Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01197/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF

LG ELECTRONICS DEUTSCHLAND

GMBH and LG ELECTRONICS

JAPAN, INC., 

Applicants.

CASE NO. 12cv1197-LAB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR ORDER

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782

[Doc. No. 1]

On May 16, 2012, LG Electronics Deutschland., et al., (“Applicant” or “LG”)

filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Granting

Leave to Obtain Discovery from Qualcomm, Inc., (“Qualcomm”) for use in Foreign

Proceedings. (Doc. No. 1). The application seeks permission to serve a subpoena

upon Qualcomm to obtain information for use in certain lawsuits pending in

Germany and Japan brought by Mitsubishi Electric Corporation against LG alleging

patent infringement. The proposed subpoena requires the production of the

following:

“1. All Documents that grant or granted, or purport or purported to

grant, to Qualcomm any rights, protections, or licenses in or to any

Mitsubishi IPR—including without limitation Mitsubishi Wireless IPR,

regardless of whether it is Essential Wireless IPR – that provide or

provided a covenant not to sue relating to any Mitsubishi IPR, or that

otherwise authorize or authorized Qualcomm to practice any Mitsubishi

IPR, including but not limited to all agreements, amendments,

- 1 - 12cv1197-LAB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01197-JLS-MDD Document 2 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 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

appendices, attachments, schedules, and addendums.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court may grant an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 where:

(1) the person from whom the discovery is sought resides or is found in the district of

the district court to which the application is made; (2) the discovery is for use in a

proceeding before a foreign tribunal; and, (3) the application is made by a foreign or

internal tribunal or any interested person. See, e.g., Lazaridis v. International Centre

for Missing and Exploited Children, 760 F.Supp.2d 109, 112 (D.D.C. 2011). 

Even if these requirements are met, a district court retains the discretion to

deny the request. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264

(2004); In re Premises Located at 840 140th Avenue., N.E., Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d

557, 563 (9th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court, in Intel, identified several factors that

a court should consider in ruling on a request under § 1782:

“(1) whether the material sought is within the foreign tribunal's

jurisdictional reachand thus accessible absent Section 1782 aid; 

(2) the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings

underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the

court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court jurisdictional assistance; 

(3) whether the Section 1782 request conceals an attempt to circumvent

foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country

or the United States; and, 

(4) whether the subpoena contains unduly intrusive or burdensome

requests.”

542 U.S. at 264-65. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Authority to Issue Subpoena

Having reviewed the application and the response of LG, the Court finds that

the statutory requirements have been satisfied. Qualcomm is located in the Southern

District of California, there is a pending proceeding in the German and Japanese

courts and LG is an “interested party” as it is a named defendant in the German and

Japanese action. 

//

//

- 2 - 12cv1197-LAB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01197-JLS-MDD Document 2 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 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

B. Discretionary Factors

1. Jurisdictional Reach of Foreign Tribunal

The Supreme Court, in Intel, stated that,

“when the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the

foreign proceeding ..., the need for § 1782(a) aid generally is not as

apparent as it ordinarily is when evidence is sought from a

nonparticipant in the matter arising abroad. A foreign tribunal has

jurisdiction over those appearing before it, and can itself order them to

produce evidence. In contrast, nonparticipants in the foreign proceeding

may be outside the foreign tribunal' s jurisdictional reach; hence, their

evidence, available in the United States, may be unobtainable absent §

1782(a)

aid.”

542 U.S. at 264. 

In the instant case, Qualcomm is not a party to the German or Japanese

lawsuits so, on first blush, it appears that this factor should favor LG. But, the

information to be sought from Qualcomm, as provided above, relates exclusively to

Qualcomm’s licensing or authorized use of Mitsubishi intellectual property. 

Mitsubishi is the plaintiff in the German action. Mitsubishi must also be in

possession of that information. LG has not explained why that information cannot be

obtained from Mitsubishi in either lawsuit. Although § 1782 does not have an

“exhaustion” requirement, the Court is permitted, in deciding how to exercise its

discretion, to consider whether the applicant has availed itself of discovery

procedures in the foreign forum. See In re Degitechnic, 2007 WL 1367697 at *4

(W.D.Wash. 2007). 

Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor actually weighs against granting

this application. 

2. Nature and Receptivity of Foreign Tribunal

LG has made a sufficient showing that the German and Japanese courts would 

be receptive to the introduction of evidence obtained pursuant to § 1782.

Consequently, this Court views this factor as favoring the Applicant.

//

//

- 3 - 12cv1197-LAB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01197-JLS-MDD Document 2 Filed 05/21/12 Page 3 of 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

3. Attempt to Circumvent Foreign Proof-Gathering Restrictions and

Policies

Applicant claims to be “unaware of any restrictions on proof-gathering that

would prohibit obtaining the discovery it seeks through Section 1782.” (Doc. No. 1 at

6). The Court finds that the Applicant has demonstrated relevance. On the other

hand, as discussed above, LG has not addressed the availability of this information

from Mitsubishi utilizing the discovery procedures of the host courts. So, while there

is no evidence that LG is seeking to circumvent restrictions that may exist in the host

courts, this factor does not help to convince the Court to exercise its discretion in

favor of the Applicant. 

4. Undue Intrusion or Burden

Applicant claims to have drawn a narrow subpoena so that the impact upon

Qualcomm would be minimal. This Court is aware, however, that the type of

information sought in this case normally is the subject of protective orders. See, e.g., 

In re Apple, 12cv179-LAB (POR), docket number 9. Having not suggested any

limitation upon the use of this information, the Court has some concerns regarding

confidentiality. 

C. Final Analysis

The Court finds that the Intel factors do not clearly dictate the manner in

which the Court should exercise its discretion in this case. But, considering that our

courts favor broad discovery generally, the Court will authorize the issuance of the

requested subpoena. The Court will require that the subpoena be served upon

Qualcomm and upon Mitsubishi and include a copy of this Order. 

III. CONCLUSION

The application is GRANTED. Applicant is ORDERED to serve the subject

subpoena and a copy of this ORDER upon Qualcomm and upon Mitsubishi. Nothing

herein prevents Qualcomm or Mitsubishi, as a party in interest, from asserting any

rights it may have to challenge the subpoena after it is served. Any such challenge

- 4 - 12cv1197-LAB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01197-JLS-MDD Document 2 Filed 05/21/12 Page 4 of 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

must be filed as a motion in this docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 5 - 12cv1197-LAB (MDD)

Case 3:12-cv-01197-JLS-MDD Document 2 Filed 05/21/12 Page 5 of 5