Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05118/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05118-3/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

*E-FILED 7/30/07

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 RE DISCOVERY

SCHEDULE

 On July 24, 2007, a telephone conference was held to address various discovery issues,

including the question of whether defendant should be required to serve a complete set of

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions at this time, or whether it may wait until after plaintiff has

supplemented its Preliminary Infringement Contentions, as required by the Court’s order entered on

July 5, 2007. Plaintiff contends that the Local Patent Rules require Preliminary Invalidity

Contentions to be served within forty-five days of the service of Preliminary Infringement

Contentions, and that because plaintiff did serve Preliminary Infringement Contentions, defendant’s

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are past due, notwithstanding the fact that the Court found

plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions to be inadequate. Plaintiff further contends that

defendant can and must disclose all of the supporting facts known to it at the time it first pleaded

invalidity, together with any additional supporting facts it may have learned since then. 

Defendant, in turn, contends it would be premature to require it to specify its invalidity

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 53 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 4
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

contentions in detail until after it has received plaintiff’s supplemental Preliminary Infringement

Contentions. Defendant suggests that the presiding judge previously addressed this issue and

concluded that defendant need only disclose its invalidity contentions under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (g) at

this point in the litigation. Defendant acknowledges that the Local Patent Rules would give it an

opportunity to amend its Preliminary Invalidity Contentions should anything in plaintiff’s

supplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions give rise to good cause for such amendments,

but defendant argues it should not be faced with the burden of establishing such good cause or the

risk that amendment would not be allowed.

The Court has reviewed the transcript of the case management proceedings before the

presiding judge in which this issue was discussed and concludes that no final or binding order was

made as to how the matter should or could proceed after the question of the adequacy of plaintiff’s

original Preliminary Infringement Contentions was resolved. Because the Court has now ruled that

the Preliminary Infringement Contentions need to be supplemented, there is at least some merit to

defendant’s argument that its obligation under the rules to serve Preliminary Invalidity Contentions

has yet to arise. Nevertheless, in the interests of efficient management of the discovery process and

good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Within 20 days of the date of this order, defendant shall serve complete interim

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions that disclose all of defendant’s invalidity contentions and the

factual basis therefore, based on all matters presently known to defendant.

2. Within 20 days of service of plaintiff’s amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions,

defendant may, without seeking further leave of Court, serve amended Preliminary Invalidity

Contentions, with the proviso that any such amendments must reasonably relate to and arise from

matters specified for the first time in plaintiff’s amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions. 

Any further amendments thereafter to defendant’s invalidity contentions shall be made only in

accordance with Local Patent Rule 3-6(b) (permitting amendment without leave of Court under 

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 53 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 4
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 RE DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

C C 06-05118 JF (RS)

3

specified conditions) or Rule 3-7 (requiring a showing of good cause for amendments under any

other circumstances). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 53 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 4
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 RE DISCOVERY SCHEDULE

C C 06-05118 JF (RS)

4

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

Carlos Patricio Mino carlos.mino@bingham.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: 7/30/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:06-cv-05118-JF Document 53 Filed 07/30/07 Page 4 of 4