Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04072/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04072-10/pdf.json

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

1

 The parties have resolved their disputes with respect to two additional interrogatories that

were originally included in the motion to compel before the Court.

1

*E-FILED 1/22/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MICRUS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

NO. C 04-04072 JW (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

In this patent infringement action, defendant Micrus Corporation seeks to compel plaintiffs

Boston Scientific Corporation and Target Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively “Boston Scientific”) to

respond further to two interrogatories seeking information as to the date of conception and the date

of reduction to practice of the inventions in suit.1

 Because Boston Scientific’s responses are

ambiguous, even as supplemented, Micrus’s motion to compel will be granted.

 

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 95 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 4
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 facts underlying this action are not pertinent to the discovery issues presented, and will

not be set out here. There is no dispute that the date of “conception” and the date of “reduction to

practice” are relevant, at least for purposes of discovery, in a patent infringement action such as this.

2

II. DISCUSSION2

A. Interrogatory No. 2

This interrogatory seeks the date of conception of each alleged invention claimed in the

patents in suit. Boston Scientific argues that it is not possible to state the dates with precision, and

that its amended response, served after this motion was filed, adequately points to documents and

testimony of the inventors from which the best estimates of the dates can be derived. In its reply

brief, Micrus complains that the supplemental response remains deficient because even though

Boston Scientific has provided sufficient information for Micrus to form its own opinion as to when

the inventions were conceived, Micrus cannot determine when Boston Scientific contends

conception occurred.

Although this interrogatory was not phrased as a contention interrogatory per se, it does

request Boston Scientific to “identify” the date of conception; as such, it reasonably calls for Boston

Scientific to disclose its view as to when the inventions were conceived. At oral argument Boston

Scientific suggested that it would be premature to require it to take a firm position as to the date of

conception (or, as to a date of reduction to practice in response to Interrogatory No. 4, discussed

below). Boston Scientific, however, offered no explanation as to what additional information it

would need or could reasonably be expected to obtain through discovery or otherwise before it is in

a position to formulate its contentions. Accordingly, the motion will be granted. Although Boston

Scientific will not be required to state a specific date or dates if it in good faith believes such

precision is not possible, it shall state with clarity the approximate date or dates of conception it

intends to claim in this action.

B.. Interrogatory No. 4

This interrogatory seeks the date of reduction to practice of each alleged invention. Boston

Scientific argues its amended response is adequate because it has supplied the constructive date–i.e.

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 95 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 4
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

the date of the patent application–which it contends is sufficient under the precedent of Nazomi v.

ARM Holdings, 2003 WL 24054504 (N.D.Cal. 2003). In Nazomi, however, this Court ordered the

patentee to provide either the date of actual reduction to practice or the constructive date–whichever

it was claiming applied. See 2003 WL 24054504 at *3 (“Nazomi shall provide the actual dates that

it is claiming for conception and reduction to practice (or ‘constructive reduction’)” (emphasis

added).

 Here, Boston Scientific has provided the constructive date, but its response goes on to say

that the actual date may have been earlier, and points to various documents concerning the

development efforts. As a result, the ambiguity in Boston Scientific’s response is two-fold: not only

is it unclear whether Boston Scientific intends to rely on an actual date that precedes the constructive

date, but if it is so intending, then Boston Scientific has failed to state what it contends is shown by

the evidence to which it points–i.e. the problem is the same as with its response to Interrogatory No.

2, discussed above.

 Accordingly, the motion to compel will be granted. Again, Boston Scientific need not state

specific dates if it in good faith believes it cannot do so, but it shall serve a further response stating

with clarity (1) whether it intends to rely on a date or dates of actual reduction to practice that

precede the constructive date, and if so, then (2) the approximate date or dates of actual reduction to

practice it intends to assert.

III. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is GRANTED, to the extent set forth above. Amended responses shall

be served within 20 days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 95 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 4
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 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL 

C 04-04072 JW (RS) 

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com,

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com,

Amanda Marie Kessel akessel@goodwinprocter.com

Douglas E. Lumish doug.lumish@weil.com, arlene.uyemura@weil.com

Matthew D. Powers matthew.powers@weil.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com,

Patrick S. Thompson pthompson@goodwinprocter.com

Paul F. Ware , JrPC pware@goodwinprocter.com,

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 1/22/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:04-cv-04072-JW Document 95 Filed 01/22/07 Page 4 of 4