Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02595/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-02595-11/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

 Rambus originally also sought to compel the production of certain documents

regarding Alberta’s licensing agreements and its relationship with Samsung. By way of two

stipulations, one filed prior to the hearing and one filed thereafter, the parties have advised

the Court that they have resolved those issues. 

*E-FILED 11/19/07*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ALBERTA TELECOMMUNICATIONS

RESEARCH CENTRE d/b/a TR LABS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAMBUS INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C 06-02595 RMW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

In this patent infringement action, defendant Rambus, Inc. moves to compel plaintiff

Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre to amend its preliminary infringement contentions

(“PICs”) or to respond further to certain interrogatories that Rambus propounded to obtain the

information it contends the PICs lack, or both.1

 Because the PICs served by Alberta fail to

provide all of the information required by Patent Local Rule 3-1, Alberta will be compelled to

Case 5:06-cv-02595-RMW Document 107 Filed 11/19/07 Page 1 of 4
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

serve amended PICs. The motion to compel further interrogatory responses will be denied

without prejudice, in the event the amended PICs remain deficient.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Sufficiency of Alberta’s PICs

As explained in Network Caching Tech,, LLC v. Novell Inc., 2002 WL 32126128 (N.D.

Cal. 2002), Local Patent Rule 3-1 provides for a “streamlined” mechanism to replace the “series

of interrogatories that defendants would likely have propounded” in its absence. 2002 WL

32126128 at *4. As such, Rule 3-1 and the other Patent Local Rules, “provide structure to

discovery and enable the parties to move efficiently toward claim construction and the eventual

resolution of their dispute.” American Video Graphics, L.P. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 359

F.Supp.2d 558, 560 (E.D.Tex.2005) (applying local rules modeled on those of this District). 

Patent Local Rule 3-1 “require[s] parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the

litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed.” Atmel Corp. v.

Information Storage Devices, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17564, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 1998).

Here, Rambus contends that Alberta’s PICs fail to identify “a common absolute time

reference” or “spatially distributed application modules” in the accused “Rambus Products.” 

Alberta insists that Rambus’s contentions that PICs are deficient are based only on 

“unsupported, conclusory argument of its attorneys.” Additionally, Alberta asserts that Patent

Local Rule 3-1 does not require Alberta to produce evidence of infringement or to provide

support for its assertions. 

Alberta’s arguments are misplaced. Nothing in Rambus’s motion seeks to require Alberta

to provide evidence supporting its infringement theories; rather Rambus only seeks to compel

compliance with Patent Local Rule 3-1(c), which requires, among other things, “a chart

identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each Accused

Instrumentality, including for each element that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. §

112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that

performs the claimed function.” (emphasis added). Alberta appears to acknowledge that its PICs

Case 5:06-cv-02595-RMW Document 107 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 4
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

do not fully comply with these requirements, but it suggests that Rambus failed to respond to

requests for further direction as to the information it wanted. Although efforts to meet and confer

regarding the discovery issues are always encouraged, even assuming Rambus did not state with

specificity what additional information it wanted, that does not serve as a basis for Alberta to

avoid complying with the rules. At the hearing, Alberta expressed a willingness to provide

amended PICs to address the issues raised by this motion, and indicated that efforts to prepare

such amended responses were already underway. In the event such amended PICs have not yet

been served, Alberta is hereby ordered to serve amended PICs in compliance with Rule 3-1 within

14 calendar days of the date of this order.

B. Interrogatory Nos. 1-4

Rambus additionally moves to compel Alberta to serve amended responses to Rambus’s

Interrogatory Nos. 1-4. As noted above, Rambus apparently originally served these

interrogatories as an alternative to moving to compel amendments to the PICs. At the hearing,

Rambus conceded that further responses to Interrogatory No. 1 and 3 would be superfluous

provided that Alberta’s amended PICs comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1. Rambus was more

equivocal as to whether adequate PICs would also moot any need for further responses to

Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4, but the basis of any distinction between the interrogatories is unclear. 

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 will be denied,

without prejudice to renewal of the motion in the event Alberta’s amended PIC prove insufficient. 

 

Case 5:06-cv-02595-RMW Document 107 Filed 11/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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

III. CONCLUSION

 The motion to compel is granted, in part. Within 14 calendar days of the date of this

order, Alberta shall serve PICs that comply fully with Patent Local Rule 3-1. The motion to

compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 is denied without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-02595-RMW Document 107 Filed 11/19/07 Page 4 of 4