Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-02000-84/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Island corporation,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, a

Cayman Islands corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a

California corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS AND

COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 04-2000 CW

(consolidated with

No. C 06-2929 CW)

DUTIES AND

INSTRUCTIONS FOR

COURT-APPOINTED

EXPERT PROFESSOR

ENRICO SANTI

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 800 Filed 03/12/07 Page 1 of 7
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

If Professor Enrico Santi consents, the Court will appoint him

as its expert witness. See Fed. R. Evid. 706. As the courtappointed expert, Professor Santi shall serve as a neutral,

independent expert on behalf of the Court on the technology at

issue in this case. His duties shall be to provide expert analysis

and opinions as to the technical issues in this case, including

issues concerning infringement and validity of the asserted claims

of U.S. Patent No. 6,396,722 (the '722 patent). Specifically,

whether claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 14 and 18 of the '722 patent are

infringed literally or under the doctrine of equivalents by the

accused products of each Defendant and whether claims 1, 2, 9, 12,

14 and 18 of the ‘722 patent are invalid in view of the prior art

by reason of anticipation or obviousness.

Professor Santi shall have various materials to use as

resources when forming his opinions. These materials have been, or

will be, provided in organized binders that are labeled and tabbed. 

The parties believe that these materials may be helpful for

Professor Santi to consider for purposes of forming his opinions. 

He is not limited to these materials, and may request additional

information if he believes that it is necessary. 

He may give these materials as much weight and consideration

as he believes in his professional judgment is required. Some of

the materials, such as the parties' summary judgment briefs, may be

helpful to consider because they frame the parties' key

contentions, but they may also contain attorney arguments and

discussions on unrelated legal matters that are not relevant. Some

of these materials may also mention two other patents that are 

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 800 Filed 03/12/07 Page 2 of 7
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

related to the ‘722 patent: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,804,129 (the '129

patent) and 6,259,615 (the '615 patent). The '129 and '615 patents

are no longer at issue in this case. 

One of the binders that Professor Santi has been given is

labeled "O2's Infringement Contentions/MPS's Invalidity

Contentions." This binder contains charts setting out certain 

disclosures the parties must make under the local rules that govern

all patent cases in this district. O2 Micro's charts contain its

infringement contentions, setting out the ‘722 patent's asserted

claims and, on an element-by-element basis, its theory as to why

those elements are found in Defendants' accused products. 

Similarly, MPS's charts (submitted on behalf of all Defendants)

contain their invalidity contentions, setting out the ‘722 patent's

asserted claims and, on an element-by-element basis, their theory

as to why those elements are found in specific prior art

references. 

In addition, the parties have provided Professor Santi with

expert reports from their experts, which address all of the issues

for which opinions from Professor Santi will be required. Among

other things, Professor Santi may look to these reports to provide

guidance as to what the experts and the parties believe are the key

issues to be addressed in this case. However, it is not his role

to critique the parties' experts. His opinions are to be his own

independent opinions. 

As Professor Santi will see from the parties' expert witness

reports, there are some basic rules under patent law that he should

follow, including the requirement that he must follow prior court

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 800 Filed 03/12/07 Page 3 of 7
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

orders interpreting the meaning of certain patent claim terms. He

is not required to provide a detailed analysis of patent law. The 

basic law regarding the task will be set out in these instructions,

and can also be seen in the expert reports. If Professor Santi

requires further guidance regarding patent law terminology, or the

relevant legal standards, this Court can provide him with a copy of

the model jury instructions for patent cases here in the Northern

District of California. In addition, he will have the opportunity

to ask questions, as described below, in the event that a patent

law issue comes up that was not addressed by these materials. 

Professor Santi may be asked to provide a basic tutorial to

this Court and the jury on the underlying technology at issue in

this case. 

In addition, as noted above, Professor Santi will need to

offer his opinion on infringement by determining whether each and

every element of the asserted claims can be found in Defendants'

accused products. As noted, O2 Micro's infringement contention

charts set out its infringement theory on an element-by-element

basis. Similarly, the parties' expert reports track this elementby-element analysis, including Defendants' response to O2 Micro's

infringement claim. Professor Santi should conduct his own

independent analysis in the same manner as has been done by the

parties in this case. The parties will provide him with blank

versions of these claim charts in electronic format for his

convenience.

As noted above, Professor Santi will also need to offer an

opinion on patent invalidity based on anticipation by determining

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 800 Filed 03/12/07 Page 4 of 7
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

whether or not each and every element of one or more of the

patent's asserted claims can be found in any one item of prior art. 

As noted, Defendants' invalidity contention charts set out their

invalidity-due-to-anticipation theory on an element-by-element

basis. Similarly, the parties' expert reports track this

element-by-element analysis, including O2 Micro's response to

Defendants' anticipation claim. Professor Santi should conduct his

own independent analysis on anticipation in the same manner as has

been done by the parties in this case. The parties will provide

him with blank versions of these claim charts in electronic format. 

In addition, Professor Santi will need to offer his opinion on

invalidity based on obviousness by determining whether or not it

would have been obvious to combine the teachings of certain 

references to achieve the claimed invention. Defendants'

invalidity contention charts also set out their invalidity-dueto-obviousness theory on an element-by-element basis. Similarly,

the parties' expert reports track this element-by-element analysis,

including O2 Micro's response to Defendants' obviousness claim. 

Professor Santi should conduct his own independent analysis on

obviousness in the same manner as has been done by the parties in

this case. The parties will also provide him with blank versions

of these claim charts in electronic format. 

After reviewing the materials provided, and conducting his own

independent analysis, Professor Santi will prepare an expert

report, containing a statement of his opinions and the reasons for

his opinions. Professor Santi may want to attach the abovereferenced claim charts that he may create as exhibits to his

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 800 Filed 03/12/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

report. The Court and parties are looking for a basic statement of

Professor Santi's opinions in this case. Although he may look to

other expert reports for guidance as to formatting and standard

content, no specific format is required. His report should be sent

to the parties, by express mail, within 35 days from the date that

he receives this order. 

Following submission of Professor Santi's expert report, the

parties may ask him to appear for a deposition at a time and

location that is convenient. The parties may depose Professor

Santi the week before trial, April 23 through 27, 2006. At the

deposition, the parties can ask him questions and he will be given

the opportunity to explain his opinions in greater detail prior to

his testimony at trial. 

Lastly, Professor Santi will need to testify at trial on his

opinions. The trial is scheduled to begin on April 30, 2007, and

will continue into the first two weeks of May. The Court and the

parties will attempt to accommodate Professor Santi's schedule and

to give him as much advance notice as possible as to what day (or

days) we will need him to testify. Trials are complex matters,

however, involving many witnesses, so flexibility will be required. 

The parties will pay for all of Professor Santi's reasonable hotel

and travel expenses. 

Professor Santi may contact the Court, by calling its clerk at

(510) 637-3542, if questions come up or if he encounters difficulty

in accomplishing his assigned tasks. The clerk will arrange a

conference call with the attorneys. He may also contact the Court

by letter, with a carbon copy to the parties, or by emailing the 

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 800 Filed 03/12/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

clerk and "cc"-ing the parties. The clerk's email address is

sheilah_cahill@cand.uscourts.gov. In addition, Professor Santi may

contact the parties directly, by using the e-mail addresses that

they have already provided to him, if he needs additional documents

or other information. Professor Santi, however, shall not contact

only one party, as it is important that both sides be given the

chance to communicate with him jointly if needed. The parties will

set up a conference call if necessary. 

Subject to his agreement to do so, the parties will retain

Professor Santi. O2 Micro shall pay for half of Professor Santi's

fees and expenses; MPS, ASMC and ASUSTeK shall pay for the other

half. Each side will deposit a retainer of $20,000 in the Cooley

Godward Kronish and Howrey trust accounts respectively, which

Professor Santi may bill at his hourly rate or at an agreed rate

commensurate with the rates paid to the parties' expert witnesses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/12/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02000-CW Document 800 Filed 03/12/07 Page 7 of 7