Magnetar Technologies Corp, et al v. Six Flags Theme Park Inc. et al

MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory -

D. Del.October 19, 2007

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 1 of 7 2 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 2 of 7 3 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 3 of 7 4 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 4 of 7 5 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 5 of 7 6 /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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 6 of 7 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 jblumenfeld@mnat.com rsmith@mnat.com Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor 1313 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 rhorwitz@potteranderson.com dmoore@potteranderson.com BY E-MAIL David B. Bassett Amr O. Aly Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 david.bassett@wilmerhale.com amr.aly@wilmerhale.com William F. Lee James B. Lampert Donald R. Steinberg Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 william.lee@wilmerhale.com james.lampert@wilmerhale.com don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com Paul V. Storm Terrell R. Miller Christopher J. Kling Bank of America Plaza 901 Main Street, Suite 7100 Dallas, TX 75202 paulstorm@alliplaw.com terrellmiller@alliplaw.com chriskling@alliplaw.com /s/ Geoffrey A. Zelley Geoffrey A. Zelley (#4939) Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 7 of 7 1 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 1 of 86 2 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 The Federal Justice and Police Department Requested State: International Judicial and Extrajudicial Assistance Bundesrain 20 3003 Bern Switzerland Tel: 011-41-31-322-4310 Fax: 011-41-31-322-5380 3. Person to whom the executed Plaintiffs’ U.S. Legal Representative: request is to be returned Francis DiGiovanni Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 U.S.A. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 2 of 86 3 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. To the competent authority of: The Swiss Confederation 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 3 of 86 4 U.S.A. Tel: 1.302.658.9141 Fax: 1.302.658.5614 Email: fdigiovanni@cblh.com Email: gzelley@cblh.com 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: smiller@cblh.com 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; Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 4 of 86 5 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: william.lee@wilmerhale.com Email: james.lampert@wilmerhale.com Email: don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 5 of 86 6 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: david.bassett@wilmerhale.com Email: amr.aly@wilmerhale.com 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: jblumenfeld@mnat.com Email: rsmith@mnat.com 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: paulstorm@alliplaw.com Email: chriskling@alliplaw.com Email: terrellmiller@alliplaw.com Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 6 of 86 7 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: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com Email: dmoore@potteranderson.com 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 7 of 86 8 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 8 of 86 9 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 9 of 86 10 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 10 of 86 11 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 non- infringement 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 11 of 86 12 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 12 of 86 13 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 13 of 86 14 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 14 of 86 15 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 15 of 86 16 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: 11. Documents or other property to be Please see attached list (Annex B). inspected: 12. 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. 13. 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 16 of 86 17 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: fdigiovanni@cblh.com 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 17 of 86 18 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: fdigiovanni@cblh.com Email: gzelley@cblh.com 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: smiller@cblh.com 18. Date of Request: ______________________________ 19. 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 18 of 86 19 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) Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 19 of 86 20 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: Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 20 of 86 21 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 21 of 86 22 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 22 of 86 23 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 23 of 86 24 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 24 of 86 25 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 25 of 86 26 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. Does Steel Venom contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 101. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 102. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 103. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Steel Venom? 104. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 105. 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 26 of 86 27 108. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 109. Does the ride contain cars? 110. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 111. Do the cars have wheels? 112. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 113. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Steel Venom at Valleyfair? 114. Did Intamin design Steel Venom? 115. Did Intamin manufacture Steel Venom? 116. Did Intamin install Steel Venom? 117. Did Intamin sell Steel Venom? 118. To whom was Steel Venom sold? 119. When did Intamin begin design of Steel Venom? 120. When was Steel Venom manufactured? 121. When was Steel Venom sold? 122. When was Steel Venom installed? 123. What was the total contract cost for Steel Venom? 124. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 125. Does Steel Venom contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 126. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 127. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 27 of 86 28 128. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Steel Venom? 129. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 130. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 134. Does the ride contain cars? 135. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 136. Do the cars have wheels? 137. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 138. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Volcano: The Blast Coaster at King’s Dominion? 139. Did Intamin design Volcano: The Blast Coaster? 140. Did Intamin manufacture Volcano: The Blast Coaster? 141. Did Intamin install Volcano: The Blast Coaster? 142. Did Intamin sell Volcano: The Blast Coaster? 143. To whom was Volcano: The Blast Coaster sold? 144. When did Intamin begin design of Volcano: The Blast Coaster? 145. When was Volcano: The Blast Coaster manufactured? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 28 of 86 29 146. When was Volcano: The Blast Coaster sold? 147. When was Volcano: The Blast Coaster installed? 148. What was the total contract cost for Volcano: The Blast Coaster? 149. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 150. 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. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 153. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Volcano: The Blast Coaster? 154. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 155. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 159. Does the ride contain cars? 160. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 161. Do the cars have wheels? 162. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 29 of 86 30 163. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Vertical Velocity at Six Flags Great America? 164. Did Intamin design Vertical Velocity? 165. Did Intamin manufacture Vertical Velocity? 166. Did Intamin install Vertical Velocity? 167. Did Intamin sell Vertical Velocity? 168. To whom was Vertical Velocity sold? 169. When did Intamin begin design of Vertical Velocity? 170. When was Vertical Velocity manufactured? 171. When was Vertical Velocity sold? 172. When was Vertical Velocity installed? 173. What was the total contract cost for Vertical Velocity? 174. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 175. 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. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 178. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Vertical Velocity? 179. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 180. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 30 of 86 31 181. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 184. Does the ride contain cars? 185. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 186. Do the cars have wheels? 187. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 188. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Vertical Velocity at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom? 189. Did Intamin design Vertical Velocity? 190. Did Intamin manufacture Vertical Velocity? 191. Did Intamin install Vertical Velocity? 192. Did Intamin sell Vertical Velocity? 193. To whom was Vertical Velocity sold? 194. When did Intamin begin design of Vertical Velocity? 195. When was Vertical Velocity manufactured? 196. When was Vertical Velocity sold? 197. When was Vertical Velocity installed? 198. What was the total contract cost for Vertical Velocity? 199. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 31 of 86 32 200. 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. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 203. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Vertical Velocity? 204. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 205. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 209. Does the ride contain cars? 210. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 211. Do the cars have wheels? 212. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 213. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Maverick at Cedar Point? 214. Did Intamin design Maverick? 215. Did Intamin manufacture Maverick? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 32 of 86 33 216. Did Intamin install Maverick? 217. Did Intamin sell Maverick? 218. To whom was Maverick sold? 219. When did Intamin begin design of Maverick? 220. When was Maverick manufactured? 221. When was Maverick sold? 222. When was Maverick installed? 223. What was the total contract cost for Maverick? 224. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 225. Does Maverick contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 226. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 227. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 228. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Maverick? 229. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 230. 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 33 of 86 34 234. Does the ride contain cars? 235. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 236. Do the cars have wheels? 237. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 238. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Top Thrill Dragster at Cedar Point? 239. Did Intamin design Top Thrill Dragster? 240. Did Intamin manufacture Top Thrill Dragster? 241. Did Intamin install Top Thrill Dragster? 242. Did Intamin sell Top Thrill Dragster? 243. To whom was Top Thrill Dragster sold? 244. When did Intamin begin design of Top Thrill Dragster? 245. When was Top Thrill Dragster manufactured? 246. When was Top Thrill Dragster sold? 247. When was Top Thrill Dragster installed? 248. What was the total contract cost for Top Thrill Dragster? 249. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 250. 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 34 of 86 35 253. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Top Thrill Dragster? 254. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 255. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 259. Does the ride contain cars? 260. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 261. Do the cars have wheels? 262. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 263. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Xcelerator at Knott’s Berry Farm? 264. Did Intamin design Xcelerator? 265. Did Intamin manufacture Xcelerator? 266. Did Intamin install Xcelerator? 267. Did Intamin sell Xcelerator? 268. To whom was Xcelerator sold? 269. When did Intamin begin design of Xcelerator? 270. When was Xcelerator manufactured? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 35 of 86 36 271. When was Xcelerator sold? 272. When was Xcelerator installed? 273. What was the total contract cost for Xcelerator? 274. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 275. Does Xcelerator contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 276. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 277. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 278. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Xcelerator? 279. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 280. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 284. Does the ride contain cars? 285. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 286. Do the cars have wheels? 287. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 36 of 86 37 288. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Kingda Ka at Six Flags Great Adventure? 289. Did Intamin design Kingda Ka? 290. Did Intamin manufacture Kingda Ka? 291. Did Intamin install Kingda Ka? 292. Did Intamin sell Kingda Ka? 293. To whom was Kingda Ka sold? 294. When did Intamin begin design of Kingda Ka? 295. When was Kingda Ka manufactured? 296. When was Kingda Ka sold? 297. When was Kingda Ka installed? 298. What was the total contract cost for Kingda Ka? 299. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 300. Does Kingda Ka contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 301. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 302. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 303. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Kingda Ka? 304. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 305. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 37 of 86 38 306. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 309. Does the ride contain cars? 310. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 311. Do the cars have wheels? 312. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 313. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Millennium Force at Cedar Point? 314. Did Intamin design Millennium Force? 315. Did Intamin manufacture Millennium Force? 316. Did Intamin install Millennium Force? 317. Did Intamin sell Millennium Force? 318. To whom was Millennium Force sold? 319. When did Intamin begin design of Millennium Force? 320. When was Millennium Force manufactured? 321. When was Millennium Force sold? 322. When was Millennium Force installed? 323. What was the total contract cost for Millennium Force? 324. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 38 of 86 39 325. 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. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 328. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Millennium Force? 329. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 330. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 334. Does the ride contain cars? 335. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 336. Do the cars have wheels? 337. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 338. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Ride of Steel at Six Flags New England? 339. Did Intamin design Superman Ride of Steel? 340. Did Intamin manufacture Superman Ride of Steel? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 39 of 86 40 341. Did Intamin install Superman Ride of Steel? 342. Did Intamin sell Superman Ride of Steel? 343. To whom was Superman Ride of Steel sold? 344. When did Intamin begin design of Superman Ride of Steel? 345. When was Superman Ride of Steel manufactured? 346. When was Superman Ride of Steel sold? 347. When was Superman Ride of Steel installed? 348. What was the total contract cost for Superman Ride of Steel? 349. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 350. 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. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 353. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Superman Ride of Steel? 354. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 355. 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 40 of 86 41 358. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 359. Does the ride contain cars? 360. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 361. Do the cars have wheels? 362. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 363. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Ride of Steel at Six Flags America? 364. Did Intamin design Superman Ride of Steel? 365. Did Intamin manufacture Superman Ride of Steel? 366. Did Intamin install Superman Ride of Steel? 367. Did Intamin sell Superman Ride of Steel? 368. To whom was Superman Ride of Steel sold? 369. When did Intamin begin design of Superman Ride of Steel? 370. When was Superman Ride of Steel manufactured? 371. When was Superman Ride of Steel sold? 372. When was Superman Ride of Steel installed? 373. What was the total contract cost for Superman Ride of Steel? 374. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 375. 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 41 of 86 42 378. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Superman Ride of Steel? 379. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 380. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 384. Does the ride contain cars? 385. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 386. Do the cars have wheels? 387. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 388. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Ride of Steel at Darien Lake Theme Park? 389. Did Intamin design Superman Ride of Steel? 390. Did Intamin manufacture Superman Ride of Steel? 391. Did Intamin install Superman Ride of Steel? 392. Did Intamin sell Superman Ride of Steel? 393. To whom was Superman Ride of Steel sold? 394. When did Intamin begin design of Superman Ride of Steel? 395. When was Superman Ride of Steel manufactured? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 42 of 86 43 396. When was Superman Ride of Steel sold? 397. When was Superman Ride of Steel installed? 398. What was the total contract cost for Superman Ride of Steel? 399. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 400. Does Superman Ride of Steel contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 401. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 402. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 403. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Superman Ride of Steel? 404. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 405. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 406. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 407. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 408. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 409. Does the ride contain cars? 410. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 411. Do the cars have wheels? 412. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 43 of 86 44 413. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Drop Zone Stunt Tower at King’s Dominion? 414. Did Intamin design Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 415. Did Intamin manufacture Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 416. Did Intamin install Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 417. Did Intamin sell Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 418. To whom was Drop Zone Stunt Tower sold? 419. When did Intamin begin design of Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 420. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower manufactured? 421. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower sold? 422. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower installed? 423. What was the total contract cost for Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 424. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 425. Does Drop Zone Stunt Tower contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 426. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 427. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 428. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 429. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 430. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 44 of 86 45 431. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 432. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 433. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 434. Does the ride contain cars? 435. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 436. Do the cars have wheels? 437. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 438. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Drop Zone Stunt Tower at Carrowinds? 439. Did Intamin design Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 440. Did Intamin manufacture Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 441. Did Intamin install Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 442. Did Intamin sell Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 443. To whom was Drop Zone Stunt Tower sold? 444. When did Intamin begin design of Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 445. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower manufactured? 446. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower sold? 447. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower installed? 448. What was the total contract cost for Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 449. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 45 of 86 46 450. Does Drop Zone Stunt Tower contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 451. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 452. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 453. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 454. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 455. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 456. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 457. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 458. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 459. Does the ride contain cars? 460. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 461. Do the cars have wheels? 462. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 463. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Drop Zone Stunt Tower at Great America? 464. Did Intamin design Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 465. Did Intamin manufacture Drop Zone Stunt Tower? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 46 of 86 47 466. Did Intamin install Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 467. Did Intamin sell Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 468. To whom was Drop Zone Stunt Tower sold? 469. When did Intamin begin design of Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 470. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower manufactured? 471. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower sold? 472. When was Drop Zone Stunt Tower installed? 473. What was the total contract cost for Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 474. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 475. Does Drop Zone Stunt Tower contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 476. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 477. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 478. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Drop Zone Stunt Tower? 479. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 480. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 481. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 482. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 47 of 86 48 483. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 484. Does the ride contain cars? 485. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 486. Do the cars have wheels? 487. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 488. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Drop Zone at King’s Island? 489. Did Intamin design Drop Zone? 490. Did Intamin manufacture Drop Zone? 491. Did Intamin install Drop Zone? 492. Did Intamin sell Drop Zone? 493. To whom was Drop Zone sold? 494. When did Intamin begin design of Drop Zone? 495. When was Drop Zone manufactured? 496. When was Drop Zone sold? 497. When was Drop Zone installed? 498. What was the total contract cost for Drop Zone? 499. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 500. Does Drop Zone contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 501. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 502. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 48 of 86 49 503. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Drop Zone? 504. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 505. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 506. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 507. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 508. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 509. Does the ride contain cars? 510. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 511. Do the cars have wheels? 512. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 513. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Tower of Doom at Six Flags America? 514. Did Intamin design Tower of Doom? 515. Did Intamin manufacture Tower of Doom? 516. Did Intamin install Tower of Doom? 517. Did Intamin sell Tower of Doom? 518. To whom was Tower of Doom sold? 519. When did Intamin begin design of Tower of Doom? 520. When was Tower of Doom manufactured? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 49 of 86 50 521. When was Tower of Doom sold? 522. When was Tower of Doom installed? 523. What was the total contract cost for Tower of Doom? 524. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 525. Does Tower of Doom contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 526. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 527. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 528. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Tower of Doom? 529. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 530. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 531. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 532. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 533. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 534. Does the ride contain cars? 535. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 536. Do the cars have wheels? 537. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 50 of 86 51 538. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Tower of Doom at Elitch Gardens? 539. Did Intamin design Tower of Doom? 540. Did Intamin manufacture Tower of Doom? 541. Did Intamin install Tower of Doom? 542. Did Intamin sell Tower of Doom? 543. To whom was Tower of Doom sold? 544. When did Intamin begin design of Tower of Doom? 545. When was Tower of Doom manufactured? 546. When was Tower of Doom sold? 547. When was Tower of Doom installed? 548. What was the total contract cost for Tower of Doom? 549. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 550. Does Tower of Doom contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 551. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 552. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 553. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Tower of Doom? 554. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 555. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 51 of 86 52 556. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 557. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 558. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 559. Does the ride contain cars? 560. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 561. Do the cars have wheels? 562. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 563. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Tower of Power at Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom? 564. Did Intamin design Superman Tower of Power? 565. Did Intamin manufacture Superman Tower of Power? 566. Did Intamin install Superman Tower of Power? 567. Did Intamin sell Superman Tower of Power? 568. To whom was Superman Tower of Power sold? 569. When did Intamin begin design of Superman Tower of Power? 570. When was Superman Tower of Power manufactured? 571. When was Superman Tower of Power sold? 572. When was Superman Tower of Power installed? 573. What was the total contract cost for Superman Tower of Power? 574. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 52 of 86 53 575. Does Superman Tower of Power contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 576. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 577. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 578. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Superman Tower of Power? 579. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 580. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 581. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 582. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 583. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 584. Does the ride contain cars? 585. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 586. Do the cars have wheels? 587. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 588. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Tower of Power at Six Flags St. Louis? 589. Did Intamin design Superman Tower of Power? 590. Did Intamin manufacture Superman Tower of Power? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 53 of 86 54 591. Did Intamin install Superman Tower of Power? 592. Did Intamin sell Superman Tower of Power? 593. To whom was Superman Tower of Power sold? 594. When did Intamin begin design of Superman Tower of Power? 595. When was Superman Tower of Power manufactured? 596. When was Superman Tower of Power sold? 597. When was Superman Tower of Power installed? 598. What was the total contract cost for Superman Tower of Power? 599. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 600. Does Superman Tower of Power contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 601. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 602. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 603. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Superman Tower of Power? 604. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 605. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 606. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 607. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 54 of 86 55 608. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 609. Does the ride contain cars? 610. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 611. Do the cars have wheels? 612. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 613. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Superman Tower of Power, formerly at Astroworld? 614. Did Intamin design Superman Tower of Power? 615. Did Intamin manufacture Superman Tower of Power? 616. Did Intamin install Superman Tower of Power? 617. Did Intamin sell Superman Tower of Power? 618. To whom was Superman Tower of Power sold? 619. When did Intamin begin design of Superman Tower of Power? 620. When was Superman Tower of Power manufactured? 621. When was Superman Tower of Power sold? 622. When was Superman Tower of Power installed? 623. What was the total contract cost for Superman Tower of Power? 624. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 625. Does Superman Tower of Power contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 626. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 627. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 55 of 86 56 628. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Superman Tower of Power? 629. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 630. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 631. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 632. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 633. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 634. Does the ride contain cars? 635. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 636. Do the cars have wheels? 637. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 638. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Giant Drop at Six Flags Great America? 639. Did Intamin design Giant Drop? 640. Did Intamin manufacture Giant Drop? 641. Did Intamin install Giant Drop? 642. Did Intamin sell Giant Drop? 643. To whom was Giant Drop sold? 644. When did Intamin begin design of Giant Drop? 645. When was Giant Drop manufactured? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 56 of 86 57 646. When was Giant Drop sold? 647. When was Giant Drop installed? 648. What was the total contract cost for Giant Drop? 649. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 650. Does Giant Drop contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 651. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 652. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 653. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Giant Drop? 654. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 655. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? 656. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 657. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 658. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 659. Does the ride contain cars? 660. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 661. Do the cars have wheels? 662. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 57 of 86 58 663. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Acrophobia at Six Flags Over Georgia? 664. Did Intamin design Acrophobia? 665. Did Intamin manufacture Acrophobia? 666. Did Intamin install Acrophobia? 667. Did Intamin sell Acrophobia? 668. To whom was Acrophobia sold? 669. When did Intamin begin design of Acrophobia? 670. When was Acrophobia manufactured? 671. When was Acrophobia sold? 672. When was Acrophobia installed? 673. What was the total contract cost for Acrophobia? 674. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 675. Does Acrophobia contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 676. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 677. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 678. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Acrophobia? 679. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 680. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 58 of 86 59 681. When the ride passes over the magnets, does the conductive metallic fin pass between the arrays of magnets? 682. Does the movement of the conductive metallic fin through the arrays of magnets produce eddy currents? 683. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 684. Does the ride contain cars? 685. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 686. Do the cars have wheels? 687. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 688. Has Intamin designed any other amusement rides for the above listed Defendants including eddy current brakes? 689. What rides has Intamin designed for the above listed Defendants that include eddy current brakes? 690. Has Intamin manufactured any other amusement rides for the above listed Defendants including eddy current brakes? 691. What rides has Intamin manufactured for the above listed Defendants that include eddy current brakes? 692. Has Intamin sold any other amusement rides for the above listed Defendants including eddy current brakes? 693. What rides has Intamin sold to the above listed Defendants that include eddy current brakes? 694. Do any of the rides designed, manufactured, or sold for the above listed Defendants have opposed configurations of magnets, a conductive Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 59 of 86 60 fin attached to a car, wheels to allow the car to move along parallel rails, so that when the conductive fin passes through the magnets, a braking force is imparted on the car? 695. Which rides mentioned above have all of the listed characteristics? Questions Regarding Intamin Ownership in Patents covering Related Technologies 696. Were you a named inventor in U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350, issued May 16, 2000? 697. Is U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350 currently assigned to Intamin AG? 698. Does Intamin have any ownership interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350? 699. Has Intamin contacted anyone regarding possible infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350? 700. Has Intamin requested a licensing fee for continued use of a product accused of infringing one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350? 701. What companies has Intamin contacted regarding possible infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350? 702. Is there a standard licensing fee that Intamin requests for continued use of a product accused of infringing one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350? 703. What is the standard licensing fee? 704. Is the standard licensing fee a percentage of the overall cost of the ride? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 60 of 86 61 705. If so, what is that percentage? 706. Is that standard licensing fee a set dollar amount per possible infringing ride? 707. If so, what is the dollar amount? 708. If there is no standard licensing fee, has Intamin successfully negotiated any licenses under U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350? 709. With whom has Intamin successfully negotiated a license under U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350? 710. What licensing fee did Intamin receive for each of those licenses? 711. If any of the licensing fees were percentages of purchase price of the ride, what were those percentages? 712. Were you a named inventor in U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690, issued May 16, 2000? 713. Is U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690 currently assigned to Intamin AG? 714. Does Intamin have any ownership interest in U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690? 715. Has Intamin contacted anyone regarding possible infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690? 716. Has Intamin requested a licensing fee for continued use of a product accused of infringing one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690? 717. What companies has Intamin contacted regarding possible infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 61 of 86 62 718. Is there a standard licensing fee that Intamin requests for continued use of a product accused of infringing one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690? 719. What is the standard licensing fee? 720. Is the standard licensing fee a percentage of the overall cost of the ride? 721. If so, what is that percentage? 722. Is that standard licensing fee a set dollar amount per possible infringing ride? 723. If so, what is the dollar amount? 724. If there is no standard licensing fee, has Intamin successfully negotiated any licenses under U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690? 725. With whom has Intamin successfully negotiated a license under U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690? 726. What licensing fee did Intamin receive for each of those licenses? 727. If any of the licensing fees were percentages of purchase price of the ride, what were those percentages? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 62 of 86 63 ANNEX B Documents Sought for Production The District Court requests that Patrick Spieldiener produce the following documents in his possession, custody, or control and that they be made available for inspection and copying at least two weeks prior to Patrick Spieldiener’s oral examination. The rides mentioned are those listed in the Letter of Request, in the section entitled “The Witness.” 1. All technical drawings, specifications, discussions, and all other documents indicating the nature of the braking systems installed on the above-listed amusement rides. 2. All technical drawings, specifications, discussions, and all other documents indicating the nature of the above-listed amusement rides, indicating the relationship of the track to the car. 3. All contracts and documents, evidencing discussions between Intamin and the purchaser of each of the above-listed amusement rides that indicate costs and terms of purchase of each of the above-listed amusement rides. 4. All documents indicating the design, manufacture, and installation of above-listed amusement rides. 5. All contracts setting forth a royalty rate or fee for use of magnetic braking technology. 6. All contracts setting forth a royalty rate or fee for use of amusement ride technology. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 63 of 86 64 7. Any documents, communications asserting that a product manufactured, sold, or used by another infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350. 8. Any documents or communications asserting that a product manufactured, sold, or used by another infringes one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690. 9. Contracts, negotiations, faxes, e-mails, other documents concerning negotiations with other companies for the licensing of U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350. 10. Contracts, negotiations, faxes, e-mails, other documents concerning negotiations with other companies for the licensing of U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690. 11. Completed licensing contracts with any above-listed Defendant or other company for exclusive or non-exclusive licenses of U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350. 12. Completed licensing contracts with any above-listed Defendant or other company for exclusive or non-exclusive licenses of U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690. 13. Any documents, communications requesting the payment of a royalty for use of devices believed to infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350. 14. Any documents, communications requesting the payment of a royalty for use of devices believed to infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,628,690. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 64 of 86 ANNEX C Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 65 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 66 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 67 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 68 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 69 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 70 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 71 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 72 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 73 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 74 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 75 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 76 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 77 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 78 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 79 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 80 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 81 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 82 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 83 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 84 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 85 of 86 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-4 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 86 of 86 1 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 1 of 29 2 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 Valais 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 The Federal Justice and Police Department Requested State: International Judicial and Extrajudicial Assistance Bundesrain 20 3003 Bern Switzerland Tel: 011-41-31-322-4310 Fax: 011-41-31-322-5380 3. Person to whom the executed Plaintiffs’ U.S. Legal Representative: request is to be returned Francis DiGiovanni Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 U.S.A. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 2 of 29 3 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. To the competent authority of: The Swiss Confederation 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 3 of 29 4 U.S.A. Tel: 1.302.658.9141 Fax: 1.302.658.5614 Email: fdigiovanni@cblh.com Email: gzelley@cblh.com 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: smiller@cblh.com 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; Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 4 of 29 5 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: william.lee@wilmerhale.com Email: james.lampert@wilmerhale.com Email: don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 5 of 29 6 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: david.bassett@wilmerhale.com Email: amr.aly@wilmerhale.com 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: jblumenfeld@mnat.com Email: rsmith@mnat.com 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: paulstorm@alliplaw.com Email: chriskling@alliplaw.com Email: terrellmiller@alliplaw.com Richard L. Horwitz David E. Moore Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 6 of 29 7 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: rhorwitz@potteranderson.com Email: dmoore@potteranderson.com 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 7 of 29 8 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 8 of 29 9 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 9 of 29 10 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 10 of 29 11 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 non- infringement 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 11 of 29 12 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 Walter Bolliger, a Swiss resident, and President of Bolliger & Mabillard Consulting Engineers, Inc. (“B&M). B&M 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 Goliath at Six Flags Over Georgia; Sheikra at Busch Gardens Africa in Florida; Griffon at Busch Gardens Europe in Virginia; Silver Bullet at Knott’s Berry Farm; Patriot at Worlds of Fun; Nitro at Six Flags Great Adventure. Should Walter Bolliger be unable to furnish the information sought in this request, or should he be unable to attend and give his testimony, B&M 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 12 of 29 13 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 B&M 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 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 B&M. Plaintiffs assert that facts within the possession of Walter Bolliger, or whomever else may be designated by B&M at the approval of parties to this litigation, will establish that one or more amusement rides designed, manufactured, and sold by B&M 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. The District Court asserts that the facts surrounding B&M’s design and manufacturing of particular amusement rides are essential to Plaintiffs’ ability to fully set forth their claims and defenses at trial. Justice cannot be completely served without Walter Bolliger’s testimony (or the testimony of someone appointed by B&M competent to provide information in the stated areas, at the agreement of all parties to the litigation). Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 13 of 29 14 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 Walter Bolliger 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 Walter Bolliger to be examined: c/o Bolliger & Mabillard Consulting Engineers, Inc. Chemin des Dailles 31 CH-1870 Monthey 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: 11. Documents or other property to be Please see attached list (Annex B). inspected: 12. 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 14 of 29 15 13. 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. 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 15 of 29 16 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: fdigiovanni@cblh.com 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 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 Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 16 of 29 17 Fax: +1.302.658.5614 Email: fdigiovanni@cblh.com Email: gzelley@cblh.com 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: smiller@cblh.com 18. Date of Request: ______________________________ 19. 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. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 17 of 29 18 Annex A: Questions to be put to Walter Bolliger (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) Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 18 of 29 19 ANNEX A Questions to be put to Walter Bolliger Background Statement regarding questions to be put to the witness: Plaintiffs assert that several amusement rides designed and manufactured by B&M, 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. Walter Bolliger is the President of B&M, 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 Walter Bolliger may be necessary for the Plaintiffs to prove infringement of the ‘125 patent and/or the ‘237 patent by the Defendants. Questions to establish background and foundational information regarding witness: 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 B&M? 5. Please state B&M’s address. 6. How long have you been employed by B&M? 7. What positions or titles have you held at B&M? 8. Please state your job responsibilities for each position or title held at B&M. 9. In what group or department within B&M did you hold each position? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 19 of 29 20 10. During what time period did you hold each position? 11. As President of B&M, what are your duties? 12. Do you have knowledge of all roller coasters or other amusement rides designed and manufactured by B&M? a. Questions to establish knowledge of rides designed and manufactured by B&M, currently operated by Defendants: 13. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Goliath at Six Flags Over Georgia? 14. Did B&M design Goliath? 15. Did B&M manufacture Goliath? 16. Did B&M install Goliath? 17. Did B&M sell Goliath? 18. To whom was Goliath sold? 19. When did B&M begin design of Goliath? 20. When was Goliath manufactured? 21. When was Goliath sold? 22. When was Goliath installed? 23. What was the total contract cost for Goliath? 24. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 25. Does Goliath 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 20 of 29 21 27. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 28. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Goliath? 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? 37. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 38. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Sheikra at Busch Gardens Africa in Florida? 39. Did B&M design Sheikra? 40. Did B&M manufacture Sheikra? 41. Did B&M install Sheikra? 42. Did B&M sell Sheikra? 43. To whom was Sheikra sold? 44. When did B&M begin design of Sheikra? 45. When was Sheikra manufactured? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 21 of 29 22 46. When was Sheikra sold? 47. When was Superman Sheikra installed? 48. What was the total contract cost for Sheikra? 49. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 50. Does Sheikra 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 Sheikra? 54. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 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 Griffon at Busch Gardens Europe in Virginia? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 22 of 29 23 64. Did B&M design Griffon? 65. Did B&M manufacture Griffon? 66. Did B&M install Griffon? 67. Did B&M sell Griffon? 68. To whom was Griffon sold? 69. When did B&M begin design of Griffon? 70. When was Griffon manufactured? 71. When was Griffon sold? 72. When was Griffon installed? 73. What was the total contract cost for Griffon? 74. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 75. Does Griffon 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 Griffon? 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? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 23 of 29 24 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 Silver Bullet at Knott’s Berry Farm? 89. Did B&M design Silver Bullet? 90. Did B&M manufacture Silver Bullet? 91. Did B&M install Silver Bullet? 92. Did B&M sell Silver Bullet? 93. To whom was Silver Bullet sold? 94. When did B&M begin design of Silver Bullet? 95. When was Silver Bullet manufactured? 96. When was Silver Bullet sold? 97. When was Silver Bullet installed? 98. What was the total contract cost for Silver Bullet? 99. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 100. Does Silver Bullet contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 101. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 102. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 24 of 29 25 103. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Silver Bullet? 104. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 105. 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? 108. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 109. Does the ride contain cars? 110. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 111. Do the cars have wheels? 112. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? 113. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Patriot at Worlds of Fun? 114. Did B&M design Patriot? 115. Did B&M manufacture Patriot? 116. Did B&M install Patriot? 117. Did B&M sell Patriot? 118. To whom was Patriot sold? 119. When did B&M begin design of Patriot? 120. When was Patriot manufactured? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 25 of 29 26 121. When was Patriot sold? 122. When was Patriot installed? 123. What was the total contract cost for Patriot? 124. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 125. Does Patriot contain braking systems designed to slow the ride? 126. Do any of those braking systems impart braking on the ride through the use of permanent magnets? 127. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 128. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Patriot? 129. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 130. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 134. Does the ride contain cars? 135. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 136. Do the cars have wheels? 137. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 26 of 29 27 138. Do you have knowledge of a ride by the name of Nitro at Six Flags Great Adventure? 139. Did B&M design Nitro? 140. Did B&M manufacture Nitro? 141. Did B&M install Nitro? 142. Did B&M sell Nitro? 143. To whom was Nitro sold? 144. When did B&M begin design of Nitro? 145. When was Nitro manufactured? 146. When was Nitro sold? 147. When was Nitro installed? 148. What was the total contract cost for Nitro? 149. What portion of that cost was allocated to braking systems? 150. Does Nitro 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. Are those permanent magnets in opposed arrays? 153. Is there a conductive metallic fin that extends from the cars of Nitro? 154. Where is that conductive metallic fin located on the car? 155. Where are those permanent magnets located in relation to the tracks of the ride? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 27 of 29 28 156. 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. Do these eddy currents create a braking force on the ride? 159. Does the ride contain cars? 160. Do the cars sit on parallel rails? 161. Do the cars have wheels? 162. Do the wheels allow the cars to roll on the rails? Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 28 of 29 29 ANNEX B Documents Sought for Production The District Court requests that Walter Bolliger produce the following documents in his possession, custody, or control and that they be made available for inspection and copying at least two weeks prior to Walter Bolliger’s oral examination. The rides mentioned are those listed in the Letter of Request, in the section entitled “The Witness.” 1. All technical drawings, specifications, discussions, and all other documents indicating the nature of the braking systems installed on the above-listed amusement rides. 2. All technical drawings, specifications, discussions, and all other documents indicating the nature of the above-listed amusement rides, indicating the relationship of the track to the car. 3. All contracts and documents evidencing discussions between B&M and the purchaser of each of the above-listed amusement rides that indicate costs and terms of purchase of each of the above-listed amusement rides. 4. All documents indicating the design, manufacture, and installation of above-listed amusement rides. 5. All contracts setting forth a royalty rate or fee for use of magnetic braking technology. 6. All contracts setting forth a royalty rate or fee for use of amusement ride technology. Case 1:07-cv-00127-JJF Document 71-5 Filed 10/19/2007 Page 29 of 29