Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05118/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05118-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TOWNSHEND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

L.L.C., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

NO. C 06-05118 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Local Patent Rule 3-1 requires plaintiffs in patent infringement actions to serve “Preliminary

Infringement Contentions” (“PICs”) that include, among other things, “[a] chart identifying

specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each Accused

Instrumentality.” In this case, plaintiff Townshend Intellectual Property, L.L.C. holds patents

relating to the V.90 standard for transmitting data over telephone lines to so-called “dial-up”

computer modems. Townshend apparently contends any computer modem that is “V.90 compliant”

may infringe the asserted patent claims, regardless of the inner workings of the modem or how it is

designed. As a result, Townshend served PICs that made no effort to identify “where each element

of each asserted claim is found within” defendant Broadcom Corporation’s accused products. 

Instead, Townshend attempted to “map” the asserted patent claims to the provisions of the V.90

standard.

*E-FILED 7/5/07*

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 47 Filed 07/05/07 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

 Broadcom suggests the analogy of a television receiver. Broadcom does not explain

whether there is any significance to the fact that a modem, unlike a conventional television, engages

in two-way communication.

2

Broadcom has produced the source code for its products to Townshend and brings this

motion to compel Townshend either to amend its PICs or to answer an interrogatory to tie the

asserted patent claims specifically to Broadcom’s products. Notwithstanding its insistence that there

is infringement regardless of how Broadcom’s individual products are designed and work,

Townshend acknowledges it could analyze the Broadcom source code to identify where each claim

element appears. Townshend urges, however, that it should be permitted to postpone such analysis

until after the Markman hearing in this case and that disclosure of the results of that analysis can be

made in its Final Infringement Contentions (“FICs”). Because the rules are designed to forestall the

prospect that infringement theories transform dramatically between the PIC and FIC stages, a

prospect Townshend seeks to reserve, the motion will be granted.

 II. BACKGROUND

As noted, this case involves the V.90 standard for transmitting data over dial up internet

connections. At the time of its introduction, V.90 was significant because it permitted transmission

of data at the then–impressive rate of “56K” (56,000 bits per second). A dial-up connection

requires a modem at both ends–one at or in the user’s computer, and one operated by the user’s

Internet Service Provider (ISP). In industry jargon, ISPs’ modems are “server-side” and users’

modems are “client-side.” In prior litigation, Townshend sued modem manufacturers who made

both server-side and client-side modems. Broadcom makes only client-side modems.

Broadcom contends that the V.90 standard only governs how information is sent from a

server-side modem to a client-side modem. “How the consumer’s modem interprets that signal is up

to the manufacturer.”1

 As a result, in Broadcom’s view, evening assuming Townshend’s patents

cover the V.90 standard, simply manufacturing and selling a client-side modem that is V.90

compliant will not constitute infringement.

Townshend served PICs that are lengthy and that contain substantial detail. Broadcom

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 47 Filed 07/05/07 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

2

 Broadcom recognizes this point and does not press an argument at this juncture that

Townsend’s prefiling investigation was insufficient.

3

asserts, however, that the PICs were merely “cut-and-pasted” from prior litigation by Townshend

against a server-side modem manufacturer and that they contain material inapplicable to this action. 

More fundamentally, Broadcom’s objection to the adequacy of the PICs arises from the fact that

they do not “map” Broadcom’s source code to the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit. Instead, 

the PICs set forth Townshend’s contentions as to how the asserted claims read on the V.90 standard,

and then simply conclude that Broadcom’s modems infringe because they are (admittedly) “V.90

compliant.”

III. DISCUSSION

Patent Local Rule 3-1 requires patent plaintiffs to “identify[] specifically where each element

of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality.” It has been described as a

“streamlined” mechanism to replace the “series of interrogatories that defendants would likely have

propounded” in its absence. Network Caching Tech,, LLC v. Novell Inc., 2002 WL 32126128, *4

(N.D. Cal. 2002) (“Network I”). As such, Rule 3-1 and the other Patent Local Rules, “provide

structure to discovery and enable the parties to move efficiently toward claim construction and the

eventual resolution of their dispute.” American Video Graphics, L.P. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 359

F.Supp.2d 558, 560 (E.D.Tex.2005) (applying local rules modeled on those of this District and citing

Network Caching Tech,, LLC v. Novell Inc., 2003 WL 21699799 (N.D. Cal. 2003) “Network II”)).

“[T]he standard of FRCP 11 prefiling inquiry establishes a minimum level of detail that

Patent LR 3-1 requires.” Network I, 2002 WL 32126128 at *4. Nevertheless, in the context of a

motion challenging the sufficiency of PIC’s, arguments that a plaintiff failed to conduct an adequate

prefiling investigation generally are misplaced because sanctions under Rule 11 are not available

until there is a determination on the merits that the claims are objectively baseless. See Network II,

2003 WL 21699799 at *7-8.2

 Rather, the question ordinarily is whether the PICs disclose all of “the

relevant facts [plaintiff] obtained in its prefiling inquiry.” Network I, 2002 WL 32126128 at *4. In

other words, a plaintiff may satisfy its obligations under Rule 3-1 whether or not it conducted a preCase 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 47 Filed 07/05/07 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

4

filing investigation sufficient to comply with Rule 11. See Network II, 2003 WL 21699799 at *7

(finding plaintiff in compliance with Rule 3-1 despite “preposterous” failure to conduct adequate

prefiling investigation.); see also, American Video Graphics, supra, 359 F.Supp.2d at 560 (finding

preliminary contentions sufficient where “defendants’ sole possession of the information plaintiffs

need” precluded greater specificity.). 

In the present case, there appears to be no real dispute that Townshend’s existing PICs reflect

substantially all of the facts it obtained in its prefiling inquiry. Townshend did not have access to

Broadcom’s source code before bringing suit. Townshend appears to contend that any V.90

compliant modem infringes the asserted patent claims. Accordingly, if Townshend were prepared to

commit to that theory of infringement, it might be possible to conclude that Townshend has

adequately complied with the spirit and intent of Rule 3-1, notwithstanding the fact that it has not

literally complied with the requirement of “identifying specifically where each element of each

asserted claim is found.” In that event, Broadcom presumably would still argue that mere

compliance with the V.90 standard is legally insufficient to support an infringement claim, but that

dispute would go to the merits, rather than to the adequacy of the PICs.

Townshend, however, has expressly declined to commit to the basic infringement theory set

forth in the PICs. To the contrary, Townshend insists that it be given the opportunity to serve FICs

that do map the asserted claims of the patent to Broadcom’s source code. Townshend merely wants

to wait until after the Markman hearing before doing so. Townshend’s proposal could wellresult in

FICs that differ substantially from the PICs. Indeed, Townshend suggests that the process of

drafting its FICs will be “laborious and time-consuming,” implying that those contentions will bear

little resemblance to the existing PICs. That would be contrary to the intent of the rules and to the

purpose PICs are supposed to serve. Despite the label “preliminary,” PICs are not intended to be

mere rough drafts subject to drastic modification. Rather, the rules “are designed to require parties

to crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they

have been disclosed.” Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd., 308

F.Supp.2d 1106, 1107 (N.D.Cal.,2004). Indeed, the default presumption is that a party’s PICs “shall

be deemed to be that party’s final contentions.” Rule 3-6. Although the Rules permit amendments if

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 47 Filed 07/05/07 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

3

 Cases involving source code or other materials not available on the open market generally

present some difficulties for plaintiffs, both with respect to conducting prefiling investigations and

to preparing PICs. See, e.g., Network II, 2003 WL 21699799 (“ The only way to pinpoint the

specific routine is to analyze the source code, which is solely in the defendants’ possession. This is

the quintessential case allowing amendment of PICs based on information received in discovery.”) 

Townshend argues that this District chose to amend the patent local rules to not require disclosure of

source code prior to PICs and that Broadcom should not be allowed to upset that sequence by

voluntarily producing its source code. While that amendment may have protected Broadcom from

automatically being required to produce its source code now, its choice to do so serves the goal of

the local rules to “enable the parties to move efficiently toward claim construction and the eventual

resolution of their dispute,” American Video, supra, 359 F.Supp.2d at 560. Under these

circumstances, allowing Townshend to proceed as it suggests would not serve that goal.

4

 Townshend suggested at the hearing that it does not have sufficient information regarding

the source code as produced to evaluate it fully. Broadcom expressed a willingness to provide such

additional information or technical advice as might be necessary to resolve that issue. The Court

anticipates that any such remaining problems will be resolved through the meet and confer process.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

C C 06-05118 JF (RS)

5

made necessary in light of documents produced by the other side or by the claim construction ruling,

or upon a showing of other good cause, those provisions do not contemplate pre-planned, wholesale

revisions of the nature Townshend appears to be suggesting it may elect to make here.3

Accordingly, Broadcom’s motion will be granted. Broadcom expressed no preference

between receiving amended PICs or a complete response to the interrogatory it propounded on the

subject (No. 11), so the choice lies with Townshend as to which it will provide.4

IV. CONCLUSION

 The motion is granted. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Townshend shall serve

amended PICs or a response to Interrogatory 11 consistent with the principles set forth above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 47 Filed 07/05/07 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

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL

C C 06-05118 JF (RS)

6

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

William F. Abrams william.abrams@bingham.com

Kevin A. Fitzgerald kevin.fitzgerald@bingham.com

James Boyd Lewis james.lewis@bingham.com

Diana Luo dluo@mofo.com, bgomez@mofo.com

Larry Scott Oliver soliver@mofo.com, kolivares@mofo.com, llontayao@mofo.com,

msmoot@mofo.com

James Pooley jpooley@mofo.com, llontayao@mofo.com, msmoot@mofo.com

Ruby May Wayne ruby.wayne@bingham.com, courtney.smith@bingham.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 7/5/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 47 Filed 07/05/07 Page 6 of 6