Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04739/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-04739-4/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

1 On June 27, 2005, the Court approved a stipulation

substituting Mr. Spacone for Frank Morrow as Trustee of the General

Unsecured Creditors' Liquidating Trust of At Home Corporation.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANK M. SPACONE, on behalf of and as

trustee for the General Unsecured

Creditors’ Liquidating Trust of At

Home Corporation, and on behalf of

and in the name of the At Home

Liquidating Trust of At Home

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-4739 CW

ORDER SUSTAINING

PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTION TO THE

MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S 

FEBRUARY 24, 2005

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff Hank M. Spacone1 objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

February 24, 2005 order denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel

production of computer source code from Defendant Microsoft

Corporation’s Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer products. 

Defendant has filed an opposition brief. Having considered the

parties’ papers and the evidence cited therein, the Court sustains

Plaintiff’s objection.

BACKGROUND

At Home Corporation (At Home) was an Internet service provider

that provided high-speed Internet connections through cable

infrastructure. On September 19, 2000, At Home was issued U.S.

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 157 Filed 08/31/05 Page 1 of 7
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

Patent No. 6,122,647 (‘647 patent), entitled "Dynamic Generation of

Contextual Links in Hypertext Documents." In September, 2001, At

Home filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States

Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy court named the General Unsecured

Creditors' Liquidating Trust as At Home’s successor for purposes

relating to the prosecution and settlement of the estate's

litigation. Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 22, 2003,

alleges, among other things, that the Smart Tags functionality

which is integrated into several versions of Defendant's Microsoft

Office and Internet Explorer products infringes the '647 patent.

On March 26, 2004, Plaintiff disclosed, pursuant to Patent

Local Rule 3-1, its preliminary infringement contentions. Those

contentions identified the Microsoft Smart Tags as the accused

instrumentality, and also stated that the Smart Tags feature “is

implemented in Microsoft Office XP.” 

During discovery, Plaintiff requested from Defendant Smart

Tags-specific source code as well as source code for the

applications, such as Microsoft Office, that integrate Smart Tags. 

On May 11, 2004, Defendant gave Plaintiff a 5000-page paper version

of what Defendant characterized as the “core” Smart Tags code. 

However, to date, Defendant has not provided the source code

requested by Plaintiff relating to any applications that utilize

the Smart Tags feature. 

For several months in 2004, the parties were unable to agree

upon a protective order covering the relevant source code because

Defendant wished to include a prosecutorial bar that would have

precluded Plaintiff’s experts from assisting in prosecuting patents

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 157 Filed 08/31/05 Page 2 of 7
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

relating to the subject matter of the source code. On December 13,

2004, the parties stipulated to a protective order that did not

include a prosecutorial bar. Thus, until December, 2004, Plaintiff

was not able to provide to his experts the Smart Tags-related

source code that Defendant had divulged. 

On January 6, 2005, Plaintiff submitted his final infringement

contentions, which stated as follows: “The Smart Tags feature is

implemented in at least Microsoft Office XP applications.”

On January 11, 2005, Defendant gave Plaintiff a CD containing

an electronic version of the 5000 pages of source code that it had

provided Plaintiff on May 11, 2004. Plaintiff informed Defendant

on February 1, 2005 that it intended to show the CD to Plaintiff’s

expert, David Klausner. Based on a provision of the protective

order requiring Plaintiff to give Defendant ten business-days

notice before showing confidential evidence to an expert, Klausner

could not review the CD until February 15. While Klausner had

reviewed Smart Tags-related source code as an expert in another

lawsuit, a protective order prohibited him from applying that

knowledge to another case.

On February 3, 2005, the Magistrate Judge held a telephonic

conference with the parties to discuss, among other things, the

parties’ dispute with respect to the source code utilized by

Defendant’s applications that incorporate the Smart Tags

functionality. The Magistrate Judge indicated that he would

require briefing on the issue. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge

stated, “I’m going to be very interested to see how your experts

battle this out in the declarations that you’re going to have to

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 157 Filed 08/31/05 Page 3 of 7
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

provide me to make any sense out of these respective positions. 

. . . I can’t tell you right now over the phone, I’m not going to

try.” Pl.’s Ex. A at 13. The Magistrate Judge gave the parties a

deadline of February 9, 2005 for filing discovery motions. 

On February 9, 2005, Plaintiff moved to compel Defendant to

produce computer source code for Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft

Office 2003 and Internet Explorer, versions 5.0 and above, that

related to the Smart Tags functionality. In support of his motion,

Plaintiff attached a declaration from Marc Kaufman, an attorney

with more than eighteen years of experience in computer software

who had reviewed the CD of source code provided by Defendant. In

his declaration, Kaufman described the types of code that would be

necessary to allow Plaintiff to compile and link the Smart Tags

source code and recreate the executable computer programs of the

accused products. Kaufman also explained why the code was

necessary: “The Smart Tags feature and its operation and

functionality within the various applications supporting and

interacting with the feature cannot be compared to the operation of

the invention claimed in the ‘647 patent without analysis of the

whole of the underlying source code.” Kaufman Dec. ¶ 4. 

On February 24, 2005, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s

motion to compel, ruling that Plaintiff had failed to make a

factual showing that the requested source code was relevant to

Plaintiff’s patent infringement claim. In his order, the

Magistrate Judge ruled: 

Even though I admonished the parties during a telephonic

discovery conference held on February 3, 2005 that they would

have to provide expert declarations to support their

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 157 Filed 08/31/05 Page 4 of 7
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

respective positions, and plaintiff admitted in his moving

papers that his expert had access to the source code in

dispute in a different lawsuit, plaintiff failed to submit

such a declaration with his moving papers. Plaintiff’s only

showing was a conclusory one by counsel. Nor has plaintiff

explained why it seeks discovery of source code of products

not specifically accused in its Final Infringement Contentions

or why it has not moved to amend its contentions pursuant to

Patent L.R. 3-7.

In a footnote, the Magistrate Judge stated as follows: “With his

reply, plaintiff submitted a declaration of David Klausner, a

software development expert. Plaintiff’s attempt to introduce new

evidence in connection with their reply papers is improper absent a

showing that this declaration could not have been submitted

timely.”

On June 24, Plaintiff filed his objection to the Magistrate

Judge’s order.

LEGAL STANDARD

A magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive pre-trial

matter shall be modified or set aside only if the reviewing

district court finds that the order is clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A finding is clearly

erroneous when "although there is evidence to support it, the

reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite

and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United

States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). 

DISCUSSION

The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel in

large part because Plaintiff had submitted a supporting declaration

from an attorney rather than an expert. However, Plaintiff could

not introduce the Klausner declaration with his initial motion

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 157 Filed 08/31/05 Page 5 of 7
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

because Klausner could not review the source code until February

15, after the February 9 briefing deadline imposed by the

Magistrate Judge. Instead, Plaintiff attached the Kaufman

declaration, a reasonable alternative in light of Kaufman’s

extensive background in computer software. After Klausner reviewed

the source code, he submitted a declaration attached to Plaintiff’s

reply which detailed the categories of source code required and the

reason they were needed. His conclusions did not differ

significantly from Kaufman’s, although they were substantiated by

more factual analysis. Thus, the Magistrate Judge erred in ruling

that the Klausner declaration constituted “new evidence,” and even

if it did, that evidence could not have been submitted in support

of the original motion due to the February 9 filing deadline.

The Magistrate Judge also erred in concluding that Plaintiff

sought, through its motion to compel, discovery of products not

accused in the final infringement contentions. In so ruling, the

Magistrate Judge apparently relied upon Patent Local Rule 3-1(b),

which requires a plaintiff to disclose the products it believes

infringe its patent:

Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus,

product, device, process, method, act, or other

instrumentality (“Accused Instrumentality”) of each opposing

party of which the party is aware.

However, Plaintiff’s Rule 3-1(b) disclosures clearly identify the

accused instrumentality as the Microsoft Smart Tags functionality. 

That is sufficient under the Local Patent Rules. The fact that

Plaintiff also stated in his final infringement contentions that

the Smart Tags functionality is “implemented in at least Microsoft

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 157 Filed 08/31/05 Page 6 of 7
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 7

Office XP applications” does not exclude from his infringement

contentions other Microsoft applications that implement Smart Tags.

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge’s order is

vacated. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to produce source

code from its Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Office 2003 and

Internet Explorer, versions 5.0 and above, that pertains to the

function and operation of the Smart Tags feature is granted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s

objection to the Magistrate Judge's February 24, 2005 order (Docket

No. 135). Defendant is ordered to produce all source code from its

Microsoft Office XP, Microsoft Office 2003 and Internet Explorer,

versions 5.0 and above, that pertains to the function and operation

of the Smart Tags feature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/31/05

 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-04739-CW Document 157 Filed 08/31/05 Page 7 of 7