125 patent and the `237 patent. Defendants Six Flags, Cedar Fair, and Universal seek a judgment that the `125 patent is invalid and unenforceable; that the `237 patent is invalid and unenforceable; declaration that Defendants Six Flags, Cedar Fair, and Universal have not infringed the `125 patent; declaration that Defendants Cedar Fair and Universal have not infringed the `237 patent; awarding Defendants their costs, including expert fees; and whatever other relief the Court may deem just. BUSCH'S DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS In their Answer and Counterclaims, Busch denied that any devices it used infringed the `125 patent. By way of affirmative defenses, Busch claimed noninfringement of the `125 patent, estoppel based on the prosecution of the `125 patent, failure to mark devices produced with the patent number, invalidity of the `125 patent, laches, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or standing. By way of counterclaims, Busch alleged that that Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants failed to name proper inventors in the `125 patent. Busch seeks for its counterclaims: declaration of invalidity for the `125 patent; declaration of non-infringement of the `125 patent by Busch; declaration that Kwangho Chung should have been named as an inventor of the `125 patent; declaration that Busch owns an interest in the `125 patent; denial of Plaintiffs' requests; attorneys' fees; any other relief the Court deems just. STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS Plaintiffs Safety Braking, Magnetar, and G&T commenced this action on March 1, 2007 when they filed their original Complaint. A First Amended Complaint was filed

11

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 12 of 86

by Plaintiffs on August 9, 2007, naming additional Defendants (named above), and dismissing other Defendants (not named above). Defendants Cedar Fair, Six Flags, and Universal filed their Answer and Counterclaims to that Complaint on August 23, 2007. Defendant Busch separately filed its Answer and Counterclaims on August 23, 2007. Responses to written interrogatories and requests for production of documents have been served by the parties. Trial is scheduled to commence on February 2, 2009. THE WITNESS The witness from whom testimony and documents are sought is Patrick Spieldiener, a Swiss resident, and President of Intamin AG. Intamin AG is a Swiss company that designs, sells, manufactures, and installs amusement rides around the world. Among those rides are several rides operated by Defendants that are believed to infringe either the `125 patent or the `237 patent. Among those rides are El Toro at Six Flags Great Adventure; Superman The Escape at Six Flags Magic Mountain; Wicked Twister at Cedar Point; Steel Venom, formerly located at Geauga Lake; Steel Venom at Valleyfair; Volcano: The Blast Coaster at King's Dominion; Vertical Velocity at Six Flags Great America; Vertical Velocity at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom; Maverick at Cedar Point; Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point; Xcelerator at Knott's Berry Farm; Kingda Ka at Six Flags Great Adventure; Millennium Force at Cedar Point; Superman Ride of Steel, located at Six Flags New England, Six Flags America, and Darien Lake Theme Park; Drop Zone Stunt Tower, located at King's Dominion, Carrowinds, and Great America; Drop Zone at King's Island; Tower of Doom, located at Six Flags America and Elitch Gardens; Superman Tower of Power, located at Six Flags Kentucky

12

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 13 of 86

Kingdom and Six Flags St. Louis, and formerly located at Astroworld; Giant Drop at Six Flags Great America; and Acrophobia at Six Flags Over Georgia. In addition to designing, manufacturing, selling, and installing amusement rides, Intamin AG is the assignee on numerous patents covering developments in the technology of amusement rides, including but not limited to the application of eddy current brakes in place of, or in supplement to, mechanical brakes. Upon information and belief, Intamin has, in the past, and does, currently, enter into negotiations concerning the possible licensing of the technology claimed in those patents. Should Patrick Spieldiener be unable to furnish the information sought in this request, or should he be unable to attend and give his testimony, Intamin may name anyone knowledgeable about the requested subject matter to speak in his place, subject to the agreement of the parties in this litigation. RELEVANCE OF THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT Plaintiffs in this case have alleged infringement of the `125 patent and the `237 patent by the Defendants named above. Both patents claim the technology used in certain applications of eddy currents for the purposes of stopping a car mounted on a rail. It is alleged that Defendants infringe one or more of the patents by way of operating for profit amusement rides incorporating eddy current brakes containing all limitations present in particular claims of the `125 patent and the `237 patent. As manufacturer of several of the alleged infringing devices, it is expected that Intamin AG would have within its possession documents and information regarding the technical specifications of the braking systems used in those amusement devices. Any documents would include, but not be limited to, technical or design drawings, project

13

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 14 of 86

summaries, plans, notes, purchase agreements, documents relating to contractual negotiations as well as finalized contracts, installation plans, manufacturing plans, budgets, and research and design documentation. All of these documents may be necessary for Plaintiffs to be able to prove infringement of the `125 patent or the `237 patent by one or more devices operated by Defendants and designed and manufactured by Intamin AG. Additionally, in light of Intamin AG's experience in the field, it is expected that Intamin AG would have documents and information within its possession relating to past and ongoing licensing negotiations of patents that cover inventions within the same field of technology, namely eddy current braking devices for amusement rides. Such documents would include but not be limited to e-mail or other communications, documents pertaining to contractual negotiations and the resulting contracts, and allegations of infringement. This information may be necessary for Plaintiffs to be able to prove damages in the form of a reasonable royalty should infringement be established in the litigation. Plaintiffs assert that facts within the possession of Patrick Spieldiener, or whomever else may be designated by Intamin AG at the approval of parties to this litigation, will establish: (1) one or more amusement rides designed, manufactured, and sold by Intamin AG and operated by one or more Defendant in this litigation contained all of the claim limitations for particular claims of the `125 patent and/or the `237 patent, (2) that Intamin AG has in the past negotiated licenses of patents assigned to Intamin AG covering similar or the same area of technology as the `125 patent and/or the `237 patent, and (3) that Intamin AG is still in the process of negotiating licenses of patents assigned

14

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 15 of 86

to Intamin AG covering similar or the same area of technology as the `125 patent and/or the `237 patent. The District Court asserts that the facts surrounding Intamin's design and manufacturing of particular amusement rides, and Intamin's past and current negotiations to license patents in similar areas of technology to the `125 patent and the `237 patent, are essential to Plaintiffs' ability to fully set forth their claims and defenses at trial. Justice cannot be completely served without Patrick Spieldiener's testimony (or the testimony of someone appointed by Intamin AG competent to provide information in the stated areas, at the agreement of all parties to the litigation). 8. Evidence to be obtained or other judicial act to be performed: The District Court seeks both oral testimony and document production from the witness. The District Court further requests that the documents produced by the witness be made available for inspection and copying by the parties at least two weeks prior to the oral examination so that counsel may have an opportunity to supplement the questions to be put to the witness based on information disclosed in the documents. For the reasons set forth above, the District Court believes that the witness will be able to provide evidence directly relevant to the main issues between the parties and without which the ends of justice could not be properly met. The District Court believes that this evidence is not available from any other source. Questions to be put to Patrick Spieldiener are listed as Annex A. Documents sought for production are listed as Annex B. Documents supporting this Request and for use during the witness examination are attached as Annex C. 9. Identities and addresses of persons Patrick Spieldiener to be examined: c/o Intamin AG

15

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 16 of 86

Veranastrasse 37 P.O. Box 95 CH-8832 Wollerau Switzerland 10. Questions to be put to the persons Please see attached list (Annex A). to be examined or statement of the subject matter about which they are to be examined: Documents or other property to be Please see attached list (Annex B). inspected: Any requirement that the evidence The witness should be examined under be given on oath or affirmation oath or affirmation, or in the alternative, and any specific form to be used: should be instructed of the consequences for the giving of untruthful and false answers under the laws of Switzerland. Special methods or procedure to be followed: The District Court requests (1) that the parties' representatives or their designees, interpreters, and a U.S. verbatim court reporter as well as a Swiss stenographer be permitted to attend and participate in the examination; (2) that the parties' legal representatives or their designees be permitted to submit additional questions to the witness following responses to the questions attached hereto in Annex A; (3) that the interpreters be permitted to assist with the witness examination, at Plaintiffs' expense; (4) that a U.S. court reporter be permitted to record verbatim the witness examination at Plaintiffs' expense; and (5) that the Swiss court ensure that any documents produced are authenticated in accordance with its normal practice and procedures.

11. 12.

13.

16

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 17 of 86

The District Court additionally requests that the confidentiality of any evidence produced as a result of this Request be maintained pursuant to the laws of Switzerland. Finally, in conformity with Article 7 of the Hague Evidence Convention, the U.S. District Court requests that the Plaintiffs' designee in the United States, Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP (see contact information above), be advised of the date and location of the Swiss hearing to execute this Request. Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP may also be contacted if the Swiss authorities require clarification with respect to any aspect of this Request. 14. Request for notification of the times It is requested that testimony be taken at and place for the execution of the such place, date or time as ordered by the Request and identity of the person Swiss Court or as otherwise agreed to by to be notified: the witness and the respective representatives of the Parties. When the time and place for execution of This request is ordered by the Swiss Court, It is requested that you provide notice Thereof to: Plaintiffs' U.S. designee: Francis DiGiovanni CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 1007 N. Orange St. PO Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 U.S.A. Tel: +1.302.658.9141 Fax: +1.302.658.5614 Email: [email protected] 16. Specification of privilege or duty to The witness may refuse to answer any refuse to give evidence under the question propounded pursuant to Section 13 laws of the State of origin: above if such answer (1) would subject the witness to a real and appreciable danger of criminal liability in the United States, or (2) would disclose a confidential

17

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 18 of 86

communication between the witness and his attorney. 17. The fees and costs incurred which Plaintiff Safety Braking Corporation are reimbursable under the second paragraph of Article 14 or under c/o Plaintiffs' legal representative: Article 26 of the Convention will be Borne by: Francis DiGiovanni, Esq. Geoffrey A. Zelley, Esq. CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 1007 N. Orange St. P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 U.S.A. Tel: +1.302.658.9141 Fax: +1.302.658.5614 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Scott R. Miller, Esq. CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 U.S.A. Tel: +1.213.787.2500 Fax: +1.213.687.0498 Email: [email protected] 18. 19. Date of Request: ______________________________

Signature and seal of the Requesting Authority: _______________________________ Hon. Mary Pat Thynge United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 N. King Street, Room 6100 Wilmington, DE 19801 U.S.A.

18

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 19 of 86

Annex A: Questions to be put to Patrick Spieldiener (in English and in German) Annex B: Documents Sought for Production (in English and in German) Annex C: Documents to be Used During Witness Examination/Documents Supporting this Request (in English and German)

19

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 20 of 86

ANNEX A Questions to be put to Patrick Spieldiener Background Statement regarding questions to be put to the witness: Plaintiffs assert that several amusement rides designed and manufactured by Intamin AG ("Intamin"), and operated by Defendants, infringe at least one claim of the `125 patent and the `237 patent, as listed in the Request, item 7. Each of these rides, it is alleged, contain all of the limitations of at least one claim in the `125 patent and/or the `237 patent. Patrick Spieldiener is the President of Intamin, and as such, it is believed that he has direct knowledge, or at least has the ability to obtain direct knowledge, of the technical specifications of each of these rides, as well as their purchase prices and any contractual negotiations with Defendants. The testimony of Patrick Spieldiener may be necessary for the Plaintiffs to prove infringement of the `125 patent and/or the `237 patent by the Defendants. Further, Plaintiffs assert that Intamin is assignee of several patents relevant to the subject matter of the present case. Plaintiffs further assert that Intamin has in the past, and continues to this day, to license those patents. As President of Intamin, it is expected that Patrick Spieldiener would have knowledge of, or at least have access to knowledge of, any licensing negotiations entered into by Intamin regarding patents in the same area of technology, including but not limited to patents claiming eddy current brakes for use in amusement rides. The testimony of Patrick Spieldiener is necessary for the Plaintiffs to determine a reasonable royalty rate for infringement of the `125 patent and the `237 patent Questions to establish background and foundational information regarding witness:

20

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 21 of 86

1. Please state your full name 2. Please state your home address. 3. Please state your date of birth. 4. Are you currently employed by Intamin? 5. Please state Intamin's address. 6. How long have you been employed by Intamin? 7. What positions or titles have you held at Intamin? 8. Please state your job responsibilities for each position or title held at Intamin. 9. In what group or department within Intamin did you hold each position? 10. During what time period did you hold each position? 11. As President of Intamin, what are your duties? 12. Do you have knowledge of all roller coasters or other amusement rides designed and manufactured by Intamin?

a. Questions to establish knowledge of rides designed and manufactured by Intamin, currently operated by Defendants: 13. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of El Toro at Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, New Jersey? 14. Did Intamin design El Toro? 15. Did Intamin manufacture El Toro? 16. Did Intamin install El Toro? 17. Did Intamin sell El Toro?

21

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 22 of 86

18. To whom was El Toro sold? 19. When did Intamin begin design of El Toro? 20. When was El Toro manufactured? 21. When was El Toro sold? 22. When was El Toro installed? 23. What was the total contract cost for El Toro? 24. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 25. Does El Toro contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 26. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 27. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 28. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of El Toro? 29. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 30. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 31. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 32. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 33. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 34. Does the ride contain cars? 35. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 36. Do the cars have wheels?

22

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 23 of 86

37. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 38. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman The Escape at Six Flags Magic Mountain? 39. Did Intamin design Superman The Escape? 40. Did Intamin manufacture Superman The Escape? 41. Did Intamin install Superman The Escape? 42. Did Intamin sell Superman The Escape? 43. To whom was Superman The Escape sold? 44. When did Intamin begin design of Superman The Escape? 45. When was Superman The Escape manufactured? 46. When was Superman The Escape sold? 47. When was Superman The Escape installed? 48. What was the total contract cost for Superman The Escape? 49. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 50. Does Superman The Escape contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 51. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 52. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 53. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Superman The Escape? 54. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car?

23

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 24 of 86

55. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 56. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 57. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 58. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 59. Does the ride contain cars? 60. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 61. Do the cars have wheels? 62. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 63. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Wicked Twister at Cedar Point? 64. Did Intamin design Wicked Twister? 65. Did Intamin manufacture Wicked Twister? 66. Did Intamin install Wicked Twister? 67. Did Intamin sell Wicked Twister? 68. To whom was Wicked Twister sold? 69. When did Intamin begin design of Wicked Twister? 70. When was Wicked Twister manufactured? 71. When was Wicked Twister sold? 72. When was Wicked Twister installed? 73. What was the total contract cost for Wicked Twister?

24

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 25 of 86

74. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 75. Does Wicked Twister contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 76. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 77. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 78. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Wicked Twister? 79. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 80. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 81. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 82. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 83. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 84. Does the ride contain cars? 85. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 86. Do the cars have wheels? 87. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 88. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Steel Venom, formerly located at Geauga Lake? 89. Did Intamin design Steel Venom? 90. Did Intamin manufacture Steel Venom?

25

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 26 of 86

91. Did Intamin install Steel Venom? 92. Did Intamin sell Steel Venom? 93. To whom was Steel Venom sold? 94. When did Intamin begin design of Steel Venom? 95. When was Steel Venom manufactured? 96. When was Steel Venom sold? 97. When was Steel Venom installed? 98. What was the total contract cost for Steel Venom? 99. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 100. ride? 101. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride Does Steel Venom contain braking systems designed to slow the

through the use of permanent magnets? 102. 103. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Steel Venom? 104. 105. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 106. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 107. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents?

26

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 27 of 86

108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113.

Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Steel Venom at

Valleyfair? 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. ride? 126. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride Did Intamin design Steel Venom? Did Intamin manufacture Steel Venom? Did Intamin install Steel Venom? Did Intamin sell Steel Venom? To whom was Steel Venom sold? When did Intamin begin design of Steel Venom? When was Steel Venom manufactured? When was Steel Venom sold? When was Steel Venom installed? What was the total contract cost for Steel Venom? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Steel Venom contain braking systems designed to slow the

through the use of permanent magnets? 127. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays?

27

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 28 of 86

128.

Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Steel Venom? 129. 130. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 131. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 132. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Volcano: The

Blast Coaster at King's Dominion? 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. Did Intamin design Volcano: The Blast Coaster? Did Intamin manufacture Volcano: The Blast Coaster? Did Intamin install Volcano: The Blast Coaster? Did Intamin sell Volcano: The Blast Coaster? To whom was Volcano: The Blast Coaster sold? When did Intamin begin design of Volcano: The Blast Coaster? When was Volcano: The Blast Coaster manufactured?

28

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 29 of 86

146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

When was Volcano: The Blast Coaster sold? When was Volcano: The Blast Coaster installed? What was the total contract cost for Volcano: The Blast Coaster? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Volcano: The Blast Coaster contain braking systems

designed to slow the ride? 151. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 152. 153. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Volcano: The Blast Coaster? 154. 155. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 156. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 157. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails?

29

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 30 of 86

163.

Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Vertical Velocity

at Six Flags Great America? 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. Did Intamin design Vertical Velocity? Did Intamin manufacture Vertical Velocity? Did Intamin install Vertical Velocity? Did Intamin sell Vertical Velocity? To whom was Vertical Velocity sold? When did Intamin begin design of Vertical Velocity? When was Vertical Velocity manufactured? When was Vertical Velocity sold? When was Vertical Velocity installed? What was the total contract cost for Vertical Velocity? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Vertical Velocity contain braking systems designed to slow

the ride? 176. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 177. 178. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Vertical Velocity? 179. 180. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride?

30

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 31 of 86

181.

When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 182. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Vertical Velocity

at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom? 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. Did Intamin design Vertical Velocity? Did Intamin manufacture Vertical Velocity? Did Intamin install Vertical Velocity? Did Intamin sell Vertical Velocity? To whom was Vertical Velocity sold? When did Intamin begin design of Vertical Velocity? When was Vertical Velocity manufactured? When was Vertical Velocity sold? When was Vertical Velocity installed? What was the total contract cost for Vertical Velocity? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems?

31

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 32 of 86

200.

Does Vertical Velocity contain braking systems designed to slow

the ride? 201. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 202. 203. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Vertical Velocity? 204. 205. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 206. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 207. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Maverick at

Cedar Point? 214. 215. Did Intamin design Maverick? Did Intamin manufacture Maverick?

32

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 33 of 86

216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226.

Did Intamin install Maverick? Did Intamin sell Maverick? To whom was Maverick sold? When did Intamin begin design of Maverick? When was Maverick manufactured? When was Maverick sold? When was Maverick installed? What was the total contract cost for Maverick? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Maverick contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 227. 228. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Maverick? 229. 230. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 231. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 232. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 233. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride?

33

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 34 of 86

234. 235. 236. 237. 238.

Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Top Thrill

Dragster at Cedar Point? 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. Did Intamin design Top Thrill Dragster? Did Intamin manufacture Top Thrill Dragster? Did Intamin install Top Thrill Dragster? Did Intamin sell Top Thrill Dragster? To whom was Top Thrill Dragster sold? When did Intamin begin design of Top Thrill Dragster? When was Top Thrill Dragster manufactured? When was Top Thrill Dragster sold? When was Top Thrill Dragster installed? What was the total contract cost for Top Thrill Dragster? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Top Thrill Dragster contain braking systems designed to

slow the ride? 251. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 252. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays?

34

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 35 of 86

253.

Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Top

Thrill Dragster? 254. 255. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 256. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 257. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 258. 259. 260. 261. 262. 263. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Xcelerator at

Knott's Berry Farm? 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. Did Intamin design Xcelerator? Did Intamin manufacture Xcelerator? Did Intamin install Xcelerator? Did Intamin sell Xcelerator? To whom was Xcelerator sold? When did Intamin begin design of Xcelerator? When was Xcelerator manufactured?

35

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 36 of 86

271. 272. 273. 274. 275. ride? 276.

When was Xcelerator sold? When was Xcelerator installed? What was the total contract cost for Xcelerator? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Xcelerator contain braking systems designed to slow the

Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 277. 278. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Xcelerator? 279. 280. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 281. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 282. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails?

36

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 37 of 86

288.

Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Kingda Ka at Six

Flags Great Adventure? 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. ride? 301. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride Did Intamin design Kingda Ka? Did Intamin manufacture Kingda Ka? Did Intamin install Kingda Ka? Did Intamin sell Kingda Ka? To whom was Kingda Ka sold? When did Intamin begin design of Kingda Ka? When was Kingda Ka manufactured? When was Kingda Ka sold? When was Kingda Ka installed? What was the total contract cost for Kingda Ka? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Kingda Ka contain braking systems designed to slow the

through the use of permanent magnets? 302. 303. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Kingda Ka? 304. 305. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride?

37

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 38 of 86

306.

When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 307. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Millennium

Force at Cedar Point? 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. Did Intamin design Millennium Force? Did Intamin manufacture Millennium Force? Did Intamin install Millennium Force? Did Intamin sell Millennium Force? To whom was Millennium Force sold? When did Intamin begin design of Millennium Force? When was Millennium Force manufactured? When was Millennium Force sold? When was Millennium Force installed? What was the total contract cost for Millennium Force? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems?

38

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 39 of 86

325.

Does Millennium Force contain braking systems designed to slow

the ride? 326. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 327. 328. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Millennium Force? 329. 330. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 331. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 332. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Ride

of Steel at Six Flags New England? 339. 340. Did Intamin design Superman Ride of Steel? Did Intamin manufacture Superman Ride of Steel?

39

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 40 of 86

341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350.

Did Intamin install Superman Ride of Steel? Did Intamin sell Superman Ride of Steel? To whom was Superman Ride of Steel sold? When did Intamin begin design of Superman Ride of Steel? When was Superman Ride of Steel manufactured? When was Superman Ride of Steel sold? When was Superman Ride of Steel installed? What was the total contract cost for Superman Ride of Steel? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Superman Ride of Steel contain braking systems designed to

slow the ride? 351. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 352. 353. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Superman Ride of Steel? 354. 355. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 356. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 357. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents?

40

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 41 of 86

358. 359. 360. 361. 362. 363.

Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Ride

of Steel at Six Flags America? 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371. 372. 373. 374. 375. Did Intamin design Superman Ride of Steel? Did Intamin manufacture Superman Ride of Steel? Did Intamin install Superman Ride of Steel? Did Intamin sell Superman Ride of Steel? To whom was Superman Ride of Steel sold? When did Intamin begin design of Superman Ride of Steel? When was Superman Ride of Steel manufactured? When was Superman Ride of Steel sold? When was Superman Ride of Steel installed? What was the total contract cost for Superman Ride of Steel? What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Does Superman Ride of Steel contain braking systems designed to

slow the ride? 376. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride

through the use of permanent magnets? 377. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays?

41

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed 10/19/2007

Page 42 of 86

378.

Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of

Superman Ride of Steel? 379. 380. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the

tracks of the ride? 381. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive

metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 382. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the

arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? Does the ride contain cars? Do the cars sit on parallel rails? Do the cars have wheels? Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Ride

of Steel at Darien Lake Theme Park? 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. Did Intamin design Superman Ride of Steel? Did Intamin manufacture Superman Ride of Steel? Did Intamin install Superman Ride of Steel? Did Intamin sell Superman Ride of Steel? To whom was Superman Ride of Steel sold? When did Intamin begin design of Superman Ride of Steel? When was Superman Ride of Steel manufactured?

42

Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF

Document 71-4

Filed