Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01697/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01697-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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

UNILOC USA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:19-cv-01697-VC (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 8/12/19 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER RE REQUEST 

FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1

Re: Dkt. No. 83

On August 12, 2019, the parties filed a joint discovery letter pertaining to Uniloc’s Request 

for Production No. 1, which seeks 

[h]igh and low-level technical Documents, including software code, 

sufficient to completely describe the structure, functions, features, 

characteristics, capabilities, and operation of the Accused Products, 

as related to the Patent-in-Suit.

(Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 83, Ex. A at 4.) Apple did not produce any documents in response to the 

request. (Joint Letter at 2.) Instead, subject to objection, Apple provided that it would “produce 

non-privileged, responsive documents sufficient to show the requested information within its 

possession, custody or control to the extent they exist, after a reasonable search of likely 

custodians, and to the extent such documents relate to the accused functionality based on Apple’s 

understanding of Plaintiffs’ yet to be served infringement contentions.” (Joint Letter, Ex. A at 5.) 

Here, Uniloc contends that the request is not burdensome, because the request only 

requires that Apple produce “a document or documents ‘sufficient to completely describe’ how its 

products operate, as related to the patent.” (Joint Letter at 2.) In opposition, Apple argues that 

there is no discovery dispute, because it has fully complied with the discovery request by making 

its source code available. (Joint Letter at 3.) Uniloc, however, argues that it has narrowed the 

scope of the dispute by not seeking source code at this juncture. Id.

Case 3:19-cv-01697-VC Document 90 Filed 09/04/19 Page 1 of 2
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

As an initial matter, the parties are always encouraged to informally narrow the scope of 

their discovery requests in an effort to resolve those disputes without court intervention. Thus, the 

fact that Uniloc is not seeking to inspect source code via the instant joint letter is not fatal to its 

position.

Second, Apple’s position that the offer of a source code production satisfies its obligation 

under the federal rules is unavailing. That the requests seeks “[h]igh and low level documents, 

including software code...” plainly illustrates that source code is only one type of document 

sought, rather than an exhaustive list. (Joint Letter, Ex. A at 4)(emphasis added.) That source code 

may be the best evidence in a patent infringement case does not mean that Uniloc is not entitled to 

other technical documents related to the Accused Products.

The Court understands that Apple has already produced nearly 3,000 technical documents, 

totaling over 400,000 pages, and expects to complete its production by September 9, 2019. (Joint 

Letter at 2, 5; Dkt. No. 85 at 1.) This is a reasonable time period given the sheer number of 

documents responsive to the request. Accordingly, Apple is ordered to complete its production by 

September 9, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01697-VC Document 90 Filed 09/04/19 Page 2 of 2