Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02740/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02740-0/pdf.json

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD., 

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,

LTD., et al.

Defendants. 

AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

REGARDING THE DEFINITION

OF “ACCUSED PRODUCTS” IN

INTERROGATORY NO. 5

(Dkt. No. 97)

I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In this case, Plaintiff Largan Precision Co., Ltd. (“Largan”) alleges a patent

infringement action against Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (“Samsung”). 

The technology at issue involves imaging lens products that are used in mobile phone

cameras. Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for

determination of discovery dispute regarding a discovery request Largan served on

Samsung (“Joint Motion”). (Dkt. No. 97.)1

 The dispute relates to Largan’s Interrogatory

No. 5, or more specifically, the definition of “Accused Product” provided in conjunction

with Interrogatory No. 5. The parties met and conferred yet could not resolve their

dispute, so they filed the Joint Motion on March 19, 2015. (Dkt. No. 74.)

1

 The Court has no need to cite to the sealed version of the Joint Motion, (Dkt. No. 106), and has been careful not to reference any confidential information in this Order. 

1 13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02740-DMS-NLS Document 110 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 6
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

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The purpose of discovery is to “remove surprise from trial preparation so the

parties can obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute.” U.S. ex rel.

O’Connell v. Chapman University, 245 F.R.D. 646, 648 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (internal

quotation omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) offers guidance as to the

scope of discovery permitted in an action:

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense...Relevant information need not be

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

“Relevance for purposes of discovery is defined very broadly.” Garneau v. City of

Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 812 (9th Cir. 1998). However, “[t]he party seeking to compel

discovery has the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the relevancy

requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Thereafter, the party opposing discovery has the burden

of showing that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying,

explaining or supporting its objections.” Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1

(S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009) (internal citation omitted). District courts have broad discretion

when determining relevancy for discovery purposes. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d

732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). However, this discretion should be balanced with the obligation

to interpret the Rules in order to secure a “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination”

of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. This Court has the power to restrict discovery when it is

necessary to prevent “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

expense[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Likewise, the Court will consider whether “the burden

or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs

of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues

at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).

III. ANALYSIS

Largan’s Interrogatory No. 5 asks Samsung to identify certain information—e.g.,

2 13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02740-DMS-NLS Document 110 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 6
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

the model name, product number, supplier, cost, and camera location—for each “Accused

Product.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 7.) Largan defines “Accused Product” as follows:

[A]ny product that contains at least one camera module with a three or five

element imaging lens that Samsung has made, imported, offered to sell, or sold in the United States since August 28, 2007 (for products containing a

three element imaging lens, or for products containing both a three element

imaging lens and a five element imaging lens) or Aug. 13, 2013 (for

products containing a five element imaging lens and no three element

imaging lens).

(Id.) In relevant part, Samsung objected to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that it is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence “to the extent it is not limited to the accused lens assemblies

contained in [the products explicitly mentioned in Largan’s infringement contentions.]” 

(Id. at 8-9.) Samsung thus limited its initial response to the accused lens

assemblies—meaning the lens modules and camera modules containing an accused lens

module—within those specifically enumerated products. (Id. at 10-11.) Samsung

supplemented its response during the course of discovery. (Id. at 11-14, 29.) Largan

now moves to compel the production of documents responsive to Interrogatory No. 5,

consistent with its definition of “Accused Product.” 

Largan asserts that the Joint Motion “raises two substantive questions: (1) does

discovery extend to ‘reasonably similar’ products, or only those specifically named in the

infringement contentions; and (2) what constitutes ‘reasonably similar’ products.” (Dkt.

No. 97 at 21.) It claims that both questions have been answered by the Court, such that

the Court should order Samsung to “identify all of its products containing three or five

lens elements.” (Id. (citing Dkt. No. 83).)

Specifically, Largan cites to two Court Orders for its conclusion. First, Largan

claims that in a February 5, 2015 Order, the Court held that “any three or five lens

element product that will be announced prior to the close of fact discovery is

discoverable.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 2 (citing Dkt. No. 83).) Largan has mischaracterized the

the Order, which is titled, tellingly, “Order Governing Depositions” (hereinafter

“Deposition Order”). The Court agrees with Samsung that the Deposition Order

3 13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02740-DMS-NLS Document 110 Filed 04/03/15 Page 3 of 6
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

“resolved a specific dispute: when Samsung could instruct deposition witnesses not to

answer questions about unreleased products based on privilege.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 24.) As

Samsung now argues, the Court determined that “Samsung could not invoke trade secret

privilege during a deposition to instruct a witness not to answer about three-element or

five-element lens modules manufactured by Samsung that are currently under

development and would be released by the close of fact discovery.” (Id. (citing Dkt. No.

83 at 1-2).) The Court was not, contrary to Largan’s claim, making a wholesale

determination of relevance for all products containing three or five lens systems.

Second, and similarly, Largan claims that the Court’s February 9, 2015 Order

(hereinafter the “Samsung Order”) already determined the relevance of all three and five

element lens designs. (Id. at 3, 16 (citing Dkt. No. 84).) In fact, Largan states that “this

Court has consistently held that three and five element lenses [sic] designs produced

during a relevant time period are relevant for discovery.” (Id. at 16.) Largan takes the

Samsung Order completely out of context, and its conclusion is incorrect. The Court

there determined that Largan’s prior designs with certain specific characteristics were

relevant to, at a minimum, Samsung’s invalidity defense “because they may lead to prior

art directed to three-element and five-element designs as claimed in the patents-in-suit

and because they provide background information on the state of the art at the relevant

times.” (Dkt. No. 83 at 7.) Such a limited finding does not permit Largan to conclude

that the Court has held that all three-element and five-element lens modules (or products

containing them) are relevant in this case. 

To the contrary, from the outset of discovery, the Court has generally limited the

scope of discovery for both parties to the patents-in-suit unless a further relevance

showing has been made. (See, e.g., Dkt No. 46 at 4 (rejecting Samsung’s definition of

“Largan Products”, which included “products, whether manufactured or sold by Largan

that Largan contends embody the subject matter of any of the Patents-in-Suit....”)

(emphasis added); Dkt. No. 61 at 13(“To the extent that Interrogatory No. 2 is not limited

to accused lens assemblies, the Court finds that Largan has not established the relevance

4 13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02740-DMS-NLS Document 110 Filed 04/03/15 Page 4 of 6
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

of the requested information....”); Dkt. No. 84 at 3-5 (limiting Samsung’s request for the

production of deposition transcripts to the four inventors of the patents-in-suit who were

deposed in Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Genius Electronic Optical Co., Ltd., 13-cv-2502

(N.D. Cal.)).) Though Largan claims that the Court has previously decided the relevance

issues in its favor, it appears that Largan is actually asking the Court to reconsider its

prior determinations and reasoning. In Largan’s first set of Requests for Production of

Documents, Largan defined “Implicated Products” to encompass its definitions of

“implicated imaging lenses,” “implicated camera modules,” and “implicated electronic

devices.” (Dkt. No. 49-2 at 4.) The Court noted that through Largan’s expansive

definitions, “Largan clearly sought documents not only relating to the allegedly

infringing imaging lenses and camera modules, but also non-accused imaging lenses and

camera modules, and Samsung’s products themselves (both those that contain allegedly

infringing components and those that do not).” (Dkt. No. 61 at 4 (citing Dkt. No. 49-2 at

4).) The Court generally concluded that Largan had not established the relevance of the

broader discovery it sought in that motion. (See id. at 11.) Now, instead of using the

phrase “Implicated Products”, Largan uses the phrase “Accused Products”, but with the

same goal seemingly in mind—discovery into all Samsung’s three and five element lens

products.

Even at this eleventh hour, Largan still has not established the relevance of the

information sought in Interrogatory No. 5. Through the definition of “Accused Product”,

Interrogatory No. 5 goes far beyond the “accused apparatus, product, [or] device” that

Largan identified in its infringement contentions. (Pat. L. R. 3.1(b)).) As the Court

previously noted, Largan’s infringement contentions only identify “[t]he imaging lens

and camera module” as the “[a]ccused product” in each and every claim. (Dkt. No. 61 at

11 (citing Dkt. No. 49-3 at 4-6).) Largan argues that its infringement contentions “extend

to designs ‘similar’ to the specifically accused models.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 3 (citing Dkt.

No. 65-3 (which purportedly contains “excerpts of Largan’s infringement contentions

that accuse specific devices and other products with the ‘same or similar’ lens design”)).) 

5 13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02740-DMS-NLS Document 110 Filed 04/03/15 Page 5 of 6
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

This argument does not justify the expansive discovery Largan seeks. 

First, the Patent Local Rules require more specificity. (Pat. L. R. 3.1(b) (the

identification of each accused apparatus, product, or device “must be as specific as

possible” and “must be identified by name or model number, if known”)); Mediatek, Inc.

v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 2013 WL 588760, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013)

(denying motion to compel discovery into products that were not specifically identified as

accused products under similar local patent rule); Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.,

2011 WL 4479305, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011) (noting that similar local patent rule

does not “tolerate broad categorical identifications” or “the use of mere representative

examples” in infringement contentions); see also Icon-IP Pty Ltd. v. Specialized Bicycle

Components, Inc., 2014 WL 4593338, at **2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014). Second, even

if the identification of “similar” products was sufficiently specific under Pat. L. R. 3.1(b),

Largan itself has acknowledged that the number of lens elements is only one component

of many bearing on infringement. (Dkt. No. 74 at 22) (“Even the broadest claim ...

contains a large number of additional limitations relating to, among other things, the

shape of the lenses, the radius of curvature of the lens surfaces, and the focal lengths of

the lenses and the image lens array.”).) Thus, the mere fact that a lens module has three

or five lens elements, like the specifically accused products, does not mean that such a

lens module is sufficiently similar to justify Largan’s expansive discovery.

In sum, the Court agrees with Samsung that “[t]here is no proper basis here for

Largan to now try to re-open fact discovery on lens systems not identified in their

infringement contentions.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 5.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Largan’s motion to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 3, 2015 

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

United States Magistrate Judge

6 13-CV-2740 DMS (NLS)

Case 3:13-cv-02740-DMS-NLS Document 110 Filed 04/03/15 Page 6 of 6