Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435-21/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

For the Northern District of California

*E-Filed: January 30, 2015*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

No. C10-04435 EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT #4

[Dkt. 192]

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. 

The court entered an Amended Case Management Order that required Tessera to provide its 

infringement contentions in accordance with Patent L.R. 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 with respect to its claim 

for royalties under the license agreement. Tessera served UTC with the required disclosure, 

identifying 32 claims of 12 licensed patents and providing 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 package, UTC’s LGA SiP package (“LGA 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 225 Filed 01/30/15 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

For the Northern District of California

package”), is covered by the claims of the licensed patents and is therefore royalty-bearing. UTC 

disputes Tessera’s contentions.

Presently before the Court is the parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint Report #4. Dkt. No. 192. 

Tessera seeks production of technical and sales information relating to semiconductor packages for 

which UTC may only provide testing services. 

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This language was adopted in the 2000 

Amendments to “signal[] to the parties that they have no entitlement to discovery to develop new 

claims or defenses that are not already identified in the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory 

committee’s note. “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). 

Here, the first amended complaint does not claim royalties on UTC’s testing-only services. 

Dkt. No. 81. Rather, the first amended complaint asserts a claim only against packages that are 

“made by” UTC. FAC ¶¶ 11, 15, 22-23, 36. Because the complaint does not assert a claim against 

UTC’s testing only services, Tessera has “no entitlement to discovery to develop new claims” 

against these services. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note.

Tessera argues that it is entitled to discovery relating to packages for which UTC may only 

provide testing services because UTC may have mischaracterized packages that were made by UTC 

as packages that were only tested by UTC. According to Tessera, certain packages that UTC 

assembled or tested in part may be incorrectly designated as packages that were only tested, or 

royalties could still be due on packages that UTC is characterizing as “testing only.” This argument 

fails. There is no basis for Tessera’s demand for discovery concerning testing-only services on the 

theory that they might actually involve something else.

A substantial portion of the Joint Report addresses whether the license agreement requires 

royalty payments for TCC packages that UTC tests for other companies. Tessera contends that 

UTC must pay royalties on packages that UTC tests internally. UTC argues that Tessera cannot 

claim royalties under the license agreement for packages that are not made by UTC, but that UTC 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 225 Filed 01/30/15 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

For the Northern District of California

only tests for other companies. In resolving this discovery dispute, this Court declines to determine 

whether the license agreement requires royalty payments for TCC packages that UTC tests for other 

companies, as such a determination would be inappropriate in the context of a discovery dispute. 

Accordingly, Tessera’s request for production of technical and sales information relating to 

semiconductor packages for which UTC may only provide testing services is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 225 Filed 01/30/15 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

For the Northern District of California

C10-04435 EJD (HRL) Order will be electronically mailed to:

Benjamin W. Hattenbach bhattenbach@irell.com

David H. Herrington dherrington@cgsh.com, dherrington@cgsh.com

Dominik B. Slusarczyk dslusarczyk@irell.com, mspillner@tessera.com

Jennifer Renee Bunn jbunn@irell.com

Joseph Mark Lipner jlipner@irell.com, csilver@irell.com, mdonovan@irell.com, slee@irell.com

Kevin Patrick Kiley kkiley@irell.com

Lawrence B. Friedman lfriedman@cgsh.com

Michael F. Heafey mheafey@kslaw.com, phennings@kslaw.com

Morgan Chu mchu@irell.com

Morvarid Metanat mmetanat@orrick.com

Nathaniel E. Jedrey njedrey@cgsh.com

Richard William Krebs rkrebs@irell.com, cmedina@irell.com, rbrown@tessera.com, 

Slee@irell.com, sveeraraghavan@tessera.com, tegarcia@tessera.com

Ryan Alexander Ward rward@irell.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.

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 225 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 4