Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00358/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00358-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338pt Patent Infringement

---

1

17-cv-0358-BEN-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WI-LAN INC.; WI-LAN USA, INC.; 

& WI-LAN LABS, INC.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG 

ELECTRONICS U.S.A., LG 

ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM 

U.S.A., INC.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 17-cv-0358-BEN-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING LG’S FIRST SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES

[ECF No. 107]

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of 

Discovery Dispute, filed on March 28, 2017, presenting what the Court will 

construe as Defendant LG’s motion to compel further answers to its second 

and third set of interrogatories, numbered 14-19, and Plaintiff Wi-LAN’s 

motion for a protective order. (ECF No. 107). Plaintiff Wi-LAN asserts that 

each interrogatory has discrete subparts that, if counted as separate 

interrogatories as required by law, put LG beyond the 25 authorized under 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court will only address the 

number of Interrogatories presented by Interrogatories 14-19. 

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 126 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17-cv-0358-BEN-MDD

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

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 33, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs interrogatory practice. Of relevance 

here, Rule 33(a)(1) provides that “a party may serve on any other party no 

more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) (emphasis added). 

Rule 33(a) does not define the term “discrete subparts.” The only 

guidance provided in the Commentary states that a question about 

communications of a particular type should be treated as a single 

interrogatory even though it requests that the time, place, persons present, 

and contents be stated separately for each communication. Commentary to 

1993 Amendment to Subdivision (a). Courts have examined “whether the 

first question is primary and subsequent questions are secondary to the 

primary question. Or, can the subsequent question stand alone?” Kendall v. 

GES Exposition Servs., 174 F.R.D. 684, 685 (D. Nev. 1997); see also

Waterbury v. Scribner, 2008 WL 2018432, at *2, No. 1:05-cv-0764 OWW DLB 

(E.D. Cal. May 7, 2008) (“Once a subpart of an interrogatory introduces a line 

of inquiry that is separate and distinct from the inquiry made by the portion 

of the interrogatory that precedes it, the subpart must be considered a 

separate interrogatory no matter how it is designated.”). “Determining 

whether an interrogatory counts as a separate question requires a pragmatic 

approach.” Id. at *2; Gibson Brands Inc. v. John Hornby Skewes & Co. Ltd., 

2015 WL 12681376, at *4, No. CV 14-0609 DDP (SS) (C.D. Cal. July 20, 

2015). 

DISCUSSION

1. Interrogatory No. 14

This Interrogatory requires Wi-LAN to address two “TSR” terms and 

four “Considering Terms” in connection with the ‘351 patent and for each set 

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 126 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17-cv-0358-BEN-MDD

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

of terms answer five subparts. At a minimum, even though all of these terms 

derive from the ‘351 patent, as best the Court can tell, this is at least two

Interrogatories. Prior to presenting the five subparts, LG asks Wi-LAN to 

provide the complete factual and evidentiary basis for Wi-LAN’s contention 

that the Accused products and the 4G LTE standards meet the TSR Terms 

and the Considering Terms. If left at that, the Court would find that 

Interrogatory 14 only counts as two Interrogatories, one for each set of 

Terms. But, the five subparts go substantially beyond the rather standard 

contention questions presented. 

Subpart (i) asks whether Wi-LAN is contending that the terms have 

plain and ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art. Subpart (ii) asks the 

related question of Wi-LAN’s basis for its contentions regarding the meaning 

of the terms. These subparts ask discrete questions independent of whether 

Wi-LAN contends that the terms meet certain standards. Subpart (i) and (ii) 

constitute a single Interrogatory each for the TSR Terms and the Considering 

Terms. So, they count as two more interrogatories getting us up to four. 

Subpart (iii) asks Wi-LAN to differentiate between the Considering Terms 

and its limitations. That is another separate Interrogatory. We are up to 

five. Subpart (iv) asks Wi-LAN to provide the basis for its view that a certain 

Canadian patent application provides descriptive support for the TSR and 

Considering Terms and itself has two included subparts. At a minimum, we 

are up to seven. Subpart (v) asks for Wi-LAN’s contention that four different 

sets of terms, the TSR and Considering Terms, the Selecting Term and the 

Allocating Term are met and disclosed by identified standards and LG’s 

accused products. This is at least one more Interrogatory. At a minimum, 

therefore, Interrogatory 14 must be counted as eight separate 

Interrogatories. 

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 126 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17-cv-0358-BEN-MDD

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

2. Interrogatory 15

Interrogatory 15 is unintelligible beyond its first clause. The first 

clause asks Wi-LAN to state whether it contends that the ‘924 and ‘743 

patents are essential to the IEEE 802.16 Wi-MAX standard. Simple enough,

although the Court finds that it constitutes two Interrogatories (the inquiry 

about each patent stands alone and is not interdependent). After that, the 

Interrogatory is incomprehensible. The Court finds that Interrogatory 15 

counts as two separate interrogatories and that Wi-LAN, if it must answer, 

need not respond to the subparts. 

3. Interrogatory 16

The opening clause calls for Wi-LAN to provide the complete factual 

and evidentiary support for its contention that the accused products and the 

4G LTE standards meet the terms “wireless cellular mobile unit” and 

“cellular telephone,” as recited in patent numbers ‘924 and ‘743. Standing 

alone, it is but one interrogatory. LG, however, tacked on five subparts that 

each appears to be a separate and discrete inquiry. This interrogatory, 

therefore, counts as six. 

4. Interrogatory 17

In this Interrogatory, LG asks Wi-LAN to support its contention that 

any asserted claim of the ‘924, ‘743, ‘351 and ‘320 patents was conceived and 

reduced to practice prior to the priority date asserted by Wi-LAN. This alone 

constitutes four Interrogatories. LG tells Wi-LAN how it wants Wi-LAN to 

respond, but those subparts do not appear to be independent questions. 

Consequently, this Interrogatory counts only as four. 

5. Interrogatory 18

Wi-LAN is asked to identify, for each asserted claim of each Patent 

alleged to be infringed, the portions of the patents that provide a written 

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 126 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17-cv-0358-BEN-MDD

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

description of the claimed invention, the manner of making and using the 

invention and portions, and that enable one of skill in the art to make and 

use the invention. The Court finds that this constitutes a separate 

interrogatory for each patent-in-suit but that the subparts are not separate 

interrogatories. Assuming four patents-in-suit, this constitutes four

interrogatories. 

CONCLUSION 

LG’s motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is GRANTED 

IN PART. Wi-LAN’s motion for a protective order, as presented in this Joint 

Motion is GRANTED IN PART. Regarding Interrogatories 14-19, the Court 

finds that they represent at least 24 discrete interrogatories. If, as it 

appears, Wi-LAN previously responded to 13 Interrogatories, Wi-LAN need 

only answer the first 12 questions posed from this group. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 1, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00358-BEN-MDD Document 126 Filed 05/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5