Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02177/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02177-9/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3COM CORPORATION,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C03-2177 VRW (BZ)

ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE

PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED

PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT

CONTENTIONS

Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corp. has moved to strike

plaintiff's Amended Preliminary Infringement Contentions

(Amended Contentions) served September 16, 2005. The thrust

of Realtek's argument is that the Amended Contentions do not

contain the level of specificity required by Patent Local Rule

3-1. 

Although the motion seeks to strike the entire 42 page

set of Amended Contentions, in its argument, Realtek focuses

on 3 deficiencies. The first is with respect to Claim 26, of

the '446 patent which has as an element “using said descriptor

signal to generate a frame segment descriptor using a

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 300 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 5
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

segmentation circuit.” 3Com's Amended Contention states that

the accused products include a “segmentation circuit to

generate a frame segment descriptor. See 8169 Spec. at 5.” 

Realtek argues that the 8169 Specification “cannot be

interpreted to mean that the RTL 8169 uses this specific,

elaborate process....Realtek's products simply do not

“generate a frame signal descriptor” at all” (Memo 7:17-20). 

As this court has previously noted: 

While NCT's responses may not be an exemplary model

of disclosure, Patent LR 3-1 does not require NCT to

produce evidence of infringement or to set forth

ironclad and irrefutable claim constructions.

Rather, Patent LR 3-1 is “designed to require

parties to crystallize their theories of the case

early in the litigation and to adhere to those

theories once they have been disclosed.” [Citations]

Whether those theories may ultimately be vindicated

through claim construction and at trial is an

entirely separate matter from whether Patent LR 3-1

has been satisfied. At this juncture, a party may

comply with Patent LR 3-1 by setting forth

particular theories of infringement with sufficient

specificity to provide defendants' with notice of

infringement beyond that which is provided by the

mere language of the patents themselves. Network

Caching Technology, LLC v. Novell, Inc., 2003 WL

21699799 at *4 (N.D. Cal. March 21, 2003).

Here too, the most Realtek's argument establishes is that

it may prevail on this claim. Realtek has not established

that the Amended Contention lacks the specificity required by

Patent Local Rule 3-1. At the same time, I interpret the

Patent Local Rules as precluding 3Com from using information

at trial which should have been provided as part of its

Amended Contentions but was not. In its opposition, 3Com

states that had it been aware of Realtek's concern, it could

have “directed Realtek to page 3 of the RTL 8169

specification”(Opp 6:13) which contains additional

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 300 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 5
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

information, and not page 5. I believe that the deficiency

chart attached to Yang's October 31, 2005 letter put 3Com on

sufficient notice of Realtek's concern such that when 3Com met

and conferred with Realtek, 3Com should then have proffered

the additional information it now offers. 

The second claimed deficiency is with respect to Claim 1

of the '884 patent. An element of that claim is “a first port

on which incoming data is received at a data transfer rate.” 

The Amended Contention is that each of the accused products

has a “port or ports operable to receive data from a network. 

See 8169 spec at 4-5.” While this specification is not before

me, Realtek claims and 3Com does not deny that the

specification fails to disclose what structure depicted on

that specification constitutes the first port. In its

opposition, 3Com merely states that “by their very nature, the

accused products must contain” (Opp 6:27) such a port and that

it “must be between the computer and the network” (Opp 7:3). 

The Local Patent Rules are not satisfied by an assertion that

the accused product must contain a certain structure. 

Instead, 3Com must specify which structure constitutes the

first port.

The third claimed deficiency involves Claim 23 of the

'625 patent. An element of that claim is “a buffer coupled to

the first and second ports which stores data packets from one

of the first and second ports in an order of receipt, said

packets identifiable as having respective packet types from a

plurality of packet types.” Realtek complains that in its

view, nothing in the Amended Contention “suggests that the two

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 300 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 5
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 Significantly, Realtek did not lodge a record of the

meet and confer session as required by my Seventh Discovery

Order.

4

[described structures] are coupled to a first or second

port...or stores data packets from one of the first and second

ports in an order of receipt.” (Memo 9:4-6). Once again, this

merely establishes that Realtek may prevail; not that the

disclosure is inadequate.

As to the rest of the Amended Contentions, having

reviewed them without the benefit of specific argument

directed to the claimed deficiencies, they appear to provide

Realtek with “notice of infringement beyond that which is

provided by the mere language of the patents themselves.” As

I have previously suggested to the parties, many of these

problems could have been resolved had the parties met and

conferred in good faith with the goal of resolving their

problems rather than preparing for a motion.1 Without

offering a view as to who has misbehaved, it is disturbing to

read 3Com's complaint that had Realtek truly expressed its

concerns, 3Com would have provided more information. At the

same time, 3Com should bear in mind that the meet and confer

process imposes obligations on both parties to resolve

outstanding issues and that withholding information which a

party should have produced should have produced may be grounds

for excluding that information at trial.

Alternatively, I suggested that some of Realtek's

concerns could be resolved by a 30(b)(6) deposition of someone

most knowledgeable about 3Com's contentions. Nonending

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 300 Filed 01/10/06 Page 4 of 5
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

disputes about the adequacy of a set of contentions as

detailed as 3Com's is not the best way of resolving Realtek's

concerns.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Realtek's

motion is DENIED except that within 14 days of this Order,

3Com shall further amend its contention with respect to Claim

1 of the '884 Patent. 

Dated: January 9, 2006 

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

G:\BZALL\-REFS\3COM\DISC9.ORDER.wpd

Case 3:03-cv-02177-VRW Document 300 Filed 01/10/06 Page 5 of 5