Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED 4/17/06*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP PTE

LTD. and AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES ECBU IP

LTD.

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORP. and

ELAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

GROUP,

Defendants. 

Case No. C04-05385 JW (HRL)

ORDER DENYING ELAN'S MOTION

TO COMPEL

Re: Docket No. 186

This is a patent infringement action involving sensors used in optical computer mice. 

Defendants ("Elan") move to compel plaintiffs ("Avago") to produce witnesses in response to

Elan's Notices of Deposition to Liang & Associates, Chun-ing Liu, Chiawen Yang, Shuhsiao Li,

and Shuchuan Luo. Avago opposes the motion, and a hearing was held on April 17, 2007. 

BACKGROUND

In 2005, Avago represented to Elan's counsel that it could not produce specific

infringement contentions (required by Patent Local Rule 3-1) concerning the motion detection

algorithm elements of Elan's products without examining the source code implemented by

Elan's optical mouse sensors. Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Gary C. Ma in Support of Elan's

Motion to Compel ("Ma Decl."). Avago stated that an understanding of the motion detection 

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 216 Filed 04/17/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

algorithm could not be gained through the reverse engineering process alone. Id. The source

code was not in Elan's possession; rather, it was property of third party AMI Semiconductor,

Inc ("AMI"). Avago therefore subpoenaed the source code from AMI, and AMI produced it

pursuant to the "Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only" provision of the stipulated protective order

entered by this court. 

Avago has also sued Elan in Taiwan for infringement of a Taiwanese patent similar to

one of the patents Avago asserts in this action. The same Elan products are at issue in the

American and Taiwanese cases. The Taiwan law firm of Liang & Associates ("L & A") is

Avago's outside counsel in the Taiwan action. L & A commissioned China Industrial &

Commercial Research Institute ("CICRI") to conduct infringement analyses of Elan's products. 

CICRI's report finding infringement was submitted to the Taiwanese court in support of Avago's

infringement claim. Significantly for purposes of this motion, CICRI did not purport to need or

rely on any Elan product source code to come to its conclusions. Elan now alleges that Avago

must have improperly provided the source code, obtained in this action subject to a strict

protective order, to CICRI for analysis in the Taiwan action.

Wanting to know more about Avago's testing of Elan's products, including CICRI's

analysis, Elan served document requests and interrogatories but was unsatisfied with Avago's

response. Elan then tried another approach, serving Avago with five Notices of Deposition

pursuant to which Elan purported to notice the deposition of L & A and four L & A attorneys

(Chun-ing Liu, Chiawen Yang, Shuhsiao Li, and Shuchuan Luo) in Taipei. Avago objected,

contending inter alia that L & A and its attorneys are third parties and therefore any depositions

would have to be pursuant to subpoenas, rather than mere Notices of Deposition under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 30. Elan then brought this motion to compel the five depositions. In

the alternative, should the L & A witnesses refuse to testify voluntarily, Elan requests that the

court draw the adverse inference that Avago breached the protective order in this action, and

preclude Avago from using the CICRI report or related documents in this action.

//

//

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 216 Filed 04/17/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

DISCUSSION

Elan argues that Avago ought to produce L & A attorneys to testify about the CICRI

testing because Avago has "control" over them. However, Avago accurately argues that the test

is not "control," but whether the L & A attorneys are officers, directors, or managing agents of

Avago. Only such high-ranking employees can be compelled to appear pursuant to a mere Rule

30 deposition notice. See 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §

2103 (2d ed. 1994). Elan does not even attempt to argue that L & A or the individual L & A

attorneys fit into this category.

Because L & A and the individual attorneys are not representatives of Avago for

purposes of Rule 30, Elan must treat them as ordinary third parties. To obtain their presence at

a deposition, Elan would have to serve Rule 45 subpoenas or other compulsory process. As

residents of a foreign nation that is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, the appropriate

method is the letter rogatory, which is processed through diplomatic channels. FED. R. CIV. P.

28(b). Elan complains about the delay inherent in the letter rogatory process, but these

complaints do not change the underlying truth that Elan has sought to employ inappropriate

processes to obtain these depositions and has refused to undertake the sole appropriate process. 

Elan admits as much in its reply brief, where it agrees that "normally, third parties who

reside in foreign countries, such as Taiwan, are beyond the subpoena power and not subject to

the Court's jurisdiction." Elan then attempts to change the relief sought by its motion, arguing

that the court can and should order Avago to provide a witness to testify about "the entirety of

Avago's knowledge about the structure and operation of Elan's accused products, including any

testing or analysis relied on in the Taiwan litigation." Asking Avago to produce a witness of its

choosing, presumably pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), is not the same as asking it to produce specific

individuals (let alone specific foreign attorneys). The impropriety of raising new issues in reply

briefing is well settled. See, e.g., Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir. 1990);

Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304, 308, n. 5 (N.D. Cal. 2005). The court expresses no

opinion about whether a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on the suggested topic would be merited, as

the issue has not been fully briefed.

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 216 Filed 04/17/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Elan's motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/17/07 ____________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 216 Filed 04/17/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Morgan Chu mchu@irell.com 

Hsin-Yi Cindy Feng cfeng@akingump.com 

Alan J. Heinrich aheinrich@irell.com 

Yitai Hu yhu@akingump.com 

Sang Hui Michael Kim mkim@akingump.com, skapralov@akingump.com;

nthreadgill@akingump.com; btseng@akingump.com 

Samuel Kai Lu slu@irell.com 

Richard Elgar Lyon , III rlyon@irell.com, mwilliams@irell.com; jgordon@irell.com;

CMcEntee@irell.com; rick.lyon@gmail.com 

Gary C. Ma gma@akingump.com 

David Craig McPhie dmcphie@irell.com, jrichter@irell.com 

Elizabeth H. Rader erader@akingump.com, skapralov@akingump.com;

btseng@akingump.com; nmarie@akingump.com 

Jonathan Philip Steinsapir jsteinsapir@irell.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 4/17/07

 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 216 Filed 04/17/07 Page 5 of 5