Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

*E-Filed: January 30, 2015*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION,

Defendant. ____________________________________/

No. C10-04435 EJD (HRL)

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

JOINT REPORT #3

[Dkt. 191]

Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) sues Defendant UTAC (Taiwan) Corporation (“UTC”) for 

alleged failure to pay royalties under a license agreement. The first phase of this action concerned a 

contract interpretation dispute between Tessera and UTC about the criteria for determining which 

UTC products are royalty-bearing. Following discovery on that subject, the parties submitted 

summary judgment motions relating to contract interpretation, which were ruled on by the court. 

The court entered an Amended Case Management Order that required Tessera to provide its 

infringement contentions in accordance with Patent L.R. 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 with respect to its claim 

for royalties under the license agreement. Tessera served UTC with the required disclosure, 

identifying 32 claims of 12 licensed patents and providing claim charts contending that two types of 

UTC packages—its w-BGA packages and DFN packages—are covered by the claims of licensed 

patents and are therefore royalty-bearing. Tessera’s disclosure asserted that Tessera did not have 

enough information to determine whether a third type of package, UTC’s LGA SiP package (“LGA 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 224 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 5
2

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

package”), is covered by the claims of the licensed patents and is therefore royalty-bearing. UTC 

disputes Tessera’s contentions.

Presently before the Court is the parties’ Discovery Dispute Joint Report #3. Dkt. No. 191. 

Tessera seeks production of technical and sales information relating to UTC’s DFN and LGA 

packages. UTC argues that discovery of technical and sales information relating to its DFN and 

LGA packages is not permitted because (1) the DFN and LGA packages are not identified in the 

pleadings; and (2) Tessera’s infringement contentions did not identify any patent that allegedly 

covered UTC’s LGA packages.

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense . . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 

discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Here, the discovery Tessera seeks is allowed under Rule 26. Tessera seeks technical and 

financial discovery about UTC’s DFN and LGA packages in order to determine whether UTC 

breached the license agreement and any resulting damages. Such discovery is directly relevant to 

Tessera’s breach of contract claim because it will help Tessera to determine which UTC packages 

are covered by which of the licensed patent claims, and any royalties owed on those packages.

UTC contends that Tessera’s breach of contract claim is limited to the royalty-bearing wBGA packages listed in paragraph 24 of the first amended complaint. However, the first amended 

complaint alleges that UTC’s non-payment for any royalty-bearing package is a breach of the 

license agreement. Dkt. No. 81 ¶¶ 17, 23, 25. The first amended complaint states that its allegations 

regarding w-BGA packages is “without limitation.” Id. ¶ 25. Whether certain package types are 

royalty-bearing is an evidentiary issue on which Tessera is entitled to discovery. 

The conclusion that Tessera’s breach of contract claim is not limited to the royalty-bearing 

w-BGA packages listed the first amended complaint is supported by the Amended Case 

Management Order previously issued by Judge Edward Davila. UTC argued that this action could 

not proceed until Tessera amended its first amended complaint to list the licensed patents applicable 

to UTC’s packages. Tessera argued that amendment was not necessary, and further detail about its 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 224 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 5
3

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

claims “is an evidentiary issue that is properly the subject of discovery.” Dkt. No. 185, at 3. In the 

Amended Case Management Order, Judge Davila ruled that no amendment was necessary because 

the case is fundamentally “a breach of contact action.” Dkt. No. 186, at 1. As Judge Davila 

explained, “[t]he contract governing this dispute, including its exhibit listing the licensed patents, is 

incorporated by reference into the complaint, which also includes a paragraph listing UTAC’s 

accused products as of the date of filing.” Id.

UTC now argues that while Tessera need not amend its complaint to include the patents that 

give rise to UTC’s royalty obligation, Tessera must still amend its complaint to include the 

packages that give rise to those obligations. UTC’s position is a restatement of its argument that 

Tessera must name particular patents in its complaint. Given Judge Davila’s Amended Case 

Management Order, and the fact that UTC can get further disclosures from Tessera during 

discovery, UTC has no grounds to withhold discovery.

In addition, UTC argues that the Amended Case Management Order bars Tessera from 

pursuing new claims. Dkt. No. 186. The Amended Case Management Order ordered that Tessera 

disclose its infringement contentions in support of its royalty claims on July 8, 2014, and it stated 

that this deadline “will not be extended for any reason, including any pending discovery dispute.” 

Dkt. No. 186, at 2 n.1. In addition, the court ordered that Tessera’s “infringement contentions shall 

be limited to a total of 32 claims that it contends would be infringed but-for the license.” Id. at 3. 

UTC argues that Tessera’s infringement contentions did not identify any patent that covered LGA 

packages, and it is now too late to do so. Moreover, UTC contends that Tessera’s infringement 

contentions used up its maximum allowable quota of 32 claims in its claims against w-BGA 

packages and DFN packages, and therefore Tessera cannot pursue a claim against LGA packages. 

UTC’s arguments about discovery permissible in patent infringement cases, however, do not apply 

here. As explained above, this case is at its core a breach of contract action. See Am. Case Mgmt.

Order, Dkt. No. 186, at 1. 

///

///

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 224 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Accordingly, Tessera’s request for production of technical and sales information relating to 

UTC’s DFN and LGA packages is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2015

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 224 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 5
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

C10-04435 EJD (HRL) Order will be electronically mailed to:

Benjamin W. Hattenbach bhattenbach@irell.com

David H. Herrington dherrington@cgsh.com, dherrington@cgsh.com

Dominik B. Slusarczyk dslusarczyk@irell.com, mspillner@tessera.com

Jennifer Renee Bunn jbunn@irell.com

Joseph Mark Lipner jlipner@irell.com, csilver@irell.com, mdonovan@irell.com, slee@irell.com

Kevin Patrick Kiley kkiley@irell.com

Lawrence B. Friedman lfriedman@cgsh.com

Michael F. Heafey mheafey@kslaw.com, phennings@kslaw.com

Morgan Chu mchu@irell.com

Morvarid Metanat mmetanat@orrick.com

Nathaniel E. Jedrey njedrey@cgsh.com

Richard William Krebs rkrebs@irell.com, cmedina@irell.com, rbrown@tessera.com, 

Slee@irell.com, sveeraraghavan@tessera.com, tegarcia@tessera.com

Ryan Alexander Ward rward@irell.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.

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 224 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 5