Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-mc-80093/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-mc-80093-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

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

*E-filed 6/14/06*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TESSERA, INC.,

Defendant. /

Case No. C06-80093 MISC. JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

[Re Docket No. 1]

BACKGROUND

Micron Technology (Micron) sues Tessera, Inc. (Tessera) in the Eastern District of

Texas for patent infringement. Here, in this Miscellaneous Action, Micron moves to compel

discovery from a third party, NEC Electronics America, Inc. (NECEA).

The patents in suit pertain to semiconductor “packaging.” In this context, packaging is

the permanent protective structure (or host) into which a silicon semiconductor chip is

embedded. Electrical contacts on the packaging provide connections from the chip to the

device in which the chip is to function.

Tessera licensed its allegedly infringing technology to NECEA’s parent company. 

Micron claims that Tessera induced and/or contributed to infringement by NECEA. Micron

argues that the documents it seeks from NECEA are important to proving its case against

Tessera.
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

 The word “subpoena” is a misnomer, since the document was never properly served. More

accurately, it is a further meet and confer effort to arrive at an agreement with NECEA over the breadth and

scope of the original subpoena.

2

 With the court’s permission, NECEA filed a Sur-Reply addressed to the merits of the four categories.

3

 " 'Your Products' shall mean all components imported, made, used, sold, or offered for sale in the

United States since July 15, 1999, that are packaged with at least one die in a face down configuration in a wirebonded ball grid array (including in a wire-bonded stacked ball grid array) and/or are packaged in a folded stack

package, including all such test vehicles, samples, components, system platforms, reference designs, modules or

circuit boards using any of these components or designed to be used with any of these components, and

specifically including, without limitation, semiconductors packaged in package numbers P60FF-80-CH1,

S60FF-80-CH1, P62FF-80-DQ1, and P80FF-80-DH1(or other semiconductor package with the same or similar

package), and any semiconductors imported, made, used, sold, or offered for sale in the United States under

license from or pursuant to any other agreement with Tessera. 'Your Products' includes but is not limited to any

components imported, made, used, sold, or offered for sale in the United States since July 15, 1999, that utilize

any of the following semiconductor packaging types: Plastic BGA, PBGA, Plastic FBGA and FPBGA."

2

Micron served NECEA with an extraordinarily broad subpoena listing 53 categories of

documents. NECEA objected to everything and refused to produce anything. Micron filed a

motion to compel. The court ordered extra meet and confer efforts, but they were unsuccessful. 

Before the motion came on for hearing, but after NECEA had filed its opposition,

Micron submitted a revised “subpoena” which purported to significantly narrow the universe of

the documents sought.1

There is no need to grapple with the original 53 categories of documents. The court will

direct its attention to the so-called revised subpoena, which contains but four categories.2

The “new” subpoena starts with a definition of what Micron considers to be NECEA’s

relevant “products.” This definition is complex and convoluted and, in the court’s mind, not

narrowly tailored.3

 The documents sought are those that go back to July 15, 1999. Then,

paraphrased, the four categories are: documents sufficient to identify the “structure, design, and

manufacture” of the products, sales numbers and marketing materials regarding same, six

samples of each distinctive packaging type, product identification, and all communications

between NECEA and Tessera relating to Tessera’s technology or to Micron.

DISCUSSION

1. Legal Standard -- Relevance 

Generally, the Federal Rules set out a broad relevancy standard: "Parties may obtain

discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any
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

party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery requests are relevant when they seek admissible

evidence or evidence that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This same relevancy standard applies to third-party

subpoenas. See Truswal Sys Corp. v. Hydro Air Eng'g Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 1209-12 (Fed. Cir.

1987). An ancillary court should be "especially hesitant" to pass judgment on relevancy. See

Truswal, 813 F. 3d at 1212.

2. Analysis -- Relevance

NECEA argues that it should not have to produce any documents at all until Micron has

produced evidence establishing the date(s) that Tessera learned of Micron’s patents and

engaged in some affirmative act of inducement (other than simply licensing its own patents to

NECEA's parent company). In effect, NECEA either wants the right to decide if Micron has

made a sufficient showing or wants this court to decide (a mini-trial?). While Micron will need

that evidence to prevail on those claims at trial, it does not need it to obtain third party

documents that seem to this court to be -- if appropriately narrowed -- fair game for discovery. 

Micro Motion Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., Inc., 894 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1990), which NECEA relies

on, is not on point. Since NECEA's parent is a licensee of Tessera’s allegedly infringing

technology, Micron’s interest in NECEA’s documents is much more than “speculation.”

NECEA also argues that there is no rhyme or reason to making it produce documents all

the way back to July 15, 1999, when the license between Tessera and NECEA’s parent was not

agreed upon until June 2004. The court agrees. Micron’s expressed rationale for wanting

documents from NECEA does not logically support reaching all the way back to 1999. The

court does not know when negotiations for the license began, but estimates that going back for

about six months before then should reasonably cover the negotiation period. Therefore, the

temporal start time for any production shall be January 1, 2004.

3. Legal Standard -- Burden

Courts have jurisdiction to limit discovery for various reasons, including that the

discovery is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or

less expensive or if the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
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

 NECEA complains that some of the information sought may have to come from its Japanese parent

company, and that it would be time-consuming and inconvenient to get it. Significantly, it does not contend that

there is any legal or practical bar to obtaining the information, and confirms that its parent will cooperate with

any order the court enters.

4

benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). "Thus, the factors required to be balanced by the trial court in

determining the propriety of a subpoena are the relevance of the discovery sought, the

requesting party's need, and the potential hardship to the party subject to the subpoena." Heat

and Control Inc. v. Hester Indus., 785 F.2d 1017, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Although Rule 26(b)

and Rule 45 apply equally to discovery of nonparties, the fact of nonparty status may be

considered by the court in weighing the burden imposed in the circumstances. See Truswal Sys

Corp. v. Hydro Air Eng'g Inc., 813 F.2d 1207, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

Bald statements of counsel that a subpoena is unduly burdensome, unsupported by

affidavits or evidence, are unhelpful. See Truswal, 813 F.2d at 1211.

4. Analysis -- Burden

NECEA makes familiar arguments about the unfair burden of producing any of the

information sought, coupled with assertions that some of the documents should be gotten from

Tessera and that even the four categories (rather than the original 53) still seek too much. But,

as to burden, it offers no evidence (i.e. facts, figures, time estimates),4

 and the court is

unpersuaded. 

While some of the information Micron seeks here could be obtained from Tessera,

Micron argues that Tessera has been less than forthcoming in responding to Micron’s discovery. 

And, the court will narrow the scope of the arguably duplicative discovery to a level that should

not impose an undue burden on NECEA.

CONCLUSION

The NECEA products for which discovery must be produced are those imported,

made, used, sold or offered for sale in the United States that have at least one die in a face down

configuration in a wire-bonded ball grid array (including in a wire-bonded stacked ball grid

array) and/or are packaged in a folded stack package. The start date for responsive documents

and things is January 1, 2004. The production shall include:
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

 Micron will pay NECEA the reasonable cost of these samples.

5

a. Documents sufficient to identify the structure, design, and manufacture of the 

products;

b. Documents sufficient to identify the products by number, name, or other unique 

descriptor;

c. Advertising, marketing, and/or promotional materials which relate to the packaging

of the products;

d. Documents sufficient to identify the dollar amount and number of units, by quarter,

of the products sold or imported into the United States;

e. All communications to and from Tessera and NECEA (or Tessera and NEC 

Electronics Corporation) relating to any technology provided by Tessera or

relating to Micron; and

f. Two physical samples of each distinctive type of semiconductor packaging used in

the products.5

Although no mention has been made of a protective order, certainly NECEA is entitled

to protection of its sensitive proprietary information. If there is not an existing order entered in

the Texas court which will serve, this court can provide one.

The production shall take place by July 14, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 6/14/06 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE