Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MEDIATEK, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

____________________________________/

Case No. C-05-3148 MMC (JCS)

ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW OF

DOCUMENTS [Docket No. 456]

The parties have submitted, in camera, two documents for review by the Court: a technical

analysis by Tadahiko Ichikawa dated April 8, 2005 (the “Ichikawa Analysis”) and e-mails from

Masahiko Samura dated June 16, 2006 (the “Samura E-Mails”). The parties have also submitted

memoranda regarding whether these two documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege

and attorney work product. Good cause appearing, the Court reaches the following conclusions:

1. The Court finds that the Ichikawa Analysis was prepared in anticipation of litigation

at the request of counsel for Matsushita, and is therefore protected as work product. 

This Analysis was presented to Matsushita’s counsel, and that communication is

protected by the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel

Production of the Ichikawa Analysis is DENIED.

2. The Court finds that only part of the Samura E-Mails reflects confidential

communications between attorney and client. Most of the Samura E-Mails does not

appear, after careful review, to have been prepared in anticipation of litigation, and

does not reflect attorney advice. On the other hand, at several places in the E-Mail

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 548 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 2
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

string are two brief paragraphs captioned “MTK Patent.” Under this heading are two

paragraphs: one beginning with the word “Because” and one beginning with the word

“June.” Those two paragraphs reflect confidential communications between attorney

and client, as well as preparation for litigation. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel

Production of the Samura E-Mails is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

The E-Mails shall be produced, with the exception that the two afore-mentioned

paragraphs may be redacted wherever they appear.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2007 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 548 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 2