Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05429-9/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENENTECH, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INSMED INCORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5429 CW (EMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO SET PATENT LOCAL

RULE 3-8 WILLFULNESS

DISCLOSURE DATE FOR DECEMBER

1, 2005

(Docket No. 202)

Plaintiffs have sued Defendants for patent infringement. Currently pending before the Court

is Plaintiffs’ motion to set the Patent Local Rule 3-8 willfulness disclosure date for December 1,

2005. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the Court hereby

DENIES the motion but orders that Defendants provide their willfulness disclosure either within 15

days of Judge Wilken’s claim construction ruling or by July 31, 2006, whichever comes first.

I. DISCUSSION

Under Patent Local Rule 3-8, “[n]ot later than 50 days after service by the Court of its Claim

Construction ruling, each party opposing a claim of patent infringement that will rely on an opinion

of counsel as part of a defense to a claim of willful infringement shall” produce the opinion(s) and

related documents “as to which that party agrees the attorney-client or work product protection has

been waived” and “[s]erve a privilege log identifying any other documents . . . relating to the subject

matter of the opinion(s) which the party is withholding on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or

work product protection.” Pat. L.R. 3-8. In this case, Judge Wilken has set a claim construction

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 258 Filed 11/23/05 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

 Plaintiffs also argue that, if Defendants do not have to disclose until some time after May 19,

2006, then Plaintiffs would not have critical information to evaluate damages in advance of the ADR

session, which is set to take place before January 27, 2006. In addition, if Defendants do not have to

disclose until some time after May 19, 2006, then Plaintiffs would be precluded from filing a summary

judgment motion on willfulness as dispositive motions will be heard on May 19, 2006.

The Court does not find either argument especially compelling. First, Plaintiffs asked for an

early ADR session. Moreover, even if the ADR session were to take place before the willfulness

disclosure, Plaintiffs would not be without any information relevant to the issue of willfulness. Rather,

the only information on willfulness that they would not have would be that related to the opinions of

counsel. See A.L. Hansen Mfg. Co. v. Bauer Prods., Inc., No. 03 C 3642, 2004 WL 1125911, at *3

(N.D. Ill. May 18, 2004) (noting that willfulness is determined based on the totality of the

circumstances). Second, even if the willfulness disclosure were not made until after the hearing on the

summary judgment motions, Plaintiffs could still ask leave of Judge Wilken to file a limited summary

judgment motion on willfulness if they felt such was necessary.

2

hearing for May 19, 2006. Therefore, under Patent Local Rule 3-8, Defendants would not have to

make a willfulness disclosure until some time after that date.

In their motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to move up the willfulness disclosure date to

December 1, 2005. Plaintiffs argue that the date should be moved up for several reasons but their

main concern is that, if Defendants do not have to disclose until after May 19, 2006, then Plaintiffs

would be barred from conducting any discovery on the advice-of-counsel defense as fact discovery

closes on January 27, 2006, and expert discovery on March 24, 2006. Plaintiffs admit that

Defendants have offered to allow for discovery to take place after the disclosure but contend that this

solution is impractical because it would force Plaintiffs to conduct discovery on the eve of trial.1

In response, Defendants assert that they would be prejudiced if they had to make the

willfulness disclosure before the claim construction ruling in contravention of the sequence

contemplated by this District’s Patent Local Rules.

The Court agrees with Defendants that the Patent Local Rules do contemplate a later rather

than an earlier willfulness disclosure. The rules defer disclosure wherein an alleged infringer must

elect whether to waive the attorney-client privilege by asserting the reliance-on-counsel defense to a

claim of willful infringement. Under the rules, such a disclosure and election does not take place

until after a claim construction ruling so that the alleged infringer will have the benefit of the claim

construction ruling in making the important decision as to whether to rely on the advice-of-counsel

defense. Cf. Quantum Corp. v. Tandon Corp., 940 F.2d 642, 643-44 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (in discussing

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 258 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

whether there should be a separate trial on willfulness, noting that “[a]n accused infringer . . . should

not, without the trial court’s careful consideration, be forced to choose between waiving the

[attorney-client] privilege in order to protect itself from a willfulness finding, in which case it may

risk prejudicing itself on the question of liability, and maintaining the privilege, in which case it may

risk being found to be a willful infringer if liability is found”). Thus, the sequence preserved by the

Patent Local Rules is significant.

On the other hand, Plaintiffs need to have sufficient time to conduct discovery on the adviceof-counsel defense (if asserted) and legitimately have concerns about whether the discovery needed

can be completed adequately in advance of trial if Defendants do not have to make their willfulness

disclosure until a full 50 days after the claim construction ruling. Plaintiffs estimate that discovery

on the advice-of-counsel would take some two to three months (e.g., to take the depositions of the

authors of the patent opinions and the recipients, to prepare expert reports, and so forth).

Given these competing concerns, the Court will not order Defendants to make their

willfulness disclosure by December 1, 2005, as requested by Plaintiffs. However, Defendants cannot

be given a full 50 days after the claim construction ruling to make their decision on the advice-ofcounsel defense. Rather, the Court orders Defendants to make their election on the defense within

15 days of Judge Wilken’s claim construction ruling or by July 31, 2006, whichever comes first. 

This will assure that Plaintiffs will have a fair opportunity to conduct discovery on the advice-ofcounsel defense, while maximizing the opportunity for Defendants to obtain a ruling on claim

construction before making its willfulness disclosure.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 258 Filed 11/23/05 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

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

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to set the willfulness disclosure set to December

1, 2005, is denied. However, Defendants shall make their disclosure within 15 days of Judge

Wilken’s claim construction ruling or by July 31, 2006, whichever comes first.

This order disposes of Docket No. 202.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2005

 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05429-CW Document 258 Filed 11/23/05 Page 4 of 4