Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06946/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06946-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

ORDER CASE NO. C06-06946 MHP 

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

JAMES A. OLIFF (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), joliff@oliff.com 

JOHN W. O'MEARA (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), jomeara@oliff.com 

WILLIAM J. UTERMOHLEN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), wutermohlen@oliff.com 

OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC 

277 South Washington St., Suite 500 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314 

Tel: (703) 836-6400; Fax: (703) 836-2787 

SUSAN VAN KEULEN, 

CA Bar No. 136060, svankeulen@thelen.com 

CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, 

CA Bar No. 235517, cogden@thelen.com 

THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN & STEINER, LLP 

225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1200 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Tel: (408) 292-5800; Fax (408) 287-8040 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Seiko Epson Corporation and Counterdefendants 

Epson Research and Development, Inc. and Epson America, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

(San Francisco Division) 

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CORETRONIC CORPORATION and 

OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C06-06946 MHP (EDL) 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING-INPART PLAINTIFF SEIKO EPSON 

CORPORATION'S MOTION TO 

COMPEL CORETRONIC'S 

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES 

CORETRONIC CORPORATION and 

OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

 Counterplaintiffs, 

 v. 

SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, EPSON 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., 

and EPSON AMERICA, INC., 

 Counterdefendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Date: February 26, 2008 

Time: 2:30 p.m. 

Place: Courtroom E, 15th Floor 

 

Judge: Elizabeth D. Laporte 

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 155 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 3
ORDER 1 CASE NO. C06-06946 MHP 

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

 UPON CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff Seiko Epson Corporation's Motion to Compel 

Coretronic's Response to Interrogatories (the "Motion to Compel"), with respect to 

Interrogatory Nos. 1, 15, 16 and 17 of Plaintiff Seiko Epson Corporation's First Set of 

Interrogatories to Defendant Coretronic Corporation ("Coretronic"), and the parties' 

memoranda, declarations, exhibits and arguments relating thereto, and based on the rulings of 

the Court at the hearing of February 26, 2008, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to 

Compel is granted, in part, as follows: 

1. in response to Interrogatory No. 15, Coretronic shall supplement its response by 

identifying, by brand and model number, all projector models designed and/or 

manufactured by Coretronic from January 1, 2004 to the present that have been 

sold under a brand name other than Coretronic or Optoma; 

2. in response to Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 17, Coretronic shall: 

a. identify, under oath, all series or families of which any of the defined 

Coretronic Projectors (excluding those not accused of infringement) are a 

member, such identification to include a listing of the other members of the 

series or families and an explanation, by the person most knowledgeable of 

such issues, of any contention Coretronic may have as to why the identified 

series and families are not relevant to issues in this case; and 

b. identify, under oath, any projectors designed and/or manufactured by 

Coretronic from January 1, 2004 to the present that have the same 

configuration, with respect to ventilation or the mounting of the lamp 

reflector to the lamp housing, as the defined Coretronic Projectors 

(excluding those not accused of infringement), such identification to be 

made in good faith and supported by a declaration evidencing a complete 

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 155 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 3
ORDER 2 CASE NO. C06-06946 MHP 

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

investigation of that issue, including but not limited to direct consultation 

with Coretronic's projector design engineers; 

3. in response to Interrogatory No. 1, Coretronic shall identify, under oath, any 

model designations or other names under which projectors have been sold 

having the same configurations, with respect to ventilation or mounting of the 

lamp reflector to the lamp housing, as the defined Coretronic Projectors 

(excluding those not accused of infringement); and 

4. all supplemental responses and the supporting declarations shall be provided to 

Seiko Epson Corporation by Coretronic within 21 days of this order. 

The supplemental responses and declarations required by this Order are provided in 

response to discovery requests. No response under this Order is deemed an admission of 

infringement or a legal conclusion. 

March _____, 2008 ________________________________________ 

 Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

5

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:06-cv-06946-MHP Document 155 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 3