Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03657-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03657-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 258

On January 11, 2019, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel pursuant to 

court orders. There are three issues presented by plaintiff’s motion to compel: (1) has Micron 

complied with the Court’s November 26, 2018 discovery order and related discovery orders; (2) 

whether Micron should be compelled to provide discovery regarding products that MLC did not 

accuse; and (3) whether Micron should be compelled to identify its customers.

I. Compliance with prior discovery orders

At the hearing, Micron stated that with its January 3, 2019 supplemental production, Micron 

has now complied with the Court’s November 26, 2018 order. MLC asserts that Micron has not 

fully complied with that order (or previous orders) because Micron has not produced discovery 

regarding products covered by Design IDs other than the 13 Design IDs addressed in the prior 

orders, and because Micron has not identified its customers for its sales. However, the prior orders

did not address discovery beyond the 13 Design IDs nor did it compel Micron to identify customers. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Micron has complied with the prior discovery orders.

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 291 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 5
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

II. Unaccused products/discovery beyond the 13 Design IDs

Micron has produced discovery and sales data regarding MLC/TLC products that correspond 

to 13 Design IDs; that production includes the 174 Accused Products, and includes additional 

products covered by the 13 Design IDs that were not specifically identified by MLC in the complaint 

or in its infringement contentions (the “Covered Products”). MLC seeks to reopen discovery1

because it asserts that Micron has violated its discovery obligations by withholding discovery 

regarding MLC/TLC products that correspond to other Design IDs aside from the 13 Design IDs 

already produced. MLC requests an order compelling the following:

1. Micron immediately supplement their Response to Micron’s Interrogatory No. 11 

to identify all Design IDs for MLC/TLC NAND Flash devices; 

2. Micron immediately make available for inspection the circuit schematics and 

related technical documents for the withheld Design IDs;

3. Micron make available Mr. Mark Helm, or designate another 30(b)(6) witness, to 

testify on the operation of the newly produced circuit schematics;

4. Micron immediately produce the worldwide sales including sales by its 

subsidiaries and affiliates for all of its multi-level cell (“MLC”) and triple-level cell 

(“TLC”) Flash memory products sold during the damages period;

5. Micron immediately make available 30(b)(6) witness(es) to testify to the withheld 

sales data; and

7. MLC’s expert discovery deadlines are extended by the duration of time it will take 

Micron to produce the improperly withheld discovery.

Dkt. No. 259-9.

Micron responds that it has produced discovery for all Accused Products (and the broader 

group of “Covered Products”), and that MLC is improperly seeking discovery on products that it 

did not accuse in the complaint or in its infringement contentions. Micron asserts that MLC has not 

been diligent in pursuing discovery, and that Micron put MLC on notice as early as 2017 that the 

174 Accused Products (or larger group of products covered by the 13 Design IDs) did not constitute 

the entire universe of Micron’s MLC/TLC NAND flash products, as evidenced by Micron’s 

responses to MLC’s interrogatories and the parties’ discovery meet and confer correspondence. 

The Court concludes that MLC is not entitled to reopen discovery. As an initial matter, the 

 

1

 Fact discovery closed on December 14, 2018.

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 291 Filed 01/14/19 Page 2 of 5
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

complaint and the infringement contentions did not accuse “all” of Micron’s MLC/TLC NAND 

flash products, nor did the complaint and infringement contentions accuse exemplary products. 

Instead, the complaint and infringement contentions specifically and only accused 174 products 

identified by manufacturing part number (“MPN”). The Court recognizes that Micron’s responses 

to discovery, which were framed in terms of 13 Design IDs, may have led MLC to believe that the 

174 MPNs and the 13 Design IDs covered the exact same group of products. The Court leaves for 

another day whether MLC may seek damages for the broader group of products covered by the 13 

Design IDs. 

However, a review of MLC’s interrogatories and Micron’s responses, as well as the parties’

meet and confer e-mails, shows that the parties distinguished between the Accused Products and the 

larger universe of Micron’s MLC and TLC NAND flash products. MLC’s Interrogatory No. 8 asked 

Micron to “Identify the number of Accused Products, multi-level cell NAND flash devices, and 

triple-level cell NAND flash devices that Micron made, offered to sell, or sold within the United 

States or imported into the United States for each year between 2008 and June 9, 2015.” Dkt. No. 

278-6. Thus, MLC’s interrogatory distinguished between “Accused Devices,” “multi-level cell 

NAND flash devices” and “triple-level cell NAND flash devices. However, even if MLC was not 

drawing this distinction, Micron consistently objected to discovery about Micron’s MLC/TLC (or 

2-bit and 3-bit) NAND flash devices, asserting that such discovery was irrelevant because “it 

purportedly inquires about Micron products that are not accused of infringement in this lawsuit.” 

Dkt. No. 278-7 (responses to Interrogatories 8-11). The parties’ meet and confer correspondence 

from October 2017 indicates that the parties were discussing whether Micron would agree to provide 

discovery “beyond just the Accused Products.” Dkt. No. 278-8. It is unclear whether Micron ever 

informed MLC whether it would agree to provide discovery beyond just the Accused Products. 

However, when Micron supplemented its responses to interrogatories in November 2018, Micron’s 

responses were subject to the objection that MLC’s discovery sought irrelevant information about 

products that were not accused of infringement in this lawsuit. Dkt. No. 283-4 (Micron’s First Supp. 

Responses to MLC’s Second Set of Interrogatories at 1). 

On this record, the Court finds that Micron has complied with its discovery obligations by 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 291 Filed 01/14/19 Page 3 of 5
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

producing discovery relevant to the Accused Devices. See generally Patent L.R. 3-4 (requiring 

production of “[d]ocuments sufficient to show the sales, revenue, cost, and profits for accused 

instrumentalities identified pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-1(b) for any period of alleged infringement.”); 

Patent L.R. 3-1(b) (discussing infringement contentions); Mediatek, Inc. v. Freescale 

Semiconductor, Inc., No. 11-5341 YGR (JSC), 2013 WL 588760 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013) (denying 

motion to compel discovery related to products that were not specifically identified as accused 

products in the plaintiff’s preliminary infringement contentions); see also Icon-IP Pty Ltd. v. 

Specialized Bike Components, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-03844 JST (MEJ), 2014 WL 4593338, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014) (denying discovery on “all” saddles and holding that “if Icon seeks 

discovery as to the unaccused saddles, it must first amend its infringement contentions to include 

such models before it is entitled to discovery of them.”); Kelora Sys., LLC v. Target Corp., No. C 

11-01548 CW (LB), 2011 WL 5444419, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (denying discovery for 

instrumentalities that were not accused in the preliminary infringement contentions).

Accordingly, to the extent MLC seeks to reopen discovery to conduct discovery on 

unaccused devices, the motion is DENIED.

III. Customer identification

MLC seeks an order requiring Micron to “immediately identify its customers for such 

products and produce all necessary information to identify all foreign sales for which damages can 

be sought under Power Integration.” Dkt. No. 259-9.

The Court’s November 26, 2018 order directed Micron to produce foreign sales information 

because some courts have held that foreign sales are relevant to the determination of a reasonable 

royalty. See Order re: Discovery at 3 (Dkt. No. 240). However, to the extent that MLC contends 

that it is also entitled to know the identities of Micron’s customers for those foreign sales under 

Power Integrations, the Court is not persuaded. In Power Integrations, the plaintiff and defendant 

were competitors, and the district court held that the plaintiff could seek damages for lost foreign 

sales which the plaintiff would have made but for the defendant’s domestic infringement. See Power 

Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 291 Filed 01/14/19 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l Inc., No. CV 04-1371 LPS, 2018 WL 

4804685, at *1-2 (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2018). Here, plaintiff is a non-practicing entity, and is seeking a 

reasonable royalty and not lost profits as damages. Thus, Power Integrations does not support 

plaintiff’s request for Micron to identify its foreign customers.2 

However, to the extent that there are any sales for which Micron will be asserting its 

affirmative defense that the sales are permitted under licenses, the Court finds that Micron should 

identify those customers if it has not already done so. Micron shall do so no later than 1 week after 

the filing date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

 

2

 The Court’s November 26, 2018 order cited Power Integrations for the proposition that at 

least one court has applied the Supreme Court’s analysis in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical 

Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018), to claims of direct infringement under section 271(a). 

Case 3:14-cv-03657-SI Document 291 Filed 01/14/19 Page 5 of 5