Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00742/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00742-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

11-CV-1810-DMS(WVG) 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IN RE: AMERANTH CASES 

Member Case: AMERANTH, 

INC. v. PIZZA HUT, INC. et al. 

Member Case No.: 12-CV-742-DMS(WVG)

 Lead Case: 11-CV-1810-DMS(WVG) 

ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY 

CONFERENCE 

The Court convened a discovery conference in the above-captioned member case on 

May 17, 2017 to discuss a disputed response to a single Requests for Production of 

Documents (“RFP”): Ameranth’s RFP No. 1 (Set 9).1

 Having considered argument, Pizza 

Hut is ordered to produce the responsive technology agreements its counsel referenced 

during argument. 

As an initial matter, Pizza Hut admits that, despite its carefully crafted RFP 

responses, it possesses technology agreements that contain licensing provisions. During 

argument, Pizza Hut conceded that the technology agreements would be responsive to the 

RFP’s request for documents that are “for or related to” at least the ‘739 patent. Thus at a 

                                               

1

 “All license agreements or any other Agreements for or related to U.S. patent no. 

5,991,739 (the ‘‘739 patent’) or 8,738,449 (the ‘‘449 patent’) . . . .” Ameranth has 

withdrawn the remainder of this request for “any drafts of any such Agreements.” 

Case 3:12-cv-00742-DMS-WVG Document 73 Filed 05/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

11-CV-1810-DMS(WVG) 

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

minimum, it is evident that Pizza Hut continues to possess responsive documents it has not 

produced. 

 Pizza Hut’s primary objection to the production of the responsive technology 

agreements is their complete lack of relevance to claim construction in the consolidated 

infringement action in which Ameranth is the plaintiff or to any issue in IPDEV’s priority 

action (No. 14-CV-1303-DMS(WVG)) against Ameranth. Because the technology 

agreements lack relevance, Pizza Hut argues, their production would be unduly 

burdensome. However, Ameranth contends that these documents are relevant in both 

cases. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to “obtain discovery 

regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” After 

the 2015 Amendments to Rule 26, “[i]nformation within this scope of discovery need not 

be admissible in evidence to be discoverable,” id., but it still must be relevant to a party’s 

claim or defense. See In re Bard IVC Filters Prods. Liab. Litig., 317 F.R.D. 562, 563-64 

(D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2016). “Despite the recent amendments to Rule 26, discovery relevance 

remains a broad concept.” Fannie Mae v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, No. 14-CV-2046-JADPAL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23925, 2016 WL 778368, at *2 n.16 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2016) 

(unpublished); see also Haghayeghi v. Guess?, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 3d 1277, 1280 (S.D. Cal. 

2016). Moreover, “discovery is not limited to issues raised by the pleadings, for discovery 

itself is designed to help define and clarify the issues.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 

437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). 

Ameranth’s request for license agreements and “other” agreements that contemplate 

the subject patents satisfies the broad and permissive discoverability standard above. 

Ameranth argues the documents are relevant in both the consolidated infringement action 

and IPDEV’s priority action. First, Ameranth contends the documents it seeks are relevant 

to claim construction in the infringement action because “such agreements often refer to 

elements of systems practicing the invention corresponding to patent claim terms, such as 

databases, linked GUI screens, wireless handhelds, synchronization, etc., and how a POSA 

Case 3:12-cv-00742-DMS-WVG Document 73 Filed 05/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

11-CV-1810-DMS(WVG) 

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

would understand such terms.” The Court is persuaded that the documents Ameranth seeks 

may constitute potentially relevant extrinsic evidence that may assist the District Judge’s 

claim construction analysis.2,3 Pizza Hut’s argument that the technology agreements are 

too remote in time to be relevant is unpersuasive. In the Court’s view, any such temporal 

remoteness goes to the weight of the evidence, not its relevancy, and the District Judge 

may consider temporal remoteness to determine whether to reject this extrinsic evidence. 

                                               

2

 It is true that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has expressed reservations about 

the reliability of extrinsic evidence in the claim construction context. See, e.g., Phillips v. 

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“We have viewed extrinsic 

evidence in general as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in 

determining how to read claim terms, for several reasons.”) (listing reasons). However, 

although extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record,” 

Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016), this does 

not mean that such evidence is devoid of relevance, see Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319 (holding 

that “because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the 

invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would 

understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion 

to admit and use such evidence.”). Whether and to what extent the honorable District Judge 

in this case departs from the intrinsic record—or allows or uses extrinsic evidence—is 

within his purview and discretion. But the permissive discovery standards do not support 

this Court barring Ameranth—via discovery orders—from at least having the opportunity 

to directly present such evidence for the District Judge’s consideration or use the 

documents in other ways—such as by expert witnesses—when Ameranth has met its 

burden. Moreover, this Court is not persuaded that Ameranth is limited to using a finite 

type of extrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317 (“[W]e have also authorized district courts to 

rely on extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists of all evidence external to the patent and 

prosecution history . . . .’”) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 

980 (Fed. Cir. 1995)) (emphasis added). This Court recognizes that the District Judge may 

ultimately reject all of the subject agreements as unhelpful or contradictory, see Markman, 

52 F.3d at 981, but this does not mean this Court should deny the District Judge the 

opportunity to make such a determination when Ameranth has provided a persuasive basis 

for the documents’ relevance. 

3

 Because the Court is persuaded by Ameranth’s first stated basis for relevancy in the 

infringement action, the Court will not discuss the remaining two bases. 

Case 3:12-cv-00742-DMS-WVG Document 73 Filed 05/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

11-CV-1810-DMS(WVG) 

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

Moreover, Ameranth persuasively argued the technology agreements’ relevancy in 

the IPDEV priority action, in which discovery is open as to all issues. For example, 

technology agreements that describe the technology system(s) the agreements cover may 

evidence technology limitations or variations that may in turn demonstrate critical 

differences between the competing patents and undermine IPDEV’s priority claims. 

 Having resolved the question of relevancy in Ameranth’s favor, questions of 

proportionality and burden remain. During argument, Pizza Hut represented that fewer 

than 10 responsive technology agreements exist. In light of the low number of documents, 

requiring their production would not create and undue burden for Pizza Hut and would be 

proportional to the needs of this case given its scope and the stakes involved.4

 In sum, Pizza Hut’s objections are OVERRULED. Pizza Hut is ordered to produce 

the responsive documents no later than May 30, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 19, 2017 

                                              

4

 Additionally, the Court finds the RFP as crafted is not overly broad, as it is evident Pizza 

Hut’s counsel understands its scope. Pizza Hut also withdrew its privilege and workproduct objections. 

Case 3:12-cv-00742-DMS-WVG Document 73 Filed 05/19/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4