Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01296/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01296-9/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

It is unclear whether Pulse's motion is limited to Document Request No. 4 or includes Document Request No. 7,

since the motion fails to set forth each request in full, followed immediately by the objections and/or responses thereto, as

required by Civil L.R. 37-2. However, as it is clear from the arguments that the parties disagree relative to the sufficiency of

the responses to both requests, and since Regal addresses both requests in its opposition brief, the Court considers both

Document Requests Nos. 4 and 7.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

*E-FILED 11/16/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

REGAL ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 PULSE ENGINEERING, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

NO. 5:03-cv-1296 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant and counterclaimant Pulse Engineering, Inc. ("Pulse") moves to compel plaintiff Regal

Electronics, Inc. ("Regal") to produce documents in response to Document Request Nos. 4 and 7.1 Pulse

seeks all documents and things referring or relating to the preparation or prosecution of any foreign patent

application related to, or claiming priority from, a patent application that led to the U.S. Patent No.

6,171,152 ("152 patent"). Those requests further seek all prior art relating to the subject matter disclosed

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 268 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 6
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

2Specifically, Pulse contends that Regal failed to produce responsive documents concerning patents obtained in

Japan, Taiwan, China, Germany and the United Kingdom.

2

or claimed in the '152 patent or other corresponding patent applications. Pulse argues that the documents

sought are relevant to the scope of the US patent, and to the issues of validity and enforceability of the

patents. Regal counters that the parties did not properly meet and confer and that the relevant information

is publicly available in the patent prosecution history files. Regal further requests that, should it be

compelled to research the existence of any other relevant files, the cost be assumed by Pulse. The motion

was fully briefed and submitted without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, Pulse's motion to

compel is granted.

II. BACKGROUND

 This motion arises out of an action filed by plaintiff and counter-defendant Regal for patent

infringement, alleging that it is the owner of all right, title and interest in the '152 patent and that defendants

are selling various products in direct infringement of the patent. In response, defendants filed a counterclaim

against Regal, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.

Pulse alleges that on June 25, 2004, it served its first set of document requests to Regal, of which

Request No. 4 and 7 are at issue. Regal served its response on July 28, 2004, with various objections. 

On March 15, 2005, the parties allegedly met and conferred regarding the various discovery issues, and

Regal subsequently produced responsive documents. Pulse, however, maintains that the produced

documents are incomplete and claims that, subsequent to the production of the documents, it discovered

the existence of foreign patents through a deposition of William Kunz, the inventor of the '152 patent.2 The

parties proceeded to exchange numerous emails and letters regarding the production of documents related

to the foreign patents, and Regal indicated it would agree to make the documents available for inspection. 

In light of the deadline to file a motion to compel according to Civil L.R. 26-2, and unable to secure a date

and time for inspection, Pulse filed this motion to compel documents.

III. STANDARDS

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(b)(1), 

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 268 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 6
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

[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is

relevant to the claim or defense of any party...For good cause, the court may

order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the

action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery

appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Federal

Rules of Evidence, Rule 401. Discovery may be limited by the court for good cause shown “to protect a

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(c). 

Motions to compel are authorized by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

[If] a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or if a party,

in response to a request for inspection submitted under Rule 34, fails to respond

that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as

requested, the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or

a designation, or an order compelling inspection in accordance with the request. 

The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith

conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the

discovery in an effort to secure the information or material without court action. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(B). 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Meet and Confer

The parties dispute whether or not Pulse met its meet and confer obligations, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a)(2)(A), before filing this motion to compel. While the record is not entirely clear, it does

reflect that both parties made efforts to resolve their differences prior to the filing of this motion, and that

there is a clear dispute as to the sufficiency of the responses. Regal fails to show that Pulse ever agreed to

limit the scope of its document requests. Further, as Civil L.R. 26-2 requires that any motion to compel be

filed within seven days after the discovery cut-off date, Pulse was operating under significant time

constraints. Rule 37, accordingly does not preclude a consideration of Pulse's motions.

B. Document Requests No. 4 and 7

Pulse requests that Regal produce: 1) all documents and things referring or relating to preparation

and/or prosecution of any foreign patent application related to, or claiming priority from, a patent

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 268 Filed 11/16/05 Page 3 of 6
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

application that led to the '152 patent and 2) all prior art known to Regal relating to the subject matter

disclosed or claimed in the '152 patent or any U.S. or foreign patents or patent applications corresponding

in whole or in part to such patent, including, but not limited to, prior art cited or referred to during the

preparation or prosecution of any such patents or patent applications. Regal objects to both of these

requests on the grounds that they are irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence,

protected by the attorney-client privilege, and protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. Regal also

argues that the documents Pulse Electronics seeks are publicly available and that it should not be required

to bear the cost of producing them. Estate of Young Through Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291 (1991).

The facts in Estate of Young Through Young v. Holmes, however, are distinguishable from those

relevant here. In Estate of Young, a motion to compel was filed against the plaintiff to produce articles

which the plaintiff had sold to the New York Post and other newspapers. Id. p. 293. The evidence was

uncontroverted that plaintiff did not have possession or custody of the articles, once they were sold, as the

plaintiff destroyed his notes and copies. Id.

As opposed to the plaintiff in Estate of Young, Regal does not contend that it is without possession

of the documents Pulse seeks. Rather, it argues that, since some of the information is also publicly

available, Regal should not be required to produce those documents at its expense. Rule 34, however, 

does not excuse Regal from providing documents in its possession or control, solely because the

information is also publicly available.

Pulse's requests for document at no time have been limited to information that is publicly available in

the prosecution history files. Rather, Pulse seeks to obtain all related documents which are not protected

by the attorney client privilege or work-product doctrine. Regal argues that this information is not relevant,

and that, should it be compelled to produce the documents, the Court should require Pulse to bear the cost

of production. There is no basis, however, for Regal's claims of non-relevance, nor that the circumstances

require fee-shifting. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and 26(b), Regal is required to produce documents, not

privileged, that relate to Pulse's claims. Documents related to foreign patent prosecution and prior art may

be relevant to the validity and enforceability of a U.S. patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 119. 

Moreover, Regal fails to explain specifically how such production would be unduly burdensome or

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 268 Filed 11/16/05 Page 4 of 6
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 5

excessively costly so as to justify cost-shifting. Bills v. Kennecott Corp., 108 F.R.D. 459, 462 (D.C. Utah

1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Regal's motion, therefore, is denied. Regal will produce all

documents not protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine which 1) refer or relate

to preparation and/or prosecution of any foreign patent application related to or claiming priority from a

patent application that led to the '152 patent and 2) all prior art known to Regal relating to the subject

matter disclosed or claimed in the '152 patent or any U.S. or foreign patents or patent applications

corresponding in whole or in part to such patent, which would include prior art cited or referred to during

the preparation or prosecution of any such patents or patent applications. Should Regal claim that any

documents are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure, it shall provide a privilege log, identifying

the specific documents and the basis for asserting the privilege or protection. 

C. Sanctions

Each party requests that the Court award attorneys fees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d), for the

cost incurred to file and oppose this motion. Both parties have failed to file a separate motion for sanctions,

as required by Civil L.R. 7-8. Moreover, no just cause exists which would support an award of sanctions

against either party. Both parties' requests for sanctions, therefore, are denied. 

 V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants Pulse's motion to compel and orders Regal to

provide further responses to Document Request Nos. 4 and 7 within thirty (30) days of the date of this

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/16/05 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 268 Filed 11/16/05 Page 5 of 6
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Mark Thomas Banner mbanner@bannerwitcoff.com, 

Aimee Boss aboss@bannerwitcoff.com, 

mhaugh@bannerwitcoff.com;dcosimini@bannerwitcoff.com 

Mark K. Dickson dicksonm@howrey.com 

Martin C. Fliesler mcf@fdml.com, cakins@fdml.com;mme@fdml.com;mbasch@fdml.com 

Marcus T. Hall hallm@howrey.com 

W. Carlos Leet wcl@olimpia-whelan-lively.com 

Andres N. Madrid AMadrid@steinbergraskin.com, andy_madrid@hotmail.com 

Joshua L. Raskin JRaskin@steinbergraskin.com, 

Martin G. Raskin mraskin@steinbergraskin.com, 

Charles Wilbur Shifley cshifley@bannerwitcoff.com, 

Daniel T. Shvodian shvodiand@howrey.com, HockinL@howrey.com 

Dated: 11/16/05 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:03-cv-01296-JW Document 268 Filed 11/16/05 Page 6 of 6