Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

E-Filed 9/4/2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cv-04435-EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORTS 15 AND 16

Re: Dkt. Nos. 337, 339

Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) sues Defendant UTAC (Taiwan) Corporation (“UTC”) 

for alleged failures to pay royalties under a license agreement. The parties initially disputed the 

criteria for determining which UTC products are royalty-bearing. The court ruled on summary 

judgment motions related to contract interpretation. Tessera then served UTC with infringement 

disclosures identifying the products that Tessera contends are royalty-bearing under the 

agreement. Tessera identified 32 claims of 12 licensed patents. Tessera also contended that two 

types of UTC semiconductor packages are covered by the claims of licensed patents and are 

therefore royalty-bearing. Tessera asserted it did not have enough information to determine 

whether a third type of UTC package is covered by the patent claims. UTC disputes Tessera’s 

contentions.

Tessera’s expert witness Dr. Bravman relied on finite element analysis—a software model 

that attempts to predict how an object will react to different forces and physical conditions—to 

form conclusions about the “compliant nature” of certain materials in UTC’s packages. UTC 

alleges that these conclusions are a necessary component of Tessera’s infringement claim. 

The court now resolves the parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint Reports (“DDJR”) 15 and 16. 

UTC requests in DDJR 15 that Tessera disclose “information and back-up data concerning the 

[finite element analysis] it is proffering in this case” as well as similar information about finite 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 362 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

element analysis performed in cases referenced by Tessera’s expert. UTC argues in DDJR 16 that 

portions of Dr. Bravman’s expert report, supporting materials about finite element analysis, and 

back-up data files related to the finite element analysis in Dr. Bravman’s report were improperly 

designated as Highly Confidential. UTC bases its requests on Requests for Production 69, 73, 81 

and 82, as well as Interrogatory 20 and the expert-disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26.

The court addresses these factually related DDJRs in turn.

Discovery Dispute Joint Report 15

UTC argues that Tessera has withheld “macros, calculations, and other input files” that 

must have been used to calibrate Dr. Bravman’s software model, and that the model cannot be 

accurately analyzed without this calibration information. DDJR 15 at 8. UTC Tessera argues that 

UTC requests “detailed background information about [finite element analysis] that Dr. Bravman 

has never seen, did not generate, and never considered in forming opinions in this case[.]” Id. at 3. 

Tessera also states that Dr. Bravman “has never even seen [or reviewed] this material”—rather, 

the finite element analysis was conducted by “a skilled engineer at Dr. Bravman’s direction.” Id.

at 2-3. Tessera alleges that it already went beyond any discovery obligation when it produced a 

broad variety of related files, back-up data, and the computer script that Dr. Bravman used. Id. at

5. Tessera also claims that, to the best of Tessera’s knowledge, no other files responsive to UTC’s 

request exist. Id.

 Tessera has no obligation to produce further macros, calculations, input files, or similar 

materials related to the finite element analysis in Dr. Bravman’s report if he has never seen or 

reviewed them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(ii); see Doan v. Astrue, 2010 WL 234935 at 7 (S.D. 

Cal. Jan. 12, 2010). UTC cites Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 271 F.3d 1043 

(Fed. Cir. 2001), to support the argument that the internal details and methodology of an expert’s 

software model must be disclosed completely. But Novartis was not about discovery; it answered 

whether an expert’s failure to adequately explain the inner workings of his own software model 

justified summary judgment on an infringement claim. Id. at 1055. The court rules at this 

moment on the reach of mandatory expert discovery, not a motion for summary judgment.

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 362 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Tessera also has no obligation to produce materials related to finite element analysis 

performed in separate cases. The court previously denied UTC’s request for these materials. Dkt. 

No. 227. Dr. Bravman’s report compares the results of his analysis in this case to the results of 

similar analysis in those unrelated cases. UTC argues Dr. Bravman’s report now compels 

production of “the materials from the prior suits” because Dr. Bravman has relied on them. DDJR 

15 at 10. But Dr. Bravman has not considered or relied upon the requested materials to form his 

conclusions in this case—UTC points only to one instance where Dr. Bravman used the results of 

prior analysis done by other people to contextualize the results of his own analysis. Id. at 9. Dr. 

Bravman’s report already contains the results Dr. Bravman relied on; Tessera need not produce

related materials Dr. Bravman has not seen. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(ii); see Doan v. Astrue, 

2010 WL 234935 at 7.

Tessera therefore does not need to produce any of the evidence requested by UTC in DDJR 

15.

Discovery Dispute Joint Report 16

Tessera argues it has appropriately marked information related to its “proprietary analysis 

and [finite element analysis] source code script” as Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only. 

DDJR 16 at 4. Tessera claims that a Highly Confidential designation is appropriate because the 

finite element analysis was an expensive, difficult process that depended on the proprietary 

techniques of a specialized engineer. Id. at 3-4. UTC argues Tessera has not carried its burden 

under the parties’ stipulated protective order, Dkt. No. 118 at 3, to show that the materials are 

“extremely sensitive” and that disclosure to another party or non-party would create “a substantial 

risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.” DDJR 16 at 8. UTC 

also argues that they cannot fairly evaluate the finite element analysis based on UTC 

semiconductor packages unless UTC can share the details of that analysis with the in-house UTC

engineers who “design and make” those packages. Id. at 7.

The court finds Tessera incorrectly marked these materials as Highly Confidential.

Tessera asserts, at most, that an expert used “confidential” and “proprietary” techniques and that 

the expert was paid well; this is not enough. Tessera has failed to show that a Highly Confidential 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 362 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

designation is appropriate, because Tessera has not described how “a substantial risk of serious 

harm . . . could not be avoided by less restrictive means.” The court also doubts whether Tessera’s 

expert relied upon “extremely sensitive” proprietary techniques in the first place—the man who 

performed Tessera’s finite element analysis described his methods as the same ones “regularly 

used by those in the [semiconductor] packaging industry” to analyze semiconductor packages. 

DDJR 16 at 9.

Conclusion

Tessera need not produce the materials requested by UTC in DDJR 15, but Tessera shall

promptly designate the materials at issue in DDJR 16 as Confidential rather than Highly 

Confidential.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2015

________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 362 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 4