Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00704/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00704-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NESSCAP CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING NESSCAP CO.

LTD.’S MOTION TO COMPEL

[Doc. No. 36]

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff NessCap Co., Ltd.’s

(“NessCap”) motion to compel compliance with Patent Local Rule 3.4(a).

Doc. No. 36. NessCap filed its motion on December 14, 2007, pursuant to

an expedited briefing schedule issued by this Court [Doc. No. 35].

Defendant Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (“Maxwell”) timely opposed the

motion [Doc. No. 37] and NessCap filed its reply on December 28, 2007

[Doc. No. 38]. The Court found the motion suitable for decision on the

papers and took the matter under submission pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7.1(d)(1). Doc. No. 35.

Having considered all of the briefing and supporting documents

presented, and for the reasons set forth below, NessCap’s motion to

compel [Doc. No. 36] is GRANTED. 

/// 

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 1 of 9
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 Paragraph 3(a) of the Amended Case Management Conference Order issued in

this case on June 13, 2007, mirrors the language of Patent Local Rule 3.4(a), stating:

3. Document Production Accompanying Preliminary Invalidity

Contentions. With the "Preliminary Invalidity Contentions," the party

opposing a claim of patent infringement must produce or make available for

inspection and copying:

a. Source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts,

artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show the operation

of any aspects or elements of any Accused Instrumentality identified by

the patent claimant in the "Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary

Infringement Contentions;"

Doc. No. 17 (June 13, 2007 Amended Case Management Conference Order).

2 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

BACKGROUND

NessCap initiated this patent infringement action on December 14,

2006, alleging Maxwell’s infringement of NessCap patent number 6,743,544

(“the ‘544 patent”). Doc. No. 1 (case transferred from the District of

Delaware). In its complaint, NessCap alleges that Maxwell has infringed

the ‘544 patent through its manufacture and sale of Boostcap®

ultracapacitors. Id. Maxwell has asserted defenses of noninfringement

and invalidity, among others. Id. 

On June 13, 2007, this Court issued an Amended Case Management

Conference Order in this case. Doc. No. 17. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that

order required Maxwell to serve its preliminary invalidity contentions

on NessCap on or before October 19, 2007, along with the documents

required by Patent Local Rule 3.4(a)1. Maxwell timely served its

preliminary invalidity contentions, but NessCap argues that Maxwell’s

accompanying document production failed to comply with Patent Local Rule

3.4(a) and Paragraph 3 of this Court’s Order. 

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 9
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 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

LEGAL STANDARD

The instant dispute centers around the scope of the production

requirement imposed by Patent Local Rule 3.4(a), which applies to patent

cases proceeding before the United States District Court for the

Southern District of California. Patent Local Rule 3.4 provides:

With the “Preliminary Invalidity Contentions,” the party

opposing a claim of patent infringement must produce or make

available for inspection and copying:

a. Source code, specifications, schematics, flow charts,

artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to

show the operation of any aspect or elements of any

Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent claimant

in its Patent L.R. 3.1c chart; . . . 

Patent L.R. 3.4(a).

This Court’s Patent Local Rules are relatively new and, as a

result, there is a dearth of binding precedent addressing the scope and

application of Patent Local Rule 3.4(a). Accordingly, because the

Southern District’s Patent Local Rule 3.4(a) is similar in all material

respects to the corresponding patent local rules promulgated by the

Northern District of California and the Northern District of Georgia,

this Court relies on published and unpublished precedent from these

courts as persuasive authority. In Cryptography Research, Inc. v. Visa

Int’l Serv. Assoc., 2005 WL 1787421 (N.D. Cal. 2005), the Northern

District of California explained that patent local rules “are not like

other forms of discovery which require a formal request by the opposing

party. Rather, it is the responsibility of the party itself to make

disclosures that satisfy the [r]ules.” Additionally, the court

construed its patent local rule 3-4(a), which is identical to this

Court’s Patent Local Rule 3.4(a), as requiring the alleged infringer to

turn over “any and all documents describing the operation or structures

of [the patentee’s] accused devices. . ..” IXYS Corp. v. Advanced Power

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 3 of 9
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 Maxwell also produced several samples of its Boostcap® ultracapacitors.

Additionally, though not the subject of the instant dispute, Maxwell did produce copies

of the alleged prior art in compliance with Patent Local Rule 3.4(b). 

4 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

Tech., Inc., 2004 WL 1368860, *3 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

The Northern District of Georgia has explained that what is

sufficient to show the operation of the accused device will vary

depending on the technology at issue. McKesson Info. Solutions LLC v.

Epic Sys. Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1329, 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2007). More

specifically, it instructed that:

The requirement that the alleged infringing party provide

whatever information is “sufficient to show the operation” of

the accused device or method carries with it a good faith

obligation to provide the types of information that will

enable the party asserting infringement to reasonably

determine the operation of the accused device or method

without undue burden or expense.

Id. at 1334.

DISCUSSION

NessCap objects to Maxwell’s Patent Local Rule 3.4(a) production on

the grounds that the documents do not detail the relevant configuration

of the accused Boostcap® ultracapacitors, provide no description of the

internal structure and do not sufficiently show the operation of all

aspects and elements of the accused products. Pl.’s Mem. at 5.

According to NessCap, the document production accompanying Maxwell’s

Preliminary Invalidity Contentions consisted of two self-serving, work

product declarations from a retained expert and one of Maxwell’s

employees and fifteen pages of publicly-available product specifications

and data sheets for Maxwell’s Boostcap® ultracapacitors, which NessCap

describes as marketing materials as opposed to the required scientific

and demonstrative documentation.2 Id. at 1, 2, 6. NessCap seeks, at the

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 4 of 9
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

5 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

very least, the design/production specifications and drawings for

Maxwell’s Boostcap® ultracapacitors as well as technical descriptions of

their operation, tutorials, operating guides, testing reports, “and the

like.” Id. at 5. Because Maxwell’s website states that the company is

compliant with the “ISO 9001" standard, which requires companies to

maintain accurate and detailed design and production specifications,

NessCap contends that Maxwell must have in its possession the documents

NessCap seeks. Id.

Maxwell asserts that NessCap overstates the requirements of Patent

Local Rule 3.4(a) in arguing that the rule requires “all documentation

sufficient to show the operation of any aspect or element of its accused

products that Plaintiff identified in its infringement contentions”

because Rule 3.4(a) does not contain the word “all.” Def.’s Opp’n at 1

(quoting Doc. No. 36 at 1) (emphasis added). Thus, Maxwell argues it

satisfied the requirement of producing “documentation sufficient to

show...” by providing product specifications and data sheets from its

website, expert declarations explaining the operation of the accused

ultracapacitors, and twenty of the accused ultracapacitors. Id. at 1-2.

Additionally, Maxwell notes that the Patent Local Rules do not

specifically require pre-litigation documents and do not prohibit use of

(a) publicly-available documents or (b) documents created specifically

for the purpose of satisfying Rule 3.4(a)’s requirements. Id. at 1, 12.

The Court agrees with NessCap that Maxwell’s document production

does not satisfy the requirements of Patent Local Rule 3.4(a) because

Maxwell did not provide documentation sufficient to show the operation

of each of the claimed aspects of its Boostcap® ultracapacitors. Like

the Northern District, this Court interprets the rule as requiring the

alleged infringer to produce “any and all documents describing the

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 5 of 9
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 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

operation or structures of [the patentee’s] accused devices. . ..” IXYS

Corp., 2004 WL 1368860 at *3 (emphasis added); see also Cryptography

Research, 2005 WL 1787421 at *2 (reading Patent Local Rule 3-4(a) as

requiring production of “enough documentation to sufficiently show the

operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality”).

As Maxwell points out, the seven aspects of its Boostcap®

ultracapacitors that NessCap alleges to be infringing are the:

(1) “anode terminal,” (2) “cathode terminal,” (3) “metal layer,”

(4) “protrusion from the anode electrode” and “protrusion from the

cathode electrode,” (5) “electrode body,” (6) “pressure adjusting

means,” and (7) “insulating film.” Def.’s Opp’n at 3. The product

specifications and data sheets Maxwell provided to NessCap disclose the

dimensions, capacitance, shelf life, etc. of the accused ultracapitors,

but do not illustrate the structure of the accused devices or provide

sufficient information for NessCap to determine whether there is, for

instance, a “pressure adjusting means.” See Decl. of Brian M. Gaff

Supp. Pl.’s Mot. to Compel, Ex. 1 at 18-33. Though the samples of the

Boostcap® ultracapacitors provided by Maxwell allow NessCap to analyze

their internal structure, Patent Local Rule 3.4(a) requires production

of documentation sufficient to show the accused product’s operation.

Moreover, patent local rules generally anticipate that, where feasible,

the patentee already has purchased samples of the allegedly infringing

product and analyzed them prior to filing suit. See, e.g., Am. Video

Graphics, L.P. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 2d 558, 560 (E.D.

Tex. 2005) (“plaintiffs are usually able to purchase defendants’

products and ascertain the mechanics of how those products infringe

before plaintiffs bring suit”). Thus, this rule offers the plaintiff a

procedure for procuring additional information, which the plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 6 of 9
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 This is confirmed by the Kramer Declaration, which lists Messrs. Gallay and

Miller’s declarations as having been filed with the Court on June 27, 2007, in support

of Maxwell’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement (at Doc. No. 21-3 and 21-

4). Kramer Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Maxwell also points to another declaration from Mr. Miller,

which it filed on November 1, 2006 in a related case (though the cases have not been

consolidated) in this District (Case No. 06cv2311-JLS (BLM)), but this declaration also

was prepared to support Maxwell’s argument. Id. ¶ 5. It also is unclear whether

Maxwell ever served the 2006 Miller declaration on NessCap in the instant case. See

Gaff Decl., Ex. 1 at 5; Def’s Opp’n at 2, 4. 

7 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

could not obtain before initiating the litigation. 

While the declarations of Roland Gallay (Maxwell’s employee) and

John R. Miller (Maxwell’s retained expert) do provide some detailed

photographs of the ultracapacitors’ internal structure and more in-depth

explanations of how the ultracapacitors operate (see Decl. of Brian M.

Kramer Supp. Maxwell’s Opp’n), the declarations were, as NessCap points

out, prepared for the purpose of supporting Maxwell’s argument of

noninfringement.3 The Court reads Patent Local Rule 3.4(a) as requiring

the responding party to provide the raw data (source code, schematics,

formulas, etc.) sufficient to show the operation of the accused aspects

of the products in order to allow the patentee to make it’s own

determinations as to infringement. See McKesson, 495 F. Supp. 2d at

1334 (construing the rule as imposing a good faith obligation to

“provide the types of information that will enable the party asserting

infringement to reasonably determine the operation of the accused device

or method without undue burden or expense”) (emphasis added). To

construe the rule otherwise would render it virtually useless.

Declarations prepared in support of a noninfringement argument obviously

are unlikely to provide objective evidence of infringement and, thus,

are of little value to patentees. Thus, in order to obtain the raw

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 7 of 9
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 For this reason, the Court also finds unavailing Maxwell’s argument that

its upcoming document production in response to NessCap’s separately served requests

for production of documents will render this motion moot. The patent local rules seek

to streamline the discovery process, not to require parties to serve document requests

seeking the same documentation covered by the rules.

8 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

data, patentees would be forced to serve requests for production of

documents, thereby prolonging the discovery period, increasing costs,

and defeating one of the primary purposes of enacting patent local

rules, which is to “promote[] efficient discovery and reduce[] the

potential for discovery disputes and wasted effort.” McKesson, 495 F.

Supp. 2d at 1332; Am. Video Graphics, 359 F. Supp. 2d at 560 (concurring

with Northern District of California that patent local rules “are

designed to streamline the discovery process” and “provide structure to

discovery and enable the parties to move efficiently toward claim

construction and the eventual resolution of their dispute”); IXYS Corp.,

2004 WL 1368860 at *3 (“The Local [Patent] Rules exist to further the

goal of full, timely discovery and provide all parties with adequate

notice and information with which to litigate their cases, not to create

supposed loopholes through which parties may practice litigation by

ambush”); see also Townshend Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Broadcom Corp.,

2007 WL 1994158, *2 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (explaining that the patent local

rule governing preliminary infringement (as opposed to invalidity)

contentions, “has been described as a ‘streamlined’ mechanism to replace

the ‘series of interrogatories that defendants would likely have

propounded’ in its absence”).4

 Thus, the Court rejects Maxwell’s

argument that service of the Gallay and Miller declarations satisfied

its obligations under Patent Local Rule 3.4(a). 

///

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 8 of 9
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

9 07cv0704-JLS (BLM)

In sum, the Court finds that Maxwell failed to comply with Patent

Local Rule 3.4(a) and Paragraph 3 of this Court’s Amended Case

Management Conference Order. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion to compel. Maxwell is ordered to produce documentation in

compliance with Patent Local Rule 3.4(a), as construed by this Order, on

or before January 23, 2008. Maxwell is hereby warned that failure to

comply with this Order may result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE JANIS L. SAMMARTINO

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00704-JLS-BLM Document 41 Filed 01/16/08 Page 9 of 9