Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 1 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SPARTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 92-580C Chief Judge Edward J. Damich

v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES TO SPARTON'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO ITS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

EXHIBIT 4

A38

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 2 of 24

Deparlment ofJustice

STM 154-92-580

Telephone: Facsimile:
D.C. 20~0

(202) 616-8116 (202) 307-0345

December 19, 1996

BY MESSENGER Steven Kreiss, Esquire 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W~ Suite 'Ii00 Washington, D.C. 20004 Sparton Corporation v. United States, Court of Federal Claims No. 92-580C Dear Mr. Kreiss: I have enclosed documents bearing Bates-stamped numbers 13659-15928 which you requested as a result of your document inspectfon at the Naval Air Systems Command PMA-264 office on November 26, 1996. In your letter of December 6, 1996, you requested that I provide a copy of these documents to both your office and to Sparton Electronics, Inc. I am providing one set of copies to your office and expect that you will provide a second set to your client if necessary. Your letter of December 6, 1996, also requested the Navy's ASW sonobouy Budget Item Justification for fiscal years 19601982. These documents, if extant, will most likely be found at the PMA-264 office which prepares them. Therefore, we wil! produce any such existing documents during the course of your document inspection at PMA-264. Please contact me as soon as possible to arrange a mutually convenient time to complete that document inspection, already begun on November 26 and December 6, 1996.

A39

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 3 of 24

2 If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can reach me at (202) 616-8116. Very truly yours,

SUZANNE T. MICHEL Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division

Enc!osures

A40

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 4 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SPARTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 92-580C Chief Judge Edward J. Damich

v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES TO SPARTON'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO ITS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

EXHIBIT 5

A41

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 5 of 24

U.S. Department of Justice

STM 154-92-580
lt~shington, DoU. 20530

Telephone: (202) 616-8116 Facsimile: (202) 307-0345

April 17, 1997

BY MESSENGER

Steven I~eiss, Esquire 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20004 Sparton Corporation v. United States, .Court of Federal Claims No. 92-580C Dear Mr. Kreiss: I have enclosed documents bearing Bates-stamped numbers 015929-017992 which you requested as a result of your document inspection at the Naval Air Systems Command PMA-264 office on February 5, 1997, February 20, 1997, and March 31, 1997. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can reach me at (202) 616-8116. Very truly yours,

SUZANNE T. MICHEL Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division
Enclosure

A42

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 6 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SPARTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 92-580C Chief Judge Edward J. Damich

v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES TO SPARTON'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO ITS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

EXHIBIT 6

A43

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 7 of 24

U. S. Department of Justice

STM 154-92580
Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone: (202) 616-8116 Facsimile: (202) 307-0345

August 21, 1997

BY ,MESSENGER.

Steven Kreiss, Esquire 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, N~W. Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20004 Sparton Corporation v. United States, Court of Federal Claims No. 92-580C Dear Mr. Kreiss:
I have enolosed documents bearing Bat~s-stamped numbers 023762-024400 which you requested be produced from the contract fries located at the Crane Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center. Please note that the documents bearing Bates-stamped number 024292-024392 are marked either "Proprietary" or "For Official Use Only". and are released pursuant to the protective order in place in this case.

.Certain documents.which yourequested from NSWC were labeled "Proprietary" by the Government contr~'ctor which generated that document. We have contacted the pertinent contractors to inquire whether they continue to consider these documents to be proprietary. We will produce the documents after receiving a response.
................................ We hav~ a]~0-~th~ld a-d~i-~i~d"~tmo~-~h-dum For the~ .......if" .............. Chatrman, date~l~ ........... September 25, 1987, by R. W. Vandergrift, Jr., while the Navy ascertains its classification status. If the contents of that document are not classified we will produce it shortly.

We are withholding as not relevant to the subject matter involved in this case and not reasonably calculated to.lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence a letter by P. D. Coon of the Naval Avionics Center to Hazeltine Corporation dated April 14, 1983, with attachments,

A44

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 8 of 24

¯ concerning the security clearance application of a Hazeltine employee. In addition, we are withholding the following documents under the attorney-client privil.' ege:
"Request for Counsel Opinion/Review" from Tim Perry to Counsel, dated April 16, 1992, regarding "Hermes Tip-Over Testing Problems;" "Request for Counsel Opinion/Review" from W. Case to Counsel, dated January 22, 1992, regarding patent indemnity provisions;.

"Request for Counsel Opinion/Review" from W. Case to Counsel, dated April 28, 1986,' regarding contract no. N00163-90-C-0004; Memorandum from Counsel, Donald Sherfick, to Margie Baohmann, dated February 14, 1984, regarding "Exchange of Sonououys Among Producers; Extent of Application of Patent Indemnity Clause;" Memorandum from Margie Bachmarm to'Counsel, dated January 19, 1984, regarding "Exchange of Sonobuoys;" Memorandum from Counsel, Donald Sherfick, to Director, Speci.al Progrdms Division, dated December 22, 1983, regarding "Exchange of Sonououys;" Memorandum from P. A. Kaczmarek to Don Sherfick, dated December 21, 1983, regarding "Exchange of Sonobuoys among Manufacturers;" Memorandum from Counsel, Donald Sherfick, to MarNe Bachmarm, dated July 15, 1983, regarding "Exchange of Sonououys;" Memorandum from Margie Bachrnann, to Counsel, dated June 24, 1983, regarding "Bbuy Exchange;" Memorandum from P. A. Kaczmarek to Counsel, dated May 26, 1983, regarding "Exchange of Sonobuoys among Manufacturers;"
Undated note from Counsel to Division 603 regarding sonobouy exchange; and

Memorandum from W. Fisher to Counsel, dated November 5, 1979, regarding ........................ "Interchange of Sonobuoys among Manufacturers." Finally, I have also enclosed a document bearing Bates-stamped number 023273 which is marked "Proprietary." This document, bearing the same Bates number, was inadvertently produced on August 7, 1997, without the "Proprietary" marking. Please exchange the enclosed, properly marked document for that produced on August 7, 1997, and destroy the.latter.

A45

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 9 of 24

3If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above number. Very truly yours,

SUZANNE T. MICIq]3L Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division

Enclosure

A46

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 10 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SPARTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 92-580C Chief Judge Edward J. Damich

v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES TO SPARTON'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO ITS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

EXHIBIT 7

A47

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 11 of 24

A48

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 12 of 24

A49

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 13 of 24

A50

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 14 of 24

A51

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 15 of 24

A52

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 16 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

would you have beenprogram manager on that? A. Q. Probably '88 or '89 through '94. And with regard to the 53E, when did you

become program--production program manager? A. Well, like I said, that's a future event. We're not in production yet. (Interruption) (At this time, a brief recess was had off the record.) MR. LOGAR: Would you state that again, can you? Where we going-Q. Let me,~instead of--when did you become involved with the 53E at Magnavox? A. Probably at its inception. I was program manager for most of these buoys as you can see. I was involved in the bid of all this work. MR. KREISS: (To the reporter) Would you mark that as Exhibit i. Thank you. Q. Mr. Logar, would you kindly review Exhibit i, and my question will be, is the Magnavox 53B release plate mechanism shown and described in this particular document? A. (Witness reviews document.) MR. KREXSS: And so that I can direct your attention to certain things that you

ROLF REPORTING, INC. 323 Harrison Place 919 South Harrison Street Fort Wayne, Indiana 4680~ 219-426-3757 Fax: 219-424-5116

34

A53

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 17 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 correct? A.

might want to look at to make that determination, specifically, I refer you to figure six and the description at columns five and six. MR. LOGAR: MR. KREISS: MR. LOGAR: document. Figure six? Figure six. I'm not familiar with this What was your question again?

Q. Does this show the release mechanism that was used on Magnavox's 53B son.buoy? Yes. The 53B was a passive son.buoy, is that

That's correct.

Q. Would you look at-MR. KREISS: (To the reporter) Mark this Exhibit 2, please. Q. Would you briefly review Exhibit 2? A. Q. (Witness complies.) Is that a Magnavox drawing of the outer

shell of the SSQ-77B? A. Yes, it appears to be. MR. KREISS: (To the reporter) Would you mark this as Exhibit 3? MR. HAUSKEN: Is that the one marked

ROLF REPORTING, INC. 323 Harrison Place 919 South Harrison Street Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 219-426-3757 Fax: 219-424-5116

35

A54

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3
[19]

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 18 of 24

United States Patent
Barker

[11] Patent Number: [45] Date of Patent:

4,654,832 Mar. 31, 1987

SONOBUOY RETAINING AND RELEASE APPARATUS

[75] Inventor: Robert L. Barker, Osslan, Ind. [73] Assignee: Magnavox Government and Industrial
Electronics Company, Fort. Wayne, Ind.

[21] No.: 555,978 Appl. [22] Filed: Nov. 29, 1983 B63B [51] I~t. Cl.4 .............................................. 21/52 367/4; [52] U.S. Cl ............................................ 441/33
[55] Field of Search ...................367/4; 441/7, 24, 25,
441/33; 294182.25 U.S, PATENT DOCUMENTS
3,646,505 2/I972 3,825,213 7/1974 3,921,120 11/1975 4,020,514 5/1977 4,029,233 6/1977 4,033,529 7/1977 4,247,143 1/1981 Kirby .................................... 34012 Saunders et al ................ 244/138 A Widenhofer .........: ................ 340/2 Bourgeois ............................... 9/8 R Widenhofer .................. 220/89 A Bourgeois ........................L.... 367/4 Putman ............................ 294/82.25

Primary F.xaminerwRJohard A. Farley Attorney, Agen~ or Firm--Thomas A. Briody; William J. Streeter;,.Richard T. Seeger

cup mounted in and adjacent one end of the sonobuoy outer casing. A heavy ejection spring is beneath the cup for forcibly ejecting the cup outwardly from the one end of the casing. The cup is retained in the casing. against the spring force by a pair of partially overlapping elongated plates each having one end releasably inserted in a circumferential slot in the outer casing, the slots being adjacent the casing one end and diametrically opposed. The upi3er plate is in retentive contact near the other of its ends by a first retainer rod pivoted at one of its ends to the cup bottom surface. The f'L~St rod contacts the upper plate near the pivoted rod end and is in retentive contact near its other end with a second retainer rod pivoted at one of its ends to the cup bottom surface. The second rod contacts near its pivoted end the first rod and is in retentive contact at its other end with a one shot spring motor driven pin. The location of the points of contact between the plates, the upper plate and the first rod, the first and second rods and the pin and the second rod provide lever arms that result in a very high mechanical advantage between the retaining force of the pin on the second rod and the ejection spring force. Upon ejection, the cup, parachute, and shroud lines are ejected and other sonobuoy components are released from the outer casing.

[57]

AsS'mAtt
10 Claims, 14 Drawing Figures

Sonobuoy parachute shroud line ends are retained by a

A55

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 19 of 24

U.S. Patent

Mar. 31, 1987

Sheet 1 of 4

4,654,832

26

44.//

52

"'-,36 ~ ~ ~--38 --

A56

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 20 of 24

U.S. Patent

Mar. 31, 1987

Sheet 2 of 4

4,654,832

112 -4~"

46

116~/ vii4

~148
138 134 ~

142

120 140 130'

I

I.

90

88

¯ .184~ I

A57

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 21 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS SPARTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 92-580C Chief Judge Edward J. Damich

v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

OPPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES TO SPARTON'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO ITS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

EXHIBIT 8

A58

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 22 of 24

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

)
SPARTON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, )

v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 92-580C Chief Judge Edward Damich

SPARTON CORPORATION'S ANSWERS TO THE DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SPARTON CORPORATION
Sparton Corporation ("Sparton"), through its counsel, answers the Government~'s contention interrogatories a~ follows: Znterro~atory No. 2 (a) For each patent in suit, state the date on which Sparton contends Mr. Widenhofer conceived of the invention or inventions claimedin that patent ................
............................ .~.).~F.O~_e~c:h_d.a.t_e:s~at.e~-in~S.pa-r~on.~s--resp.on.se=..~o-~.a-r-t::. .....

(a), above, identify all docum~nts and communications that support Sparton's answer. Answer To Interro~ator~ No. 2 (a) See pages 17-19 of Sparton's Cross Motion For Partial Summary Judgment and Statement of Facts 55-70 of Sparton's Proposed Findings Of Uncontroverted Fact In Support Of Its Cross MotionFor Partial Summary Judgment filed December 16, 1999.

A59

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 23 of 24

~nterro~ator~ No. 5 Does Sparton contend that the AN/SSQ-53B sonobuoy manufactured by Magnavox infringes either the '120 patent or the '233 patent? Answer To Interro~ator~ Sparton's contention with respect to the identity of all sonobuoys which infringe either the '120 patent or the ~233 ~atent is contained in the Exhibit 24 charts of Appendix I, Volume II to its Pretrial Submissions filed on or about January 29, 1999. The AN/SSQ-53B sonobuoy manufactured by Magnavox is not contained in said charts. Interro~ator~ No. 18 With respect to reasonable and entire compensation sought by plaintiff in this action: (a) State.plaintiff's contention as to the beginning and end of the alleged accounting period for each accused equlp--m-~-~t--type. (b) Stat°e fully and completely plaintiff's contention as to how reasonable and entire compensation allegedly due should be determined. Answer To Interro~ator~ No,., 18 (a) Plaintiff's contention as to the beginning and end of the alleged accounting period for each accused equipment type is contained in the Exhibit 24 charts of Appendix I,

A60

Case 1:92-cv-00580-EJD

Document 281-3

Filed 10/20/2006

Page 24 of 24

Respectfully submitted, Spa~ Corporation, Plaintiff Dated: September 28, 2005 Attorney for Plaintiff ll20~Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 240 Washington D.C. 20036 (202) 347-6382 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of SPARTON CORPORATION'S ANSWERSTO THE DEFENDANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF, SPARTON CORPORATION were
sent, by first class mail, postage prepaid, this 28th day of September, 2005, to: Gary L. Hausken, Esquire Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice Was~pgton D.C.. 20530

Steven Kreiss

A61