Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00108/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00108-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: QUALCOMM LITIGATION Case No.: 17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR 

DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY REGARDING 

APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL 

RESPONSES TO QUALCOMM’S 

FIRST AND SECOND SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES

[ECF NO. 347]

This Joint Motion was filed on March 2, 2017. The dispute involves 

Apple’s responses to five interrogatories. 

Legal Standard

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize parties to obtain 

discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). “Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in 

evidence to be discoverable.” Id. District courts have broad discretion to 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 375 Filed 03/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

limit discovery where the discovery sought is “unreasonably cumulative or 

duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more 

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). 

An interrogatory may relate to any matter that may be inquired of 

under Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). The responding party must 

answer each interrogatory by stating the appropriate objection(s) with 

specificity or, to the extent the interrogatory is not objected to, by 

“answer[ing] separately and fully in writing under oath.” Rule 33(b). The 

responding party has the option in certain circumstances to answer an 

interrogatory by specifying responsive records and making those records 

available to the interrogating party. Rule 33(d).

DISCUSSION

1. Interrogatory 24

Apple is asked to identify each Apple invention or technology contained 

in any of its cellular devices that Apple contends does not rely upon or utilize 

cellular technology in whole or in part and state the value of that invention or 

technology on a per device basis. (ECF No. 347 at 2).1 

Apple’s response includes a partial list of “features unrelated to cellular 

connectivity such as those related to its unique form factor, touchscreen 

technology, user interface features, camera technology, touch ID, Apple Pay, 

app infrastructure, content, software, and many other items.” (Id. at 3). 

Apple also responds that “just about every feature and functionality in 

Apple’s cellular devices is important and unrelated to cellular connectivity 

because every device also works with WiFi....” (Id.). Apple also provides a 

 

1 The Court will refer to pagination supplied by CM/ECF rather than original pagination 

throughout. 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 375 Filed 03/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

three-page list of references to documents under Rule 33(d) which, the Court 

is informed, are product specifications, user guides, marketing materials and 

marketing research. (Id. at 7, 9-10). Apple does not provide value 

information, claiming that the answers are the subject of expert discovery. 

(Id. at 10).

Qualcomm argues that this response is deficient. With the exception of 

information regarding per device valuation, the Court finds that Qualcomm 

has the better of the argument. Apple started down the right path, 

identifying components of various Apple cellular devices that cannot and do 

not rely on cellular connectivity. But the list was not exhaustive as the 

response used the words “includes” and “and many other items.” It was 

incumbent upon Apple to identify its inventions and technologies in each of 

the subject devices that does not rely upon or use cellular technology. It did 

not do so. 

Apple suggests that the “baseless” nature of this dispute is highlighted 

by the fact that it would have to identify virtually every connectivity feature

contained in their devices because those features can operate without cellular 

technology, using WiFi. The Court disagrees with this suggestion. Only 

features or technologies that cannot or do not rely upon or use cellular 

technology must be disclosed. A component that may use cellular technology 

or may use WiFi, depending upon the circumstances or user choice, 

eliminates it from disclosure in response to this interrogatory. This 

interrogatory is directed at inventions and technologies that cannot or do not 

rely upon or use cellular technologies. 

Apple’s use of Rule 33(d) here also is deficient. It is not enough, in 

response to this interrogatory, to identify product specifications and user 

manuals. Rule 33(d) provides that if the answer can be determined from 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 375 Filed 03/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

business records and “if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer 

will be substantially the same for either party,” the responding party may 

specify the records to be reviewed. The Court finds that Apple has not 

sustained its burden of showing that the answer to Qualcomm’s question can 

be derived from the identified records as easily by Qualcomm as it could be by 

Apple. Apple must further respond. 

The Court agrees with Apple, however, that the valuation of each 

technology per device is a question for expert determination. Apple may 

defer its answer until such time as its expert opines on the issue. 

2. Interrogatory 27

Apple is asked to describe all communications between Apple and 

Forrest D. Wright concerning any SSO or SSO policy. SSO references 

standard setting organizations. Mr. Wright, it appears, consulted with Apple 

and communicated with Apple about SSOs. (ECF No. 347 at 14-15). The 

dispute regards Apple’s decision to answer the question by providing a list of 

four categories of communications between Mr. Wright and Apple but 

without describing the communications. Apple’s answer is deficient. It must 

“describe” the communications. If Apple is claiming privilege, it must do so 

in sufficient detail for Qualcomm to determine whether to accept the 

assertion or challenge it. 

3. Interrogatory 32

Apple is asked to “state all facts” concerning when Apple selected the 

baseband processor to be used in any given device and when the selection was 

disclosed to Qualcomm and to any third parties. Almost by definition, this 

interrogatory is overbroad. Except in a very simple transaction, it may be 

impossible to “state all facts” surrounding a given event. It is unenforceable. 

Consequently, the Court will read it, as most do, as requesting disclosure of 

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 375 Filed 03/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

all “material” facts, recognizing, of course, that materiality also may be in the 

eye of the beholder. 

Apple provided a lengthy response to this interrogatory. Qualcomm 

quibbles that the response does not include “all facts” such as, on a device by 

device basis, who was sent an RFP, who was considered, when a supplier was 

in a development program, when Apple deselected a supplier, when the 

supplier was notified of its deselection. (ECF No. 347 at 24). The question 

asked by Qualcomm does not require that kind of detail in response. Having 

reviewed Apple’s responses, the Court finds its answer sufficient. 

4. Interrogatory 33

Similarly, this interrogatory asks Apple to “state all facts” concerning 

when Apple indicated to Qualcomm and any third parties that Apple would 

be using Qualcomm’s products in a given device. For the most part, Apple 

refers back to its responses to Interrogatory 32. The Court agrees with Apple 

that its answer is sufficient. 

5. Interrogatory 36

Apple is asked to identify all Apple email aliases concerning Qualcomm 

and all persons who have been a member or received any email mailing lists 

concerning Qualcomm. Qualcomm specifically identified the alias 

“mav.eur.com.” Apple responded that the “mav.eur.com” alias actually was 

set up by Qualcomm and disclosed its members. Apple also responded that it 

has not identified any other email lists or alias concerning Qualcomm. That 

is good enough. No further response is required. 

CONCLUSION

Qualcomm’s motion to compel, as presented in this Joint Motion, is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Apple is ORDERED to 

//

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 375 Filed 03/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD

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

further respond to Interrogatories 24 and 27, as provided herein, within 14 

days of this Order.

Dated: March 13, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 375 Filed 03/13/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6