Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04636/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04636-15/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

G:\EDLALL\2003\03-4636\ord denying mtc.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEER SYSTEMS INC. ET AL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BEATNIK INC. ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-03-04636 JSW (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed on April 10, 2006 sought production of documents

relating to products that it had not accused in its Preliminary Infringement Contentions. In its Final

Infringement Contentions, Plaintiff added as accused products many technologies whose relevance

was contested in the Motion to Compel. Microsoft opposed the Motion to Compel as addressing for

the most part products only improperly accused in the Final Infringement Contentions, which it

moved to strike. This Court continued the hearing on the motion to compel, awaiting Judge White’s

ruling on the Motion to Strike.

In light of the Order Granting Motion to Strike issued on June 21, 2006, the Court concludes

that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is suitable for decision without a hearing and denies the motion. 

The purpose of requiring plaintiffs in patent cases to identify specifically the accused devices is to

narrow the issues for trial and trial preparation. The additional products that plaintiff sought to

accuse are no longer relevant in themselves. Nor has plaintiff shown that any of the topics on which

it seeks discovery are sufficiently linked to the only product that is accused to justify discovery. 

Microsoft’s expert’s declaration shows that the additional discovery sought is not sufficiently related

to DirectMusic, the accused product, and plaintiff’s declaration in response does not refute this

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 194 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\EDLALL\2003\03-4636\ord denying mtc.wpd2

showing. Rather, Dr. Roads’ declaration concludes that the additional subjects about which plaintiff

seeks discovery are “alternative technologies” to DirectMusic. Declaration of Dr. Curtis Roads ¶

22.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04636-JSW Document 194 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 2