Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05194/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05194-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SENSOR ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOLB, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.18-cv-05194-LHK (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIALLY 

INFRINGING PRODUCTS

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Plaintiff Sensor Electronic Technology, Inc. (“SETi”) seeks an order compelling defendant 

Bolb, Inc. (“Bolb”) to produce samples of four Bolb light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Dkt. No. 40. 

SETi says that it has been unable to obtain samples of the Bolb LEDs for analysis from any 

source. Bolb objects to production on the ground that Bolb does not design, make, or select the 

LED that is used in the sole accused product in this action, and that the LEDs SETi seeks are not 

otherwise relevant to SETi’s infringement claims.

The Court deems this matter suitable for decision without a hearing. Having considered 

the parties’ submission, the Court denies SETi’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

According to its complaint, SETi owns six patents relating to ultraviolet LEDs. One patent 

is directed to a disinfection case for contact lenses. Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 12 and Ex. 2. The other five 

patents are directed to structures within the LEDs themselves. Id., ¶¶ 13-17 and Exs. 3-7. SETi 

asserts “on information and belief” that Bolb and co-defendant Quantum Egg “are in the business 

of offering for sale, selling, and distributing products that incorporate UV LEDs,” and that they 

“market and sell the Quantum Egg Contact Lens Disinfection Storage Case (“Q-Egg”).” Id., ¶¶ 6, 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 46 Filed 02/12/19 Page 1 of 6
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

7.

For each of the six asserted patents, SETi accuses both Bolb and Quantum Egg of 

infringing one or more claim of each by offering to sell or selling the Q-Egg without authority 

within the United States or importing the Q-Egg into the United States without authority. Id.

¶¶ 18, 29, 37, 42, 47, 56. The complaint accuses only the Q-Egg product and the UV LEDs in the 

Q-Egg product.

SETi says that Bolb makes four UV LEDs that, like the accused LEDs in the Q-Egg, emit 

ultraviolet light centered on 265 nanometers. Dkt. No. 40 at 1. SETi acknowledges that it did not 

have enough information to assert in its complaint that any of the four Bolb LEDs infringes one or 

more of the asserted patents, and does not currently have enough information to chart infringement 

contentions against any of them. Id. at 2. SETi says that it sought discovery of information about 

the four Bolb LEDs before the deadline to serve infringement contentions, but Bolb refused to 

provide that information and has refused to sell SETi samples of the LEDs so that SETi may 

conduct an infringement analysis. Id.

Bolb denies that it makes, sells, offers to sell, distributes or imports the Q-Egg or the LEDs 

in the Q-Egg. Dkt. No. 26. It says that the Q-Egg is manufactured by a third party and 

incorporates third party LEDs, and that Bolb did not design, make, or choose the LEDs in the QEgg. Dkt. No. 40 at 5. Bolb says that not only did SETi not accuse any Bolb LEDs in the 

complaint, it has stated no basis for any such accusation. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standards Governing Discovery in Patent Cases

Discovery in patent infringement cases is informed by both the Patent Local Rules and the 

discovery rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Patent Local Rule 2-5 makes the 

relationship between these two sets of rules clear: 

Except as provided in this paragraph or as otherwise ordered, it shall 

not be a ground for objecting to an opposing party’s discovery request 

. . . that the discovery request . . . is premature in light of, or otherwise 

conflicts with, the Patent Local Rules, absent other legitimate 

objection. A party may object, however to responding to the 

following categories of discovery requests . . . on the ground that they 

are premature in light of the timetable provided in the Patent Local 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 46 Filed 02/12/19 Page 2 of 6
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Rules:

(a) Requests seeking to elicit a party’s claim construction or damages 

positions;

(b) Requests seeking to elicit from the patent claimant a comparison 

of the asserted claims and the accused apparatus, product, device, 

process, method, act, or other instrumentality;

(c) Requests seeking to elicit from an accused infringer a comparison 

of the asserted claims and the prior art; and

(d) Requests seeking to elicit from an accused infringer the 

identification of any advice of counsel, and related documents.

Where a party properly objects to a discovery request . . . as set forth 

above, that party shall provide the requested information on the date 

on which it is required to be provided to an opposing party under these 

Patent Local Rules or as set by the Court, unless there exists another 

legitimate ground for objection.

Patent L.R. 2-5.

SETi makes essentially three arguments in support of its motion to compel samples from 

Bolb. First, it argues that the discovery is “directly relevant to SETi’s infringement claims” and 

not disproportionate or otherwise burdensome. Second, it argues that the discovery is “directly 

relevant to . . . Bolb’s potential non-infringing alternatives.” Third, it argues that, as a practical 

matter, an order compelling Bolb to produce samples is the only means SETi has to establish a 

Rule 11 basis to accuse the Bolb LEDs, and without such an order Bolb will be “free to sell 

potentially infringing products so long as it can fly below the radar.” Dkt. No. 40 at 3. The Court 

considers each argument.

B. Relevance to Infringement Claims

SETi acknowledges that neither its complaint nor its infringement contentions identify any 

Bolb LEDs as infringing. Generally, that should be the end of the inquiry, as SETi may only 

obtain discovery that is relevant to a claim or defense, and may only demand the disclosure 

documentation for accused instrumentalities identified in SETi’s Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) charts. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Patent L.R. 3-4(a). As SETI accuses none of Bolb’s LEDs of 

infringement, discovery of those LEDs cannot be “directly relevant” to SETi’s infringement 

claims or responsive to its contentions, even if it would be easy for Bolb to provide samples of its 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 46 Filed 02/12/19 Page 3 of 6
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

LEDs.1

Relying principally on Judge Seeborg’s decision in Aristocrat Technologies v. 

International Game Tech., No. C-06-03717 RMW (RS), 2009 WL 3573327 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 

2009), SETi appears to suggest that because Bolb sells UV LEDs that are suitable for use in a 

variety of devices, the four Bolb LEDs are likely to have the same infringing features as the

accused Q-Egg. See Dkt. No. 40 at 2. SETi offers no other explanation for why it believes the 

Bolb LEDs infringe the asserted patents. Bolb responds that not only does SETi lack a reasonable 

basis to accuse the Bolb LEDs, it also lacks a reasonable basis to contend that the Bolb LEDs have 

the same infringing features.2

The Aristocrat decision is distinguishable in at least two respects. First, that decision 

considered the scope of plaintiff’s discovery under a more permissive standard which allowed 

discovery “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” and further 

allowed discovery of any matter relevant to the “subject matter of the action” upon a showing of 

“good cause.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (2009). Rule 26(b)(1) was amended in 2015 to better 

describe meaningful constraints on the scope of discovery. See Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & 

Co., Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04057 BLF, 2016 WL 146574 at *1 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2016).

Second, the disputed discovery at issue in Aristocrat concerned unaccused gaming 

machines made by the defendant that included the same functionality as accused gaming machines 

also made by the defendant. The court balanced the burden on the defendant of identifying 

machines with the same functionality from among hundreds of its unaccused gaming machines 

against the likelihood that such discovery would yield relevant and admissible evidence of 

additional infringing machines. The assessment SETi asks the Court to undertake here is quite 

different, as it seeks to compel a defendant with no accused products to produce samples for 

 

1 For purposes of this motion, and in view of SETi’s concessions in the joint submission, the Court 

assumes, but does not decide, that SETi does not have a reasonable basis to accuse the four Bolb 

LEDs for which it seeks discovery that would pass muster under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

2 The Court notes SETi’s assertion that “defendants” sell the accused Q-Egg. See Dkt. No. 1. 

However, SETi does not contradict or even address Bolb’s assertion that it does not make or sell 

the accused product.

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 46 Filed 02/12/19 Page 4 of 6
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

SETI’s analysis on the basis of infringement claims against an accused product made by another 

defendant.

The circumstances presented by SETi’s motion are also distinguishable from those 

considered by Judge Ryu in SAGE Electrochromics, Inc. v View, Inc., No. C-12-16441 JST 

(DMR), 2013 WL 4777164 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013). In SAGE Electrochromics, the parties 

disputed the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s infringement contentions based on publicly available 

information about the defendant’s accused products, which were custom-made and not otherwise 

available for purchase. The court concluded that the plaintiff appropriately relied on publicly 

available information in formulating infringement contentions. The court then concluded that the 

contentions adequately informed the defendant of the plaintiff’s infringement theories, and ordered 

the defendant to provide the documentation required by Patent L.R. 3-4(a). In that case, the 

plaintiff had not conceded, as SETi does here, that it lacked a reasonable basis to accuse the 

defendant’s products in the first instance. See id. at *3 (observing that while defendant’s motion 

to strike plaintiff’s contentions “veers closely to making a Rule 11 argument about the adequacy 

of SAGE’s pre-suit investigation,” the merits of such argument were not before the court).

SETi has made no showing that Bolb’s LEDs have substantially the same infringing 

structures as the accused Q-Egg LEDs. As SETi has not shown that the Bolb LEDs are relevant to 

SETi’s existing infringement claims against the Q-Egg, SETi may not obtain discovery of Bolb 

simply because Bolb is also a provider of UV LEDs. 

C. Relevance to Non-Infringing Alternatives

SETi argues that discovery of the Bolb LEDs is relevant to the question of whether those 

LEDs are non-infringing alternatives to the accused Q-Egg LEDs. Bolb does not address this 

argument. 

The existence of non-infringing alternatives to an accused feature or product is relevant to 

both reasonable royalty and lost profits damages determinations. See Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 

757 F.3d 1286, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (reasonable royalty), overruled on other grounds by 

Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 

56 F.3d 1538, 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (lost profits). The Patent Local Rules require the parties to 

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 46 Filed 02/12/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

disclose their respective damages contentions. See Patent L.R. 3-8 and 3-9. SETi is correct that if 

Bolb or Q-Egg contend that Bolb’s LEDs are non-infringing alternatives, SETi may be entitled to 

discovery of those LEDs. However, so far as the Court is aware, SETi’s motion to compel 

discovery on that basis is premature, as neither Bolb nor Q-Egg makes such a contention at this 

time. See Patent L.R. 2-5(a).

D. Practical Considerations

SETi frames the crux of its dilemma as one of fairness: “In essence, Bolb urges this Court 

to find that it is free to sell potentially infringing products so long as it can fly below the radar, 

hide its conduct, and prevent SETi from obtaining product samples.” Dkt. No. 40 at 3. Bolb 

responds that SETi is merely on a “fishing expedition,” which is also unfair. Id. at 8.

Where direct evidence is unavailable, a patent holder may rely on indirect evidence of 

infringement as part of its pre-filing investigation and in support of its infringement contentions, 

but it must have at least some reasonable basis for asserting infringement in the first instance. See 

Intamin Ltd. v. Magnetar Techs., Corp., 483 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (complaint); SAGE 

Electrochromics, at *3 (infringement contentions). Here, however, SETi has not articulated any 

particular basis for believing that Bolb’s LEDs infringe the asserted patents. For this reason, the 

Court is skeptical of SETi’s argument that its only option to address Bolb’s “potential 

infringement” is to demand that Bolb produce samples of the LEDs.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, the Court denies SETi’s motion to compel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05194-LHK Document 46 Filed 02/12/19 Page 6 of 6