Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01745/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01745-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SILERGY CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01745-VC (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 9/28/15 JOINT 

LETTER RE: SPECIAL 

INTERROGATORIES

Re: Dkt. No. 189

On September 28, 2015, the parties filed a joint letter, in which Plaintiff seeks to compel 

supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 1 to Silergy and Compal, and Interrogatory No. 4 to 

Dr. Wei Chen. (9/28/15 Joint Letter, “Joint Letter,” Dkt. No. 189.)

Upon review of the joint letter, the Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without 

oral argument pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

Plaintiff’s request to compel supplemental discovery of related products. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”) is a semiconductor company that 

designs, develops, and markets proprietary, advanced analog and mixed-signal semiconductors, 

including synchronous step-down converters utilizing under bump metallization technology, 

which improves the flip chip packages of MPS synchronous step-down converters by increasing 

heat dissipation and package reliability, while reducing alignment tolerances. (Second Am. 

Complaint, “SAC,” ¶ 12.) MPS’s step-down converters can be used in a wide range of devices, 

including laptop computers, mobile phones, DVD drives, and handheld devices. (SAC ¶ 13.)

Defendants Silergy Corporation and Silergy Technology (collectively “Silergy”) is one of 

MPS’s direct competitors in the power integrated circuit market. (SAC ¶ 14.) Dr. Wei Chen is 

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 200 Filed 10/14/15 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

Silergy’s founder, President, and CEO. (SAC ¶ 6.) Dr. Chen served as an officer of MPS and a 

member of the MPS Patent Committee until his departure in January 2008. Id. In that capacity, 

Dr. Chen was MPS’s primary in-house technical consultant in connection with patent litigation. 

(SAC ¶ 18.) In February 2008, Dr. Chen founded Silergy. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Chen 

copied MPS’s confidential files, which were not returned upon his departure in violation of his 

MPS employment agreements and company policy. (SAC ¶ 19.) Silergy’s products include 

synchronous step-down regulators, such as those in the SY8206, SY8208, and SY8228 product 

families. Silergy has contracts with Compal, Bizcom, and others, as well as with consumer 

electronics companies, such as Lenovo and Acer. (SAC ¶ 15.) MPS alleges that step-down 

regulators from Silergy are used in the Lenovo G500 and the Acer Aspire E1 notebooks, and 

incorporate one or more of MPS’s patents. (SAC ¶ 16.)

In 2010, MPS filed several actions to enforce its rights against Silergy and Dr. Chen. (SAC 

¶ 66.) These lawsuits settled, and the parties entered into a Settlement and License Agreement on 

December 6, 2011. (SAC ¶¶ 67-68.)

On November 1, 2013, MPS filed a patent infringement and breach of contract action 

against Silergy, Dr. Chen, and related entities, including Compal. 

On September 15, 2015, the undersigned granted Plaintiff leave to amend its infringement 

contentions (“ICs”) and ordered that the amended ICs be served within 7 days. MPS appears to 

have served its amended ICs and charted SY8208 as representative of the SY8206 and SY8228 

product families. (Joint Letter at 1.)

On September 28, 2015, the parties filed the instant joint letter in which Plaintiff seeks to 

compel supplemental discovery responses pertaining to the SY8206 and SY8228 product families, 

as well as other unaccused Silergy products.

II. DISCUSSION

MPS seeks to compel responses to Interrogatory No. 1 to Silergy and Compal, and 

Interrogatory No. 4 to Dr. Chen regarding the SY8208, SY8206, and SY8228 product families, 

and similar, unaccused Silergy products.

///

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 200 Filed 10/14/15 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

A. Interrogatory No. 1 to Silergy and Compal

Interrogatory No. 1 to Silergy seeks that 

For each Silergy Step-Down Regulator identify (1) the model name, 

number, or version of the product (including Silergy’s internal names as 

well as customer names); (2) the customers (whether direct or indirect) 

that product has been sold to; (3) any products of those customers 

(whether direct or indirect) incorporating that product; and (4) any 

technical specifications for that product including, but not limited to, 

specification sheets.

(Dkt. No. 147-8 at 5.)

Interrogatory No. 1 to Compal seeks that

For each Compal product incorporating one or more Step-Down Regulator 

identify (1) the model name, number, or version of the product (including 

Compal’s internal names as well as customer names); (2) the customers 

(whether direct or indirect) that product has been sold to; (3) any products 

of those customers (whether direct or indirect) incorporating that product; 

and (4) any technical specifications for that product, including, but not 

limited to, specification sheets.

(Dkt. No. 147-9 at 5.)1

i. Whether SY8208 is a representative product

MPS contends that Defendants are improperly limiting the scope of discovery to the

SY8208 product family. (Joint Letter at 1.) Defendants concede that they are proceeding with 

discovery as to the single product, because it was the only product charged in the amended ICs, 

and MPS is not entitled to discovery on the other accused products because its infringement 

contentions “failed to show how its charting of the SY8208 is representative of the other accused 

products (the SY8206 and SY8228).” (Joint Letter at 2.)

Defendants are correct that Patent Local “Rule 3-1 ... requires Plaintiff to articulate how 

the accused products share the same, or substantially the same, infringing [qualities] with any 

other product or with the ... ‘representative’ product [ ].” Silicon Labs. Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., 

No. 14-cv-03227-PSG, 2015 WL 846679, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2015)(quoting Bender v. Freescale 

 

1

The parties’ reproduction of Interrogatory No. 1 was misleading (see Joint Letter at 1), so the 

Court had to scour the record to obtain the original interrogatories, which should have been 

attached pursuant to the undersigned’s standing order. (See Judge Westmore’s General Standing 

Order ¶ 13) (“[T]he parties shall attach the propounded discovery and the applicable responses as 

exhibits to the joint discovery letter.”)

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 200 Filed 10/14/15 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

Semiconductor, Inc., No. 09–cv–01156, 2010 WL 1689465, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 

2010)(internal quotations omitted). This articulation, however, is evaluated in the context of a 

challenge to the sufficiency of the infringement contentions. Here, there has been no challenge to 

the sufficiency of the amended ICs, so the Court must assume that SY8208 is representative of the 

SY8206 and SY8228 product families. Accordingly, Defendants must fully respond regarding all 

three accused products.

ii. Documents related to unaccused products

Plaintiff seeks to compel discovery regarding products not specifically identified in its 

infringement contentions on the grounds that it has no reliable publicly-available information to 

ascertain infringement for Defendants’ other products. (Joint Letter at 1-2.) As a result, MPS 

contends that it is impossible for it to ascertain which particular end product incorporates 

Defendants’ products. (Joint Letter at 2.)

In opposition, Defendants contend that this request violates Patent Local Rule 3-1(b), 

because it seeks documents on products that are not accused in the amended infringement 

contentions. (Joint Letter at 2-3.) Additionally, Defendants contend that the demands to Compal 

are overbroad and irrelevant, because the interrogatory is not limited to Silergy step-down 

regulators. (Joint Letter at 2.) The objection as to Compal is sustained. The litigation concerns 

Silergy products, so the interrogatory should be limited to Silergy step-down regulators.

Furthermore, Defendants contend that MPS failed to conduct the pre-filing investigation to 

“determine if step-down regulators made by companies other than Silergy have any of the 

packaging idiosyncrasies that are recited in the three patents-in-suit.” (Joint Letter at 3.) As was 

the case with the related joint letter concerning the requests for production (see Dkt. No. 195), the 

Court lacks sufficient information to determine whether Plaintiff’s interrogatory is overbroad, 

because the parties have not provided a summary of the pertinent facts to aid the court in its 

resolution of the pending dispute in violation of Paragraph 13(b) of the undersigned Standing 

Order. This is why the court was forced to review, and cite to, the operative complaint. See supra 

Part I. Indeed, the parties have cited to various previously-filed documents in support of their 

arguments. This is improper. 

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 200 Filed 10/14/15 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

Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to compel supplemental responses from Silergy 

regarding unaccused products, the Court does not have sufficient information to determine 

whether this request is overbroad.2 Relevancy, however, is a broad standard, and courts in this 

district have found that discovery of unaccused products is permissible “if the plaintiff does not 

know of the allegedly infringing product when it serves its infringement contentions and could not 

have discovered the product absent discovery.” Infineon Technologies AG v. Volterra 

Semiconductor Corp., No. C 11-6239 MMC DMR, 2012 WL 6184394, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 

2012) (citing Kelora Sys., LLC v. Target Corp., No. 11–1548 CW (LB), 2011 WL 5444419, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011); Oracle Am., Inc., 2011 WL 4479305, at *2 (citing N.D. Cal. Patent L.R. 

3–1(b)). “In such circumstances, the plaintiff must ‘articulate how the [unknown] accused 

products share the same, or substantially the same, infringing [structure]’ with a named product.” 

Infineon Technologies, 2012 WL 6184394, at *3 (citing Bender v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 

No. C 09-1156 PHJ MEJ, 2010 WL 1689465, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010)).

Absent a clear explanation of the technology at issue, and the relation to the patents-in-suit,

the Court declines to order Defendant to supplement its responses to include unaccused products. 

If, however, Plaintiff’s representation that information regarding Defendant’s products are not 

publicly available and cannot be easily obtained is accurate, and Plaintiff articulates how the 

technology concerns the patents-in-suit and the alleged infringement, the court is prepared to order 

Defendants to provide discovery on similar, unaccused products.

The parties are, therefore, ordered to further meet and confer regarding Silergy’s

supplemental responses concerning unaccused products. If the parties are unable to resolve this 

dispute without further court intervention, they shall file a joint letter that includes a detailed 

description of flip chips, step-down regulators, and other technology at issue, summaries of the 

respective patents-in-suit, and how the unaccused products allegedly infringe. The parties may not 

cite to documents previously filed in the case nor those previously submitted to the undersigned in 

 

2 As provided above, the Court declines to order Compal to respond regarding all step-down 

regulators, as the interrogatory is overbroad. Compal need only fully respond as to the three 

accused product families.

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 200 Filed 10/14/15 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

lieu of further explanation. All future joint letters should be complete, because the court is not 

required to expend judicial resources scouring the record. Failure to comply with these 

requirements will result in the letter being terminated for failure to comply with the Court’s 

standing order.

B. Interrogatory No. 4 to Dr. Chen

Request No. 4 asks Dr. Chen to 

Outline and explain the design and development process for each 

Silergy Flip Chip Product, including identification of key milestones 

met, explanation of the activities undertaken during each step of the 

process, identification of the group or people within Silergy who 

undertook those steps, description of the relative time windows 

associated with each step in the process, and whether and how you 

used knowledge you obtained during the course of your employment 

at MPS. 

(Joint Letter at 4; Dkt. No. 183-6 at 3.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendants are withholding all relevant and responsive discovery 

regarding MPS’s breach of contract claim on the grounds that this is a trade secret case under 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 2019.210. (Joint Letter at 4.) 

Defendants argue that, pursuant to § 2019.210, they should not be required to respond until 

MPS identifies the allegedly misappropriated “confidential information.” (Joint Letter at 6.) 

Section 2019.210 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n any action alleging the misappropriation of 

a trade secret under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act . . . , before commencing discovery relating to 

the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with 

reasonable particularity. . . .” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2019.210. While MPS’s breach of contract 

claim relates to the alleged use of confidential information, the contract provision breached does 

not mention trade secrets, and Defendants have not shown “that this claim is based on an 

allegation that [] Defendants disclosed or misused [Plaintiff’s] trade secrets.” Tessera, Inc. v. 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. C 05-4063 CW, 2013 WL 210897, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 

2013) (citing Cal. Civ.Code § 3426.1(d) (setting forth a definition of trade secret)). Therefore, 

Defendants are required to answer without the benefit of MPS identifying the confidential 

information it believes was utilized in the breach of the December 6, 2011 Settlement and License 

Agreement. 

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 200 Filed 10/14/15 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

Additionally, Defendants contend this this interrogatory has never been the subject of meet 

and confer between the parties, and should be denied. (Joint Letter at 7.) While perhaps true, the 

Court will still resolve this dispute given that the close of fact discovery is rapidly approaching.

Furthermore, Defendants argue that this interrogatory was propounded on Dr. Chen in his 

individual capacity, and he has provided a substantive response. (Joint Letter at 8.) Dr. Chen’s 

response, however, was that he did not use MPS’s proprietary information in designing and 

developing any Silergy products. Id. This is nonresponsive, because the interrogatory sought 

information regarding milestones for each Silergy Flip Chip Product and “whether and how [Dr. 

Chen] used knowledge [he] obtained during the course of [his] employment at MPS.” It does not 

only ask whether Dr. Chen utilized MPS’s proprietary information. That MPS declined to 

propound this interrogatory on Silergy to obtain corporate, rather than individual, knowledge is 

Plaintiff’s prerogative, and is, therefore, irrelevant. 

Accordingly, Dr. Chen shall provide a supplemental response to this interrogatory based 

on his personal knowledge.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, Defendants shall serve supplemental responses to Interrogatory 

No. 1 Silergy and Compal, and Interrogatory No. 4 to Dr. Chen within 7 days of this order. In so 

doing, Defendants’ responses to Interrogatory No. 1 are limited to the SY8208, SY8206, and 

SY8228 product families. Dr. Chen shall respond fully to Interrogatory No. 4 based on his 

personal knowledge regarding all Silergy Flip Chip Products.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 200 Filed 10/14/15 Page 7 of 7