Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03327/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03327-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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 In its amended interrogatories, Abbott stated that

its description was of the location of “at least a portion of

the measurement zone.” This amendment does not meet either of

Bayer’s concerns.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC.

And ABBOTT LABORATORIES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORP.,

ROCHE DIAGONOSTICS

OPERATIONS, INC., and BAYER

HEALTHCARE LLC,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-3117 MJJ (BZ)

Related Cases: 04-2123 MJJ

04-3327 MJJ

04-3732 MJJ

ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER

INTERROGATORY ANSWER

Bayer has moved for an order compelling Abbott to provide

a further response to Bayer’s Interrogatory No. 13. Bayer has

two complaints about Abbott’s answer: Abbott qualifies its

description of the location of the measurement zone by stating

that its description is “at least” the measurement zone and

Abbott fails to describe the methods it used in identifying

the zone.1

 

Case 3:04-cv-03327-WHA Document 102 Filed 10/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

As discovery is closing, Abbott has introduced an element

of ambiguity into its position by using the qualifier “at

least.” This seems inconsistent with one of the purposes of

discovery - narrowing and clarifying the issues to be tried. 

Abbott provides no satisfactory explanation for its use of the

term “at least.” Essentially, its explanation is, that

putting aside the term “at least,” it has identified the

location of the measurement zone in the accused and Abbott’s

products, and the negative implication that there may be some

other measurement zone is irrelevant. The court cannot

conclude as a matter of law that it is not relevant and that

knowing more precisely where the measurement zone is might not

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence both on

infringement and on the existence of prior art. Plainly,

Abbott has left itself an escape route from its interrogatory

answer and it is difficult to predict precisely how it might

use that route at trial. Bayer conjures up at least one such

use on pages 5-6 of its motion which Abbott never

satisfactorily refutes in its opposition. 

Abbott nowhere specifically addresses its failure to

explain the methods it used to identify the measurement zone

other than to suggest that this issue was covered during the

deposition of Dr. Bard. Even if the court were to find that

Dr. Bard’s testimony on this point was clear, which I am not

prepared to do, Bayer is still entitled to have its

interrogatory answered. Abbott’s answer may not 

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-03327-WHA Document 102 Filed 10/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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 Dr. Bard’s testimony appears largely theoretical. 

He admits that he never measured or analyzed the location of

the measurement zone. See e.g. Dr. Bard’s testimony at 

p. 250, ln. 14 and p. 263, ln. 4. Bayer is entitled to know

whether Abbott’s position is based on any analysis or

measurement, or is just co-extensive with Dr. Bard’s.

3 The court compliments the parties on the quality of

their briefs.

3

necessarily be the same as Dr. Bard’s testimony.2 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Bayer’s

Motion is GRANTED. A hearing is not necessary.3

 By 

November 2, 2007, Abbott shall further answer Interrogatory

No. 13. 

Dated: October 26, 2007

 

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\ABBOTT DIABETES CARE\BAYER.ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER INTERROGS.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-03327-WHA Document 102 Filed 10/26/07 Page 3 of 3