Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435-33/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

*E-Filed: June 4, 2015*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cv-04435-EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT #13

Re: Dkt. No. 290

Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) sues Defendant UTAC (Taiwan) Corporation (“UTC”) 

for alleged failure to pay royalties under a license agreement. The first phase of this action 

concerned a contract interpretation dispute between Tessera and UTC about the criteria for 

determining which UTC products are royalty-bearing. Following discovery on that subject, the 

parties submitted summary judgment motions relating to contract interpretation, which were ruled 

on by the court. 

In the second phase of this action, Tessera served UTC with infringement disclosures 

identifying the products that Tessera contends are royalty-bearing under the agreement. Tessera’s 

July 8, 2014 disclosures identified 32 claims of 12 licensed patents and provided claim charts 

contending that two types of UTC packages—its w-BGA packages and DFN packages—are 

covered by the claims of licensed patents and are therefore royalty-bearing. Tessera’s disclosure 

asserted that Tessera did not have enough information to determine whether a third type of 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 326 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 4
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

package, UTC’s LGA SiP package, is covered by the claims of the licensed patents and is 

therefore royalty-bearing. UTC disputes Tessera’s contentions, and also served Tessera with 

invalidity contentions.

UTC has filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which is currently pending. Dkt. 

Nos. 208, 247. Tessera opposed the motion, and the court has not yet issued a ruling. The parties 

have also briefed and argued claim construction issues, and the court has not yet issued a claim 

construction order.

Presently before the Court is the parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint Report (“DDJR”) #13. 

Dkt. No. 290. The parties’ dispute relates to RFP No. 85 in Tessera’s 8th Set of Requests for 

Production. Tessera requests that the Court order UTC to produce responsive documents to RFP 

85, which seeks UTC’s internal engineering communications related to the semiconductor 

packages at issue. Tessera argues that these documents are relevant because they provide 

evidence of UTC’s alleged infringement of the asserted Tessera patents as well as evidence 

rebutting invalidity contentions that have been raised by UTC. In addition, Tessera argues that 

producing this discovery is not unduly burdensome. UTC argues that the requested discovery is 

cumulative and unnecessary as well as overbroad and unduly burdensome.

Parties may obtain discovery about any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s 

claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance under Rule 26(b)(1) is construed more 

broadly for discovery than for trial.” Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 

1211 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery 

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). 

Discovery is not unfettered, however. A court must limit the extent or frequency of 

discovery if it finds that (a) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can 

be obtained from a source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; (b) the 

party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information through discovery; or 

(c) the burden or expense of the discovery sought outweighs its likely benefit, considering the 

needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at 

stake, and the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 326 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii).

Here, RFP 85 seeks “All internal communications between UTC engineers, developers, or 

researchers, relating to Packages at Issue.” “Packages at Issue” is defined as “all w-BGA 

Packages and UTC Packages.” “UTC Packages” is defined as “any integrated circuit packages 

made . . . or sold by UTC at any time other than w-BGA Packages, including but not limited to 

DFN and LGA SiP Packages.” “W-BGA Packages” are defined as “packages made . . . or sold by 

UTC on which UTC paid royalties to Tessera prior to September 24, 2010 or any substantially 

similar packages.”

Tessera’s request is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Because UTC is in the business of

making integrated circuit packages, a large percentage of communications among UTC’s 

engineers, developers, and researchers is likely to relate to such packages. UTC asserts that it 

would take weeks to collect such communications, and it would require additional time and 

expense for UTC’s counsel to sort through the documents to ensure that only responsive, nonprivileged documents are produced. 

In addition, the requested discovery is cumulative and unnecessary. UTC has already 

produced package drawings, wiring diagrams, bills of materials, specifications, data sheets and 

training materials for the various assembly steps and processes involved in making the packages. 

These engineering drawings and other technical documents show the structures, features, and 

operations of the Packages at Issue. Tessera has no basis to contend that internal communications 

would reveal anything relevant to the structure and operation of the packages that is not contained 

in the engineering and technical documents that UTC has already produced. 

In the alternative, Tessera states that it is willing to narrow its request to the following 

UTC engineers that Tessera believes are likely to possess information most relevant to responding 

to UTC’s non-infringement and invalidity defenses: Ken Keng (UTC’s head of research and 

development); any predecessors to Ken Keng holding the title of head of research and 

development or a substantially similar title; and Vincent Liu, Eric Kuo, and Norick Chang 

(engineers in UTC’s Assembly Engineering Section). Tessera states that it is also willing to 

narrow the date range of the request from 2001 (the year the parties entered the agreement) to the 

present. This narrowed request, however, is also overbroad. It seeks the collection and production 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 326 Filed 06/04/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

of essentially all of the engineers’ emails and other communications over a fourteen-year period.

Accordingly, Tessera’s request that UTC be ordered to produce documents responsive to 

RFP 85 is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 326 Filed 06/04/15 Page 4 of 4