Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05669/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05669-13/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

The Regents of the University of

California, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

Micro Therapeutics Inc., et al.,

Defendants,

Third Party Plaintiffs

v.

Boston Scientific Corp., et al.,

Third Party Defendants

 /

NO. C 03-05669 JW 

PROPOSED ORDER OF

APPOINTMENT OF A TECHNICAL

ADVISOR, MR. RAINER SCHULZ

I. BACKGROUND

The Regents of the University of California (“Plaintiff”) initiated this patent infringement

suit against Micro Therapeutics, Inc., and Dendron GmbH (“Third Party Plaintiffs”) under 35 U.S.C.

§ 271. Micro Therapeutics and Dendron counterclaimed against Plaintiff, and filed a third party

complaint against Boston Scientific Corp. and Target Therapeutics, Inc. (“Third Party Defendants”)

alleging an Antitrust violation under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2. 

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 340 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff initially accused Third Party Plaintiffs of willfully infringing 12 patents. Later, the

Plaintiff dropped five patents from its infringement claims and presently asserts seven patents

against Third Party Plaintiffs: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,122,136 (“’136 patent”), 5,855,578 (“’578 patent”),

6,066,133 (“’133 patent”), 5,976,126 (“’126 patent”), 5,947,962 (“’962 patent”), 5,947,963 (“’963

patent”), and 5,925,037 (“’037 patent”). Third Party Plaintiffs, however have asserted counterclaims

as to all 12 patents. Therefore, there are five additional patents that are only part of Third Party

Plaintiffs' counterclaims: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,354,295 (“’295 patent”), 5,540,680 (“’680 patent”),

5,895,385 (“’385 patent”), 6,010,498 (“’498 patent”), and 6,083,220 (“’220 patent”). 

Due to the complexity of the case and the patents-in-suit, the Court has determined that it

would benefit from the services of a technical advisor.

II. STANDARDS

A district judge has inherent authority to appoint a technical advisor when the judge deems it

desirable and necessary. Ass’n of Mexican Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 590 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc). The exercise of this authority should be used sparingly and only in highly

complicated cases. TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

(interpreting the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing technical advisors). In those limited cases,

where the complexity of the science and technology involves something well beyond regular

questions of fact and law, the district court has the inherent authority to tap the outside skill and

expertise of a technical advisor. Federal Trade Commission v. Enforma Natural Products, Inc., 362

F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 157 (1st Cir. 1988). 

The technical advisor acts as educator, advising on terminology so that the district court can better

understand complex evidence and properly discharge its role as decision maker. TechSearch, 286

F.3d at 1377. 

In Reilly, while conceding that a district court has inherent authority to appoint an expert as a

technical advisor, the appellant argued that such power is strictly circumscribed by Fed.R.Evid.

706(a). Reilly, 863 F.2d 149, 154 (1st Cir. 1988). The First Circuit held the plain language of

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 340 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Attached to this Proposed Order is a courtesy copy of Mr. Schulz’s resume.

3

706(a) indicates that the rule is confined to court-appointed expert witnesses and does not embrace

expert advisors or consultants. Id. at 155. Ultimately, the First Circuit held:

[706(a)] establishes a procedural framework for nomination and selection of an expert

witness and for the proper performance of his role after an appointment is accepted. [] By

and large, these modalities--though critically important in the realm customarily occupied by

an expert witness--have marginal, if any, relevance to the functioning of technical advisors. 

Since an advisor, by definition, is called upon to make no findings and to supply no

evidence, [internal citations omitted], provisions for depositions, cross-questioning, and the

like are inapposite. [citations omitted.]

Id. at 156.

III. PROPOSED ORDER OF APPOINTMENT

Accordingly, the Court appoints Mr. Rainer Schulz1 as a “Technical Advisor” under the

following terms:

1. Any advice provides to the Court by Mr. Schulz will not be based on any extra-record

information.

2. From time to time, the Court may request Mr. Schulz to provide a formal written report on

technical advice concerning the case. A copy of the formal written report prepared by Mr. Schulz

shall be provided to the parties. However, the Court reserves the right to have informal verbal

communication with Mr. Schulz which are not included in any formal written report.

2. Mr. Schulz may attend any court proceedings.

3. Mr. Schulz may review any pleadings, motions or documents submitted to the Court. 

4. As a technical advisor, Mr. Schulz will make no written findings of fact and will not

supply any evidence to the Court. Thus, Mr. Schulz will be outside the purview of “expert

witnesses” under Fed. R. Evid. 706. As such, the provisions in Rule 706 for depositions and

questioning of expert witnesses will be inapplicable to Mr. Schulz. See Reilly, 863 F.2d at 155-156.

5. Mr. Schulz will have no contact with any of the parties or their counsel except for billing

purposes.

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 340 Filed 05/26/06 Page 3 of 5
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

6. The parties are directed to pay the reasonable fees charged by Mr. Schulz for his service

as a technical advisor to the Court in this case. If the appointment is made, the parties shall confer to

determine an apportionment for purposes of payment of Mr. Schulz’s fees. All matters pertaining to

the fees of Mr. Schulz are referred to the Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg.

7. Mr. Schulz shall file a declaration that he will adhere to the terms of his appointment. 

On for before June 12, 2006, any party to the litigation wishing to object to Mr. Schulz’s

appointment on any ground, shall file a Notice of Objection to Appointment of Technical Advisor. 

Among the grounds for objection, the Court specifically would wish to know of any objection based

on the following grounds: 

A. Bias on the part of Mr. Schulz;

B. Lack of funds to share the fees of the advisor on the part of the objecting party.

Any objection shall be lodged directly with Magistrate Judge Seeborg. The objection shall

state the ground of objection and be accompanied by a supporting declaration and legal

memorandum supporting the objection. Judge Seeborg shall not advise Judge Ware of the identity

of any party making an objection. Judge Seeborg may confer with the parties to determine if any

modification of the terms of appointment would overcome the objection. Thereafter, Judge Seeborg

shall submit a recommendation to Judge Ware in accordance with paragraphs 1-7 or as modified or

of non-appointment due to objections. Judge Ware shall determine whether to make the

appointment under any modified terms of appointment.

Dated: May 26, 2006 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 340 Filed 05/26/06 Page 4 of 5
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Amanda Marie Kessel akessel@goodwinprocter.com

Charles G. Curtis ccurtis@hewm.com

Chien-Ju Alice Chen achen@Fenwick.Com

Christopher T. Holding cholding@goodwinprocter.com

Colin G. Sandercock csandercock@hewm.com

David J. Harth dharth@hewm.com

Gabrielle E. Bina gbina@hewm.com

J. Anthony Downs jdowns@goodwinprocter.com

John S. Skilton jskilton@hewm.com

John S. Skilton jskilton@hewm.com

Julie Lynn Fieber jfieber@flk.com

Lynn H. Pasahow lpasahow@fenwick.com

Michael Francis Kelleher mkelleher@flk.com

Michael J. Shuster mshuster@fenwick.com

Michael K. Plimack mplimack@hewm.com

Michelle M. Umberger mumberger@hewm.com

Patrick E. Premo ppremo@fenwick.com

Roland Schwillinski rschwillinski@goodwinprocter.com

Sarah C. Walkenhorst swalkenhorst@hewm.com

Wendy Lynn Bjerknes Wbjerknes@fenwick.com

Dated: May 26, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:__/s/JW Chambers________

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-05669-JW Document 340 Filed 05/26/06 Page 5 of 5