Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03972/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03972-4/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

ORDER APPOINTING TECHNICAL ADVISOR

Case Nos. 12-3970, -3971, -3972 RMW

AG

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOFTWARE RIGHTS ARCHIVE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. C:12-03970 RMW

CASE NOS. C-12-3970 RMW

C-12-3971 RMW

C-12-3972 RMW

ORDER APPOINTING TECHNICAL

ADVISOR DR. A. J. NICHOLS

v.

LINKEDIN CORPORATION

Defendant.

v.

TWITTER, INC.

Defendant.

The court proposed the appointment of neutral technical advisor Dr. A.J. Nichols to 

educate the court on the technology underlying Discovery Dispute Joint Report # 2 in Software 

Rights Archive ("SRA") v. Facebook, LLC and possible future disputes in that matter. See Case 

No. 12-3970, Dkt. No. 62. The court asked the parties to indicate whether Dr. Nichols would be 

Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 22
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

ORDER APPOINTING TECHNICAL ADVISOR

Case Nos. 12-3970, -3971, -3972 RMW

AG

-2-

acceptable, and if not, to propose alternative technical expert(s). Id. The parties notified the 

court that they accepted Dr. Nichols as a neutral technical advisor. Id., Dkt Nos. 63, 64. 

Because the court finds this to be a case "where the scientific complexity of the 

technology is such that the district court . . . require[s] the assistance of a technical advisor to aid 

in understanding the complex technology underlying the patent," TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel 

Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court exercises its inherent authority to 

appoint Dr. A.J. Nichols as a neutral technical advisor, subject to the following terms:

(1) Dr. Nichols will adhere to the parties' stipulated protective order in SRA v. Facebook. 

Although the parties have not filed a signed protective order in the docket, based on the sealing 

requests affiliated with this motion, the court understands the stipulated protective order in this 

case to be the Patent Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model Protective Order. Dr. Nichol's signed copy of 

the protective order in SRA v. Facebook is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

(2) Dr. Nichol's role is limited to a "tutor" to aid the court in understanding the technical 

terminology used in the field and the technology at issue in this matter. Dr. Nichol's advice is not 

a source of evidence. See generally Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 157-59 (1st Cir. 1988). 

(3) Dr. Nichols will maintain a list of any pleadings or other materials he reviews from 

any of the related cases, Case Nos. 12-03970 (SRA v. Facebook); 12-03971 (SRA v. LinkedIn); 

12-03972 (SRA v. Twitter).

(4) The court may elect to utilize Dr. Nichols or to retain another technical advisor if other 

technically complex issues arise in any of these related cases. In the event another dispute occurs 

that requires the assistance of a technical advisor, and involves LinkedIn or Twitter, the court will 

consider any objections to the use of Dr. Nichols from any party and will entertain the parties' 

suggestions of alternative technical advisors at that time if necessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: August 12, 2013 _______________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 3 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 4 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 5 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 6 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 7 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 8 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 9 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 10 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 11 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 12 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 13 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 14 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 15 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 16 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 17 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 18 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 19 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 20 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 21 of 22
Case 4:12-cv-03972-HSG Document 49 Filed 08/12/13 Page 22 of 22