Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01398/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01398-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

OPTIMUMPATH, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. C 09-1398 CW (MEJ)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

(DKT. #194)

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the joint discovery dispute letter (“Joint Letter”) filed by Plaintiff

OptimumPath, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Belkin International, Inc., Cisco-Linksys, LLC, DLink Systems, Inc., NETGEAR, Inc., and SMC Networks, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) on May

21, 2010. (Dkt. #194.) Upon careful review of the parties’ positions, the Court ORDERS as

follows.

II. BACKGROUND

On January 30, 2008, Plaintiff filed the present case against Defendants, alleging

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,035,281 (the “‘281 Patent”). (Dkt. #1.) The ‘281 Patent, which

names Anthony Spearman as an inventor, was filed in September 2000 and issued in June 2006. 

(Joint Letter at 1.) While the ‘281 Patent was still in prosecution, in August 2002, U.S. Patent

Application No. 10/223,255 (the “‘255 Application”), also naming Mr. Spearman as an inventor,

was filed. Id. The ‘281 Patent and the ‘255 Application are both assigned to Plaintiff. Id. The ‘255

Application is still being prosecuted in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Id. 

On April 20, 2009, the PTO Examiner issued a final rejection of the ‘255 Application, based

on a finding that all claims in the application were either anticipated or obvious in light of U.S.

Patent No. 6,463,474 issued to Fuh, et al. (the “Fuh reference”), which Defendants disclosed in their

invalidity contentions as prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the asserted claims of the ‘281

Patent. Id. In an attempt to establish an earlier priority date as to the Fuh reference in connection

with the ‘255 Application, Plaintiff submitted a declaration by Mr. Spearman under 37 C.F.R. §

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 9
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

37 C.F.R. § 1.131 provides that “[w]hen any claim of an application or a patent under

reexamination is rejected, the inventor of the subject matter of the rejected claim . . . may submit an

appropriate oath or declaration to establish invention of the subject matter of the rejected claim prior

to the effective date of the reference or activity on which the rejection is based.” Section 1.131

further provides that “[t]he showing of facts shall be such, in character and weight, as to establish

reduction to practice prior to the effective date of the reference, or conception of the invention prior

to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from prior to said date to a

subsequent reduction to practice or to the filing of the application. Original exhibits of drawings or

records, or photocopies thereof, must accompany and form part of the affidavit or declaration or

their absence must be satisfactorily explained.” 

2

The Spearman Declaration has not been electronically filed. The references to his

declaration are taken from the factual background section of the Joint Letter.

2

1.1311. Id. In his Declaration2, Mr. Spearman states that he conceived the subject matter of the ‘255

Application no later than December 1998, discusses the conception and reduction to practice of the

claims in the ‘255 Application, explains that the ‘255 Application claims a method implemented by

the device claimed in the ‘281 Patent, and states that both the ‘255 Application and the ‘281 Patent

were conceived from the same development activities in 1999. Id. Additionally, Mr. Spearman

attached over 130 pages of supporting documentation to his Declaration. Id. Plaintiff previously

produced the Spearman Declaration and appended documentation to Defendants. Id. at 3. This

documentation included communications between Mr. Spearman and Tony Alexander, counsel for

Plaintiff, and the instant dispute regards whether and to what extent Plaintiff may have waived the

attorney-client and work product privileges. Id. at 2, 3. 

III. DISCUSSION

In the Joint Letter, Defendants argue that by submitting Mr. Spearman’s § 1.131 Declaration

to the PTO, Plaintiff waived the attorney-client and work-product privileges as to all documents and

communications relating to all of the subject matter addressed in the declaration and appended

documentation. Id. at 2. Defendants contend that Plaintiff waived privilege with respect to

documents and communications that it deemed helpful in the PTO prosecution, but now refuses to

produce related documents and communications that are less favorable, arguing that the information

Plaintiff is withholding goes to the heart of its defenses. Id. at 1. Defendants request that the Court

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 2 of 9
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

order Plaintiff to produce “all documents and communications relating to all of the subject matter

that it knowingly waived for its benefit” in connection with the prosecution of the ‘255 Application. 

Id. at 2.

In response, Plaintiff states that it has produced all documents that are reasonably related to

the “very limited waiver” that occurred. Id. at 4. Plaintiff argues that the ‘281 Patent and the ‘255

Application are not legally related, that the disclosures occurred during prosecution of the ‘255

Application, and that the circumstances of disclosure do not support the waiver alleged by

Defendants. Id. Plaintiff contends that the waiver which occurred as a result of the Spearman

Declaration extends only to issues raised in the declaration – the date of conception, reduction to

practice, and diligence – and argues that documents related to these issues have already been

produced. Id. at 5. 

A. Legal Standard

In patent litigation, Federal Circuit law applies when resolving discovery disputes. Board of

Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 618, 623

(N.D. Cal. 2006). Thus, when determining whether the attorney-client privilege has been waived,

Federal Circuit law will apply. In re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc., 203 F.3d 800, 804 (Fed. Cir.

2000). “The attorney-client privilege protects the confidentiality of communications between

attorney and client made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.” In re EchoStar

Communications Corp., 448 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). In

contrast, the work-product doctrine protects “documents and tangible things, such as memorandums,

letters, and e-mails[,]” containing the thought processes and recommendations of an attorney. Id. at

1301-02. 

“The attorney-client privilege evaporates upon any voluntary disclosure of confidential

information to a third party. . . .” Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1450, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further,

waiver of the attorney-client privilege will apply “to all other communications relating to the same

subject matter.” Fort James Corp. v. Solo Cup Co., 412 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Fairness

dictates that the waiver must extend beyond the document initially produced, “so that a party is

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 3 of 9
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

prevented from disclosing communications that support its position while simultaneously concealing

communications that do not.” Id. However, the waiver does not extend to portions of the materials

disclosed to the PTO which were redacted, because privilege regarding those matters was never

waived. Certain Personal Computers, Monitors and Components Thereof, U.S.I.T.C. Inv. No. 337-

TA-519, 2005 WL 669803. Similarly, a waiver of the work-product privilege extends to factual, or

non-opinion, work-product concerning the same subject matter as that of the disclosed workproduct. In re EchoStar Communications Corp., 448 F.3d at 1301. 

B. Application to the Case at Bar

The Court must first delineate the scope of Plaintiff’s waiver as to both the subject-matter

and the time period covered before determining whether further production is required. The Court

will consider each issue in turn. 

1. Subject-Matter Scope

First, the Court must determine the subject-matter scope of Plaintiff’s waiver. Defendants

argue in favor of a broad waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and seek production of all

documents and communications related to the topics in the Spearman Declaration and attached

documentation. The parties agree that the documents attached to the Spearman Declaration address

the following topics: (1) inventorship; (2) public sales, showing, and releases; (3) conception,

reduction to practice, and diligence in reduction to practice; (4) building, modeling, simulation, and

testing of the alleged invention; (5) publication or plans to publish descriptions of the alleged

invention; and (6) announcement, showing, or sale of the products embodying the alleged

inventions. 

In addition, Defendants contend that the following topics are also covered: (1) prior art

references; (2) state of the prior art; (3) the goals and objectives of the alleged invention; (4)

structure, function and methods of the alleged invention; and (5) alternate embodiments of the

alleged invention. Id. at 2. Defendants state that the documentation also contains extensive

communications between Mr. Spearman and Mr. Alexander regarding their awareness of any prior

art references during prosecution of the ‘281 Patent, drafts of the ‘281 Patent, and Plaintiff’s

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 4 of 9
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

5

patenting strategy as to the ‘255 Application. Id. at 3. Further, Defendants contend that the

Spearman Declaration and appended documentation discuss and relate to other prior art, including

U.S. Patent Nos. 6,615,263 and 7,035,230, both cited along with the Fuh reference in the Examiner’s

rejection of the ‘255 Application, and U.S. Patent No. 6,058,431 and a Cisco Systems prior art

device. Id.

Regarding the discussions of prior art references, Defendants argue that several of the

communications attached to the Spearman Declaration relate directly to whether Plaintiff disclosed

all known prior art references to the PTO, which Plaintiff claims it did in its responses to

Defendants’ interrogatories. Id. Defendants claim that, without access to additional documents and

communications related to the subject matter of those disclosed to the PTO, they would be unable to

challenge Mr. Spearman’s assertion in his Declaration that he was unaware of any patents that

would compete with his invention. Id.

Defendants also dispute Plaintiff’s argument that the ‘281 Patent and the ‘255 Application

are unrelated. Specifically, Defendants claim that claim 54 of the ‘255 Application recites most of

the language of claim 1 of the ‘281 Patent verbatim, and that a “substantial portion” of the Spearman

Declaration is identical to Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories in the instant case. Id. at 3.

In response, Plaintiff argues that the waiver of the attorney-client privilege that occurred

pursuant to disclosure of documents and communications to the PTO was very limited. Id. at 4. 

Plaintiff contends that any disclosures made in relation to the ‘255 Application were made for the

sole purpose of establishing a date of conception, reduction to practice, and diligence, and that the

documents submitted with the Spearman Declaration relate specifically to this purpose. Id. Plaintiff

cites 37 C.F.R. § 1.131, which provides that the purpose of a § 1.131 declaration is “to establish

reduction to practice prior to the effective date of the reference, or conception of the invention prior

to the effective date of the reference coupled with due diligence from prior to said date to a

subsequent reduction to practice or to the filing of the application.” 

Additionally, Plaintiff contends that in virtually every patent prosecution, the patentee and

counsel discuss prior art, and that the law requires all prior art be disclosed to the PTO. Id. at 4. 

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 5 of 9
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

6

Plaintiff argues that if the Court adopts Defendants’ position, those disclosures would constitute a

waiver of all discussions between the patentee and counsel in any subsequent litigation. Id. Plaintiff

argues that because the disclosures made in relation to the ‘255 Application were not made to secure

a legal right in relation to Plaintiff’s ‘281 Patent, the patent-in-suit, it would be highly prejudicial to

Plaintiff if the Court were to order further disclosures. Id. Plaintiff states that, to whatever extent

the ‘255 Application and the ‘281 Patent overlap as to the technology involved and the conception

and reduction to practice of that technology, Plaintiff has produced all documents relating to the

waiver that occurred. Id. 

Where a plaintiff seeks to use privileged material disclosed to the PTO to support its position

in the current litigation, the defendant is entitled to discover all material related to the subject matter

of the disclosed documents. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 237 F.R.D. at 625;

Certain Plastic Grocery and Retail Bags, U.S.I.T.C. Inv. No. 377-TA-492, Order No. 11, 2003 WL

22811124. If the plaintiff seeks to have a declaration or the accompanying documentation already

disclosed to the PTO become part of the record in the pending litigation, or seeks to rely upon them

in any formal way, courts will find that the plaintiff used this privileged material in support of its

position in the litigation. Certain Plastic Grocery and Retail Bags, 2003 WL 22811124. However,

if the plaintiff does not seek to rely upon the privileged material to support its position, no discovery

will be compelled. Id. 

Upon careful review, the Court finds that Defendants have made no showing that Plaintiff

has relied upon the disclosures made in connection with the ‘255 Application in its attempt to secure

a legal right with respect to the patent-in-suit. Similarities between the language used in the

Spearman Declaration and the interrogatories in this case are incidental because, as explained in the

declaration, the ‘255 Application claims a method implemented by the device claimed in the ‘281

Patent, and both the ‘255 Application and the ‘281 Patent were conceived from the same

development activities and by the same inventor in 1999. (Joint Letter at 1.) Thus, it is clear to the

Court that claim 54 of the ‘255 Application and claim 1 of the ‘281 Patent are similar because each

was conceived from the same development activities and by the same inventor at the same time.

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 6 of 9
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

7

Further, Defendants have failed to show how Plaintiff’s use of similar language in both an

interrogatory response and the Spearman Declaration establishes that Plaintiff is using privileged

material disclosed in the declaration to claim a legal right in the ‘281 Patent. 

Plaintiff states that it previously produced the Spearman Declaration and appended

documentation to Defendants, and that to whatever extent that the ‘255 Application and the ‘281

Patent overlap as to the technology involved and the conception and reduction to practice of that

technology, Plaintiff has produced all documents relating to the waiver that occurred. Because

Plaintiff is not using the material disclosed in connection with the ‘255 Application to support its

position in this litigation, the Court finds that no further production is necessary. 

2. Temporal Scope

As to the temporal scope of production, Defendants argue in favor of a broad waiver and

seek production of documents as to a wide variety of topics, without temporal limitation. However,

Defendants do not specifically address Plaintiff’s argument in favor of a limited temporal scope. 

Plaintiff argues that the scope of waiver must be limited to the time from which the issues of

conception, reduction to practice, and diligence were first discussed with counsel until the time the

PTO granted the application which issued as the ‘281 Patent. (Joint Letter at 5.) Plaintiff contends

that this scope is appropriate because it marks the last time that the waived material was at issue

with respect to the patent-in-suit. Id. Plaintiff argues that this temporal scope is also appropriate

because it has not relied in any way on the disclosures made in association with the Spearman

Declaration. Id. 

Where a waiver of privilege is not renewed beyond the instance of waiver, the temporal

scope of that waiver must be limited. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 237

F.R.D. at 627. In Board of Trustees, the plaintiff sued the defendants in 2005 for patent

infringement regarding two patents for which the application process began in 1992. Id. at 620-21. 

In order to prove to the PTO that two co-inventors were erroneously excluded from the original

application, the plaintiff submitted three declarations which included legal advice given by counsel

to the inventors of the patent-in-suit. Id. at 621. The PTO accepted the plaintiff’s petition for

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 7 of 9
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

8

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

corrected inventorship, and the plaintiff relied upon that corrected inventorship in the 2005 litigation

to enforce the patents-in-suit. Id. at 626. Subsequently, the defendants sought production of

documents regarding inventorship, and argued that there should be no temporal limitation as to

production. Id. at 621. However, the court limited the temporal scope of the plaintiff’s waiver of

the attorney-client privilege, holding that the waiver of privilege began when the inventors of the

patents-in-suit contacted the law firm which advised them on filing a petition for corrected

inventorship and extended until the PTO granted that petition. Id. at 627-28. 

Here, unlike in Board of Trustees, Plaintiff has not placed at issue any disclosures made in

support of the ‘255 Application. Specifically, Plaintiff has not renewed its waiver of the attorneyclient privilege which occurred as a result of the disclosures to the PTO. Thus, similar to the

holding in Board of Trustess, the waiver must be limited to the period during which Plaintiff

disclosed privileged communications to the PTO and relied upon them. Accordingly, the temporal

scope of Plaintiff’s waiver is limited to the time period during which the ‘281 Patent was in

prosecution – beginning in September 2000 and ending in June 2006, when the Patent was issued.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to further

production. However, to ensure that Defendants are in possession of all documents falling within

the subject matter and temporal scope of Plaintiff’s waiver, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve

upon Defendants a declaration supporting its contentions that: (1) the disclosures made in relation to

the ‘255 Application have not been used to secure a legal right in the ‘281 Patent; and (2) to

whatever extent that the ‘255 Application and the ‘281 Patent overlap as to the technology involved

and the conception and reduction to practice of that technology, Plaintiff has produced all documents

relating to the waiver that occurred. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to submit this declaration within

seven days of this Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 8 of 9
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

9

Dated: June 8, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-01398-CW Document 195 Filed 06/08/10 Page 9 of 9