Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01389/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01389-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IPCOM GMBH & CO., KG,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-01389-EJD (VKD)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 

IPCOM’S INTERROGATORY TO 

LENOVO

Re: Dkt. No. 74

Plaintiffs Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility, LLC (collectively,

“Lenovo”) and defendant IPCom GmbH & Co., KG (“IPCom”) ask the Court to resolve a dispute 

concerning IPCom’s proposed contention interrogatory to Lenovo. Dkt. No. 74. The Court heard 

oral argument on this dispute on February 11, 2020. Dkt. No. 77. Having considered the parties’ 

submissions and argument at the hearing, the Court concludes that IPCom’s contention 

interrogatory is outside the scope of the limited jurisdictional discovery permitted by the presiding 

judge.

I. BACKGROUND

In this action, Lenovo asserts several claims against IPCom based on IPCom’s alleged

failure to comply with its obligations to offer licenses to certain declared standard essential patents 

(“SEPs”) on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and conditions. Dkt. No. 

1. IPCom moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 18. In 

resolving that motion, the presiding judge, the Hon. Edward J. Davila, concluded that Lenovo 

failed to make a prima facie showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over IPCom. Dkt. 

No. 71 at 22. Judge Davila gave the parties leave to conduct discovery regarding the issue of 

specific jurisdiction only, as Lenovo did not contend that the Court had general jurisdiction of 

Case 5:19-cv-01389-EJD Document 79 Filed 02/12/20 Page 1 of 3
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

IPCom. Id. Judge Davila ordered the parties to confer regarding the scope of jurisdictional 

discovery and referred all disputes about such discovery to the undersigned magistrate judge. Id. 

IPCom may renew its motion to dismiss following the completion of jurisdictional discovery. Id.

IPCom wishes to obtain discovery of Lenovo by means of the following contention 

interrogatory: “Identify and describe any and all facts which You contend allow the Court to 

exercise personal jurisdiction over IPCom.” Dkt. No. 74 at 1. Lenovo objects to this 

interrogatory. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

IPCom argues that its interrogatory seeks discovery that is relevant to the question of 

specific jurisdiction and proportional to the needs of the case with respect to IPCom’s anticipated 

renewed motion to dismiss. Specifically, IPCom argues that because Lenovo bears the burden of 

establishing personal jurisdiction of IPCom, Lenovo should be required to identify the facts on 

which it relies in advance of renewed briefing on the issue so that IPCom may address those facts 

in the opening brief for the renewed motion. Dkt. No. 74 at 6–7. 

Lenovo objects that IPCom may not take any jurisdictional discovery because Judge 

Davila’s order contemplated only Lenovo’s discovery of IPCom. In addition, Lenovo argues that 

IPCom’s contention interrogatory is an improper effort to obtain a preview of Lenovo’s opposition 

to IPCom’s renewed motion to dismiss and that providing the “itemization of facts” the 

interrogatory calls for would impose an undue burden on Lenovo. Id. at 2–4.

As a general matter, a party may propound contention interrogatories to seek the factual 

basis for an opposing party’s position on an issue. See AngioScore, Inc. v TriReme Medical, Inc., 

Case No. 12-cv- 03393-YGR (JSC), 2014 WL 7188779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) (“If, as a 

legal matter, Defendant contends he was not under a legal duty to disclose the opportunity to 

Plaintiff, then Defendant should say so and explain why.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2) (“An 

interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for an opinion or contention that relates 

to fact or the application of law to fact . . . .”). However, in this matter, discovery is limited to the 

issue of specific personal jurisdiction, and consideration of the appropriate scope of that discovery 

is informed by Judge Davila’s order permitting that discovery.

Case 5:19-cv-01389-EJD Document 79 Filed 02/12/20 Page 2 of 3
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

IPCom is correct that nothing in Judge Davila’s order precludes IPCom from seeking 

discovery of Lenovo. The order gives “the parties” leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. 

No. 71 at 22. Indeed, in its reply brief for its original motion to dismiss, IPCom identified several

depositions of Lenovo personnel it wished to take. See Dkt. No. 38 at 15. But IPCom does not

now seek that discovery or the discovery of any facts known to Lenovo; rather, it asks Lenovo to 

identify which facts Lenovo believes permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction. 

Presumably, all of the facts which might be subject to IPCom’s contention interrogatory 

are already known to IPCom and will be discovered from it during the course of whatever 

discovery Lenovo conducts. While IPCom’s ostensible justification for the interrogatory—i.e., to 

facilitate briefing on a renewed motion to dismiss—has some merit, the Court is skeptical that 

IPCom reasonably requires an answer to the interrogatory before renewing its motion. Given the 

extensive briefing, argument, and submission of evidence by the parties on the question of specific 

personal jurisdiction, and the fact that the relevant information is already in IPCom’s possession, 

the Court is confident that IPCom will be able to identify and assess the legal significance of any 

new facts that Lenovo uncovers during jurisdictional discovery, and that IPCom will be able to 

address them in its opening brief, or if necessary, in its reply brief.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that IPCom’s contention interrogatory 

seeks discovery that is not proportional to the needs of the case with respect to IPCom’s 

anticipated renewal of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. That discovery is 

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01389-EJD Document 79 Filed 02/12/20 Page 3 of 3