Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03148-100/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,

LTD.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDIATEK, INC., et al.,

Defendants 

MEDIATEK, INC,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO.,

LTD., et al.

Counterclaim Defendants

 /

No. C 05-3148 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE

JUDGE’S ORDERS OF MARCH 13,

2007, MARCH 15, 2007, AND MARCH

30, 2007

Before the Court are plaintiff’s objections, filed April 13, 2007, to the following orders

issued by the Magistrate Judge: (1) Order dated March 13, 2007, to the extent said order

grants defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents and provide testimony

pertaining to plaintiff’s negotiations with Texas Instruments (“TI”) as to the licensing of

patents at issue herein; (2) Order dated March 15, 2007; and (3) Order dated March 30,

2007. Defendants have filed opposition to the objections, to which plaintiff has replied.

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1145 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 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

1

As plaintiff points out, the Magistrate Judge did not explicitly state why the subject

documents, if not privileged, are discoverable. The Court finds the Magistrate Judge

adopted the arguments made by defendants on said issue, specifically, the two bases

identified above. (See Badini Decl., filed April 13, 2007, Ex. 2 at 5.) To the extent

defendants, in their opposition to plaintiff’s objections, make the additional argument that

the documents are relevant on the issue of defendants’ willfulness, the Court disagrees;

defendants fail to demonstrate how statements made by plaintiff and/or TI during the

subject negotiations, none of which were disclosed to defendants, have any bearing on

defendants’ state of mind.

2

Plaintiff asserts the documents do not include statements as to the “economic value

or applicable royalty of the patents-in-suit,” (see Pl.’s Objections at 17:28 - 18:1), seemingly

stating it has no documents to produce that pertain to the negotiating parties’ valuations of

the patents at issue herein. The License Agreement, however, suggests to the contrary. 

(See Badini Decl. Ex. 8 ¶ 5.2)

2

Having fully considered the matter, the Court hereby DENIES the objection, for the

reason plaintiff has failed to show the subject orders are clearly erroneous or contrary to

law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (providing district court may reconsider magistrate’s

order where it has been shown to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law).

With respect to the scope of the documents that must be produced, however, and

contrary to what plaintiff appears to suggest, the Court does not interpret the orders as

requiring production of the entirety of the documents, irrespective of whether they pertain to

the patents at issue herein. Rather, because the Magistrate Judge found the subject

documents are discoverable to the extent they contain statements pertaining to the

negotiating parties’ valuations of the patents at issue herein and/or statements bearing on

the validity or invalidity of the patents at issue herein,1 the Court interprets the orders as

requiring production only of those portions of the documents that pertain to said issues.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03148-MMC Document 1145 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 2