Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00358/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-00358-4/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

No. C 18-00358 WHA 

ORDER GRANTING WRITTEN 

DISCOVERY

In this flurry of patent infringement suits, plaintiffs’ web of entities and patent transfer 

agreements raise the constant question: who gets to sue? Here, Uniloc USA, Inc. and related 

entities may have defaulted on a revenue sharing agreement and may have given an entity 

called Fortress too great an interest in the asserted patents when this suit was filed. This and 

Uniloc’s post filing conduct continues to raise the question: who owns the asserted patents?

A December 16 order (Dkt. No. 126) directed Uniloc to produce all jurisdictional 

discovery on this issue taken in related cases, see, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc., et al. v. Apple Inc., 

No. C 18-00360 WHA, and gave Apple the opportunity to respond (if it wished) and specify 

what information was still needed. Uniloc produced a single document and now Apple 

requests further discovery (Dkt. No. 129 at 2). 

To start, though, Apple notes (and Uniloc does not contest) that no discovery ever took 

place on this issue in the related cases (id. at 1). Though it was ordered (No. 18-00360, Dkt. 

Case 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 133 Filed 01/29/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

No. 204), the cases were stayed pending inter partes review (No. 18-00360, Dkt. No. 131). It 

seems discovery is required here. 

First, Apple requests discovery on the drafting history of the Fortress agreement. The 

single document produced following the December 16 order was a deposition transcript in a 

related case in which one of Uniloc’s officers referenced several draft agreements (Dkt. No. 

129 at 2–4). Because the primary issue here is whether Uniloc defaulted and cured, the 

contracting parties’ understanding of their obligations under the agreement is relevant. 

Second, Apple requests discovery of the circumstances of Uniloc’s default, steps taken to 

cure, and communications between Uniloc and Fortress during that time (id. at 6). Uniloc 

responds that under Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Technology Corp. it need not 

hold all exclusive rights in the asserted patents to to sue. 925 F.3d 1225, 1234 (Fed. Cir. 

2019). True, but Lone Star also held that Uniloc must hold enough of the rights in the patent to 

be able to sue. Ibid. The question here is what rights Uniloc held when this suit was filed. 

Whether or not Uniloc defaulted and cured its obligations to Fortress will answer that question. 

Third, Apple requests discovery of more recent patent assignments between Uniloc 

entities. Uniloc responds that the most recent patent rights-holders were already joined in the 

related cases. But that joinder was in January 2019, based on documents from November 2018 

(Dkt. No. 132 at 1). If Uniloc’s patent assignment web is anything, it is not static. Apple cites 

evidence of new patent transfer agreements and evidence that relevant Uniloc entities may no 

longer exist (Dkt. No. 129 at 7). Discovery to determine who may assert the patents now is 

appropriate. 

Apple’s request for more discovery is GRANTED IN PART. At this time, no depositions 

will be permitted, however Apple may proceed with written discovery of:

1. Drafts of the Fortress agreement, such as those referenced in the deposition 

transcript Uniloc provided. 

2. The circumstances, communications, and actions regarding Uniloc’s default and 

purported cure of its obligations to Fortress.

Case 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 133 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. Updated ownership interests in the asserted patents, including whether entities 

now or formerly asserting ownership interests in the patents still exist. 

This limited discovery period shall close on FEBRUARY 28 AT 5:00 P.M.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-00358-WHA Document 133 Filed 01/29/20 Page 3 of 3