Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05709/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05709-0/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

*E-Filed 5/5/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RENESAS TECHNOLOGY CORP.

Plaintiff,

v.

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. and NANYA

TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, USA,

Defendants.

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORP. and NANYA

TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, USA,

Counterclaim Plaintiffs,

v.

RENESAS TECHNOLOGY CORP.,

Counterclaim Defendant.

 /

Case No. C03-05709 JF (HRL)

ORDER ON RENESAS' MOTION TO

COMPEL

 

INTRODUCTION

On May 3, 2005, this court heard the motion of plaintiff Renesas Technology Corp. (Renesas)

to compel discovery. Defendants Nanya Technology Corp. and Nanya Technology Corp. USA

(collectively, Nanya) opposed the motion. Based upon the papers submitted, and the arguments of

counsel, the court issues the following order.

//

Case 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 1 of 9
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

1Nanya previously moved to strike the PICs, in part because Renesas' pre-filing investigation was

allegedly insufficient. This court found Renesas’ investigation to be sufficient in a November 10, 2004 order. 

Nanya subsequently filed objections to the order, arguing in part that it was clearly erroneous because the

accused products fell into eleven different families, rather than the four tables alleged by Renesas. Judge Fogel

overruled that objection on the grounds that Nanya had not properly raised the issue before this court.

Renesas has now filed a motion for leave to file amended PICs (in accordance with this court’s

November 10, 2004 order). The motion is set for hearing by Judge Fogel on June 3, 2005.

2

BACKGROUND

Renesas filed a complaint against Nanya on December 16, 2003, alleging Nanya infringed

upon seven of its patents. In this motion, Renesas moves to compel 1) further responses to its

Document Requests; 2) a 30(b)(6) witness responsive to its deposition notice topics 2-4; and 3)

further interrogatory responses. It also seeks an order striking Nanya’s responses to Requests for

Admissions (RFAs) and compelling it to admit or deny the requests. 

DISCUSSION

I. Document Requests, 30(b)(6) Witness, and Interrogatories

A. Parties’ Arguments

Renesas served document requests, a 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition, and interrogatories on

Nanya directed towards "all" of Nanya's DRAM-Type devices. Nanya objected to the discovery on

numerous grounds, including that Renesas’ Preliminary Infringement Contentions (PICs) were

inadequate.1 

Nanya asserts that the discovery sought is irrelevant and overbroad. In support of this

assertion, it raises essentially the same argument that it raised in its motion to strike: that Renesas’ prefiling investigation was inadequate, and that it therefore has no factual foundation justifying discovery

concerning all of Nanya's DRAM-Type devices. The court rejected this argument in its order on the

motion to strike, finding that Renesas’ reverse engineering of several products, along with its industry

knowledge and examination of reverse engineering reports and Nanya’s part numbering guide, was

sufficient to support a reasonable inference that all Nanya's products infringed. 

However, Nanya argues that the burden of demonstrating relevance for discovery is different

than the burden of demonstrating an adequate pre-filing investigation. Allegedly, the fact that Renesas

conducted an adequate investigation for PICs purposes does not establish relevance for discovery

Case 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 2 of 9
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

2The Wu declaration identifies the eleven families as Orion, Draco, Venus, Scorpion, Saturn, Mars,

Wildcat, Aquila, Mercury, EDO/FPM, and Gaia. Ex. A to Decl. of R. Young, ¶ 4. 

3Nanya acknowledges, however, that products in the Draco and Orion families (the families containing

the products that Renesas reverse engineered), have architectural similarities. See Ex. A to Decl. of R. Young, ¶

6. It attributes this to the fact that both families were designed by IBM. Id.

4Nanya also disputes whether 64 products are properly in the case. Renesas originally accused 75

products, and subsequently added additional products (bringing the total number of accused products to 160)

without leave of court. Nanya objects to the presence of 64 of these subsequently-added products, and is

contesting Renesas' motion for leave to add them. 

3

purposes. It asserts that Renesas' investigation is insufficient to demonstrate relevance, and that it is

attempting to obtain information on products about which it has not established a right to know.

In support of this argument, Nanya submits the declaration of Jason Wu, a senior engineer at

Nanya. He states that Nanya's DRAM-Type products fall into eleven different product "families,"

rather than the four "tables" suggested by Renesas.2 See Ex. A to Decl. of R. Young, ¶ 4. He also

asserts that investigating products from one family will not provide accurate information about the

architecture and circuitry of products from a different family, as there are substantial architectural

differences between families, and the families were designed by different technology partners.3 See id.

¶ 5. Because Renesas only reverse engineered products from Orion and Draco, just two of the

eleven, Nanya asserts that Renesas is only entitled to discovery concerning those two families, and not

all Nanya products.4 

Nanya submits that the Wu declaration trumps the declaration of William Dalley, on which the

court relied in ruling on the motion to strike. It argues that the Dalley declaration erroneously

categorizes the products into four tables, rather than eleven families. It also argues that the Dalley

declaration is not based on direct product knowledge like the Wu declaration, but instead on Dalley's

inferences and assumptions. Nanya argues that, considering the new evidence contained in the Wu

declaration, Renesas' investigation was insufficient to establish relevance.

Furthermore, says Nanya, broad discovery into all its devices is burdensome. It claims that

the documents are located overseas among eleven engineering groups, and that they cannot be

electronically transmitted due to language and computer system differences. 

//

//

Case 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 3 of 9
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 5The court is not implying that Nanya is required to demonstrate that products do not contain the

allegedly infringing circuitry. It is simply noting that Nanya has failed to even allege this.

4

B. Legal Standard

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter,

not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party." However, a court has discretion

to limit discovery where "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit,

taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the

importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed discovery in

resolving the issues." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). As Renesas is the party seeking discovery, it bears

the burden of demonstrating relevance. 

C. Analysis

As noted above, the court found that the showing made by Renesas in opposing the motion to

strike supported a reasonable inference that all accused products infringed. The court finds that this

evidence, namely the Dalley declaration, is also sufficient to demonstrate relevance for discovery

purposes. The Dalley declaration concluded that, after reverse engineering three Nanya products and

examining Nanya's part numbering guide and reverse engineering reports, it was likely that all accused

products contain circuitry that infringes on the patents at issue. 

Nanya's new evidence that the products are arranged into eleven families is not necessarily

inconsistent with the Dalley declaration. It is not clear to the court that the manner in which the

products are characterized (whether into four tables or eleven families) necessarily affects the relevant

circuitry, i.e. the circuitry that Renesas contends is infringing. While Nanya contends that product

architecture and circuitry differ between families, it has not alleged that these differences in any way

affect the circuitry that Renesas contends is infringing. In other words, it has not alleged that the

differences actually make a difference.5

Accordingly, that the architecture and circuitry is different between families does not

necessarily compel the conclusion that Renesas’ investigation was insufficient. The relevant inquiry is

Case 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 4 of 9
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

6

In fact, Renesas never claimed that the circuitry is identical among products. Rather, it argued that the

products are similar in that it is likely that all the accused products contain some infringing circuitry. It seems

to the court that some differences between products could be immaterial, so long as each product contains the

allegedly infringing circuitry. 

7Concerning Nanya's burden argument, the court feels that, while there may be some burden and

expense to providing the discovery, this burden does not outweigh the benefit of the discovery. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Renesas has demonstrated that the discovery is relevant, and Nanya has not supported its

allegations of burden by submitting affidavits and/or declarations setting forth the time and expense that would

be involved in a potential production.

8Based on the discussion at the hearing, it appears that having technical information for several

products in each family is sufficient to provide Renesas with the information it needs, at least for present

purposes.

5

not whether the products have similar architecture and circuitry overall, but whether each product

contains some circuitry that infringes on the patents at issue.6 

The court concludes that Renesas has met its burden of demonstrating that the discovery

sought is relevant. Nothing presented by Nanya provides the court with a compelling reason to

disregard Renesas' demonstration of relevance, and neither has Nanya advanced some sort of

alternative construct that would call into question the showing of relevance. Nanya's argument that the

products are in some architectural way "different" is simply insufficient to undercut Renesas'

investigation.7 Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

1. Renesas' motion is GRANTED IN PART with respect to document request nos. 2-8

and 11 (seeking technical documents relating to all Nanya's DRAM-Type Devices, including

schematics, mask sets, and processes). In response to the requests, Nanya shall produce documents

for two products each from the Venus, Scorpion, Saturn, Mars, Wildcat, Gaia, Aquila, Mercury, and

EDO/FPM families.8 Nanya shall select the products from among the 75 that are identified in

Renesas' original PICs. 

2. Renesas' motion is GRANTED concerning request nos. 16, 17, 19, 20, and 25-26

(seeking documents relating to damages, including sales, revenue, inventory, financial, and licensing

information for Nanya DRAM-Type Devices), with the exception that Nanya need not produce

information for the 64 products Renesas is currently seeking to add to the case (by amending its

PICs). However, if it is not practical or feasible for Nanya to exclude information on the 64 products

when it responds to these requests (or some of them), then it shall respond as to all 160 of its DRAMCase 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 5 of 9
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

9The scope of Nanya's responses may vary by request, however. For instance, it may for practical

reasons produce licensing information for all 160 products, but produce sales information only for the products

that are undisputedly in the case. If Nanya chooses to proceed in such a fashion, it shall inform Renesas which

products are encompassed in each response.

6

Type products.9 If Judge Fogel later rules that 64 more products may be included in Renesas' PICs,

then Nanya shall produce responsive information for these products as well without further request, to

the extent it has not already done so. 

3. Renesas' motion is GRANTED with respect to requests nos. 9 and 10 (seeking

documents identifying persons with information about DRAM-Type Devices and staffing and

organization of personnel). 

4. Renesas' motion is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to document request no. 21, as

Nanya has already provided responsive information. 

5. Renesas' motion is DENIED AS MOOT with respect to document request nos. 1, 13,

14, and 37. Renesas has withdrawn these requests. 

6. Renesas' motion is GRANTED with respect to a 30(b)(6) witness for its deposition

topics 2-4 (seeking testimony concerning the design, structure, function and operation of sense

amplifiers, voltage generators/charge pumps, and circuitry used to test the memory cells incorporated

into each Nanya DRAM-Type Device). With respect to all eleven product families, Nanya shall

produce a responsive witness or witnesses by May 27, 2005. 

7. Renesas' motion is GRANTED IN PART with respect to interrogatory nos. 2 (asking

Nanya to identify the schematics that accurately depict the circuitry found in each Nanya DRAM-Type

Device) and 3 (asking Nanya to identify the masks used to manufacture all such devices). Nanya need

not respond concerning the 64 products not yet added to the case. However, if Judge Fogel rules that

the 64 products may be added, Nanya shall produce responsive information for these products

without further request. 

II. Requests for Admission

Renesas also seeks an order striking Nanya's responses to Renesas' RFA nos. 1-214 and

compelling further responses. 

//

Case 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 6 of 9
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

10Patent Local Rule 2-5 states that “[a] party may object . . . to the following categories of discovery

requests . . . on the ground that they are premature in light of the timetable provided in the Patent Local Rules:

(a) Requests seeking to elicit a party’s claim construction position.”

11As examples, Nanya states that RFA 161 seeks information on "data lines," a term used in the '520

and '037 patents, and that RFA 179 incorporates entire claim elements from the '520 and '037 patents. 

7

A. RFA Nos. 1-160

These requests ask Nanya to admit, for each of the 160 accused products, that the circuitry

depicted in a particular Nanya document is found in a specific product. Nanya objected to the RFAs

on the grounds that the products had not been properly accused and that the terms "circuitry" and

"found" were vague, but asserts that it did reword the RFAs and make the appropriate admissions. 

Renesas replies that Nanya only responded to requests concerning products in the Orion and Draco

families, and not to any other products in the other nine families.

As previously discussed, Nanya's argument that Renesas insufficiently investigated numerous

products in the litigation is unpersuasive. Accordingly, Renesas' motion is GRANTED IN PART

concerning RFA nos. 1-160. Nanya need not respond to the RFAs concerning the 64 products that

are the subject of the motion to amend Renesas' PICs. As previously stated, however, if Judge Fogel

rules that the 64 products may be added, Nanya shall respond to the RFAs concerning those products

without further request. 

B. RFA Nos. 161-214

These requests ask Nanya to admit that the circuitry depicted in the schematics for RFAs 1-

160 shows and/or includes certain elements. Nanya objects to the requests on the grounds that they

require disclosure of its claim construction position, and are therefore improper under Patent Local

Rule 2-5.10 It states that, as the requests contain terms and phrases used in the claim language, these

terms may be the subject of future claim construction by the court.11 Nanya argues that there is no

agreed upon definitions for such terms, and that requiring it to provide clearer definitions would reveal

its claim construction position. Renesas replies that not all of the 54 RFAs Nanya objects to contain

claim language (i.e. requests pertaining to "bit lines"), and further argues that it is not seeking Nanya's

claim construction position, but confirmation that the schematics are what they purport to be. 

Case 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 7 of 9
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

8

At the hearing, the parties acknowledged that they do not know which terms will be subject to

claim construction. Because RFAs 161-214 contain numerous terms, some of which may be subject

to future claim construction, the court feels that the requests are premature at this point. Nanya's

responses to these RFAs could prejudice it during claim construction. Accordingly, Renesas' motion

is DENIED as premature with respect to RFAs 161-214. See Patent L.R. 2-5. 

ORDER

Except as provided in paragraph 6, Nanya shall comply with the terms of this order by May

20, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/5/05 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 8 of 9
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

9

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

R. Tulloss Delk tullossdelk@quinnemanuel.com, alicemckinley@quinnemanuel.com

Stephen M. Geissler sgeissler@jenner.com, jsalla@jenner.com

Donald R. Harris dharris@jenner.com,

Victoria F. Maroulis vfm@quinnemanuel.com, sophiapope@quinnemanuel.com

Sam Citron O'Rourke SOROURKE@ORRICK.COM

Joseph Albert Saltiel jsaltiel@jenner.com,

Samuel B. Shepherd sbs@quinnemanuel.com, patriciareilly@quinnemanuel.com

Terrence Joseph Truax ttruax@jenner.com

Kaiwen Tseng ktseng@orrick.com, hlee@orrick.com;ttutko@orrick.com

Ronald L. Wanke rwanke@jenner.com,

Eric L. Wesenberg ewesenberg@orrick.com, afreddie@orrick.com

Rowena Y. Young ryoung@orrick.com,

aako-nai@orrick.com;tbriggs@orrick.com;dmeckstroth@orrick.com;spak@orrick.com;mortiz

@orrick.com

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel who have not

registered under the Court's ECF system.

Dated: 5/3/05

 /s/ KWN 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:03-cv-05709-JF Document 108 Filed 05/05/05 Page 9 of 9