Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04739/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04739-3/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANK M. SPACONE, on behalf

of and as Trustee for the

General Unsecured Creditors'

Liquidating Trust of At Home

Corporation, and on Behalf

of and in the name of the At

Home Liquidating Trust of At

Home Corporation, 

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Microsoft Corporation,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C03-4739 CW (BZ)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OF POST-2002 “SMART TAGS

ALIAS” EMAILS

Now before me is plaintiff’s motion to compel production

of post-2002 “Smart Tags Alias” emails. Plaintiff seeks to

compel defendant to produce emails from an internal email

discussion group, referred to as the “Smart Tags discussion

alias,” that provided a forum for technical questions

regarding the functionality of Smart Tags. Plaintiff contends

that post-2002 emails related to Smart Tags as implemented in

Office XP and Office 2003 are relevant to defendant’s use of

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 154 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 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

2

Smart Tags and to the determination of reasonable royalty rate

for purposes of calculating damages. See Telemac Corp. v.

U.S./Intellicom Inc., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1100 (N.D. Cal.

2001) (citing Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318

F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)). Defendant argues that

the post-2002 “Smart Tags Alias” emails are irrelevant because

plaintiff has accused only a single product, Office XP, of

infringement, and that product was designed, developed and

released in 2002.

Patent Local Rule 3-1 required plaintiff to identify, by

name, each product accused of infringement in its preliminary

infringement contentions. In its preliminary infringement

contentions, which were filed on February 16, 2005, plaintiff

accused Smart Tags as implemented in Office XP of

infringement. Nowhere in its preliminary infringement

contentions did plaintiff mention Office 2003. Plaintiff’s

final infringement contentions similarly failed to accuse

Smart Tags as implemented in Office 2003 of infringement. 

Plaintiff has not sought to amend its infringement

contentions. See Pat. L.R. 3-7. As plaintiff has never

accused the Smart Tags feature as implemented in Office 2003

of infringement, I find that “Smart Tags Alias” emails

regarding Office 2003 are irrelevant. Plaintiff is therefore

not entitled to discovery of post-2002 “Smart Tags Alias”

emails regarding Office 2003.

Plaintiff is entitled to post-2002 “Smart Tags Alias”

emails regarding Office XP, however. These documents are

relevant to the product accused of infringement in this

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 154 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 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

3

lawsuit, and may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Defendant’s contention that

plaintiff is not entitled to post-2002 emails because they

were created after the design, development and release of

Office XP is unavailing. Defendant does not contend that the

email discussion group ceased discussing Smart Tags as

implemented in Office XP upon its release. Nor has defendant

provided evidence to demonstrate that post-2002 “Smart Tags

Alias” emails regarding Office XP do not contain information

relevant to this litigation. I therefore find that plaintiff

is entitled to discover all post-2002 “Smart Tags Alias”

emails regarding Office XP.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

plaintiff’s motion to compel post-2002 “Smart Tags Alias”

emails is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks discovery of

emails regarding Office XP and DENIED in all other respects.

Dated: August 16, 2005

Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\SPACONE\COMPEL2.ORD.wpd

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 154 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 3