Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03656/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03656-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Specifically, defendants request production of documents responsive to Requests No. 2-3, 5-8, 10,

13, 42, and 43.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. and APPLIED

MATERIALS ISRAEL, LTD.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

NEGEVTECH, INC., and NEGEVTECH

LTD.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-03656 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

By letter briefs, the parties bring to the Court a dispute regarding plaintiffs’ production of documents

pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-2(b) and defendants’ Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents.1

1. Patent L.R. 3-2(b)

Defendants request that the Court order plaintiffs to produce all documents responsive to Patent L.R.

3-2(b). Plaintiffs ask the Court to modify their obligations for production, as provided in Patent L.R. 1-2.

Defendants do not identify what purpose the documents requested under this provisionwillserve; instead, they

argue that production is mandatory. Plaintiffs argue that it is not necessary to produce documents under Patent

L.R. 3-2(b) because those documents relate only to establishing a date of invention or supporting invalidity

theories and neither apply in this case.

This Court has already rejected any invalidity defenses for defendant. Additionally, plaintiffs have

already conceded that the date of invention was November 16, 1990, when Israel Patent Application No.

Case 3:04-cv-03656-SI Document 116 Filed 09/07/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

096362 was filed. See Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 1 at 6. Therefore, plaintiffs are not trying to establish a date of

invention thatis earlier than the application filing date through conception documents. Defendants present no

argument forthe relevance ofthe documents underPatent L.R. 3-2(b). The Court DENIES defendants’ motion

for production of documents pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-2(b).

2. Assignor estoppel and inequitable conduct

The Court has already held that defendants are not entitled to production of documents on the basis

of their relevance to the issue of assignor estoppel. See 7/14/05 Order [Docket # 107]. Additionally, the

Court has already granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ defense ofinequitable conduct. See 12/21/04

Order [Docket # 26]. Therefore, the Court DENIES defendants’ request on this basis.

3. Claim construction

Defendants argue that the requested documents are relevant to claim construction and should be

produced. Defendants present no case law in support of their argument that conception documents are relevant

to claim construction. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acuson Corp., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6449, *9-10 (N.D.

Cal. 1993), which defendants rely upon, makes no mention of conception documents and instead discusses

prior art. Therefore, the Court DENIES defendants’ request on this basis.

4. Pulsed lasers documentation

Defendants request that plaintiffs comply with Requests No. 42 and 43 because plaintiffs’ research and

analysis ofilluminationsourcesisrelevant. Defendants argue that this information is relevant because it contends

that its system uses a pulsed laser scanner, while the ‘921 patent described a “flying spot” laser scanner, and

that the documents sought will demonstrate this. 

Case 3:04-cv-03656-SI Document 116 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

However, plaintiffs’ analysis or development of pulsed lasers is not relevant in determining whether

defendants’ product infringes on plaintiffs’ patent. Instead, defendants’ product and the claims asserted against

defendants are relevant. Therefore, the Court DENIES defendants’ request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03656-SI Document 116 Filed 09/07/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Specifically, defendants request production of documents responsive to Requests No. 2-3, 5-8, 10,

13, 42, and 43.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. and APPLIED

MATERIALS ISRAEL, LTD.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

NEGEVTECH, INC., and NEGEVTECH

LTD.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-03656 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS

By letter briefs, the parties bring to the Court a dispute regarding plaintiffs’ production of documents

pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-2(b) and defendants’ Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents.1

1. Patent L.R. 3-2(b)

Defendants request that the Court order plaintiffs to produce all documents responsive to Patent L.R.

3-2(b). Plaintiffs ask the Court to modify their obligations for production, as provided in Patent L.R. 1-2.

Defendants do not identify what purpose the documents requested under this provisionwillserve; instead, they

argue that production is mandatory. Plaintiffs argue that it is not necessary to produce documents under Patent

L.R. 3-2(b) because those documents relate only to establishing a date of invention or supporting invalidity

theories and neither apply in this case.

This Court has already rejected any invalidity defenses for defendant. Additionally, plaintiffs have

already conceded that the date of invention was November 16, 1990, when Israel Patent Application No.

Case 3:04-cv-03656-SI Document 116 Filed 09/07/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

096362 was filed. See Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 1 at 6. Therefore, plaintiffs are not trying to establish a date of

invention thatis earlier than the application filing date through conception documents. Defendants present no

argument forthe relevance ofthe documents underPatent L.R. 3-2(b). The Court DENIES defendants’ motion

for production of documents pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-2(b).

2. Assignor estoppel and inequitable conduct

The Court has already held that defendants are not entitled to production of documents on the basis

of their relevance to the issue of assignor estoppel. See 7/14/05 Order [Docket # 107]. Additionally, the

Court has already granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ defense ofinequitable conduct. See 12/21/04

Order [Docket # 26]. Therefore, the Court DENIES defendants’ request on this basis.

3. Claim construction

Defendants argue that the requested documents are relevant to claim construction and should be

produced. Defendants present no case law in support of their argument that conception documents are relevant

to claim construction. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acuson Corp., 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6449, *9-10 (N.D.

Cal. 1993), which defendants rely upon, makes no mention of conception documents and instead discusses

prior art. Therefore, the Court DENIES defendants’ request on this basis.

4. Pulsed lasers documentation

Defendants request that plaintiffs comply with Requests No. 42 and 43 because plaintiffs’ research and

analysis ofilluminationsourcesisrelevant. Defendants argue that this information is relevant because it contends

that its system uses a pulsed laser scanner, while the ‘921 patent described a “flying spot” laser scanner, and

that the documents sought will demonstrate this. 

Case 3:04-cv-03656-SI Document 116 Filed 09/07/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

However, plaintiffs’ analysis or development of pulsed lasers is not relevant in determining whether

defendants’ product infringes on plaintiffs’ patent. Instead, defendants’ product and the claims asserted against

defendants are relevant. Therefore, the Court DENIES defendants’ request. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03656-SI Document 116 Filed 09/07/05 Page 6 of 6