Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01474/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-01474-44/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 4/15/08*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CORDIS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

NO. C 02-1474 JW (RS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Cordis Corporation moves to compel plaintiffs and their licensor, non-party the

Regents of the University of California (“UC”), to produce certain documents withheld under a

claim of privilege. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1 (b), the Court finds this matter suitable for

disposition without oral argument.

In a related action, The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics, Inc, et

al., C 03 05669 JW (RS) (“the MTI action”), the Court granted a motion to compel production of

these same documents, finding that UC could not proffer a particular good faith defense at the thenimminent trial while simultaneously withholding the documents. UC immediately announced that it

would withdraw that defense and offer no evidence or argument on the point at trial, and on that

basis it applied for leave to seek reconsideration of the order to produce. UC also took steps to

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 1136 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 The motion also seeks production of the complete results of that prior art search, asserting

that only an incomplete or redacted copy of the results have been produced. UC’s opposition asserts

that Cordis has been directed to where a copy of the results may be found in the public record, and

discusses only the four letters as being in controversy. Cordis’s reply brief, however, does not

acknowledge that the dispute is any narrower than was set out in its moving papers, but neither does

it discuss the adequacy of UC’s citation to where the results of the search may be found. 

Accordingly, the record is not entirely clear as to whether or not production of the search results is

still a matter of dispute.

2

 Cordis makes a secondary argument that the privilege was waived by the failure of UC or

others to include these documents on a privilege log. Cordis has not shown that the circumstances

warrant a finding of waiver on that basis.

2

ensure that any objections it might need to file before the presiding judge would be timely. The MTI

action settled before any further proceedings took place, and it has now been dismissed.

Although the order granting the motion to compel in the MTI action was not expressly made

conditional, the rationale was that UC’s then-planned introduction at trial of a good faith defense

would have the effect of waiving the privilege as to these documents. Nothing in the order preluded

UC from concluding it would rather preserve the privilege than pursue that particular defense. The

anticipated waiver upon which the motion to compel was granted never came to pass, and thus there

is no basis to require the production of those documents now. Accordingly, the motion to compel

will be denied.

II DISCUSSION

This motion to compel seeks production of four letters exchanged among UC’s patent

prosecution attorneys and their client and a party with a common-interest, all of which largely

related to a specific prior art search that had been conducted.1

 Cordis makes no suggestion that the

letters were not subject to the attorney-client privilege in the first instance; it argues only that the

Court previously found that the privilege has been waived.2

The Court’s order granting the motion to compel these documents in the MTI action stated,

in relevant part:

[UC’s] trial brief states its intention to prove that, “Mr. Dawes went

above and beyond his obligations to the PTO during prosecution . . . .

Although not required, Mr. Dawes even requested an independent

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 1136 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 6
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

3

 As in the MTI action, UC continues not to distinguish fully between this concept and that

of selective waiver. The latter applies when disclosure of some part of attorney-client

communications would render it unfair to withhold other parts. Waiver by affirmative reliance, in

contrast, can arise even when no specific attorney-client privileged information has been disclosed. 

See United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1291- 1292 (2d Cir.1991) (rejecting argument that

waiver could not be found where defendant sought to offer testimony of his good faith attempt to

comply with law without revealing “the content or even the existence of any privileged

communications.”) Contrary to what UC argues, the “sword” and “shield” metaphor applies even

in such circumstances. Id. at 1292.

3

prior art search, incorporating the results of that search into the patent

application. No intent to deceive can be found in light of this

evidence.” Because the fact that Mr. Dawes commissioned an

“independent prior art search” is being used as evidence of his good

faith, [UC] has squarely put in issue the materials it claims are

privileged . . . . [UC] cannot offer the fact of the search to prove

Dawes’s good faith (or, more precisely, to rebut defendant’s claims of

inequitable conduct) while simultaneously shielding information as to

what he may have known about how that search was conducted and

other such matters. 

Order filed October 12, 2007, in the MTI Action.

The order represented an application of the so-called “waiver by affirmative reliance”

doctrine. See Chevron Corp. v. Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The privilege

which protects attorney-client communications may not be used both as a sword and a shield.

[Citation.] Where a party raises a claim which in fairness requires disclosure of the protected

communication, the privilege may be implicitly waived.”)3

 By definition, the waiver arises when

the affirmative reliance takes place. Here, UC merely announced an intention to present a defense at

trial that, in the Court’s view, would give rise to a waiver. Because the discovery rules contemplate

an exchange of relevant materials prior to trial, the Court granted the motion to compel based on that

anticipated waiver, even though it technically had yet to occur.

There may be circumstances under which a party may plead or argue a matter in pre trial

proceedings such that a waiver occurs at that point in time. There may also be circumstances under

which it would be unduly prejudicial to permit a party to withdraw a claim or a defense that it has

previously stated would be pursued. No such circumstances appear here. Cordis has not identified

any prejudice to it resulting from the fact that for a very short period of time, UC was on record as

intending to present this defense in the MTI action.

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 1136 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

 UC also resists production by arguing the documents are not relevant to any issues that

remain in this case. Cordis counters that UC should not be permitted to “hide the ball for years” by

failing to disclose the existence of relevant documents until after dispositive rulings have narrowed

the issues. Cordis’s argument fails to take into account the fact that even if the privilege had been

waived, that would have occurred only late last Fall, and Cordis would not have been entitled to the

documents at any time prior to then. Nevertheless, in light of the conclusion that the documents

remain privileged, the Court need not consider whether they are relevant or not.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

C 02-1474 JW (RS) 

4

Cordis’s insistence that Genentech, Inc. v. U.S. International Trade Commission, 122 F.3d

1409 (Fed.Cir. 1997) controls here is unavailing. In Genentech there was no question that the event

supporting a finding of waiver (an inadvertent production of privileged materials) had taken place in

an earlier proceeding. Genentech does support the notion that if a waiver had occurred in the MTI

action, UC could not assert the privilege now, even though this is a different proceeding, involving

different parties. Nothing in Genentech, however, even addresses the issue presented here, where the

conclusion was only that a waiver would occur upon presentation of a certain defense.4

Finally, Cordis suggests that its motion to compel can be granted with respect to plaintiffs in

this action because they filed no opposition. While better practice may have been for plaintiffs to

file a one page “joinder” in UC’s opposition, a separate opposition from plaintiffs would have been

wasteful. Plaintiffs will not be penalized for choosing not to add to the paperwork.

III. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2008 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 1136 Filed 04/15/08 Page 4 of 6
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 DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

C 02-1474 JW (RS) 

5

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Hugh A. Abrams habrams@sidley.com, efilingnotice@sidley.com

Edward V. Anderson evanderson@sidley.com, eleiva@sidley.com

Susan E. Bower sbower@sidley.com

Marc A. Cavan mcavan@sidley.com

Teague I. Donahey tdonahey@sidley.com, sheila.brown@sidley.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com

Amanda Marie Kessel akessel@goodwinprocter.com

Stephanie Pauline Koh skoh@sidley.com

Tracy Jean Phillips tphillips@sidley.com, grodriguez@sidley.com

Matthew Thomas Powers mpowers@sidley.com, alrea@sidley.com

Patrick Eugene Premo ppremo@fenwick.com, mguidoux@fenwick.com

David T. Pritikin dpritikin@sidley.com, efilingnotice@sidley.com, puhlenhake@sidley.com,

shomorozan@sidley.com

Lisa Anne Schneider lschneider@sidley.com, efilingnotice@sidley.com

Rainer Schulz Rainer_Schulz@atala.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com

Joel Dashiell Smith jsmith@flk.com

Allison H Stiles astiles@goodwinprocter.com

Michael G. Strapp mstrapp@goodwinprocter.com

Patrick Shaun Thompson pthompson@goodwinprocter.com

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 1136 Filed 04/15/08 Page 5 of 6
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 DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 

C 02-1474 JW (RS) 

6

Georgia Kloostra VanZanten gvanzanten@sidley.com, eleiva@sidley.com

Paul F. Ware , Jr pware@goodwinprocter.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: 4/15/08 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Chambers 

Case 5:02-cv-01474-JW Document 1136 Filed 04/15/08 Page 6 of 6