Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 457-2

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 1 of 7

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 457-2

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 2 of 7

iN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MCKESSON iNFORMATION SOLUTIONS, ) LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )
THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC.,

C.A. Na. 04-125 8 (SLR

) )
) )

Defendant..

DEFENDANT THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC.'S RESPONSE TO MCKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNEL Jack B. Blumenfeld (#10 14) Rodger D. Smith, II (#3778) 1201 N. Market Street P.O.Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 Attorneys for Defendant The TriZetto Group, Inc.
OF COUNSEL:

John M. Benassi Jessica R. Wolff Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 (858) 720-2500
Matthew C. Lapple Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 695 Town Center Drive., 17th Floor. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (714) 668-6200

OC/367 161.2

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 457-2

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 3 of 7

INTERROGATORY NO.5:
For each product, system, or service identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2, state in complete detail the steps and functions performed by that product, system, or service in performing clinical editing or auditing of medical payment claims (including, without limitation, the detection or correction of unbundled medical procedures or claims
billed incorrectly due to coding errors).

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.5: TriZetto objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous and compound.

TriZetto incorporates by reference its response to McKesson's Interrogatory No. 2. TriZetto further objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous with respect to

the terms "steps and functions. . . in performing clinical editing" as it is unclear what
qualifies or does not qualify as a "step and function." TriZetto objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney client communications privilege and/or

the attorney work product doctrine. To the extent that TriZetto claims privilege forany
information responsive to this interrogatory and withholds on the basis of privilege, TriZetto will prepare and provide a privilege log in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure at a future date.

TriZetto objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it contains multiple sub-parts and purports to require TriZetto to respond to several different interrogatories

through the use of subparts.

INTERROGATORY NO.6:
State in complete detail each and every basis for your assertion that the claims

of the '164 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103. Your response should, without

OC/367161.2

11

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 457-2

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 4 of 7

limitation: identify each prior art reference you contend anticipates any claim of the '164
patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and each prior art reference or combination of references you

contend renders any claim of the '164 patent obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103; state in complete detail, by means of a claim chart, where TriZetto contends each limitation of any allegedly invalid claim of the '164 patent is disclosed by each reference or combination of references; and state in complete detail the basis for TriZetto's assertion that one of ordinary

skill in the art at the time of the '164 patent's invention would have been motivated to
combine or modify any prior art reference or combination of references TriZetto contends is
invalidating under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.6:
TriZetto objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous and compound. TriZetto objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory purports to require TriZetto to provide a claim construction for every term of every claim in the '164

patent in the context of providing TriZetto's invalidity contentions. To date, McKesson has
not identified which claims of the '164 patent it is asserting, thus requiring TriZetto to state its claim construction and invalidity contentions for every claim of the '164 patent is
unreasonable.

TriZetto objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for the disclosure of information protected by the attorney client communications privilege andlor the attorney work product doctrine. To the extent that TriZetto claims privilege for any
information responsive to this interrogatory and withholds on the basis of privilege, TriZetto will prepare and provide a privilege log in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at a future date.

OC/367161.2

12

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 457-2

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 5 of 7

TriZetto objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that it contains multiple sub-parts and purports to require TriZetto to respond to several different interrogatories through the use of sub-parts.

TriZetto objects on the basis that discovery and investigation are on-going and it continues to gather evidence which may affect its answer to this interrogatory. Thus,
TriZetto reserves the right to amend, modify or add to its respons to this interrogatory during the course of this lawsuit.

Subject to these objections, and TriZetto's General Objections, which are
incorporated herein, TriZetto will produce copies of all invalidating prior art of which it is currently aware, or becomes aware, and that it will provide a claim construction chart setting

forth its invalidity contentions at the appropriate time required by the Court's Scheduling
Order.

INTERROGATORY NO.7:
State in complete detail each and every basis for your assertion that the claims

of the '164 patent are invalid because they do not particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter of the invention.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.7:
TriZetto objects to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous and compound. TriZetto objects to this interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome and

not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The interrogatory purports to require TriZetto to provide a claim construction for every term àf every claim in the '164

patent in the context of providing TriZetto's invalidity contentions. To date, McKesson has
not identified which claims of the '164 patent it is asserting, thus requiring TriZetto to state

OC/367161.2

13

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 457-2

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 6 of 7

TriZetto further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome given the fact that McKesson has failed to identify any TriZetto product or system that allegedly infringes any claim of its '164 patent or make any effort to set forth a prima facie case that any TriZetto product or system infringes. Accordingly, TriZetto is

under no obligation to disclose such confidential business information. However, TriZetto
reserves the right to do so in the future and,to the extent it understands this interrogatory, will produce documents evidencing McKesson's communications to TriZetto.

Dated: January 20, 2005

By: ________________________________________

Matthe-CLapp1e /'

PAJH HASTD,MNOFSKY & WALKER
Jack B. Blumenfeld MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNEL
Attorneys for Defendant THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,

OFCOTJNSEL: John M. Benassi Jessica R. Wolff Matthew C. Lapple PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP

OC/367161.2

29

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR

Document 457-2

Filed 07/07/2006

Page 7 of 7

1

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) )

2
3

CITY AND COUNTY OF ORANGE

) ss:

4
5

I am employed in the City and County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18, and not a party to the within action. My busitiess address is 695 Town Center Drive, Seventeenth Floor, Costa Mesa, California 92626-1924.
On January 20, 2005, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: DEFENDANT THE TRIZETTO GROUP, INC.'S RESPONSE TO MCKESSON INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, LLC'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES on the interested parties by placing thereof in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Jeffrey G. Randall David W. Hansen Michael Hendershot Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 525 University Ave., Suite 1100 Palo Alto, CA 94301

6 7
811

9
10
11

12
13

Thomas J. Allingham II Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Rodney Square P.O. Box 636 Wilmington, DE 19899

14 15 16 17
18

Allan Soobert Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP 1440 New York Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005
VIA U.S. MAIL:
I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice such sealed envelope(s) would be deposited with the U.S. postal service on January 20, 2005 with postage thereon fully prepaid, at Costa Mesa, California.

19

20
21

22
23 24 25

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 20, 2005, at Costa Mesa, California.

26 27
28
OC/367229.1

'ki

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORTES