Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00010/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00010-5/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

SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

KINETIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00010-SI 

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY LETTERS

On December 2, 2014, the Court heard argument on a motion for summary judgment filed 

in August, 2014 by defendant Kinetic Technologies, Inc. ("Kinetic USA"), contending that 

plaintiff Skyworks Solutions, Inc. had not demonstrated that defendant Kinetic USA has made,

used, offered to sell or sold any patented invention within the United States, or imported same into 

the United States. The motion also sought judgment against plaintiff on claims of indirect or 

contributory infringement. Although the motion had been briefed, it became clear to the Court 

during argument that further briefing was required to illuminate various of the parties' positions. 

The Court therefore directed further briefing of those issues. Some of the supplemental briefing, 

with attached declarations, has been completed.

Now pending before the Court are two discovery letters, one filed by plaintiff. Skyworks

and one filed by defendant Kinetic USA. Docket Nos. 92, 93. In the first letter, Skyworks 

requests an order compelling Kinetic USA to produce for deposition two of its employees, Kin 

Shum and Lu Chen. Docket No. 92. Skyworks has previously deposed Shum, and Kinetic USA 

previously submitted an original declaration from Shum in support of Kinetics' motion for 

summary judgment. Docket No. 51-1 Supplemental declarations by Kin Shum and Lu Chen were 

submitted in support of Kinetic USA's supplemental briefing.

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 97 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Skyworks alleges that the supplemental declarations of Shum and Chen contain new 

evidence on a variety of topics, and that Skyworks should be permitted to depose and crossexamine the witnesses on these issues. Id. In response, Kinetic USA contends that Skyworks had 

an opportunity to depose Kinetic USA employees after Kinetic USA filed its motion for summary 

judgment. Skyworks did depose Shum, and knew prior to filing suit that Chen had knowledge of 

design and testing of accused products in this litigation.1 Kinetic USA argues that Skyworks has 

not shown good cause to re-open the discovery process at this point.

The Court agrees with Kinetic USA. The supplemental declarations at issue are responsive 

to the issues which were raised at the hearing, and concern matters which had been treated with 

extensively in the original summary judgment briefing, which began back in August, 2014.2 

There has already been considerable delay in resolving the motions, and more delay would surely 

be required by re-opening the deposition process at this point. 

The request for an order requiring these two depositions is denied. Plaintiff's supplemental 

reply remains due January 30, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

1

It appears that Chen was not previously deposed. 

2

It is not correct, as Skyworks asserts, that "Kinetic never addressed its sales, testing or technical 

support " in its original summary judgment briefing.

Case 3:14-cv-00010-SI Document 97 Filed 01/21/15 Page 2 of 2