Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01690/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01690-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY 

INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff,

v.

NUVOTON TECHNOLOGY 

CORPORATION AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01690-SI 

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REGARDING REDUCTION OF 

ASSERTED CLAIMS

Re: Dkt. No. 53

Plaintiff Microchip Technology Incorporated (“Microchip”) and defendants Nuvoton 

Technology Corporation America and Nuvoton Technology Corporation (collectively, “Nuvoton”) 

have filed with the Court a discovery dispute entitled “Joint Statement Regarding the Reduction of 

Asserted Claims.” Dkt. No. 53 (“Joint Statement”). The parties agree that it is necessary to reduce 

the number of claims that Microchip asserts in this patent infringement case against Nuvoton but 

disagree on the timing and number for the reduction. This is the first discovery dispute in this case.

BACKGROUND

On October 10, 2018, Microchip filed a complaint against Nuvoton alleging patent 

infringement. Dkt. No. 1. In the operative complaint, served on Nuvoton on January 7, 2019, 

Microchip alleges that Nuvoton infringes the following six patents, each of which plaintiff owns by 

assignment:

(1) U.S. Patent No. 7,075,261 (the ’261 Patent), entitled Method and Apparatus for 

Controlling a Fan;

(2) U.S. Patent No. 7,126,515 (the ’515 Patent), entitled Selectable Real Time Sample 

Case 3:19-cv-01690-SI Document 55 Filed 10/03/19 Page 1 of 6
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

Northern District of California

Triggering for a Plurality of Inputs of an Analog-to-Digital Converter;

(3) U.S. Patent No. 7,353,417 (the ’417 Patent), entitled Microcontroller with Synchronous 

Analog to Digital Converter;

(4) U.S. Patent No. 9,442,873 (the ’873 Patent), entitled Direct Memory Access Controller;

(5) U.S. Patent No. 9,772,970 (the ’970 Patent), entitled Multi-Protocol Serial 

Communication Interface; and

(6) U.S. Patent No. 7,930,576 (the ’576 Patent), entitled Sharing Non-Sharable Devices 

Between an Embedded Controller and a Processor in a Computer System.

Dkt. Nos. 5 (“FAC” ¶¶ 19–25), 6. 

On July 12, 2019, at the initial case management conference, the Court set deadlines through 

claim construction. Dkt. No. 44. In accordance with the schedule, on July 26, 2019, Microchip

served its infringement contentions, asserting infringement of 109 claims across the six patents. 

Joint Statement at 1-2. On September 9, 2019, Nuvoton served its invalidity contentions. Id. at 1.

The parties state that they “have met and conferred regarding a schedule for reducing the number of 

asserted claims without success.”1 Id. The claim construction hearing in this case is set for February 

13, 2020. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“A court may limit the number of asserted claims in a patent case for the sake of judicial 

economy and management of a court’s docket.” Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 15-cv00262-SI, 2015 WL 6659674, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(P); 

Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., 437 Fed. App’x 897, 902 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). “In determining 

whether to require parties limit the number of asserted claims, courts look to the number of patents 

 

1 This Court’s Standing Order, § 3, requires that prior to filing a discovery dispute with the 

Court, “[t]he parties shall meet and confer in person, or, if counsel are located outside the Bay Area, 

by telephone, to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere exchange of letters, e-mails, 

telephone calls, or facsimile transmissions does not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer.” It 

is unclear from the joint statement whether the parties here met and conferred in person or by 

telephone. In any future discovery dispute statement, the parties shall specify the manner by which 

they met and conferred. 

Case 3:19-cv-01690-SI Document 55 Filed 10/03/19 Page 2 of 6
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

Northern District of California

and claims at issue . . ., the feasibility of trying the claims to a jury[,] . . . whether the patents at issue 

have common genealogy, whether the patents contain terminal disclaimers, and whether the asserted 

claims are duplicative.” Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 12-CV-05601-WHO, 2013 WL 

5587559, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 

639 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). When limiting the number of claims that a patentee may 

assert, the district court should still allow the patentee to assert additional, non-selected claims upon 

a showing of good cause that the additional claims present unique issues of infringement or 

invalidity. Id. at *2 (citing Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 918 F. Supp. 2d 277, 284 

(D. Del. 2013)).

DISCUSSION

I. Timing

Here, Microchip argues that it “is entitled to know the full scope of Nuvoton’s invalidity 

position and Nuvoton’s sales data before selecting the claims on which to proceed.” Joint Statement 

at 4. Accordingly, Microchip proposes that it make an initial reduction of claims by “the later of 

October 19, 2019 or two weeks after Nuvoton discloses its invalidity positions by filing IPRs [inter 

partes review] or confirming it is not filing IPRs, and fully discloses its sales data.” Id. 

Nuvoton argues that Microchip has the burden of establishing the scope of its case and that 

there is no legal basis for requiring Nuvoton to disclose its invalidity strategy before Microchip

limits the number of asserted claims. Id. at 2. Nuvoton proposes that Microchip conduct an initial 

reduction of the number of asserted claims by October 13, 2019. Nuvoton argues that this date is 

important because the exchange of preliminary constructions and extrinsic evidence is due October 

14, 2019.

The Court agrees with Nuvoton that there is no basis for Microchip’s position regarding the 

timing of reducing its claims. Microchip quotes from the Federal Circuit’s decision in In Re Katz, 

639 F.3d at 1313, but that case does not support Microchip’s assertion that because any IPR 

proceedings “may have an impact on this case, Microchip is entitled to understand Nuvoton’s 

invalidity positions before reducing the number of claims.” See Joint Statement at 4. In re Katz

Case 3:19-cv-01690-SI Document 55 Filed 10/03/19 Page 3 of 6
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

Northern District of California

approved of a process by which the district court reduced the number of asserted claims while 

allowing the patentee to later seek to add back in the non-selected claims if it “could show that the 

additional claims presented unique issues.” 639 F.3d at 1312. The appellate court went on to state 

that “[i]f, notwithstanding such a showing, the district court had refused to permit Katz to add those 

specified claims, that decision would be subject to review and reversal.” Id. at 1313. Nothing in 

the decision supports Microchip’s position that Nuvoton must disclose its strategy before Microchip 

conducts an initial reduction of the 109 claims it presently asserts. See also Rambus, Inc. v. LSI 

Corp., No. C 10-05446-RS, 2012 WL 13070209, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012) (rejecting 

patentee’s request that the Court order defendants to disclose their invalidity contentions before 

patentee reduces its claims, where patentee “does not cite any law in support of its position that it 

must be given the benefit of knowing defendants’ noninfringement theories in order to select its 20 

strongest claims . . .”). Nor has Microchip pointed to any legal basis for requiring Nuvoton to fully 

disclose its sales data prior to reducing the number of its asserted claims; the Court sees no reason 

here to deviate from the schedule for disclosures the Court has already set, in accordance with this 

District’s Patent Local Rules.

Additionally, “the weight of authority holds that claim limitation is proper prior to claim 

construction, particularly where defendants have already served invalidity contentions[,]” as has 

Nuvoton here. See Universal Elecs. Inc. v. Roku Inc., No. SACV 18-1580 JVS (ADx), 2019 WL 

1878351 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019). Furthermore, according to the discovery schedule, allowing 

Microchip to wait until after Nuvoton has filed any IPR petition could mean that Nuvoton does not 

reduce its claims until after the parties have nearly finished briefing on claim construction. See Dkt. 

No. 44. The Court finds the timing of Nuvoton’s proposal to be the more reasonable one.

II. Number of Claims

The parties also disagree on the number of claims that should be reduced. Microchip

proposes an initial reduction to 60 claims and a subsequent reduction to 45 claims (presumably after 

the claim construction order). Joint Statement at 5. Nuvoton proposes an initial reduction to 40

claims, a subsequent reduction after claim construction to 20 claims in no more than 4 patents, and 

Case 3:19-cv-01690-SI Document 55 Filed 10/03/19 Page 4 of 6
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

Northern District of California

a final reduction 30 days before trial to 10 claims in no more than 3 patents. Id. at 2. The parties 

have also proposed slightly competing schedules for Nuvoton to reduce the number of prior art 

references. See id. at 4.

Microchip argues that the magnitude of reduction that defendants request is improper 

because the “six asserted patents cover six distinct technologies, . . . and there is no showing that 

the asserted claims are duplicative.” Id. at 5. However, “a defendant is not required to make a prima 

facie showing that the asserted claims are duplicative in order to justify a limitation on the number 

of asserted claims.” Universal Elecs., 2019 WL 1878351, at *3 (citing Masimo Corp., 918 F. Supp. 

2d at 284; Thought, 2013 WL 5587559, at *3). Thus, Nuvoton’s proposal does not fail for that 

reason.

To the contrary, the reduction that Nuvoton proposes aligns with, or is more generous than,

what courts have ordered in other cases. In In re Katz, the Federal Circuit approved the district 

court’s process of reducing the 1,975 claims in the multi-district litigation to 40 claims per defendant 

group initially, and then to 16 claims per defendant group after discovery, with no more than 64

claims asserted total against all defendants. 639 F.3d at 1309. In this district, Judge Orrick ordered 

a process for reducing the initial 102 asserted claims to 10 per patent and no more than 32 claims 

total before claim construction, followed by a reduction 28 days after claim construction to 5 claims 

per patent and 16 claims total. Thought, 2013 WL 5587559, at *4. Judge Seeborg issued an order 

after claim construction that limited the patentee to asserting 20 claims total (after the initial 81

claims asserted had already been reduced to 35). Rambus, 2012 WL 13070209, at *1, 3.

In this case, the Court finds Nuvoton’s proposal reasonable and appropriate for the 

management of the case at this time, and largely adopts the proposal, with the exception that the 

Court will not require Microchip to drop entire patents, rather than claims, from the case. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court Orders as follows: 

By October 13, 2019, Microchip shall identify no more than 40 asserted claims total. By 

October 27, 2019, Nuvoton shall identify no more than 40 prior art references. Within 14 days of 

Case 3:19-cv-01690-SI Document 55 Filed 10/03/19 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

the Court’s Claim Construction Order, Microchip shall identify no more than 20 asserted claims 

total. However, before the expiration of that 14-day period, Microchip may move the Court for 

permission to bring back unselected claims, based on a showing of good cause that unselected claims 

present unique issues as to validity or infringement, and/or seek a Court order allowing it to increase 

the number of claims at issue above the presumptive 20 total. Within 14 days of Microchip 

identifying no more than 20 claims, Nuvoton shall identify no more than 20 prior art references.

Within 14 days of the Court’s Claim Construction Order, the parties shall contact the Court 

to arrange a conference to set the remaining dates in this case, including a date for trial. At that 

conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss whether a further reduction before trial of 

asserted claims and/or of prior art references is appropriate and, if so, shall propose a schedule for 

such reduction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01690-SI Document 55 Filed 10/03/19 Page 6 of 6