Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01697/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01697-1/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.

Case No. 3:19-cv-01697-VC (KAW)

ORDER DENYING RELIEF SOUGHT 

IN THE 10/17/19 JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 93

On October 17, 2019, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding the sufficiency of 

Legacy Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxenbourg, S.A., Inc.’s responses to Defendant 

Apple, Inc.’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 51, 72, and 96. (Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 

93.) After the responses were served, the parties stipulated to substitute Uniloc 2017, LLC as the 

plaintiff, because it had obtained the rights to the patent-in-suit. (Dkt. No. 79.) There is no 

indication that discovery was propounded on Uniloc 2017, and, to the undersigned’s knowledge, 

Uniloc 2017 has not adopted the Legacy Plaintiffs’ objections and responses. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Apple’s request to require Uniloc 2017 to supplement the 

Legacy Plaintiffs’ responses to the selected requests.

Notwithstanding, the Court did perform a cursory review of the joint letter to assist the 

parties with their future meet and confer efforts. Based on that review, the Court is not persuaded 

by Uniloc’s objection that Request No. 51 seeks cloned discovery, since the cases involve the 

same asserted patent, and the deposition transcripts may be relevant to noninfringement and 

damages. (See Joint Letter at 1.) As to Request Nos. 72 and 96, Uniloc is reminded that relevancy 

under Rule 26 is a broad standard despite the requirement that discovery be proportional to the 

needs of the case. That said, the Court appreciates the parties’ willingness to narrow the scope of 

Case 3:19-cv-01697-VC Document 95 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 2
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

the existing disputes, and encourages them to resolve any similar disputes should they arise in 

connection with the forthcoming responses, so that they need not resort to court intervention.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01697-VC Document 95 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 2