Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01745/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-01745-10/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

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SILERGY CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01745-VC (KAW)

ORDER REGARDING 7/7/2015 JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: Dkt. No. 163

On July 7, 2015, the parties filed a joint discovery letter regarding “lifting the stay of 

discovery imposed by the Court (Dkt. No. 153)” in light of Plaintiff’s amended infringement 

contentions. (7/7/15 Joint Letter, Dkt. No. 163.) As an initial matter, the undersigned never stayed 

discovery, so the parties are misinterpreting the Court’s prior order. Rather, the Court merely 

noted that, upon a cursory review, Plaintiff’s infringement contentions were deficient and that 

“[c]ourts in this district generally do not order defendants to proceed with discovery in patent 

cases until the plaintiff provides infringement contentions that comply with Patent L.R. 3-1.” (Dkt. 

No. 153 at 1.)

Thereafter, Plaintiff amended its infringement contentions, but did not seek leave of court 

in violation of Patent Local Rule 3-6. As a result, the amended infringement contentions must be 

stricken. The Court is confident, however, that the parties can successfully meet and confer and 

file a stipulation for court approval of the amended infringement contentions. If the parties are 

unable to stipulate, Plaintiff must seek leave of court as required by Patent Local Rule 3-6.

Plaintiff seeks to conduct discovery on its breach of contract claim. This claim, however,

is inextricably intertwined with its allegations of infringement, as infringement is the alleged 

breach of the prior settlement agreement. Therefore, discovery regarding the breach of contract 

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 173 Filed 08/26/15 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

claim cannot proceed in the absence of properly amended infringement contentions, and Plaintiff’s 

request is DENIED.

The parties are again reminded that all future joint letters must comply with the Court’s 

standing order, including the provision that “a separate joint letter [be filed] for each discovery 

dispute (i.e. if the parties have disputes regarding specific interrogatories and requests for 

production, they must file two letters).” (Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Kandis A. 

Westmore ¶ 13.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-01745-VC Document 173 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 2