Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01572-2/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 06cv1572

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENS ERIK SORENSEN, as trustee of

SORENSEN RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT TRUST,

Civil No. 06cv1572-BTM (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER FOLLOWING 2-8-07

DISCOVERY CONFERENCE, GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION, a

Maryland corporation,

Defendant.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Sorensen Research and Development Trust’s (“Sorensen”) motion to

compel further responses to discovery. Plaintiff submitted briefs directly to chambers on January 29,

2007 and February 3, 2007. Defendant Black & Decker Corporation (“B&D”) submitted an opposition

brief directly to chambers on February 5, 2007. The Court held a telephonic conference on February 8,

2007. Michael Kaler, Esq., and Melody Kramer, Esq., appeared for Plaintiff. Raymond Niro, Jr., Esq.,

and Allison Goddard, Esq., appeared for Defendant. The Court issued an oral order granting in part and

denying in part Plaintiff’s motion. Additional matters were taken under submission. The Court finds

those matters suitable for determination on the papers and without need for further oral argument in

accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and

DENIED IN PART.

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 9
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

 On February 2, 2007, B&D filed a motion for summary judgment on the defense of laches. 

Plaintiff then filed a motion to compel further laches discovery to respond to Defendant’s summary

judgment motion that was addressed directly to the District Judge and was denied. [Doc. No. 76.]

2

 In response to certain Interrogatories, B&D served multiple objections; however, without

waiving its objections, Defendant generally responded that it would produce documents, pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 33(d), from which Plaintiff could distill the information it seeks in these interrogatories.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) permits a party to respond to an interrogatory by specifying the records

from which the answer may be obtained and making those records available for inspection and copying. 

But the records must be specified in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to

identify, as readily as the party served, the records from which the answer may be obtained. The

responding party has a duty to specify, by category and location, the records from which the answer can

be derived. Rainbow Pioneer # 44-18-04A v. Hawaii-Nevada Inv. Corp., 711 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir.

1983). If the records are voluminous, the responding party must produce an index designed to guide the

searcher to the documents responsive to the interrogatories. O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 185

F.R.D. 272, 277-78 (C.D. Cal. 1999).

Defendant did not comply with Rule 33(d), because Defendant’s response does not specify where

in the records produced Plaintiff could find the answers to the Interrogatories at issue. It is not sufficient

to state the answer can be located amongst the documents to be produced by B&D. On February 8,

2007, the Court ordered B&D to supplement, with the required specificity, those responses for which it

indicated it was relying upon Rule 33(d).

2 06cv1572

BACKGROUND

On August 7, 2006, Sorensen sued B&D for infringement of United States Patent No. 4,935184

(“the ‘184 patent”). B&D asserted the affirmative defenses of laches and equitable estoppel. Plaintiff

propounded discovery directed at Defendant’s laches and equitable estoppel defenses.1 Defendant

objected to numerous of the plaintiff’s requests on the basis of attorney-client privilege.2 Sorensen

argues the requests either did not implicate the privilege or the privilege was waived by the assertion of

the defenses and supplemental responses should be ordered.

In the telephonic conference held on February 8, 2007, the undersigned magistrate judge found

that the assertion of the affirmative defenses of laches and equitable estoppel did not inject advice of

counsel into the case and waive Defendant’s privilege. The Court rejected Sorensen’s argument that it is

entitled to inquire into advice B&D received from counsel, to determine whether B&D actually relied on

the actions, or inactions, of Sorensen.

With regard to the defense of laches, reliance is not an element. The two elements of the defense

are: (1) whether the patentee’s delay in bringing the suit was unreasonable and inexcusable; and (2)

whether the alleged infringer suffered material prejudice attributable to the delay. A.C. Aukerman Co. v.

Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Laches is about the actions of the

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 9
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 06cv1572

patentee, not the state of mind of the accused infringer. It focuses on the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s

delay and the consequences of it. The defendant does not have to prove he relied upon the plaintiff’s

inaction. Chamberlain Group v. Interlogix, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5468, *5 (N.D, Ill. Mar. 26,

2002) (assertion of laches does not waive attorney-client privilege because it does not require inquiry

into defendant’s state of mind).

Equitable estoppel, in contrast, does focus on upon the reasonableness of the defendant’s

conduct. The defense of equitable estoppel requires the defendant prove that: (1) the patentee, through

misleading conduct, lead the defendant to reasonably infer that the patentee does not intend to enforce

the patent against the defendant; (2) that the defendant relied upon the patentee’s conduct; and (3) that

due to the reliance the defendant will be materially prejudiced if the patentee is permitted to proceed

with the infringement suit. ABB Robotics, Inc. v. GMFanuc Robotics Corp., 52 F.3d 1062, 1063 (Fed.

Cir. 1995).

Unlike in the defense of laches, reliance is an element of the defense of equitable estoppel. The

defendant must have had a relationship or communication with the patentee that lulled it into a sense of

security to go ahead with its actions. The defendant must show that it substantially relied upon the

misleading conduct of the patentee in connection with taking some action. Aukerman, 960 F.2d at 1042-

43.

Sorensen contends that B&D relied upon the advice of its own counsel, not the conduct of the

patentee, in deciding to go ahead with production of the accused products. Sorensen argues that by

asserting equitable estoppel, B&D necessarily waived the attorney-client privilege because Sorensen is

entitled to investigate whether B&D’s actions were the result of an independent decision based on advice

of counsel and not in reliance on the conduct of the patentee. Sorensen relies upon THX America Inc. v.

NSK Co. Ltd., 157 F.R.D. 637, 650 (N.D. Ill. 1993), which found an implied waiver of the privilege

based on the assertion of the estoppel defense.

The reasoning in THX America has been subsequently rejected. “THX America relied only on the

relevancy of the attorney-client communications to the equitable estoppel defense in finding an implicit

waiver of the attorney-client privilege.” Chamberlain Group, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5468, *9. The

patentee sought discovery of the alleged infringer’s attorney-client communications, because those

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 3 of 9
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 06cv1572

opinions could be relevant to refute the equitable estoppel defense. “Advice of counsel is not ‘in issue’

because it is relevant.” Id. at *11. See also Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d

851, 864 (3d Cir. 1994) (rejecting automatic waiver of privilege because attorney’s opinion is relevant to

claim or defense). The privilege is waived only when a party chooses to utilize the information to

advance a claim or defense. B&D does not assert advice of counsel as a defense, and it has not used

attorney-client communications to prove this defense. B&D has not waived the attorney-client privilege,

and its attorney opinions on the patent at issue are not discoverable. Id.

Substantial reliance on the conduct of the patentee (e.g., an apparent abandonment of an

infringement claim) is not negated by the fact that the alleged infringer may have relied in part on the

advice of counsel regarding infringement and/or validity of the patent. See Wafer Shave, Inc. v. Gillette

Co., 857 F. Supp. 112, 123 (D. Mass 1993), aff’d without op., 26 F.3d 140 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Continued

sales of the allegedly infringing products can constitute reliance in the circumstance where the patentee

was undoubtedly aware that the alleged infringer was continuing to invest heavily in the sale of products

and the alleged infringer has been led to believe that the patentee has abandoned its infringement claims.

See Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Injection Research Specialists, Inc., 362 F. Supp. 2d 1113, 1125 (D. Minn. 2005). 

A defendant’s failure to take affirmative actions to protect itself from an infringement suit may be

evidence of reliance. Id. at 1124. An alleged infringer that believes its devices do not infringe, based on

its own investigation or the opinion of counsel, may still have also relied upon the inaction of the

patentee and therefore assert the defense of equitable estoppel. Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott

Laboratories, 1999 WL 33299123, *19 (W.D.N.Y. June 23, 1999).

The Court confirms its oral decision that the assertion of the defenses of laches and equitable

estoppel does not waive the attorney-client privilege. Finding no waiver of the attorney-client privilege,

the Court reviewed the discovery propounded by Sorensen and B&D’s responses to determine if

supplemental responses were required. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

PART as discussed below.

///

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 4 of 9
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 06cv1572

DISCOVERY AT ISSUE

B&D’s Responses to Sorensen’s Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 2-13)

Interrogatory No. 2

Describe in detail any review process utilized by Black & Decker, including any patent

clearance process, for determining potential patent infringement issues prior to initiation

production of each of the Accused Products that first went into production during the time

period from December 1, 1994 through December 31, 1998.

B&D’s objection based on attorney-client privilege and Patent Local Rule 2.5(d) is sustained. 

Sorensen’s motion to compel a further response is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 3

Identify each and every Accused Product that was approved for production during the

time period from January 1, 1994 through December 3, 1998, inclusive.

B&D’s objection based on attorney-client privilege and Patent Local Rule 25(d) is sustained in so

far as the interrogatory implies legal “approval.” Sorensen’s motion to compel a further response was

GRANTED IN PART, orally on February 8, 2007, and B&D was ORDERED to identify the initial

production dates for each Accused Product. If B&D’s supplemental response remains outstanding, it

must be served no later than two weeks after the date of this order. To the extent B&D relies upon Rule

33(d) to respond to this request the supplemental answer must comply with the rule. (See footnote 2,

supra.)

Interrogatory No. 4

Identify each and every Accused Product for which the design process was ongoing for

any portion of the time period from January 1, 1994 through December 31, 1998,

inclusive.

B&D objected on the grounds the request was vague and ambiguous. The parties were to meet

and confer on the subject matter of this request. The status of the meet and confer is unknown. The

motion to compel a further response is DENIED without prejudice.

Interrogatory No. 5

Identify the initial production date for each of the Accused Products.

The privilege was not implicated in this request. On February 8, 2007, B&D was ORDERED to

supplement its response to this request to comply with Rule 33(d) (see footnote 2, supra). If B&D’s

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 5 of 9
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 06cv1572

supplemental response remains outstanding, it must be served no later than two weeks after the date of

this order.

Interrogatory No. 6

Identify each fact, document, and/or witness that relates to Black & Decker’s proof of the

element of laches – that any purported delay in bringing suit for infringement of the ‘184

patent was unreasonable and inexcusable.

B&D’s objection based on attorney-client privilege was sustained; however, Sorensen’s motion

to compel a further response was GRANTED IN PART, orally on February 8, 2007, and B&D was

ORDERED to supplement its response to this request to comply with Rule 33(d) (see footnote 2, supra). 

If B&D’s supplemental response remains outstanding, it must be served no later than two weeks after

the date of this order.

Interrogatory No. 7

Identify each fact, document, and/or witness that relates to Black & Decker’s proof of the

element of laches – that the allege infringer suffered material prejudice attributable to the

delay.

B&D’s objection based on attorney-client privilege was sustained; however, Sorensen’s motion

to compel a further response was GRANTED IN PART, orally on February 8, 2007, and B&D was

ORDERED to supplement its response to this request to comply with Rule 33(d) (see footnote 2, supra). 

If B&D’s supplemental response remains outstanding, it must be served no later than two weeks after

the date of this order.

Interrogatory No. 8

Identify each fact, document, and/or witness that relates to Black & Decker’s proof of the

first element of the defense of equitable estoppel – that the patentee, through misleading

conduct, led the alleged infringer to reasonably infer that the patentee did not intend to

enforce its patent against the alleged infringer. For purposes of this interrogatory,

“conduct” includes any specific statements, action, inaction, or silence where there was

an obligation to communicate.

B&D’s objection based on attorney-client privilege was sustained; however, Sorensen’s motion

to compel a further response was GRANTED IN PART, orally on February 8, 2007, and B&D was

ORDERED to supplement its response to this request to comply with Rule 33(d) (see footnote 2, supra). 

If B&D’s supplemental response remains outstanding, it must be served no later than two weeks after

the date of this order.

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 6 of 9
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 06cv1572

Interrogatory No. 9

Identify each fact, document, and/or witness that relates to Black & Decker’s proof of the

second element of the defense of equitable estoppel – that the alleged infringer relied on

the conduct described in response to the foregoing Interrogatory.

B&D’s objection based on attorney-client privilege was sustained; however, Sorensen’s motion

to compel a further response was GRANTED IN PART, orally on February 8, 2007, and B&D was

ORDERED to supplement its response to this request to comply with Rule 33(d) (see footnote 2, supra). 

If B&D’s supplemental response remains outstanding, it must be served no later than two weeks after

the date of this order.

Interrogatory No. 10

Identify each fact, document, and/or witness that relates to Black & Decker’s proof of the

third element of the defense of equitable estoppel – that due to its reliance the alleged

infringer will be materially prejudiced if the patentee is allowed to proceed with its claim.

B&D’s objection based on attorney-client privilege was sustained; however, Sorensen’s motion

to compel a further response was GRANTED IN PART, orally on February 8, 2007, and B&D was

ORDERED to supplement its response to this request to comply with Rule 33(d) (see footnote 2, supra). 

If B&D’s supplemental response remains outstanding, it must be served no later than two weeks after

the date of this order.

Interrogatory No. 11

Identify each fact, document, and/or witness that relates to Black & Decker’s proof of its

claimed affirmative defense of waiver.

Sorensen’s motion to compel a further response was GRANTED IN PART, orally on February 8,

2007, and B&D was ORDERED to supplement its response to this request to comply with Rule 33(d)

(see footnote 2, supra). If B&D’s supplemental response remains outstanding, it must be served no later

than two weeks after the date of this order.

Interrogatory No. 12

Identify each fact, document, and/or witness that relates to Black & Decker’s proof of its

claimed affirmative defense of unclean hands.

Sorensen’s motion to compel a further response was GRANTED IN PART, orally on February 8,

2007, and B&D was ORDERED to supplement its response to this request to comply with Rule 33(d)

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 7 of 9
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 06cv1572

(see footnote 2, supra). If B&D’s supplemental response remains outstanding, it must be served no later

than two weeks after the date of this order.

Interrogatory No. 13

Is your response to each request for admissions included in Plaintiff REQUESTS FOR

ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT THE BLACK AND DECKER CORPORATION

(SET TWO, NOS. 40-58) served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If

not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the

request; (b) identify all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names,

addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have knowledge of those facts; (d)

identify all documents and other tangible things that support your response and state the

name, address and telephone number of the person who has each document or thing.

B&D’s objection based on attorney-client privilege is sustained; however, Sorensen’s motion to

compel further a response is GRANTED IN PART. Based on B&D’s Supplemental Responses to

Sorensen’s Second Set of Requests for Admission, B&D is ORDERED to supplement its response with

regard to RFAs Nos. 42, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57 and 58 and specifically if B&D relies upon Rule 33(d)

in its supplemental response to comply with the specificity requirements (see footnote 2, supra). B&D’s

supplemental response must be served no later than two weeks after the date of this order.

B&D’s Responses to Sorensen’s Second Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 40-58)

Requests for Admission 40-41

Sorensen’s motion is moot as to Requests Nos. 40 and 41, which are admitted.

Requests for Admission 44-50

B&D’s objections based on attorney-client privilege and Patent Local Rule 2.5(d) as to Requests

Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 are sustained. Sorensen’s motion to compel further responses as to

these RFAs is DENIED.

Requests for Admission 42, 43, 51-55, 57, 58

In light of B&D’s denial or qualified denial of Requests Nos. 42, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57 and

58, B&D is ORDERED to supplement its Response to Interrogatory No. 13 (see above). Sorensen’s

motion to compel further responses to these RFAs is DENIED.

Request for Admission 56

B&D objected to Request No. 56 on the grounds it was vague and ambiguous. The parties are

instructed to meet and confer on the subject matter of this request. The motion to compel further

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 8 of 9
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 06cv1572

responses is DENIED without prejudice.

B&D’s Responses to Sorensen’s Second Set of Request for Production (Nos. 40-62)

B&D’s objections based on attorney-client privilege and Patent Local Rule 2.5(d) are sustained. 

Sorensen’s motion to compel the production of privileged documents in response to these document

requests is DENIED.

B&D’s Responses to Sorensen’s Fourth Set of Request for Production (Nos. 74-115)

B&D’s objections based on attorney-client privilege and Patent Local Rule 2.5(d) are sustained. 

Sorensen’s motion to compel the production of privileged documents in response to these document

requests is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 9, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01572-BTM-CAB Document 80 Filed 04/09/07 Page 9 of 9