Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01161/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01161-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAXLINEAR, INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv1161-H (MDD)

 

ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE:

THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY

SUBPOENAS

[ECF NO. 183]

v.

SILICON LABORATORIES,

INC.,

Defendant.

BACKGROUND

Before the Court is a dispute between Plaintiff in this patent case,

Maxlinear, Inc., (“Maxlinear”) and Defendant Silicon Labs, Inc. (Silicon

Labs). In a related patent case before this Court, to which this dispute

also applies, Maxlinear is the defendant and Silicon Labs is the plaintiff.

(Case No. 12cv1765). The dispute regards subpoenas issued to the law

firm of McAndrews Held & Mallory, Ltd., and two of its attorneys,

Wayne Bradley and Chad Gilles. The McAndrews firm represents

Maxlinear in this litigation as co-counsel and in certain patent

prosecution matters. The subpoenas were issued in the Northern

District of Illinois as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 45. By agreement of the

parties and with the consent of the assigned District Judge in Chicago,

- 1 - 12cv1161-H (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01161-H-MDD Document 186 Filed 08/02/13 Page 1 of 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

this Court accepted jurisdiction over the dispute. The joint motion was

filed on July 30, 2013. (ECF No. 183).

The third party discovery sought by Silicon Labs seeks information

regarding compliance by Maxlinear and its attorneys with the Protective

Order issued in this case. (ECF No. 29). Of significance here, paragraph

7 of the Protective Order provides, in part:

Furthermore, any individual who receives

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL

ONLY” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - SOURCE

CODE” information may not engage in Strategic

Patent Prosecution Activities in the fields to which

the disclosed information pertains on behalf of the

receiving party for a period of one year after they

last had access [to such information] under this

Order. “Strategic Patent Prosecution Activities”

includes: counseling the receiving party regarding

future claim drafting and amendments, counseling

regarding selection of and drafting of applications

for filing, or other activities that involve

competitive decision making regarding patent

prosecution.

This provision does not disqualify law firms from representing their

client, whether it is Maxlinear or Silicon Labs, in litigation and patent

prosecution simultaneously - it does, however, prohibit individual

attorneys from participating in patent prosecution after receiving

information designated as highly confidential produced in this litigation. 

DISCUSSION 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) allows parties to obtain discovery regarding

“any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or

defense . . . .” The Rule also provides that 

[f]or good cause, the court may order discovery of

any matter relevant to the subject matter involved

in the action. Relevant information need not be

admissible at the trial if the discovery appears

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.

- 2 - 12cv1161-H (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01161-H-MDD Document 186 Filed 08/02/13 Page 2 of 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

A threshold question, raised by Maxlinear, is whether any discovery is

contemplated and authorized under Rule 26 regarding a potential

violation of the Court’s Protective Order. The party’s submissions do not

identify any case on point, relying instead on general discovery cases. 

Consequently, the issue regarding discovery boils down to relevance. 

The Court finds that the information sought is not relevant to any

claim or defense in either of the subject cases. Even if good cause was

demonstrated opening up discovery to the subject matter of the

litigation, the information would not be relevant. The discovery

requested does not inform any claim or defense and is likely inadmissible

at trial. Nor does it appear that the information sought is reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Failing the

threshold inquiry of relevance, the motion to quash the subpoenas must

be granted. 

That does not end the inquiry. The Court must consider whether

the allegations of Silicon Labs provide a sufficient basis for the Court to

issue an order to show cause why Maxlinear and its counsel should not

be held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned for violating the Court’s

Protective Order. If a sufficient basis is presented, the Court would not

authorize discovery but the Court could require Maxlinear and its

attorneys to present evidence of their compliance with the Protective

Order. Consequently, the Court must consider the sufficiency of the

allegations by Silicon Labs.

Silicon Labs asserts that on several occasions following the

production of highly confidential material, attorney Bradley filed

amendments to certain patents alleged to be related to the patents-inissue in this litigation. Mr. Bradley was not litigation counsel. Silicon

Labs suggests that the timing of the amendments raises concerns that

- 3 - 12cv1161-H (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01161-H-MDD Document 186 Filed 08/02/13 Page 3 of 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

information was disseminated from the litigation attorneys at the

McAndrews firm to the patent attorneys. Mr. Bradley later joined the

litigation team and ceased his activities on the patent side. He was

replaced, according to Silicon Labs, with a first-year associate, Mr. Gilles

who, Silicon Labs asserts, may have been supervised in his patent

activities by Mr. Bradley. 

Maxlinear asserts that its attorneys all strictly complied with the

terms of the Protective Order. Mr. Gilles, despite his recent entrance to

the bar, was a registered patent agent for years prior to his admission

and was not supervised by Mr. Bradley. Silicon Labs has not identified

any particular detail of the highly confidential material disclosed that

supports its claims of leakage. Nor has any evidence been produced that

Mr. Bradley continued to assist on the patent side after moving to

litigation. There is nothing in the record demonstrating Mr. Gilles’ lack

of competence or that Mr. Bradley crossed the bright line of the

Protective Order. 

The Court finds an insufficient basis to issue an order to show

cause. 

CONCLUSION

Maxlinear’s motion to quash, presented in this joint motion, is

GRANTED. Further, construing the joint motion also to contain a

motion by Silicon Labs for an order to show cause, that motion is

DENIED. The Court declines to assess costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 2, 2013

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 4 - 12cv1161-H (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01161-H-MDD Document 186 Filed 08/02/13 Page 4 of 4