Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02123/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02123-44/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABBOTT DIABETES CARE INC.

And ABBOTT LABORATORIES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORP.,

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS

OPERATIONS, INC., and BAYER

HEALTHCARE LLC,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-3117 MJJ (BZ)

Related Cases: 04-2123 MJJ

04-3327 MJJ

04-3732 MJJ

ORDER STRIKING PORTION OF

INTERROGATORY ANSWER

By the attached letter dated November 16, 2007, Bayer

complained about Abbott’s amended answer to Interrogatory No.

13 filed in response to my Order dated October 25, 2007. 

Abbott filed two letter responses, for reasons not clear to

the court. Documents 602 and 603. On November 28, 2007, the

court held a telephonic hearing. All parties were represented

by counsel. The court finds no need for further briefing or

argument. 

The court further finds that Abbott has not complied with

the October 26, 2007 Order in two respects. First, Abbott has

still not explained the methods it used to identify the

Case 3:04-cv-02123-WHA Document 454 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 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

2

measurement zone. Since Bayer no longer seems interested in

this information, the court deems this portion of the dispute

to be moot.

Second, Abbott has still failed to identify precisely

where it contends the measurement zone is located in each

accused product and in its product. Abbott argues that it

disagrees with Bayer’s interpretation of what constitutes a

measurement zone. However, the purpose of the interrogatory

is not to resolve which is the correct interpretation but

simply to clarify Bayer’s contention in advance of trial. The

interrogatory does not ask Abbott to identify the location of

the measurement zone using Bayer’s interpretation; Abbott is

free, and in fact was asked by Bayer, to use whatever

interpretation it contends is appropriate. What Abbott cannot

do is imply that the measurement zone may also be located

other than where it has testified. 

The question remains what is the appropriate remedy. I

see little to be gained by requiring Abbott to amend its

answer again. Instead, I find that the portion of Abbott’s

Second Amended Answers to Bayer’s Second Set of

Interrogatories that begins on page 4, Line 16 and continues

to page 6, Line 1, is non-responsive and argumentative and I

ORDER it stricken.

Dated: November 29, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\ABBOTT DIABETES CARE\ORDER.wpd

Case 3:04-cv-02123-WHA Document 454 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 2