Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268-20/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIRAM TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

MONOLITHIC SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY,

INC, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

No. C 04-1268 VRW (MEJ)

ORDER RE TSMC'S U.S. PATENT

NUMBERS '638, '186, '050, AND '226 

The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint discovery dispute letter, filed August 29, 2006. 

(Doc. #231). In the letter, plaintiff UniRAM Technology, Inc. ("UniRAM") seeks to compel

defendant Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. ("TSMC") to produce documents

related to the conception, including initial invention disclosures and inventor notebooks, of the

inventions disclosed and claimed in TSMC's U.S. Patent Numbers 6,136,638 ("'638"), 6,600,186

("'186"), 6,661,050 ("'050"), and 6,420,226 ("'226"). UniRAM argues these documents are relevant

to its trade secret misappropriation claims and may also entitle it to an equitable assignment of the

patents. In response, TSMC argues that UniRAM's request is not only burdensome, but that

UniRAM's theory of relevancy is highly-attenuated.

Upon review of the parties' letter, the Court finds that UniRAM's request is at least relevant

to its trade secret misappropriation claims. Further, given that TSMC has over 3,700 issued U.S.

Patents and over 1,700 pending U.S. patent applications, discovery regarding four of its patents is 

not burdensome. However, UniRAM sets forth the relevancy of the '638 Patent as an example, but

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 236 Filed 09/11/06 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

does not address the '186, '050, and '226 patents in the joint letter. Accordingly, TSMC need only

produce documents related to the '638 Patent at this time. If UniRAM continues to seek discovery

related to the remaining three patents, it shall file a letter showing the relevancy of those patents. 

TSMC may file any objections to UniRAM's request within five days of UniRAM filing its letter. 

TSMC shall not repeat any arguments raised in the August 29 joint letter; rather, it shall only

address relevancy as it relates to the three requested patents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2006 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 236 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 2