Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 1 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 2 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 3 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 4 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 5 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 6 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 7 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 8 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 9 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 10 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 11 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 12 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 13 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 14 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 15 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 16 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 17 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 18 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 19 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 20 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 21 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 22 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 23 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 24 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 25 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 26 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 27 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 28 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 29 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 30 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 31 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 32 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 33 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 34 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 35 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 36 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 37 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 38 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 39 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 40 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 41 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 42 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 43 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 44 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 45 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 46 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 47 of 145

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06-788-JJF

NOTICE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 12th day of April, 2007, PLAINTIFF PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FROM DEFENDANT FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. (Nos. 1-117) was served upon the following counsel of record at the address and in the manner indicated:

Mary B. Graham, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Jason W. Cook, Esquire Jones Day 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201-1515 Kevin P. Ferguson, Esquire Jones Day 77 West Wacker Chicago, IL 60601-1692 F. Drexel Feeling, Esquire Jones Day North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114-1190

HAND DELIVERY

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 48 of 145

ASHBY & GEDDES /s/ Lauren E. Maguire Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114) John G. Day (I.D. #2403) Lauren E. Maguire (I.D. #4261) 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 Facsimile: (302) 654-2067 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff ProMOS Technologies, Inc. Of Counsel: Steven J. Routh Sten A. Jensen HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 William H. Wright HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 Dated: April 12, 2007
177270.1

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 49 of 145

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 12th day of April, 2007, the attached NOTICE OF SERVICE was served upon the below-named counsel of record at the address and in the manner indicated: Mary B. Graham, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Jason W. Cook, Esquire Jones Day 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201-1515 Kevin P. Ferguson, Esquire Jones Day 77 West Wacker Chicago, IL 60601-1692 F. Drexel Feeling, Esquire Jones Day North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114-1190 HAND DELIVERY

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

/s/ Lauren E. Maguire __________________________ Lauren E. Maguire

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:ded Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 1 of 1 Page 50 of 145

Discovery Documents
1:06-cv-00788-JJF Promos Technologies Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor Inc. PATENT

U.S. District Court District of Delaware Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Maguire, Lauren on 4/12/2007 at 12:33 PM EDT and filed on 4/12/2007 Promos Technologies Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor Inc. Case Name: 1:06-cv-788 Case Number: Promos Technologies Inc. Filer: Document Number: 13 Docket Text: NOTICE OF SERVICE of First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things From Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Nos. 1-117) by Promos Technologies Inc..(Maguire, Lauren)

1:06-cv-788 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Steven J. Balick [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] John G. Day [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Mary B. Graham [email protected], [email protected]

1:06-cv-788 Notice has been delivered by other means to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1079733196 [Date=4/12/2007] [FileNumber=371463-0] [acbbc4b7c0f3a0515c74f3c0fb52d6c79b9d44fb2c95ab00ddc61e2aaa9c018ef8dd 8650c9e18262136e92d84362e5a068e50e5dd2348c96a15d098a662514d2]]

https://ecf.ded.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?611556917981183

4/12/2007

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 51 of 145

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 52 of 145

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06-788 (JJF)

DEFENDANT FREESCALE'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FROM DEFENDANT FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. (NOS. 1-117) Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. ("Freescale") responds as follows to Plaintiff ProMOS Technologies, Inc.'s First Set Of Requests For Production Of Documents And Things From Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Nos. 1-117), served by ProMOS Technologies, Inc. ("ProMOS") on April 12, 2007. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Freescale objects to these document requests as premature, overly broad,

unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products, the identity of the asserted claims, and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with relevant information. Where appropriate, Freescale will supplement its responses within a reasonable time frame upon receiving sufficient information from ProMOS regarding its allegations to allow Freescale to

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 53 of 145

respond meaningfully thereto.

In this regard, Freescale acknowledges that it just received

ProMOS's interrogatory responses that purport to contain some of the missing information identified above, and Freescale is in the process of evaluating those responses. 2. Freescale's Specific Objections to each document request are in addition

to the General Objections set forth in this section. These General Objections form a part of the response to each and every document request and are set forth here to avoid the duplication and repetition of restating them for each response. The absence of a reference to a General Objection in each response to a particular document request does not constitute a waiver of any General Objection with respect to that document request. All responses are made subject to and without waiver of Freescale's General and Specific Objections. By making a Specific Objection to a particular document request, Freescale does not imply that that Specific Objection is not applicable in response to any other document request, nor that the General Objections are not applicable to that document request. A statement in these responses that responsive documents will be produced should not be taken to mean that any such documents actually exist, but only that, if they exist and can be located through a reasonable search of Freescale's records, they will be produced. Any documents to be produced will be produced for review at a mutually

agreeable and convenient time and place. 3. A partial answer to any document request which has been objected to in

whole or in part is not a waiver of the objection. By asserting various objections, Freescale does not waive other objections that may become applicable. 4. Freescale objects to these document requests to the extent they request

information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, law, rule, or immunity. Should any response by Freescale

-2-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 54 of 145

include such privileged or protected information, such disclosure is inadvertent and shall not constitute a waiver of any applicable privilege or immunity, of any other ground for objecting to discovery with respect to such response, or of Freescale's right to object during this litigation or otherwise to the use of such response. 5. Freescale objects to these document requests to the extent they are

inconsistent with, enlarge upon, or exceed the scope of discovery permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of the District of Delaware, or the parties' proposed Rule 16 Scheduling Order submitted to the Court on May 4, 2007. Freescale also objects to these document requests to the extent they are contrary to or inconsistent with any Court order in this litigation. 6. Freescale objects to these document requests to the extent they seek

information not relevant to any issue in this case and to the extent they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7. Freescale objects to these document requests as overly broad and unduly

burdensome to the extent they purport to require production of information, documents, or things not in the possession, custody, or control of Freescale. 8. Freescale objects to these document requests to the extent they seek

information obtainable from some other source (including, but not limited to, a public source) that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. 9. Freescale objects to these document requests to the extent they seek

information and documents obtained by Freescale from a third party pursuant to a nondisclosure and/or confidentiality agreement the terms of which prohibit Freescale from disclosing,

-3-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 55 of 145

producing, revealing, and/or divulging such information and documents to any other party, including ProMOS. 10. Freescale objects to these document requests to the extent they

prematurely seek information or opinions to be provided by expert witnesses. 11. Freescale's responses to these document requests are made without in any

way waiving (a) the right to object to the use of any information, documents, or things provided herein as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in this action or any other action on the grounds of competency, relevancy, materiality, privilege, or other grounds of admissibility; and (b) the right to object on any ground to other discovery requests involving or relating to the subject matter of these document requests. Furthermore, Freescale is providing responses herein in an effort to expedite discovery in this action and not as an indication or admission by Freescale of the relevancy, materiality, or admissibility thereof, and Freescale hereby reserves all objections to Plaintiff's use of such responses. 12. Freescale objects to the definition of "Freescale" as set forth in paragraph

2 of the definitions set forth in ProMOS's First Set of Document Requests to the extent it purports to impose discovery obligations on persons or entities other than the parties to this lawsuit. Subject to and without waiving its objection to this definition, Freescale will respond to a request for production using any such defined term by diligently conducting its investigation and responding to discovery in light of those persons affiliated with Freescale during the relevant time period who are likely to have information relevant to the subject matter of this action, but without assuming any obligation to determine all of the information required under ProMOS's definition.

-4-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 56 of 145

13.

Freescale objects to these document requests to the extent they purport to

require Freescale to produce and/or identify "all" documents relating to a specific or general subject to the extent that these document requests are overly broad, unduly burdensome, purport to require Freescale to interview all of its employees and search all of its files worldwide, and seek information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Freescale will make a reasonable inquiry of those employees whom, and a reasonable search of those files which, it reasonably believes may provide relevant, responsive, and non-duplicative information and documents. 14. Freescale's responses hereto are based on Freescale's present knowledge,

information, and belief. As discovery and Freescale's investigation are ongoing, Freescale reserves the right to supplement these responses. 15. Freescale repeats and incorporates herein the General Objections included

in Defendant Freescale's Response To Plaintiff ProMOS Technologies, Inc.'s First Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Nos. 1-14). REQUEST NO. 1: All documents identified, requested to be identified, relied upon, reviewed, or consulted in responding to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request.

-5-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 57 of 145

REQUEST NO. 2: All written policies, procedures and guidelines related to Freescale's computers, computer systems, electronic data and electronic media that hold, contain, save, or manage documents, including, but not limited to, (a) back up tape rotation schedules; (b) electronic data retention, preservation and destruction schedules; (c) employee use of company computers and data; (d) file naming conventions and standards; (e) diskette, CD, DVD, and other removable media labeling standards; and (e) e-mail storage (i.e., limitations on mailbox sizes and storage locations.) RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it requests documents regarding "all written policies, procedures and guidelines" and "employee use of computers and data." Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 3: Documents sufficient to show your document retention and/or destruction policies and/or practices from 2000 to the present. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request to the extent such documents relate to the documents at issue in this lawsuit.

-6-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 58 of 145

REQUEST NO. 4: Organizational charts for all of your Information Technology-related or Information Servicesrelated departments or divisions. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it requires this information for "all of your Information Technologyrelated or Information Services-related departments or divisions" and is not directed to identifying relevant Freescale personnel and business operations. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 5: Documents sufficient to show your past and present organizational and operational structure, including all divisions or subsidiaries, entities owned or controlled by Freescale, affiliates, predecessors or successors in interest, whether in the United States, or anywhere else in the world, and the identity of the officers and managers of each such entity. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it requires this information for all of Freescale "anywhere...in the world" and is not directed to identifying relevant Freescale personnel and business operations. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request.

-7-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 59 of 145

REQUEST NO. 6: All documents that identify present employees, past employees, consultants and contract employees, whether full or part time, whose responsibilities or assignment include work relating to the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of each Freescale Product, including but not limited to, organizational charts and telephone or email directories. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. REQUEST NO. 7: All documents that identify present employees, past employees, consultants, and contract employees, whether full or part time, whose responsibilities or assignment include work relating to the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of each cache memory used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product, including but not limited to, organizational charts and telephone or email directories.

-8-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 60 of 145

RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 6. REQUEST NO. 8: All documents that identify present employees, past employees, consultants, and contract employees, whether full or part time, whose responsibilities or assignment include work relating to the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of any register(s) used in writing, reading, buffering or accessing data from or to each cache memory used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product, including but not limited to, organizational charts and telephone or email directories. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation

-9-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 61 of 145

of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 6. REQUEST NO. 9: All documents that identify present employees, past employees, consultants, and contract employees, whether full or part time, whose responsibilities or assignment include work relating to the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of each cache controller used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product, including but not limited to, organizational charts and telephone or email directories. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of - 10 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 62 of 145

infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 6. REQUEST NO. 10: All documents that identify present employees, past employees, consultants, and contract employees, whether full or part time, whose responsibilities or assignment include work relating to the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of each process for forming conductors that include a layer of tungsten overlying a layer of titanium nitride used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product, including but not limited to, organizational charts and telephone or email directories. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by

- 11 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 63 of 145

the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 6. REQUEST NO. 11: Documents sufficient to identify, describe, illustrate, or depict names and/or functions of subsidiaries, departments, or divisions that were involved in any manner in the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of any Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 12: Documents sufficient to identify, describe, illustrate, or depict names and/or functions of subsidiaries, departments, or divisions that were involved in any manner in the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of each cache memory used with, incorporated in or relied on by any Freescale Product.

- 12 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 64 of 145

RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 11. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 13: Documents sufficient to identify, describe, illustrate, or depict names and/or functions of subsidiaries, departments, or divisions that were involved in any manner in the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of any register(s) used in writing, reading, buffering or accessing data from or to each cache memory used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information - 13 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 65 of 145

regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 11. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 14: Documents sufficient to identify, describe, illustrate, or depict names and/or functions of subsidiaries, departments, or divisions that were involved in any manner in the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of each cache controller used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003. Freescale objects to

- 14 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 66 of 145

this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 11. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 15: Documents sufficient to identify, describe, illustrate, or depict names and/or functions of subsidiaries, departments, or divisions that were involved in any manner in the conception, design, development, manufacture, analysis, testing, marketing, sales or repair of each process for forming conductors that include a layer of tungsten overlying a layer of titanium nitride used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 11. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request. - 15 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 67 of 145

REQUEST NO. 16: All documents relating to third parties contracted, consulted, hired and/or retained that worked with Freescale or worked with another third party on Freescale's behalf on the conception, design, development, implementation, testing and manufacturing of each version of each model of Freescale Product, including but not limited to, contracts, contract proposals, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), solicitations, queries, investigations, and capability studies. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests documents not in Freescale's possession, custody, or control. REQUEST NO. 17: All documents relating to third parties contracted, consulted, hired and/or retained that worked with Freescale or worked with another third party on Freescale's behalf on the conception, design, development, implementation, testing and manufacturing of each version of each cache memory used with, incorporated in or relied on by any Freescale Product, including but not limited to, contracts, contract proposals, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), solicitations, queries, investigations, and capability studies.

- 16 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 68 of 145

RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests documents not in Freescale's possession, custody, or control. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 16. REQUEST NO. 18: All documents relating to third parties contracted, consulted, hired and/or retained that worked with Freescale or worked with another third party on Freescale's behalf on the conception, design, development, implementation, testing and manufacturing of each version of each register(s) used in writing, reading, buffering or accessing data from or to each cache memory used with, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product, including but not limited to, contracts, contract proposals, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), solicitations, queries, investigations, and capability studies. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information - 17 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 69 of 145

concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests documents not in Freescale's possession, custody, or control. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 16. REQUEST NO. 19: All documents relating to third parties contracted, consulted, hired and/or retained that worked with Freescale or worked with another third party on Freescale's behalf on the conception, design, development, implementation, testing and manufacturing of each version of each cache controller used with, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product, including but not limited to, contracts, contract proposals, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), solicitations, queries, investigations, and capability studies. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly

- 18 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 70 of 145

burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Products" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests documents not in Freescale's possession, custody, or control. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 16. REQUEST NO. 20: All documents relating to third parties contracted, consulted, hired and/or retained that worked with Freescale or worked with another third party on Freescale's behalf on the conception, design, development, implementation, testing and manufacturing of each version of each process for forming conductors that include a layer of tungsten overlying a layer of titanium nitride used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product, including but not limited to, contracts, contract proposals, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), solicitations, queries, investigations, and capability studies. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of - 19 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 71 of 145

infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it requests documents not in Freescale's possession, custody, or control. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 16. REQUEST NO. 21: Your annual reports, prospectuses, proxy statements from Form 10-K and Form 10-Q reports for the years 2000 to present. RESPONSE: In addition to its General objections, Freescale objects to this document request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Freescale objects to this request as unduly burdensome to the extent that the requested information is publicly available and could be obtained by ProMOS just as easily as Freescale. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will produce non-privileged documents in its possession responsive to this request. REQUEST NO. 22: All documents relating to design reviews and design review meetings, including but not limited to, all notes, minutes, reports, action item lists and management summaries, relating to each version of each model of Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information

- 20 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 72 of 145

concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. REQUEST NO. 23: All documents relating to design reviews and design review meetings, including but not limited to, all notes, minutes, reports, action item lists and management summaries, relating to each version of each cache memory used with, incorporated in or relied on by any Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter - 21 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 73 of 145

of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 22. REQUEST NO. 24: All documents relating to design reviews and design review meetings, including but not limited to, all notes, minutes, reports, action item lists and management summaries, relating to each version of each register(s) used in writing, reading, buffering and accessing data from or to each cache memory used with, incorporated in or relied on by Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 22. REQUEST NO. 25: All documents relating to design reviews and design review meetings, including but not limited to, all notes, minutes, reports, action item lists and management summaries, relating to each version of each cache controller used with, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product.

- 22 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 74 of 145

RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 22. REQUEST NO. 26: All documents relating to design reviews and design review meetings, including but not limited to, all notes, minutes, reports, action item lists and management summaries, relating to each version of each process for forming conductors that include a layer of tungsten overlying a layer of titanium nitride used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor

- 23 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 75 of 145

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 22. REQUEST NO. 27: All documents relating to drawings, schematics, blueprints, manufacturing specifications, engineering specifications, design specifications, product test specifications, part specifications, assembly specifications and other documents relating to the design, development, or manufacture of any Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party.

- 24 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 76 of 145

Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will supplement its response within a reasonable time frame upon receiving sufficient information from ProMOS regarding its allegations to allow Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. REQUEST NO. 28: All documents relating to drawings, schematics, blueprints, manufacturing specifications, engineering specifications, design specifications, product test specifications, part specifications, assembly specifications and other documents relating to the design, development, or manufacture of each cache memory used with, incorporated in or relied on by any Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 27. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will supplement its response within a reasonable time frame upon receiving sufficient information

- 25 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 77 of 145

from ProMOS regarding its allegations to allow Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. REQUEST NO. 29: All documents relating to drawings, schematics, blueprints, manufacturing specifications, engineering specifications, design specifications, product test specifications, part specifications, assembly specifications and other documents relating to the design, development, or manufacturing of each register(s) used in writing, reading, buffering or accessing data from or to each cache memory used with, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 27. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will supplement its response within a reasonable time frame upon receiving sufficient information from ProMOS regarding its allegations to allow Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products.

- 26 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 78 of 145

REQUEST NO. 30: All documents relating to drawings, schematics, blueprints, manufacturing specifications, engineering specifications, design specifications, product test specifications, part specifications, assembly specifications and other documents relating to the design, development, or manufacture of each cache controller used with, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit by either party. Freescale objects to this request to the extent it is duplicative of Request No. 27. Without waiving any and subject to all of the foregoing objections, Freescale will supplement its response within a reasonable time frame upon receiving sufficient information from ProMOS regarding its allegations to allow Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. REQUEST NO. 31: All documents relating to drawings, schematics, blueprints, manufacturing specifications, engineering specifications, design specifications, product test specifications, part specifications, assembly specifications and other documents relating to the design, development, or manufacture

- 27 -

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 31

Filed 07/13/2007

Page 79 of 145

of each process for forming conductors that include a layer of tungsten overlying a layer of titanium nitride used with or in, incorporated in or relied on by a Freescale Product. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this document request as premature because ProMOS has not provided Freescale with sufficient information concerning its allegations (e.g., the identity of the accused Freescale products and an explanation of ProMOS's infringement contentions) to permit Freescale to respond with information regarding relevant Freescale products. Freescale objects to this request as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information neither relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent the term "Freescale Product" is not properly limited in time with respect to any products accused of infringing the Fortin patent, which did not issue until December 30, 2003, and to the extent it requests "[a]ll documents" relating to the requested topic and is not limited to the subject matter of the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit or the claims or defenses raised in the lawsuit b