Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03117/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03117-63/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC. ET AL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION ET

AL,

Defendant. /

No. C05-03117 MJJ

ORDER OVERRULING BAYER’S AND

ABBOTT’S OBJECTIONS TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ZIMMERMAN’S

DISCOVERY ORDERS CONCERNING

INTERROGATORY NO. 13.

Before the Court are Abbott’s December 19, 2007 Objection and Bayer’s December 20, 2007

Objection to Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s November 29, 2007 and December 6, 2007 discovery

orders regarding Abbott’s response to Interrogatory No. 13. The parties’ objections are OVERRULED

in their entirety.

I. Bayer’s Objection.

In its Objection, Bayer argues that the Magistrate should have struck two additional portions of

Abbott’s amended response to Interrogatory No. 13: the words “relevant portion of the” (page 3, line

1) and the words “an area that includes” (page 3, line 7). (See highlighted portions of Bartlett Decl.,

Exh. V.) The Court OVERRULES Bayer’s objection. Striking these portions of Abbott’s response

would distort Abbott’s answer in a manner that would misrepresent the basis of Abbott’s affirmative

infringement contentions. 

Case 3:05-cv-03117-WHA Document 730 Filed 04/03/08 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

2

II. Abbott’s Objection.

In its Objection, Abbott contends that the Magistrate improperly struck the portion of Abbott’s

interrogatory response dealing with how Abbott contends the contours of the measurement zone would

be determined, and infringement would still occur, under Defendants’ views of where the measurement

zone are located in Defendants’ accused products. The Court OVERRULES this objection. The

Magistrate correctly struck the portion of the interrogatory response that was argumentative and that did

not directly respond to the Interrogatory, which sought Abbott’s affirmative assertions, not Abbott’s

analysis if forced to accept Defendants’ contentions.

In its Objection, Abbott also contends that the Magistrate erred by declining to clarify that his

November 29, 2007 discovery order would not bar Abbott from asserting alternative infringement

theories in the event that this Court adopts an application of the measurement zone definition other than

that asserted by Abbott. The Court OVERRULES this objection. The Court perceives no clear error

in the Magistrate’s decision not to revise his discovery order in this fashion. The Magistrate was not

required to speculate about, nor add disclaimers regarding, how his discovery order might be interpreted

later in the litigation.

However, this Court notes that it does not regard the Magistrate’s November 29, 2007 Order as

barring Abbott from asserting alternative infringement theories predicated on Defendants’ views of the

location and contours of the measurement zone in their products.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03117-WHA Document 730 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 2