Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00986-57/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

 Contrary to AMD’s assertion, the mere fact that Samsung has voluntarily produced some

licenses outside the hypothetical negotiation period does not weigh in favor of compelling production

of the four licenses now requested.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, et al.,

Defendants and Counterclaimants.

 /

No. C 08-00986 SI

ORDER DENYING AMD’S MOTION TO

COMPEL LICENSE AGREEMENTS

Plaintiff AMD has filed a motion to compel Samsung to produce all license agreements relating

to the patents-in-suit or to technology comparable to the technology at issue in this case for the purpose

of calculating damages based on a reasonable royalty. Four specific licenses are at issue in this case.

The Nanya and Toshiba licenses are “broad, portfolio-level cross-licenses.” The Interdigital and

Rambus licenses are settlement agreements reached in connection with pending litigation. 

The hypothetical negotiation dates in this case range from some time in 1998 to September of

2004. The agreements AMD presently seeks were entered into from December 2007 to February 2010

– three to five-and-a-half years after the latest hypothetical negotiation date. In the Court’s view, AMD

is not entitled to discovery of agreements this far removed from the relevant time period, especially in

light of the fact that Samsung has already produced 120 licenses spanning the period from 1990 to

2006.1

 In addition, Samsung has explained that the two broad-level cross-licenses and the two

settlement agreements are substantially different in scope and substance from the single-patent licenses

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 374 Filed 03/16/10 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

that will be relevant to the royalty calculations in this case. That fact further weighs against compelling

discovery of the agreements. AMD’s motion to compel is therefore DENIED.

To the extent Samsung seeks discovery from AMD of license agreements similar to those at

issue in this order, that request is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 374 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2