Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Movant,

v.

McKOOL SMITH, P.C.

Respondent.

Case No. 19-mc-80047-SI 

Related to Case No. 14-cv-03657 SI

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE 

WITH SUBPOENAS

Re: Dkt. No. 1

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Movant,

v.

U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-mc-80052-SI 

Related to Case No. 14-cv-03657 SI

Re: Dkt. No. 1

On April 26, 2019, the Court held a hearing on Micron’s motions to compel compliance with 

subpoenas issued to the U.S. International Trade Commission and McKool Smith, P.C. For the 

reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 

BACKGROUND

These miscellaneous cases relate to a patent infringement case that is currently pending in 

this Court, MLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-03657 SI. In that case, MLC 

Intellectual Property (“MLC”) alleges that Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”) is infringing U.S. 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 505 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 7
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

Patent No. 5,764,571 (“the ‘571 patent”). The case is set for trial on August 12, 2019.

In these miscellaneous actions, Micron seeks compliance with Rule 45 subpoenas that 

Micron issued to the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) and McKool Smith, 

P.C. (“McKool”), seeking documents from an ITC investigation, In the Matter of Certain MLC 

Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-683 (2009) (“the ’683 

Investigation”).

1

 In the ‘683 Investigation, the ITC investigated a complaint filed by BTG 

International, Inc. (“BTG”) alleging violations of 19 U.S.C. § 337 in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation, of certain 

multi-level flash memory devices and products by reason of alleged infringement of the ‘571 patent.2 

McKool represented BTG in the ‘683 Investigation. The respondents in the ‘683 Investigation were 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; 

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; Apple, Inc.; ASUStek Computer, Inc.; ASUS 

Computer International; Dell, Inc.; Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.; Lenovo (United States) Inc.; PNY 

Technologies, Inc.; Sony Corporation; Sony Electronics, Inc.; Transcend Information, Inc.; 

Research in Motion Corporation; and Research in Motion, Ltd.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) presiding over the ‘683 Investigation entered a 

protective order governing the submission and treatment of confidential information submitted in 

that investigation. The ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on June 21-23, 2010. Throughout the 

proceedings, the parties submitted documents such as expert reports and witness statements and 

designated those documents as “confidential” under the protective order. In addition, Mr. Gerald 

Banks, the inventor of the ‘571 patent, was deposed in connection with the ‘683 Investigation, 

submitted a written witness statement, and testified at the evidentiary hearing; all of Mr. Banks’

testimony was designated as confidential pursuant to the protective order. The ‘683 Investigation 

was terminated on January 11, 2011, based upon a settlement agreement reached between the 

 

1

 Micron filed the motions to enforce compliance with the subpoenas in the district courts 

of the District of Columbia and the Northern District of Texas, and then successfully moved to 

transfer those matters to this Court.

2

 At the time, BTG owned the ‘571 patent. MLC subsequently acquired all rights to the 

‘571 patent.

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 505 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 7
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

parties. Due to the settlement, the ALJ never issued a determination regarding BTG’s complaint 

and the alleged violations of 19 U.S.C. § 337.

In MLC v. Micron, Micron sought documents from the ‘683 Investigation through discovery 

requests served on MLC and a Rule 45 subpoena served on BTG. Although Micron received some 

documents through these efforts, Micron was unable to obtain most of the documents it sought, 

including Mr. Banks’ witness statement and final deposition transcript,3as well as his testimony 

from the evidentiary hearing. 

In December 2014, Micron also filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request 

seeking sections of the ITC Staff’s Post-Hearing Brief and Reply Brief pertaining to the validity 

and/or invalidity of the ‘571 patent. See Dowd Decl. Ex. F, ITC’s Feb. 9, 2015 Response to FOIA 

Request (Dkt. No. 1-8 in Case No. 19-mc-80052 SI). According to the ITC’s letter responding to 

the FOIA request, “pursuant to [ITC] Rule § 201.19(c), [the ITC] afforded the submitters of the 

responsive documents notice of [Micron’s] request and an opportunity to provide comments since 

the document identified had been granted confidential treatment.” Id. The ITC produced redacted 

versions of the briefs after receiving the parties’ comments. See id. 

In October 2018, Micron served the two Rule 45 subpoenas that are at issue in these 

miscellaneous cases. Both subpoenas seek 32 categories of documents from the ‘683 Investigation, 

including expert reports, witness statements, deposition transcripts, and transcripts of testimony 

from the evidentiary hearing. The subpoena served on McKool also seeks additional documents 

related to the ‘683 Investigation such as letters and e-mails between BTG and the ‘683 Investigation 

respondents, as well as different types of non-privileged documents that do not contain the 

confidential business information of third parties. 

The ITC and McKool have not complied with the subpoenas, thus prompting the instant 

motions to enforce compliance.

 

3

 Micron was able to obtain a copy of Mr. Banks’ rough deposition transcript from MLC, 

BTG and/or McKool.

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 505 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 7
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

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 45(a), subpoenas may command a party to “produce documents, electronically 

stored information, or tangible things requires the responding person to permit inspection, copying, 

testing, or sampling of the materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(1)(D). A subpoena may be quashed or 

modified if it “requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver 

applies or subjects a person to an undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(ii). The subpoena may 

command the production of documents which are “not privileged” and are “relevant to any party’s 

claim or defense” or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b). 

DISCUSSION

Micron contends that the documents that it seeks are the types of documents routinely 

disclosed in patent litigation, including the prior statements and testimony of Mr. Banks, as well as 

prior statements and testimony of the patent owners’ fact and expert witnesses. Micron argues that 

neither the ITC nor McKool have asserted a valid basis for failing to comply with the subpoenas

because any confidentiality concerns can be addressed through the protective order in place in MLC 

v. Micron, 14-3657 SI. Micron also argues that neither the ITC nor McKool have substantiated their 

assertions that compliance with the subpoenas would be unduly burdensome.

The ITC and McKool assert numerous objections to complying with the subpoenas. The 

ITC argues that in order to fulfill its mandate of conducting section 337 investigations “at the earliest 

practicable time,” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(b)(1), it relies on the willingness of parties to voluntarily submit 

confidential documents to the ITC with the understanding that those documents will only be used 

for the purposes of the ITC’s investigation. The ITC argues that if the Court grants Micron’s motion 

to enforce compliance with the subpoena, parties to ITC proceedings will no longer trust the 

Commission’s ability to adequately protect confidential business information (“CBI”) it obtains 

during the course of an investigation.4 The ITC also argues that if the Court grants Micron’s motion, 

 

4

 19 U.S.C. § 1337(n) governs the disclosure of information designated as CBI in a section 

337 investigation. Section 1337(n)(1) provides, “Information submitted to the Commission or 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 505 Filed 05/06/19 Page 4 of 7
5

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

it will “open the floodgates” for similar requests because the overwhelming majority of section 337 

investigations concern intellectual property, and in particular, claims of patent infringement (and 

invalidity). ITC’s Opp’n at 16 (Dkt. No. 7 in 19-80052 SI). The ITC and McKool argue that the 

terms of the protective order in the ‘683 Investigation preclude the ITC and McKool from producing 

any documents designated as confidential to non-parties for use in other proceedings, and that they 

are prohibited from determining on their own whether any information was improperly designated 

as CBI. The ITC and McKool also argue that complying with the subpoenas would be unduly 

burdensome because, inter alia, the review process would require locating signatories to the 

protective order in order to obtain their consent to disclosing their confidential business information, 

and if such consent was not forthcoming, redacting confidential business information from each 

requested document. McKool states that “the case files and production database [for the ‘683 

Investigation] together represent some 165,000 documents.” McKool’s Opp’n at 3 (Dkt. No. 7 in 

19-80047 SI). 

The Court has carefully considered the parties’ arguments and is mindful of the ITC’s 

institutional concerns, as well as the burden that would be imposed on the ITC and McKool if the 

Court fully enforced the subpoenas. The Court also recognizes the importance of protecting third 

parties’ confidential business information. While Micron may be correct in its assertion that the 

parties to the ‘683 Investigation improperly designated significant portions of the record as CBI,5

the Court is not persuaded by Micron’s suggestion that either the ITC or McKool could now make 

a determination as to the propriety of those designations without the involvement of the designating 

parties. However, the Court also recognizes that Micron is entitled to seek relevant discovery, and 

that Micron has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain the documents at issue from MLC and BTG.

 

exchanged among the parties in connection with proceedings under this section which is properly 

designated as confidential pursuant to Commission rules may not be disclosed (except under a 

protective order issued under regulations of the Commission which authorizes limited disclosure of 

such information) to any person (other than a person described in paragraph (2)) without the consent 

of the person submitting it.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(n)(1); see also 19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a)(1) (defining 

CBI). 

5

 The Court notes that the parties in the underlying related case, MLC v. Micron, have 

themselves demonstrated a proclivity for designating large swaths of information as “confidential” 

when, in fact, it is not.

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 505 Filed 05/06/19 Page 5 of 7
6

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

The Court concludes that Micron is entitled to receive three documents that are the most 

relevant to this litigation – those containing the inventor’s prior testimony – and that the production 

of these documents will not undermine the ITC’s mission, is permitted by the ‘683 protective order, 

and will not impose an undue burden on the ITC or McKool. At the April 26, 2019 hearing, counsel 

for the ITC stated that the ITC was in possession of Mr. Banks’ witness statement, which it estimated 

as less than 20 pages, and the transcript of Mr. Banks’ testimony from the evidentiary hearing, which 

it estimated as less than 130 pages. Counsel for McKool stated that McKool has Mr. Banks’ final 

deposition transcript (counsel did not provide an estimate for the length of that document). As 

demonstrated by the ITC’s response to Micron’s 2014 FOIA request, the ITC already has a process 

in place for responding to third party requests for documents containing CBI. The Court finds that 

requiring the ITC to undergo that same process for the three Banks’ documents will not be unduly 

burdensome. Further, as counsel for the ITC acknowledged at the hearing, the ‘683 protective order 

permits the ITC to disclose documents containing CBI if pursuant to a court order. See ‘683 

Protective Order ¶ 1. However, with regard to the balance of the documents sought in Micron’s

subpoenas, the Court finds that it would be unduly burdensome for the ITC and McKool Smith to 

engage in this process.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) within 4 days of the filing date of this 

order, McKool shall produce Mr. Banks’ final deposition transcript to the ITC; (2) within 8 days of 

the filing date of this order, the ITC shall provide notice to the parties to the ‘683 Investigation of 

this Court’s order compelling the production of Mr. Banks’ witness statement, evidentiary hearing 

testimony, and final deposition transcript, and provide a reasonable time to object to the disclosure 

of any CBI.6 See generally 19 C.F.R. §§ 201.17, 201.19 (setting forth ITC’s process for responding 

to a FOIA request); see also ‘683 Protective Order ¶ 9 (same). The ITC shall undergo the review 

process as expeditiously as possible, and produce the Banks’ witness statement, evidentiary hearing 

transcript, and final deposition transcript to Micron no later than June 14, 2019. 

 

6

 BTG and MLC have already provided their consent to the disclosure of any ‘683 

Investigation documents that contain the CBI of BTG or MLC.

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 505 Filed 05/06/19 Page 6 of 7
7

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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Micron’s motions seeking compliance with the subpoena are 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 505 Filed 05/06/19 Page 7 of 7