Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05385-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:183 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

*E-filed 5/15/07*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP PTE

LTD. and AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES ECBU IP

LTD.

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELAN MICROELECTRONICS CORP. and

ELAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

GROUP,

Defendants. 

Case No. C04-05385 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART ELAN'S MOTION

TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)

Re: Docket No. 209

In this patent infringement action, Avago Technologies General IP Pte. Ltd. and Avago

Technologies ECBU IP Ltd. (collectively, "Avago") allege that Elan Microelectronics Corp.

and Elan Information Technology Group (collectively, “Elan”) infringe two patents ("the '780

patent" and "the '804 patent;" collectively, "the patents in suit") involving optical navigation

technology used in computer mice.

Avago has also sued Elan in Taiwan for infringement of a Taiwanese patent similar to

one of the patents Avago asserts in this action. The same Elan products are at issue in the

American and Taiwanese cases. Avago's outside counsel in the Taiwan action commissioned

China Industrial & Commercial Research Institute ("CICRI") to conduct infringement analyses

of Elan's products. CICRI's report finding infringement was submitted to the Taiwanese court 

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 251 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 7
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 Topic 1: "All investigations, testing, examination, or analysis Avago has done

concerning any accused product, including without limitation, the dates when conducted, the

method and process used, the person(s) or entity(ies) that participated in or conducted the

testing, the information provided to those person(s) or entity(ies), the results, and the

documents generated as a result of the investigations, testing, examination, or analysis."

Topic 2: "All investigations, testing, and analysis conducted by or on behalf of Avago, in

preparation of Avago’s filing of an action against Elan in Taiwan for alleged infringement of

Taiwan Patent No. 207503, including without limitation, detailed description of any such

investigation, testing, and analysis, an identification and description of all documents and

information used, an identification of all persons involved, and the date(s) and locations(s) of

such testing."

Topic 3: "All investigations, testing, and analysis on Elan Products conducted by China

Industrial & Commercial Research Institute (“CICR”), including without limitation, detailed

description of any such investigation, testing, and analysis, an identification and description

of all documents and information used, an identification of all persons involved, and the

date(s) and location(s) of such testing."

Topic 4: "All communications between CICR and Avago concerning any review, evaluation,

testing and/or analysis of Elan Products or any optical mouse product that includes any of the

Elan Products."

Topic 5: "The facts and circumstances surrounding the retention of CICR concerning any

review, evaluation, testing and/or analysis of any of the Elan Products or any optical mouse

product that includes any of the Elan Products."

Topic 6: "Identification of all communications with any person in Taiwan concerning any

review, evaluation, testing and/or analysis of any of the Elan Products or any optical mouse

product that includes any of the Elan Products."

2

in support of Avago's infringement claim. 

This court recently denied Elan’s motion to compel Avago to produce its Taiwan outside

counsel to testify about the CICRI testing.

Elan served First and Second Notices of Deposition pursuant to 30(b)(6) in February

2007. Avago said it would refuse to produce a witness on some of the 30(b)(6) topics. When

meet and confer efforts failed to entirely resolve the dispute, Elan filed this motion to compel.

The motion concerns Topics 1-6 of the First Notice and 18 and 24-29 of the Second Notice. 

A. Topics 1-6: Testing

Topic 1 relates to all testing Avago has conducted of any accused product (whether in

this country or elsewhere) and Topics 2-6 relate only to testing in Taiwan and testing conducted

by CICRI.1

 Avago has refused to produce a witness on Topic 1 to the extent it “relates to

infringement analysis/testing under any patents other than the asserted United States Patents

that are the subject of this action.” Avago has refused to provide any witness for Topics 2-6. 

Avago has already produced to Elan the actual reports produced by CICRI.

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 251 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 7
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 Avago repeatedly asserts that Elan is only trying to get this testimony to use it

in the Taiwan case. Elan responds that it could not do so, given the protective

order which limits use of discovery to this action. 

3

 Elan argues that these topics are relevant to the American lawsuit because (1) the testing

may reveal inconsistencies between Avago’s allegations about Elan’s products in this case and

its allegations in the Taiwan suit and (2) the CICRI testing concerned how Elan’s optical sensor

products track movement, a technical issue that is also central to Avago’s infringement

allegations in this case. 

Avago argues that the Taiwan/CICRI testing is irrelevant to this action. It characterizes

the issues as solely relating to third-party testing under a foreign patent for purposes of a foreign

lawsuit.2

The court concludes that Topics 2-6 and the disputed portion of Topic 1 relate to subject

matter too remote from this action to justify discovery. Elan already has the CICRI reports

themselves, as well as some communications between CICRI and Avago's Taiwan counsel. 

Any connection between the Taiwan testing and this action is simply too attenuated to require

that Avago do anything more. Moreover, counsel for Avago have represented that there were

no further communications directly between Avago and CICRI, and that there are no other

responsive documents in Avago's possession. This aspect of the motion is DENIED.

B. Topic 18: Patent Marking

Topic 18 requests "Avago's policy of marking the patent number of any patent owned

by, assigned to, or licensed to Avago on any of its documentation or products."

The reasonableness of a patent-holder's efforts to mark his patents is relevant to whether

an accused infringer had notice of asserted patents. Avago has agreed to produce a witness on

its marking efforts with respect to the patents in suit and on all marking of the patents in suit on

Avago's products, but refuses to produce a witness in response to Topic 18, which seeks any

general policy Avago may have about patent marking. At the hearing, Avago stated that it

would be producing a witness about the marking of patents on all of Avago's optical mouse

products, and that the witness would be prepared to discuss any general policy concerning

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 251 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 7
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 Topic 24: "Facts and circumstances regarding the conception of the alleged

inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit, including without limitation, the date on which the

alleged invention of each assorted claim of the patents-in-suit was first conceived; the

identity of all persons who contributed to the conception; the contribution of each such

person; the identity of each person who can corroborate the date of conception; the identity

of all documents that refer to, relate to, or corroborate the conception; and all facts and

circumstances relating to such conception."

Topic 25: "Facts and circumstances regarding the reduction to practice of the alleged

inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit, including without limitation, the date on which the

alleged invention of each assorted claim of the patents-in-suit was first actually reduced to

practice; the identity of all persons who participated in or can corroborate the first reduction

to practice; the identity of all documents that refer, relate to, or corroborate the first actual

reduction to practice; and all facts and circumstances relating to such first reduction to

practice."

Topic 26: "With respect to each patent-in-suit, the knowledge of Avago and the named

inventor(s) relating to the prior art."

Topic 27: "The date and circumstances of the first sale, first offer for sale, first disclosure or

demonstration, or first use in the presence of anyone of the subject matter disclosed or

claimed in any of the Patents-in-Suit (including Avago Products); as well as identification of

all documents relating to or evidencing such facts or circumstances. (break this down to

separate topics: (1) date the subject matter of the patents in suit was sampled/offered for

sale/sold (2) date the subject matter of the patents in suit was published, presented outside of

Avago and/or disclosed in any printed publication."

Topic 28: "Avago's research, development, design, and commercialization of a "flying

mouse" or gestural pointing device."

4

patent marking as it applies to optical mice. Thus Avago has conceded the essence of this

discovery request, and this aspect of the motion is moot.

C. Topics 24-28: Conception and Reduction to Practice

These topics pertain to basic facts about the development of Avago's patents in suit (and

the "flying mouse," which apparently was in development at Avago at the same time as the

patents in suit).3 Elan has already taken the depositions of the named inventors of the patents in

suit, but now seeks Avago's corporate testimony. Elan asks the court to compel Avago to

produce witnesses for Topics 24-28 or affirm under penalty of perjury that it has no further

knowledge or documents relevant to these topics. In the alternative, Elan wants Avago to be

precluded from calling any witnesses to testify at trial about these topics.

Avago complains that these topics are overbroad and that Elan has already taken

extensive discovery on these topics. Avago proposed that Elan accept co-inventor Jason

Hartlove's deposition testimony as Avago's 30(b)(6) testimony. But Elan wanted all of the

inventors' testimony to be adopted, along with a declaration that Avago had no further

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 251 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 7
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 Topic 29: "Identification of all persons who provided, or assisted in

providing, any information that was considered or used by Avago in preparing responses to

any interrogatory served by Elan, the specific interrogatory(ies) to which each person

provided or assisted in providing information, as well as all documents or things relied upon

by that person in providing or assisting in providing the information."

5

information. Avago refuses to do that, arguing that it cannot guarantee that Elan's lawyers

elicited all possible information from the deponents by asking the right questions, and arguing

that Elan cannot tell Avago whom to designate in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. 

Of course, Elan cannot tell Avago whom to designate in response to a Rule 30(b)(6)

deposition notice. But Avago is not agreeing to designate anyone here. Avago asserts it is

entitled to selectively designate one inventor's past testimony, which he gave as an individual,

as Avago's corporate testimony. That would deprive Elan of its right to take Avago's deposition

on these obviously relevant topics. Elan suggests that, at a minimum, Avago should designate

someone to adopt Hartlove's testimony as the corporation's and to answer any remaining

questions. That proposal is reasonable. This aspect of the motion is GRANTED. Avago shall

either designate someone to testify on these topics, or designate someone who can adopt

Hartlove's testimony as Avago's and supplement it with further corporate testimony if Elan has

more questions.

D. Topic 29: Interrogatories

Elan moves to compel Avago to designate a corporate witness to testify about the facts

underlying Avago's responses to Elan's two sets of interrogatories.4

 The court understands that

Elan's one set pertains largely to the Taiwan litigation, and that the other comprises contention

interrogatories. This aspect of the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 

Avago shall produce a corporate designee to answer questions about the facts supporting

Avago's interrogatory responses. It would be inappropriate to expect Avago (as opposed to

Avago's lawyers) to answer any questions about Avago's legal contentions or legal theories. 

Also, Avago need not designate anyone to testify about Interrogatory No. 9, which asks Avago

to explain its contention that Elan willfully infringes the patents in suit. Finally, for the reasons

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 251 Filed 05/15/07 Page 5 of 7
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

mentioned earlier, Avago need not designate a witness to testify about the interrogatories

relating to the Taiwan litigation or the CICRI testing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 5/15/07 ____________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 251 Filed 05/15/07 Page 6 of 7
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

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO:

Morgan Chu mchu@irell.com 

Hsin-Yi Cindy Feng cfeng@akingump.com 

Alan J. Heinrich aheinrich@irell.com 

Yitai Hu yhu@akingump.com 

Sang Hui Michael Kim mkim@akingump.com, skapralov@akingump.com;

nthreadgill@akingump.com; btseng@akingump.com 

Samuel Kai Lu slu@irell.com 

Richard Elgar Lyon , III rlyon@irell.com, mwilliams@irell.com; jgordon@irell.com;

CMcEntee@irell.com; rick.lyon@gmail.com 

Gary C. Ma gma@akingump.com 

David Craig McPhie dmcphie@irell.com, jrichter@irell.com 

Elizabeth H. Rader erader@akingump.com, skapralov@akingump.com;

btseng@akingump.com; nmarie@akingump.com 

Jonathan Philip Steinsapir jsteinsapir@irell.com 

* Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel.

Dated: 5/15/07

 /s/ JMM 

 Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-05385-JW Document 251 Filed 05/15/07 Page 7 of 7