Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL

CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

 MEDIATEK, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

____________________________________/

Case No. C-05-3148 MMC (JCS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN

PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DEFENDANT’S TO PRODUCE

DOCUMENTS, PROVIDE FULL AND

COMPLETE INTERROGATORY

RESPONSES [Docket No. 131] AND

GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND

SOURCE CODE [Docket No. 149]

On September 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Defendant’s to Produce

Documents, Provide Full and Complete Interrogatory Responses and Provide Corporate Witnesses

to Testify Re: Certain Topics (the “Corporate Witness Motion”).

On October 3, 2006, Defendant’s filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and

Source Code (the “Source Code Motion”).

On November 17, 2006, the Corporate Witness Motion and Source Code Motion came on for

hearing. David Stein and Aldo Badini, counsel for Plaintiff, appeared. Eugene Chen, Adrian Pruetz

and Kevin Johnson, counsel for Defendants, appeared.

For reasons stated on the record, and good cause shown,

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that by December 11, 2006, Mediatek will produce the

following documents from the ITC proceedings in Zoran v. Mediatek:

1. Non-privilege documents regarding Mediatek’s bonding;

2. Testimony by expert or fact witness relating to the technical aspects of the twelve (12)

products that are at issue in both this case and Zoran (the “common products”); and

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 246 Filed 11/21/06 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

3. Deposition transcripts and exhibits relating to the technical aspects of the common

products.

The producing party shall determine if the documents will be produced on an “Attorney’s Eyes 

Only” basis.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that by December 11, 2006, Plaintiffs Panasonic

and Matsushita will produce technical documents, and financial records including marketing

documents regarding the approximately 110 products identified in Mediatek’s First Set of

Interrogatories, No. 1, and the responses thereto. 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet-and-confer on

Defendant’s Motion Compelling Production of Technical and Financial Documents and

Identification of Corporate Witnesses for Deposition in an effort to resolve this motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2006 _______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 246 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2