Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01587/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01587-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 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

C-07-1587 JL DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dr. Ajay Singhal,

Plaintiff,

v.

Mentor Graphics Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 07-1587 JL

DISCOVERY ORDER

(Denying without prejudice Docket # 65

and granting Docket # 70)

Introduction

Plaintiff asks the Court to permit him to substitute himself pro se for counsel (Docket

# 65), and Defendant asks for an order compelling Plaintiff to answer Interrogatories 1 and

2 (Docket # 70) and to appear for deposition as scheduled on January 29. Defendant also

raised concerns about its confidential information and property in Singhal’s possession.

The matters came on for hearing. George Trevor appeared for Plaintiff, who was also

present in court. Chris Kitchel, STOEL RIVES, Portland, Oregon, appeared for defendant

Mentor Graphics.

The Court considered the moving and opposing papers and the arguments of

counsel and the representations by Plaintiff and hereby issues its order.

Plaintiff’s motion to substitute pro se for counsel is denied without prejudice. Mr.

Trevor shall remain until Plaintiff retains new counsel. Defendant’s motion to compel

Case 3:07-cv-01587-JL Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 6
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

C-07-1587 JL DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 6

answers to Interrogatories 1 and 2 is granted. Plaintiff shall respond in full by January 25,

2008, or no later than noon on January 28. Plaintiff shall appear for his deposition as

noticed on January 29, or the Court will impose sanctions.

The Court bases this ruling on its findings that Singhal is not capable of adequately

representing himself in this complex patent case. His proceeding pro se would also unfairly

prejudice Defendant Mentor Graphics, causing delays and costing it money as its patent

applications languish awaiting resolution of this case. Singhal should also authorize his

counsel to deal with the issue of Mentor’s confidential information and property which is in

his possession.

Plaintiff must answer Defendant’s Interrogatories No. 1 and 2, because only Singhal

has this information, which is crucial to discerning what if any are his interests in the

patents at issue. Singhal for the same reason must be prepared to appear for his

deposition on January 29.

Background

Plaintiff Dr. Ajay Singhal has a PhD. In Engineering and experience in the

semiconductor device, fabrication and manufacturing industry. He worked for Mentor

Graphics on Design For Manufacturing (“DFM”) technology for the lithography industry. He

sues for wrongful termination, breach of contract, negligent and intentional

misrepresentation, and for correction of inventorship on a number of Mentor Graphics

patents. He claims he was fired because of his race and national origin. He also claims he

was fired to avoid giving him due credit for inventing the four patents at issue. Defendant’s

motion to amend its Answer is on calendar for February 28, 2008. 

Meet and Confer

Mentor’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with Singhal’s counsel, who then

informed them that his client had withdrawn authorization to speak on his behalf and he

could no longer represent Dr. Singhal in this case.

Motion to Substitute pro se

Case 3:07-cv-01587-JL Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 6
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

C-07-1587 JL DISCOVERY ORDER Page 3 of 6

Mentor adamantly opposes Singhal’s request to substitute himself pro se for his

counsel. He is asserting ownership and inventorship rights in four pending patents - issues

that are factually and legally complex even for experienced litigators and patent attorneys.

Singhal’s claims place a cloud over Mentor Graphics’ patent applications, so it must resolve

the ownership and inventorship issues in this Court before proceeding with the patent

application process. Delay causes significant damage and prejudice to Mentor Graphics,

and to Singhal himself, by his attempting to engage in complex litigation without the benefit

of legal counsel.

Singhal’s complaint asserted five causes of action. Judge White, the original trial

judge, dismissed two of them before the parties consented to reassignment to this Court.

One of the three is for correction of inventorship on four patent applications filed by Mentor

Graphics: U.S. Patent Application Nos. 10/827,990, 10/951,710, 11/123,340, and

11/126,069. Each application lists one or more Mentor Graphics employees as an inventor,

but not Singhal. Singhal alleges that the patent applications “used” or were “based upon”

“the ideas developed by Plaintiff,” but were filed by Mentor Graphics “without any attribution

of Plaintiff’s inventorship.” (First Amd. Cmpl. ¶13, 15.) Mentor Graphics admits it did not

name Singhal as an inventor on those patent applications but otherwise denies Singhal’s

allegations. (Answer to First Amd. Cmpl. ¶ 30-32.) In the meantime, the patent applications

remain pending. In the highly dynamic and competitive technology industry, any delay in

this process could injure Mentor irreparably.

Mentor contends that Singhal does not have the legal knowledge and expertise

necessary to respond adequately to the complex factual and legal issues involved in

resolving the parties’ claims.

Singhal has a history of changing counsel. He was represented previously by three

other attorneys, two for his patent claims, and one for his employment claim. (Westlind

Decl. Exs, 1, 2, and 3). Singhal eventually discharged all of them and filed the complaint in

this case pro se, before retaining Mr. Trevor, who filed the Amended Complaint. 

Case 3:07-cv-01587-JL Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 6
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

C-07-1587 JL DISCOVERY ORDER Page 4 of 6

The parties cannot even meet and confer over their discovery dispute because

Singhal has withdrawn counsel’s authority to speak for him. This is an example of the way

Singhal’s representing himself could stall and short-circuit this case.

Mentor asks the Court to also advise Singhal not to disseminate confidential

information and property belonging to mentor Graphics that Singhal allegedly copied and

retained in violation of his employee confidentiality agreement. (Westlind Decl;. ¶6, and Ex.

5.) Singhal’s counsel was cooperating with Mentor to determine the scope of the

information and property and arrange for its return, when Singhal suddenly withdrew his

authorization for counsel to act on his behalf.

Singhal propounded his own discovery requests asking Mentor for highly confidential

information. Mentor fears he will take matters into his own hands and use what he has

improperly taken. There is a protective order, but Mentor fears Singhal does not

comprehend its boundaries.

Defendant’s Interrogatories No. 1 and 2

Singhal asserts a claim requesting correction of inventorship of four pending patent

applications filed by Mentor Graphics, yet he refuses to provide complete answers to two

basic interrogatories requesting that he identify the factual basis for his claims. (Singhal’s

responses are attached at Tab A to Defendant’s separate statement.) Mentor Graphics

needs this information to prepare for Singhal’s deposition on January 29, 2008.

Interrogatory 1 asks Singhal to fully describe any patent applications filed that

name him as an inventor. Singhal replied that he is a named inventor on six applications,

but only identified three by number. However, only the three patents he identified by

number appear in the database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Mentor Graphics

needs Singhal’s complete answer before Singhal’s deposition to determine on what patent

applications he is named as an inventor and how those might impact his claims in this

case. 

The Court orders Singhal to fully describe by number the additional three patent

applications that he alleges name him as an inventor.

Case 3:07-cv-01587-JL Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 4 of 6
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

C-07-1587 JL DISCOVERY ORDER Page 5 of 6

Interrogatory No. 2 requests that Singhal identify each specific claim in the patent

applications that he alleges gives him status as an inventor or co-inventor. Singhal gave a

general response that the applications contained certain of his ideas - he did not identify

any specific claims. Mentor needs claim-related responses. Mentor’s defense is that patent

inventorship is determined by reference to specific claims within the patent. “When a

question of inventorship is presented the critical question is who conceived the subject

matter of the claims at issue. To determine whether a person made a contribution to the

conception of the subject matter of a claim, the court must determine what the person’s

contribution was and then whether that contribution’s role appears in the claimed

invention.” Frank’s Casing Crew and Rental Tools, Inc. V. PMR Tech., Ltd., 292 F.3d 1363,

1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Emphasis in original)

Having one’s ideas in the specifications portion of a patent application (the portion

before the claims) does not qualify one to be named as an inventor, unless those ideas are

recited in at least one claim. Trovan, Ltd. V. Sokymat S.A., 299 F.3d 1292, 1302 (Fed. Cir.

2002).

Mentor’s four patent applications for which Singhal asserts inventorship or

ownership collectively contain over 210 claims, each of which is factually complex in an

area of sophisticated technology. The parties cannot litigate this case until Singhal

identifies the particular claims at issue. 

The Court orders Singhal to respond to Interrogatory 2 by specifying the claims to

which his ideas contributed.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to substitute pro se for counsel is denied without prejudice. Mr.

Trevor shall remain until Plaintiff retains new counsel. Defendant’s motion to compel

answers to Interrogatories 1 and 2 is granted. Plaintiff shall respond in full by January 25,

2008, or no later than noon on January 28. Plaintiff shall appear for his deposition as

noticed on January 29, or the Court will impose sanctions.

Case 3:07-cv-01587-JL Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 5 of 6
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

C-07-1587 JL DISCOVERY ORDER Page 6 of 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2008 

__________________________________

 James Larson

 Chief Magistrate Judge

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\CIVIL\07-1587\Order-65-70.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-01587-JL Document 93 Filed 01/24/08 Page 6 of 6