Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00972/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00972-2/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

1 10cv972

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FASTEK, LLC, a California Limited Liability

Company,

Civil No. 10cv0972-MMA (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

1) DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL [Doc. No. 152];

and,

2) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO

EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY CUT-OFF

[Doc. No. 159]

v.

STECO, a division of Blue Tee Corporation,

BLUE TEE CORP., a Delaware Corporation,

and SIERRA INTERNATIONAL

MACHINERY, LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company,

Defendant.

On July 27, 2011, the Court held a telephonic hearing on defendants’ motion to compel

plaintiff Fastek, LLC (“Fastek”) to provide further responses to interrogatories. [Doc. No. 152.]

Plaintiff filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 168]. Defendants filed a reply. [Doc. No. 175.] Valerie

Ho, Esq., Frank Ubell, Esq., and Kamran Salour, Esq., appeared for plaintiff. Mark Brown, Esq.,

Stephen Swinton, Esq., Chris DeBacker, Esq., and David Kowalski, Esq., appeared for defendants

Steco and Blue Tee Corp (collectively “Steco”). Having considered the submissions of the parties

and the arguments of counsel, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

On May 13, 2011, Steco served its second set of interrogatories on Fastek. Fastek served

timely responses and objections on June 15, 2011. Steco moves to compel further responses to

Interrogatories Nos. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11.

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 180 Filed 08/03/11 Page 1 of 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

Counsel for Fastek represented during the hearing that Fastek has no defined person of ordinary

1

skill in mind. If that is the case, the supplemental response should state that Fastek has not defined

a person of ordinary skill in the art. 

2 10cv972

Interrogatory No. 4 requests that Fastek state all facts supporting its responses to Requests

for Admission Nos. 72 and 73, if the response was anything other than an unqualified admission. 

Fastek responded to each Request for Admission that it did not have sufficient information to

admit or deny the request. In its response to Interrogatory No. 4, Fastek provided its explanation

why it could not provide an admission or denial. Steco finds the interrogatory response

unsatisfactory. Fastek’s verified response was that it does not have sufficient familiarity with the

prior art listed in the Requests for Admission to respond to the request. No further response is

compelled. The motion as to Interrogatory No. 4 is DENIED.

Interrogatory No. 5 requests that Fastek state the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art

that Fastek contends should apply to the asserted claims of the Patent-in-suit. Fastek objected

based on privilege and because it seeks expert analysis. The objection is overruled. The person of

ordinary skill in the field of the invention is the person through whose eyes the claims are

construed. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). It is a factual

determination and Fastek argued in the claim construction how a person of ordinary skill in the art

would interpret the asserted patents. [Doc. No. 75, at 11-12.] Steco’s request asks Fastek to

describe that person to whom Fastek alluded in its claim construction briefing. The motion to

compel as to Interrogatory No. 5 is GRANTED. Fastek will provide a supplemental response no

later than August 5, 2011.

1

With regard to Interrogatories Nos. 8, 9 and 11, Fastek served supplemental responses

while the motion to compel was pending.

Interrogatory No. 8 requests Fastek describe the terms of a hypothetical license between

the parties, including identification of the royalty base, the royalty rate, the method of calculation

and licenses supporting the royalty calculation. Fastek raised a number of objections but, in its

supplemental response, described the terms of a hypothetical license agreement. Fastek did not

include any actual calculations or identify any actual licenses supporting the hypothetical terms. 

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 180 Filed 08/03/11 Page 2 of 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

3 10cv972

The motion to compel is GRANTED in so far as Fastek is ordered to further supplement its

response with any facts responsive to this interrogatory that have been provided to Fastek’s expert

to assist in the calculation of a reasonable royalty, and the identification of any licenses Fastek has

for the patents at issue. Such information must be disclosed to Steco no later than August 5, 2011. 

If Fastek has no further factual information to disclose it should so state.

Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 11 inquire about the facts supporting damages claims for lost

profits and price erosion. Fastek raised a number of objections but, in its supplemental responses,

stated that it had experienced a steady increase in revenue on the sales of scrap purchased from

customers from January 2009 through approximately May 2010, and a steady decline thereafter

which it attributes to Steco’s presence in the market. This response is essentially a recitation of the

theory of lost profits: but for the defendant’s allegedly infringing actions, the plaintiff would have

made appreciated certain profits. The response is devoid of any factual content. The motion to

compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide the historical financial data supporting this

statement and identify any customers it will rely upon in support of its lost profits claims. Fastek

will make supplemental responses to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 11 no later than August 5, 2011.

To the extent Fastek’s supplemental responses are based on financial and/or accounting

documents not previously provided to Steco, such documents should be made available for

inspection and copying with the supplemental discovery response. Failure to disclose the facts and

documents that support Fastek’s damages claims may result in sanctions, including but not limited

to the exclusion of damage theories.

Additionally, the parties brought a joint motion to extend the fact discovery cutoff from

July 22, 2011 to August 5, 2011. [Doc. No. 159.] The Court finds good cause to GRANT the

motion. The Scheduling Order entered April 26, 2011 [Doc. No. 126] is hereby amended and all

fact discovery shall be completed on or before August 5, 2011. All other dates remain the same.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2011

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00972-MMA-CAB Document 180 Filed 08/03/11 Page 3 of 3