Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01114/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01114-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

 Acacia Media Technologies Corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 New Destiny Internet Group, et al.,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 05-01114 JW 

ORDER CLARIFYING THE

ROLE OF THE COURT’S

TECHNICAL ADVISOR, MR.

RAINER SCHULZ

 And All Related and/or Consolidated Case Actions

 /

I. BACKGROUND

Before MDL referral and pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the Court appointed Mr. Rainer

Schulz as an “expert” confidentially to consult with the Court on technology issues involved in this

case. On February 18, 2005, Plaintiff Acacia Media Technologies Corporation filed a Motion for

Clarification of the Role of Mr. Schulz and submitted a proposed Order which, if adopted, would

require the Court to provide the parties with a summary of the nature and scope of the advice received

from Mr. Schulz. While the motion was pending, the case was adjudicated for consolidation and

referral under the Rules for Multidistrict Litigation. The Court suspended its consultation with Mr.

Schulz.

On June 14, 2005, during a Case Management Conference, the Court invited counsel for the

parties to comment on pending motions. Among the motions listed was the pending motion to clarify

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 21 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 5
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

the role of Mr. Schulz. The Court reiterated its understanding that the parties had stipulated that the

Court would appoint Mr. Schulz as a confidential adviser to the Court on the technology issues in the

case. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that his motion for clarification was prompted by the Court’s reference

to Evidence Code §706, under which the expert would not give confidential advice but would make

written reports and be subject to being subpoenaed for a deposition with respect to any expert report. 

Plaintiff’s counsel also stated a concern that certain statements in the Court’s Markman Order, issued

on July 12, 2004, could only have come from “evidence” supplied to the Court by Mr. Schulz. 

Given the Court’s intent that Mr. Schulz act as a confidential technical advisor to the Court, the

Court finds its reference to Evidence Code §706 incorrect. This Order amends the appointment Order

and clarifies the Court’s intent to appoint Mr. Schulz as a technical adviser only. This Order sets for a

procedure for any party to object to the appointment. 

II. DISCUSSION

A district judge has inherent authority to appoint a technical advisor when the judge deems it

desirable and necessary. Ass’n of Mexican Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 590 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). The exercise of this authority should be used sparingly and only in highly

complicated cases. TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

(interpreting the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing technical advisors). In those limited cases,

where the complexity of the science and technology involves something well beyond regular questions

of fact and law, the district court has the inherent authority to tap the outside skill and expertise of a

technical advisor. Federal Trade Commission v. Enforma Natural Products, Inc., 362 F.3d 1204,

1213 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 157 (1st Cir. 1988). The

technical advisor acts as educator, advising on terminology so that the district court can better

understand complex evidence and properly discharge its role as decision maker. TechSearch, 286

F.3d at 1377.

III. PROPOSED ORDER OF APPOINTMENT

This MDL case involves complex technology issues. The Court proposes to vacate its

previous order of appointment and proposes to reappoint Mr. Rainer Schulz as a technical advisor,

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 21 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 5
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

under the following terms:

1. From time-to-time, at the request of the Court, Mr. Schulz will consult with the Court on the

technology issues involved in these cases;

2. Mr. Schulz may attend any court proceedings;

3. Mr. Schulz may review any pleadings, motions or documents submitted to the Court; 

4. As a technical advisor, Mr. Schulz will make no written findings of fact and will not supply

any evidence to the Court. Thus, Mr. Schulz will be outside the purview of “expert witnesses” under

FED. R. EVID. 706. See id. at 1378; Reilly, 863 F.2d at 155-156. As such, the provisions in Rule 706

for depositions and questioning of expert witnesses will be inapplicable to Mr. Schulz; and

5. Mr. Schulz will have no contact with any of the parties or their counsel. 

6. The parties would pay the reasonable fees charged by Mr. Schulz for his service as a

technical advisor to the Court. All matters pertaining to the fees of Mr. Schulz would be referred to

Magistrate Judge Lloyd.

If no objections are made to this reappointment Order within the time frame set forth below,

within 30 days of this Order, the parties shall confer to determine an apportionment for purposes of

payment of Mr. Schulz’s fees. Any dispute over the apportionment shall be resolved by Magistrate

Judge Lloyd. 

On or before June 30, 2005, any party to the litigation, which includes parties at the time of his

initial appointment and those parties now before the Court by virtue of the MDL referral, wishing to

object to Mr. Schulz’s reappointment on any ground, shall file a Notice of Objection to Appointment

of Technical Adviser. Among the grounds for objection, the Court specifically would wish to know of

any objection based on the following grounds: 

A. That the Court lacks the authority to make the appointment, or 

B. Bias, inexperience, or lack of qualification on the part of Mr. Schulz;

C. Lack of funds to share the fees of the advisor on the part of the objecting party.

Any objection shall be lodged directly with Magistrate Judge Lloyd. The objection shall state

the ground of objection and be accompanied by a supporting declaration and legal memorandum

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 21 Filed 06/21/05 Page 3 of 5
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

supporting the objection. Judge Lloyd shall not advise Judge Ware of the identity of any party making

an objection. Judge Lloyd may confer with the parties to determine if any modification of the terms of

appointment would overcome the objection. Thereafter, Judge Lloyd shall submit a recommendation

to Judge Ware in accordance with paragraphs 1-6 or as modified or of non-appointment due to

objections. Judge Ware will determine whether to make the appointment under any modified terms of

appointment.

If appointment is made, Mr. Schulz shall file a declaration that he will adhere to the terms of

his appointment. 

Dated: June 21, 2005 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 21 Filed 06/21/05 Page 4 of 5
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alan P. Block blocka@hbdlawyers.com

Annamarie A. Daley aadaley@rkmc.com

Bradford P. Lyerla blyerla@marshallip.com

David A. York david.york@lw.com

Harold J. McElhinny HmcElhinny@mofo.com

J. Timothy Nardell EfilingJTN@cpdb.com

James Michael Slominski jslominski@hh.com

Jan J. Klohonatz jklohonatz@tcolaw.com

Jason A. Crotty jcrotty@mofo.com

Jeffrey D. Sullivan jeffrey.sullivan@bakerbotts.com

Jeffrey H. Dean jdean@marshallip.com

Jonathan E. Singer singer@fr.com

Juanita R. Brooks brooks@fr.com

Kevin D. Hogg khogg@marshallip.com

Kevin I. Shenkman shenkmank@hbdlawyers.com

Maria K. Nelson mknelson@jonesday.com

Marsha Ellen Mullin memullin@jonesday.com

Michael J. McNamara michael.mcnamara@bakerbotts.com

Mitchell D. Lukin mitch.lukin@bakerbotts.com

Morgan William Tovey mtovey@reedsmith.com

Patrick J. Whalen pwhalen@spencerfane.com

Paul A. Friedman pafriedman@mofo.com

Rachel Krevans rkrevans@mofo.com

Richard R. Patch rrp@cpdb.com

Robert F. Copple rcopple@lrlaw.com

Roderick G. Dorman dormanr@hbdlawyers.com

Stephen E. Taylor staylor@tcolaw.com

Stephen P. Safranski spsafranski@rkmc.com

Todd Glen Miller miller@fr.com

Todd R. Tucker ttucker@rennerotto.com

Victor de Gyarfas vdegyarfas@foley.com

Victor George Savikas vgsavikas@jonesday.com

William J. Robinson wrobinson@foley.com

William R. Overend woverend@reedsmith.com

William R. Woodford woodford@fr.com

Dated: June 21, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:05-cv-01114-JW Document 21 Filed 06/21/05 Page 5 of 5