Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00098-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 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

3COM CORP,

Plaintiff,

v

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC,

Defendant,

and

REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP,

Intervenor. 

3COM CORP,

Plaintiff,

V

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC,

Defendant. /

No C 03-2177 VRW

No C 05-0098 VRW

ORDER

The parties in the above related cases request the

court’s assistance in resolving a discovery dispute detailed in

their respective letters of April 17, 2007. Doc ##394-395 (03-2177

case); Doc #241 (05-0098 case). 3Com Corp alleges willful

infringement in both cases. Patent Local Rule 3-8 requires certain

Case 3:05-cv-00098-VRW Document 243 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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

disclosures where an alleged infringer intends to rely on an

“opinion of counsel” defense. Specifically, Patent Local Rule 3-8

requires disclosure of (1) the opinion, (2) any documents for which

the party agrees attorney-client or work product protection has

been waived and (3) a privilege log identifying any other document

that the party is withholding on the grounds of attorney-client or

work product protection. The rule exempts from the logging

obligation any identification of those documents “authored by

counsel acting solely as trial counsel.”

3Com seeks these disclosures now, pursuant to the

deadline set forth in Rule 3-8. D-Link Systems, Inc and Realtek

Semiconductor Corp (collectively “defendants”) propose bifurcation

of the issue of willfulness so that the parties may benefit from

the pending Federal Circuit opinion in In re Seagate Technology,

LLC. Alternatively, defendants seek postponement of their Rule 3-8

disclosures until as late as reasonably possible in light of the

current trial date. 

In In re Seagate Technology, LLC, the Federal Circuit has

invited briefing on whether a party’s assertion of the advice of

counsel defense should extend waiver of the attorney-client

privilege to communications with that party’s trial counsel. See

Doc #234 (05-00098), Ex A. The circuit cited to its previous

ruling In re EchoStar, 448 F3d 1294 (Fed Cir 2006), which goes

beyond Patent Local Rule 3-8 by requiring that communications with

trial counsel concerning an asserted opinion must not only be

logged but must also be produced. Seagate will also consider the

Federal Circuit’s prior decision in Underwater Devices, Inc v

Morrison-Knudsen Co, 717 F2d 1380 (Fed Cir 1983), which addresses

Case 3:05-cv-00098-VRW Document 243 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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

the statutory duty of care once an infringer is put on notice of

another’s patent rights.

3Com argues that defendants should make their Rule 3-8

disclosures now because, if the Federal Circuit overrules EchoStar,

defendants will not have disclosed any information that they would

not already have had to disclose. Doc #394 at 2. Defendants argue

that awaiting the Seagate decision will permit them to make an

informed decision on whether to rely on an advice of counsel

defense in the first place. Doc #395 at 2. The court agrees. So

long as the scope of privilege waiver and the scope of the

statutory duty of care remain unknown, defendants should not be

required to produce otherwise privileged information. This is

particularly true where the Federal Circuit is expected to clarify

the law on these issues in a matter of months. (The Federal

Circuit has scheduled oral argument in Seagate for June 7, 2007.) 

Moreover, 3Com does not claim any prejudice from the delay, and

defendants’ proposal will not require modification of the trial

date.

Accordingly, defendants may postpone their Patent Local

Rule 3-8 disclosures until the earlier of November 1, 2007 or 30

days after the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Seagate.

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00098-VRW Document 243 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Case 3:05-cv-00098-VRW Document 243 Filed 04/24/07 Page 4 of 4