Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 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 11/13/06*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP PTE

LTD. and AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES ECBU IP

LTD.

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORP. and

ELAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

GROUP,

Defendants. /

Case No.C04-05385 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION TO COMPEL AND

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO

COMPEL

Re: Docket Nos. 102, 104

In this patent infringement action, Avago Technologies General IP Pte. Ltd. and Avago

Technologies ECBU IP Ltd. (collectively, "Avago") allege that Elan Microelectronics Corp.

("Elan") and Elan Information Technology Group ("EITG") (collectively, "defendants")

infringe two patents ("the '780 patent" and "the '804 patent;" collectively, "the patents in suit")

involving optical navigation technology used in computer mice. Defendants moved to compel

plaintiffs to produce documents and things in response to 29 of Elan's First Set of Requests for

Documents and Things and 20 of EITG's First Set of Requests for Documents and Things. 

Plaintiffs moved to compel defendants to respond to seven of Avago's predecessor's First Set of

Requests for Documents and Things. This court heard the cross-motions to compel on October 

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 150 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 5
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, 2006. At the hearing and during ensuing meet and confer efforts, almost all of these disputes

were mooted. Only three issues remain for the court to decide: (1) whether Gary Gordon’s draft

patent applications are protected by attorney-client privilege; (2) whether the work-product

protection applicable to the so-called "Chipworks report" has been waived; and (3) whether

defendants' business, financial, and marketing planning documents related to their future optical

navigation sensor products should be produced. 

1) Draft Patent Application

Defendants challenge plaintiffs' assertion of attorney-client privilege over an invention

disclosure/ draft patent application prepared by Gary Gordon, a co-inventor of the '780 patent. 

Plaintiffs produced documents 9-12 from their privilege log for in camera review for this court

to determine whether the attorney-client privilege applies. An "invention record constitutes a

privileged communication, as long as it is provided to an attorney 'for the purpose of securing

primarily legal opinion, or legal services, or assistance in a legal proceeding.'" In re Spalding

Sports Worldwide, Inc., 203 F. 3d 800, 805 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Knogo Corp. v. United

States, 213 USPQ 936, 940 (Ct. Cl. Trial Div. 1980). Overall, the content of all four documents

indicates that they satisfy this test.

Documents 9-11 are versions of the same draft patent application. They reveal an intent

to convey at least the final version of this document to an in-house patent attorney. Thus, the

privilege applies. See, e.g., Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 144 F.R.D.

372, 378 (N.D.Cal. 1992) (communications from inventor to patent lawyer, even those that are

entirely technical, remain presumptively protected by the attorney-client privilege and should be

ordered disclosed only on a “very compelling showing”). 

Document 12 consists of two pages of undated notes, apparently from Gary Gordon to

file. The notes seem to be taken with an eye towards helping an attorney prosecute a valid

patent, because the author suggests specific language for defensible claims. Thus, the privilege

applies. Defendants' motion is DENIED as to Documents 9-12. 

///

///

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 150 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 5
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

2) Chipworks Report

Defendants seek disclosure of "the Chipworks report," contending that plaintiffs waived

any work product protection when Mr. Brosnan, an employee of Avago, mentioned it in a

declaration and used the results of the report to show compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In the

declaration, Mr. Brosnan states that the report “confirmed the presence of all the circuitry that

would be expected in an infringing sensor, although an understanding of the PAN101B motion

detection algorithm could not be gained by Chipworks’ reverse engineering of the PixArt

sensor.”

The parties have not cited and the court has not found any controlling Ninth Circuit

authority. Different courts have reached different results in situations presenting similar facts.

The most compelling case this court read was Harding v. Dana Transport, Inc., 914

F.Supp.1084 (D.N.J. 1996), where work product protection was held waived with respect to the

content of an investigation of plaintiffs' allegations due to use of the results of the investigation

as a defense. The court finds that work product protection has been waived as to this report,

because plaintiffs revealed part of the contents of the report, and relied on it as a defense in a

prior action. Mr. Brosnan did not merely confirm the existence of the report; he specified the

results of the report and how those results were obtained. It would be unfair and inconsistent

for plaintiffs to use the report in previous litigation and then claim work product protection for

the report in later litigation. The court GRANTS defendants' motion as to the Chipworks

report.

3) Elan’s Planning Documents 

Plaintiffs move to compel production of documents responsive to Avago’s Requests 

for Production 129 and 208. 

Request 129: "All management and consulting reports, studies, prospectuses, correspondence,

and presentation outlines relating to business, financial, or marketing planning relating to your

optical navigation sensor products."

Request 208: "All management and consulting reports, studies, prospectuses, correspondence,

and presentation outlines relating to business, financial, or marketing planning relating to the

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 150 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 5
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

OM01 and OM02 sensor products."

At the hearing, it became clear that the parties have no further dispute about these

requests as they pertain to the accused products (the OM01 and the OM02). The debate is over

defendants' future optical navigation sensor products, currently in development. The court finds

that responsive documents pertaining to this next generation of products may be relevant to the

scope of injunctive relief. The court ORDERS defendants to produce all management and

consulting reports, studies, prospectuses, correspondence, and presentation outlines relating to

business, financial, or marketing planning respecting the OM01 and OM02 sensor products and

to the next generation of optical navigation sensor products.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/13/06 __________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 150 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 5
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

THIS SHALLL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO

Morgan Chu mchu@irell.com 

Hsin-Yi Cindy Feng cfeng@akingump.com 

Alan J. Heinrich aheinrich@irell.com 

Yitai Hu yhu@akingump.com 

Sang Hui Michael Kim mkim@akingump.com, skapralov@akingump.com;

nthreadgill@akingump.com; btseng@akingump.com 

Samuel Kai Lu slu@irell.com 

Richard Elgar Lyon , III rlyon@irell.com, mwilliams@irell.com; jgordon@irell.com;

bwright@irell.com; rick.lyon@gmail.com 

Gary C. Ma gma@akingump.com 

David Craig McPhie dmcphie@irell.com, jrichter@irell.com 

Elizabeth H. Rader erader@akingump.com, skapralov@akingump.com;

btseng@akingump.com; nmarie@akingump.com 

Jonathan Philip Steinsapir jsteinsapir@irell.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 11/13/06 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 150 Filed 11/13/06 Page 5 of 5