Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063-12/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. et al,

Defendants. /

No. C-05-04063 CW (EDL)

ORDER RESETTING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

AND REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING

Plaintiff has moved to compel documents designed to identify additional allegedly infringing

products manufactured by the Defendants in this action. Plaintiff argues that Defendants do not

have external products lists and sell semiconductor packages that are incorporated into consumer

products, like computers and cameras, and therefore cannot be readily identified without the

requested discovery. Defendants contend that this discovery exceeds the limited disclosures that the

Court ordered them to make pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-4 after finding that Plaintiff’s

Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PICs”) were insufficiently specific. The Court ordered

Defendants to serve these limited disclosures by August 4, 2006.

 Plaintiff points out correctly that the Patent Local Rules do not limit the type of discovery

requested. However, discovery must still meet the general relevance standards. Generally, the

patent holder should know which products infringe its patent(s) before filing suit. In unusual

circumstances discovery may be appropriate to refine the list of accused products, but broad fishing

expeditions never are. Plaintiff seeks fairly extensive information about the “Geometric

Dimensions,” “Material Properties,” structure, operation, manufacture and assembly of Defendants’

products. While the definition of “Products” that Plaintiff uses in its discovery does incorporate

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 158 Filed 07/25/06 Page 1 of 2
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

certain limits which appear appropriate, the Court cannot tell whether the request seeks irrelevant

information about products that clearly do not infringe under Plaintiff’s view of its patents. The

proper scope of discovery perhaps may be further clarified by the production ordered for August 4,

2006. 

Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer during the week of 

August 7, 2006, to address (1) whether and how Plaintiff’s amended PICs and the limited

disclosures Defendants made pursuant to this Court’s June 23, 2006 Order impact Plaintiff’s motion

to compel; (2) any good-faith objections based on burden that Defendants have to Plaintiff’s

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 45, 27 and 51; and (3) if appropriate, possible solutions

for minimizing that burden. By 5 p.m. on August 15, 2006, Plaintiff should file a supplemental brief

incorporating the results of the meet and confer and setting forth the need for this additional

discovery in light of the documents produced by Defendants on August 4, 2006. By 5 p.m. on

August 17, 2006, Defendants should file a supplemental opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

The hearing is continued until August 29, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 158 Filed 07/25/06 Page 2 of 2