Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05958/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05958-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Agilent Technologies Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Affymetrix, Inc.,

Defendant.

 /

NO. C 06-05958 JW 

PROPOSED ORDER OF APPOINTMENT

OF A TECHNICAL ADVISOR, 

MR. RAINER SCHULZ

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Agilent Technologies, Inc. (“Agilent”) brings this action against Defendant

Affymetrix, Inc. (“Affymetrix”) to review an adverse decision in an interference proceeding before

the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) of the United States Patent and Trademark

Office (“PTO”) under 35 U.S.C. § 146. 

A. The Underlying Interference

The interference at issue is Patent Interference No. 105,285 (“the Interference”), entitled

“Carol T. Schembri, Junior Party v. Donald M. Besemer, Virginia W. Goss, and James L. Winkler,

Senior Party.” (Joint Statement Describing History of Case at 1, hereafter, “Joint Statement,”

Docket Item No. 22.) Agilent is the legal owner of the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,513,968 (“the

Schembri patent”), which was accorded the benefit of an application filed August 21, 1998. (Joint

Statement at 2-3.) Affymetrix is the legal owner of the rights to U.S. Patent Application 10/619224

(“the Besemer application”), which was accorded the benefit of a patent filed June 7, 1995. (Joint

Case 5:06-cv-05958-JW Document 51 Filed 10/30/07 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

1

 In an interference, the party whose receives the benefit of the earliest filing date is the

senior party, making the other party the junior party. 37 C.F.R. § 2.96. 

2

 “Count means the Board’s description of the interfering subject matter that sets the scope

of admissible proofs on priority.” 37 C.F.R § 41.201.

2

Statement at 2-3.) Affymetrix is the senior party because the Besemer application received the

benefit of an earlier filing date than did the Schembri patent.1

Affymetrix provoked the Interference using the routine practice of copying one or more

claims of the other party, in this case from Agilent’s Schembri patent. (Joint Statement at 3.) This

act established that two parties claimed “the same or substantially the same invention” as required

under 35 U.S.C. § 135 (b)(1). The Board declared an interference and identified as Count 1,2 “A

method according to claim 20 or claim 32 of [the Schembri patent] or claim 66 or claim 75 of [the

Besemer application].” (Joint Statement at 3.) The Board further identified claims 20-25 and 30-35

of the Schembri patent and claims 66-70 and 73-78 of the Besemer application as the claims

corresponding to Count 1. (Joint Statement at 3-5.) These claims define the subject matter of the

dispute. 

In the Interference, Agilent filed a single substantive preliminary motion asking the Board to

find the relevant claims of the Besemer application unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for lack

of written description support. (Joint Statement at 5.) Affymetrix filed preliminary motions asking

the Board to find the relevant claims of the Schembri patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and

(e), and for the benefit of a June 8, 1994, filing date. (Joint Statement at 5.) On June 28, 2006, the

Board denied Agilent’s motion and dismissed Affymetrix’s motions as moot. (Joint Statement at 6.) 

The Board then awarded priority to the Besemer application and canceled claims 20-26 and 30-35 of

the Schembri patent. (Joint Statement at 6.)

B. The § 146 Action

On September 26, 2006, Agilent filed this § 146 action. (Complaint, Docket Item No. 1.) 

Agilent contends the Board erred in determining that claims 66-70 and 73-78 of the Besemer

application satisfy the written description requirement. (Complaint ¶ 24.) Affymetrix contends that

Case 5:06-cv-05958-JW Document 51 Filed 10/30/07 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

the decision of the Board should be affirmed, or that, in the alternative, the canceled claims of the

Schembri patent are anticipated by certain prior art references under §§ 102(b) and (e). (Answer of

Affymetrix Inc. to Complaint ¶¶ 33-34, Docket Item No. 9.)

On October 29, 2007, the Court conducted a case management conference. The Court

advised the parties that due to the complexity of the case and the patents-in-suit, the Court would

benefit from the services of a technical advisor.

II. STANDARDS

A district judge has inherent authority to appoint a technical advisor when the judge deems it

desirable and necessary. Ass’n of Mexican Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 590 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). The exercise of this authority should be used sparingly and only in highly

complicated cases. TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

(interpreting the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing technical advisors). In those limited cases,

where the complexity of the science and technology involves something well beyond regular

questions of fact and law, the district court may use its inherent authority to tap the outside skill and

expertise of a technical advisor. Federal Trade Commission v. Enforma Natural Products, Inc., 362

F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 157 (1st Cir. 1988). 

The technical advisor acts as educator, advising on terminology so that the district court can better

understand complex evidence and properly discharge its role as decision maker. TechSearch, 286

F.3d at 1377. 

In Reilly, the appellant conceded that a district court has inherent authority to appoint an

expert as a technical advisor, but argued that such power is strictly circumscribed by Federal Rule of

Evidence 706(a). 863 F.2d 149, 154 (1st Cir. 1988). The First Circuit held the plain language of

706(a) indicates that the rule is confined to court-appointed expert witnesses and does not embrace

expert advisors or consultants:

[706(a)] establishes a procedural framework for nomination and selection of an expert

witness and for the proper performance of his role after an appointment is accepted. [] By

and large, these modalities--though critically important in the realm customarily occupied by

an expert witness--have marginal, if any, relevance to the functioning of technical advisors. 

Case 5:06-cv-05958-JW Document 51 Filed 10/30/07 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

3

 Attached to this Proposed Order is a courtesy copy of Mr. Schulz’s resume.

4

Since an advisor, by definition, is called upon to make no findings and to supply no

evidence, [internal citations omitted], provisions for depositions, cross-questioning, and the

like are inapposite. [citations omitted.]

Id. at 155-156.

III. PROPOSED ORDER OF APPOINTMENT

The Court intends to appoint Mr. Rainer Schulz3 as a “Technical Advisor” under the

following terms:

1. Any advice provided to the Court by Mr. Schulz will not be based on any extra-record

information.

2. From time to time, the Court may request Mr. Schulz to provide a formal written report on

technical advice concerning the case. A copy of the formal written report prepared by Mr. Schulz

shall be provided to the parties. However, the Court reserves the right to have informal verbal

communication with Mr. Schulz which are not included in any formal written report.

2. Mr. Schulz may attend any court proceedings.

3. Mr. Schulz may review any pleadings, motions or documents submitted to the Court. 

4. As a technical advisor, Mr. Schulz will make no written findings of fact and will not

supply any evidence to the Court. Thus, Mr. Schulz will be outside the purview of “expert

witnesses” under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. As such, the provisions in Rule 706 for depositions

and questioning of expert witnesses will be inapplicable to Mr. Schulz. See Reilly, 863 F.2d at 155-

156.

5. Mr. Schulz will have no contact with any of the parties or their counsel except for billing

purposes.

6. The parties are directed to pay the reasonable fees charged by Mr. Schulz for his service

as a technical advisor to the Court in this case. If the appointment is made, the parties shall confer to

determine an apportionment for purposes of payment of Mr. Schulz’s fees. All matters pertaining to

Case 5:06-cv-05958-JW Document 51 Filed 10/30/07 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 5

the fees of Mr. Schulz are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge Patricia Trumbull.

7. Mr. Schulz shall file a declaration that he will adhere to the terms of his appointment. 

On or before November 15, 2007, any party to the litigation wishing to object to Mr.

Schulz’s appointment on any ground, shall file a Notice of Objection to Appointment of Technical

Advisor. Among the grounds for objection, the Court specifically would wish to know of any

objection based on the following grounds: 

A. Bias on the part of Mr. Schulz;

B. Lack of funds to share the fees of the advisor on the part of the objecting party.

Any objection shall be lodged directly with Magistrate Judge Trumbull. The objection shall

state the grounds of objection and be accompanied by a supporting declaration and legal

memorandum supporting the objection. Judge Trumbull shall not advise Judge Ware of the identity

of any party making an objection. Judge Trumbull may confer with the parties to determine if any

modification of the terms of appointment would overcome the objection. Thereafter, Judge

Trumbull shall submit a recommendation to Judge Ware in accordance with paragraphs 1-7 or as

modified, or of non-appointment due to objections. Judge Ware shall determine whether to make

the appointment under any modified terms of appointment.

Dated: October 30, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05958-JW Document 51 Filed 10/30/07 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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Michael Joseph Malecek Michael_malecek@affymetrix.com

Robert Francis McCauley robert.mccauley@finnegan.com

Stephen C. Holmes Stephen_Holmes@Affymetrix.com

Tina E. Hulse tina.hulse@finnegan.com

Dated: October 30, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:06-cv-05958-JW Document 51 Filed 10/30/07 Page 6 of 6