Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01392/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01392-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

05cv1392-B (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Defendant. 

BROADCOM CORPORATION,

Counterclaimant,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Counterdefendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1392-B (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART QUALCOMM’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

THE COURT’S RULING DENYING ITS

MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING

INVENTOR NOTEBOOKS

[DOC. NO. 424]

On October 6, 2006, Qualcomm filed a total of six motions to

compel, including a motion to compel discovery of specific inventor

notebooks and engineering logs. Doc. No. 302. Broadcom timely opposed

Qualcomm’s request for inventor notebooks on October 13, 2006, and

Qualcomm filed a reply five days later.

The Court heard oral argument on the parties’ discovery motions on

November 2, 2006, issuing bench rulings on each motion. See Doc. No.

407 (order summarizing the Court’s rulings on the parties’ motions to

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 464 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 8
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

1

 The invention claimed in the ‘872 patent is an apparatus for decoding an

incoming spread spectrum signal in a receiver. Q’s Mem. at 1; see also Opening

Kassabian Decl. Ex. D (the ‘872 patent abstract). Originally obtained by Norand

Corporation, the ‘872 patent subsequently was acquired by Intermec and then by

Broadcom. Q’s Mem. at 1.

2 05cv1392-B (BLM)

compel). During the hearing, Qualcomm withdrew its motion to compel

production of the inventor notebooks because Intermec recently produced

them in response to Qualcomm’s subpoena. Id. The Court denied

Qualcomm’s request to re-open the depositions of Steven Koenck, Patrick

Kinney, and Ronald Mahany, the named inventors of United States Patent

Number 5,500,872 (the “‘872 patent”).1

 Id.

On November 6, 2006, Qualcomm filed the motion currently before the

Court, through which it asks that the Court reconsider its denial of

Qualcomm’s request to re-open the Koenck deposition. Doc. No. 424. The

Court took the motion under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7.1(d)(1).

Having reviewed the briefing and all supporting documents

submitted, and for the reasons set forth below, Qualcomm’s Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court’s Ruling Denying its Motion to Compel

Regarding Inventor Notebooks is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Doc. No. 424.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for

reconsideration “[w]henever any motion or any application or petition

for any order or other relief has been made to any judge and has been

refused in whole or in part . . . .” CivLR 7.1(i)(1); see also United

States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that

where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the district court

has inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke its earlier

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 464 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 8
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

 For those notebook entries that include circuitry diagrams of Omnipoint

designs, Qualcomm seeks to determine whether (1) Norand engineers other than Koenck

were made aware of these designs, (2) the designs reflect the work of Omnipoint

personnel, (3) the designs were used in the Norand spread spectrum receiver that formed

the basis of the ‘872 patent’s disclosures, and (4) portions of the ‘872 patent’s

disclosures drew from these designs. Q’s Mem. at 2; see also id. at Ex. 3. For those

entries that concern the Cricket II device, Qualcomm seeks to verify whether the

3 05cv1392-B (BLM)

ruling). The party seeking reconsideration must show “what new or

different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not

exist, or were not shown, upon such prior application.” CivLR

7.1(i)(1). Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(2) permits motions for

reconsideration within thirty (30) days of the entry of the ruling

sought to be reconsidered. CivLR 7.1(i)(2).

DISCUSSION

Qualcomm contends that after the Court denied its motion to compel

the re-deposition of Steven Koenck, it obtained from Intermec notebook

entries that allegedly raise questions as to the inventorship,

conception, and knowledge of undisclosed prior art such that Koenck’s

further deposition is warranted. Q’s Mem. at 2. In support, Qualcomm

submitted for the Court’s review five (5) newly obtained documents about

which it hopes to question Koenck. Id. at Exs. 1 (notes from a Cricket

II “PRD” meeting), 2 (notes describing possible solutions to problems

involved in the use of spread spectrum technology (SST) in the Cricket

I and II products, and meeting notes detailing Norand’s SST approach,

plans, and goals), 3 (engineering log sheets titled “Omnipoint SST

Digital Logic,” with attached circuit schematics), 4 (engineering log

sheets from SST meetings and problem solving notes regarding SST), and

5 (Omnipoint proprietary document describing Omnipoint’s spread spectrum

radio modem’s capabilities, with attached circuit schematics).2

 Qualcomm

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 464 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 8
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

Cricket II or Norand’s spread spectrum receiver required the use of Omnipoint

technology to meet Norand’s device size, wireless range, and error rate requirements.

Id. at 3; see also id. at Exs. 1-2, and 4. Qualcomm also seeks to verify whether any

of these documents contain the Omnipoint and Norand schematics used to develop Norand’s

spread spectrum project. Id. at 3; see also id. at Ex. 5.

3

 In addition, Broadcom claims that the United States Patent and Trademark

Office has echoed this reasoning, noting that the Patent Examiner confirmed that

4 05cv1392-B (BLM)

argues that Broadcom’s failure to include these notebooks in its

original document production prevented its thorough questioning of

Koenck regarding these topics, and, more specifically, the extent to

which Omnipoint’s technology assisted Norand’s development of the

invention claimed in the ‘872 patent. Id. at 2-4. As such, Qualcomm

claims it will suffer prejudice if it is not allowed to question Koenck

about these newly obtained notebook entries. Id. at 4. Finally,

Qualcomm insists that Broadcom’s failure to produce these documents

justifies its request that Broadcom bear all costs associated with

Koenck’s second deposition. Id.

Broadcom denies that Qualcomm identifies any documentary evidence

relevant to the invention claimed in the ‘872 patent that warrants

Koenck’s further deposition. B’s Opp. at 1-5. According to Broadcom,

the additional notebook entries regarding Omnipoint’s work with Norand

concern Norand’s SST project in general, and not the invention claimed

in the ‘872 patent. Id. at 2-3; see also Opening McBride Decl. Ex. C

(Koenck deposition transcript excerpts where Koenck reviews notebook

entries referencing Norand’s SST project, and testifies that the entries

are seemingly unrelated to the subject matter of the ‘872 patent).

Broadcom also contends that Qualcomm neither has nor can point to any

document that suggests Omnipoint’s work with Norand is relevant to the

‘872 patent’s conception or reduction to practice.3 B’s Opp. at 3.

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 464 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 8
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

Norand’s correlator design is patentably distinct from Omnipoint’s. B’s Opp. at 3.

5 05cv1392-B (BLM)

Moreover, Broadcom argues that Qualcomm offers no justification for

its failure to question Koenck about Omnipoint’s work with Norand during

his initial deposition. Id. at 4-5. In support, Broadcom highlights

that Qualcomm was made aware of the Norand-Omnipoint collaboration as

early as June 2, 2006, when it received excerpts from Koenck’s notebooks

that identified the conception of the ‘872 patent and suggested the

extent of this collaboration. Id. at 4; see also Anderson Decl. Ex. 1.

Next, Broadcom underlines that Koenck produced a detailed index of his

engineering notebooks well in advance of his deposition, which included

entries entitled “SST Meeting” and “Cricket II SST Meeting.” B’s Opp.

at 4. In addition, Broadcom emphasizes that Qualcomm’s longstanding

awareness of Omnipoint’s work is evidenced by its reliance on at least

one of Omnipoint’s patents in its invalidity contentions and due to

specific references cited in the ‘872 patent’s prosecution history. Id.

at 4. In other words, Broadcom declares that Qualcomm not only had

several months to seek information from Omnipoint prior to the discovery

cutoff, but also had ample opportunity to question Koenck about the

Norand-Omnipoint collaboration during his first deposition. Id. at 5.

Broadcom therefore claims that Qualcomm should not be allowed to obtain

such discovery at this late stage of the case. Id.

In a final note, Broadcom argues that Qualcomm’s motion is improper

because it seeks an order requiring Broadcom to make a non-party

available for deposition. Id. Broadcom asserts that the Court has no

jurisdiction over Koenck, and as a result, declares that there exists no

basis on which to order it to produce Koenck for further deposition

questioning. Id.

The notebook entries about which Qualcomm seeks to question Koenck

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 464 Filed 11/20/06 Page 5 of 8
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 05cv1392-B (BLM)

repeatedly reference SST, include circuit schematics labeled

“Omnipoint,” and compile the detailed notes Koenck made during his

employment at Norand regarding this technology. See Q’s Mem. at Exs. 1-

5. This, coupled with Koenck’s earlier testimony that Norand and

Omnipoint collaborated on SST, see Opening Kassabian Decl. Ex. A at 11-

12, 14, 18, and 30 (attaching Koenck deposition transcript excerpts),

suggests that these notebook entries are relevant to, or in the very

least could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding

Norand’s conception and development of the invention claimed in the ‘872

patent. Indeed, Broadcom produced similar notebook entries to Qualcomm

both prior to and on the date of Koenck’s initial deposition. See

Anderson Decl. Ex. 1 (attaching Koenck deposition exhibit 4, which

similarly discusses SST and Omnipoint). Not having had the benefit of

the recently acquired notebook entries prior to Koenck’s initial

deposition, Qualcomm was unable to question Koenck regarding the

information contained therein. Regardless of whether Koenck’s testimony

ultimately confirms or denies that the entries bear on the invention

claimed in the ‘872 patent, Qualcomm is entitled to discover the full

extent of Koenck’s knowledge with respect to both his and his former

employer’s conception and development of that patent.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Qualcomm is entitled to re-depose

Koenck, but only with regard to those notebook entries Qualcomm recently

obtained from Intermec. The Court therefore modifies the discovery

schedule set forth in the applicable Case Management Conference Order(s)

to authorize Qualcomm to depose Koenck a second time. However, because

Qualcomm has already deposed Koenck for at least five (5) hours, see

Opening McBride Decl. Ex. C at 2, 5, the second deposition is limited to

no more than two (2) hours, and must be completed on or before December

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 464 Filed 11/20/06 Page 6 of 8
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 05cv1392-B (BLM)

8, 2006. Despite Qualcomm’s arguments to the contrary, the Court finds

it inappropriate to tax Broadcom with the costs associated with this

second deposition.

In issuing this order, the Court recognizes that it is without

jurisdiction to order Koenck to appear for a second deposition. As

Broadcom correctly notes, Koenck is a resident of Cedar Rapids, Iowa,

and was subpoenaed and appeared for his first deposition at the behest

of another court. Thus, this Court has no authority under that subpoena

to order Koenck to appear for additional questioning. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 37(a)(1) (“An application for an order to a person who is not a party

shall be made to the court in the district where the discovery is being,

or is to be taken.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A) (the court by which a

subpoena was issued has the authority, upon a timely motion, to quash or

modify that subpoena). As such, the Court finds only that Koenck’s

continued deposition, subject to the scope and duration limitations

described above, is proper discovery in this case. To the extent that

Koenck objects to his continued deposition, the Court instructs both

Koenck and the parties to present those objections to the court that

issued the relevant subpoena.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Qualcomm’s Motion for Reconsideration of

the Court’s Ruling Denying its Motion to Compel Regarding Inventor

Notebooks is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Doc. No. 424. The

Court finds that the re-deposition of Koenck is appropriate in this

case, and as such, GRANTS Qualcomm’s motion to the extent that it seeks

such discovery. To the extent that Koenck consents to a second

deposition, Qualcomm is entitled to question Koenck about the inventor

notebook entries it recently acquired from Intermec. The deposition

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 464 Filed 11/20/06 Page 7 of 8
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

8 05cv1392-B (BLM)

must be completed on or before December 8, 2006, and is limited to a

maximum of two (2) hours. To the extent that Koenck does object to a

second deposition, such objections must be resolved by the court that

issued Qualcomm’s subpoena to Koenck. Finally, Qualcomm’s request that

Broadcom be charged with the costs associated with this deposition is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2006

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE RUDI M. BREWSTER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01392-B-BLM Document 464 Filed 11/20/06 Page 8 of 8