Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01482/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01482-22/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. & J. Gallo Winery
Counter Claimant
Vineyard Investigations
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINEYARD INVESTIGATIONS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

E. & J. GALLO WINERY, 

Defendant

Case No. 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO COMPEL

(filed under seal)

(Doc. 123, Doc. 127)

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff Vineyard Investigations (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel 

Supplemental Document Production and Interrogatory Responses from Defendant E. & J. Gallo 

Winery (“Defendant”). (Doc. 123). Much of the parties' Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement 

discussed Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (Doc. 99), which was pending before District Judge 

Jennifer L. Thurston at the time the parties filed their joint statement. 

On May 7, 2024, Judge Thurston filed an order (Doc. 124) regarding the Motion for 

Clarification. This Court then ordered the parties to meet and confer to file an amended Rule 251 

statement regarding what remained of their dispute in light of the order. (See Doc. 126). The parties 

filed their “Joint Statement re Discovery Disagreement” (the “joint statement”) on May 22, 2024.

(Doc. 127). Having considered the Motion, joint statement, and supporting exhibits, and for the 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 1 of 12
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

reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Dr. Paul Skinner, a soil scientist, grape grower, and viticulturist, founded Plaintiff Vineyard 

Investigations (formerly known as Terra Spase, Inc.) in 1988. (Doc. 52 at 4). Plaintiff focuses its 

consulting on “data collection, analysis, and interpretation for developing and improving vineyard 

management practices.” (Id.). Plaintiff owns a portfolio of patent and patent applications based 

on Dr. Skinner’s inventions related to the automated monitoring and maintenance of growing crops. 

(Id. at 8). The inventions improve vineyard management practices in the wine industry. (Id.). 

Plaintiff claims Defendant allegedly infringes on the asserted patents by using Plaintiff’s Variable 

Rate Drip Irrigation (“VRDI”) systems and its “systems for using remotely sensed (e.g., satellite) 

data in the modeling, scheduling, and control of irrigation.” (Doc. 52 at 2). 

Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) (Doc. 52) on October 22, 2021,

1

and Defendant filed its Answer (Doc. 54) on November 12, 2021. In its complaint, Plaintiff alleges 

Defendant is infringing on inventions protected by three of its patents. The three asserted patents 

are U.S. Patent No. 6,947,810 (the “‘810 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,528,834 (the “‘834 Patent”), 

and U.S. Patent No. 10,645,881 (the “‘881 Patent”). These patents derive from, and share patent 

specification disclosures with, parent U.S. Patent No. 6,874,707, which was filed on May 31, 2001, 

and was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office on April 5, 2005. Plaintiff concedes that 

for the purposes of this motion, the ‘881 patent is irrelevant.

2

 Pursuant to the FAC, the patents can 

be described as follows:

1 Plaintiff filed its initial complaint on October 19, 2019. On October 20, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Leave to Amend, which added a claim alleging infringement on a third patent, the ‘881 patent. (Doc. 51). 

2 Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 41) and N.D Cal. Patent Rule 4-3, the parties submitted a joint claim 

construction and prehearing statement on April 25, 2022. (Doc. 78). The Court issued an order construing claims on 

July 7, 2023. (Doc. 94). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Clarification on August 7, 2023, seeking clarification on Claim 

29 of the ‘881 patent. (Doc. 99, 100, 102). On May 7, 2024, the Court issued its order on Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Clarification. (Doc. 124). Based on this order, Plaintiff concedes the ‘881 patent is irrelevant to the discovery dispute 

at hand. Plaintiff states it intends to confer with Defendant about a Motion to Sever and enter judgment on the ‘881 

patent, which would permit an appeal separate from this case. Plaintiff states “[a]s purely technical matter, the patent 

remains asserted and part of this case until that occurs, but Vineyard Investigations does not wish to occupy the Court 

with further discovery-related or substantive motions about it.” (Doc. 127-1 at 5).

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 2 of 12
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

The ‘834 Patent: The ’834 Patent describes and claims a “system for monitoring 

and managing plant growth” in which: “Combinations of data from sensors local 

to a vineyard, and from optional remote stations and sensors, is combined with a 

control system to accurately control the dispensing of water and chemicals such as 

insecticides, disease prevention fungicides and fertilizers.” While the innovative 

systems of the patent could be advantageously applied to many different crops, 

some applications of the system are particularly adapted to improve the growing of 

grapevines in a vineyard. The systems and methods disclosed and claimed in the 

’834 patent provide significant advantages in such an environment, where smart 

automation reduces the high cost of vine growth management, and where soil and 

vine growth variability need to be addressed to improve yield and fruit quality.

The inventions of the ’834 Patent presented an important advance from existing 

vineyard drip irrigation systems at the time, which were manually controlled or 

were automated in simplistic ways with a timer or computer. Such systems did not 

“provide a high level of automation” like the systems of the patented invention, 

and did not address soil variability problems by “selectively provid[ing] different 

amounts of water to different plants” or plant areas. In addition, the invented 

system provided new and unconventional ways to automatically integrate 

“sophisticated information” about plant sizes, weather conditions and forecasts, 

and soil conditions—which previously had only been used in the growing process, 

if at all, via “human intervention” that was “prone to errors and inefficiencies.” 

Dr. Skinner’s patented innovations advanced the field and solved these and other 

problems in the prior art—including through his use of real-time sensor and 

external data, processed according to various agricultural models, as control inputs 

to a variable rate irrigation system.

The ‘810 Patent: The ’810 Patent describes and claims inventions related to the 

overall system described above and includes specific claims relating to use of infield sensors providing inputs to the smart automated control system. These in-field 

sensors can be attached to the conduit providing water and/or other nutrients. They 

can also be placed at other locations in the vineyard, such as for soil nutrient and 

moisture monitoring sensors that may need ground contact. The patent also discloses 

that the control for the system can be centralized or distributed, and that control can 

be associated with individuals or groups of sensors and emitters in order to assess 

and respond to variability in the vineyard. 

The inventions claimed in the ’810 Patent improved on the prior art and provided

the same benefits as discussed above with respect to the ’834 Patent. Individually 

and together, the claimed inventions provide new and unconventional techniques for 

intelligent monitoring and management of crops such as grapevines—and do so by 

enabling the system to variably and “accurately control the dispensing of water” and 

other chemicals and nutrients.

(Doc. 52 at 9-12) (internal citations omitted).

On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff served its Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PICs” or 

“infringement contentions”) on Defendant. In its PICs, Plaintiff specifically accuse three VRDI 

systems of infringing on the ’810 and ’834 patents: (1) the IBM VRDI system implemented at 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 3 of 12
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

Colony Ranch; (2) the Netafim system implemented at Livingston Ranch, Ripperdan, Dusty Lane, 

and Barelli Creek; and (3) the Waterbit system implemented at Borden Hills and Valley Oak. (Docs. 

127-11, 127-12, 127-13, 127-14). Plaintiff also notes throughout its PICs that it “has not completed 

its investigation of the facts in this case . . . . As a result, these contentions are necessarily (and by 

[Defendant’s] own conduct) limited to being primarily based on publicly available information that 

[Plaintiff] has researched and collected.” (Doc. 127-12). Plaintiff also alleges the following:

On information and belief, [Defendant] has installed other systems that meet the 

definition of “Variable Rate Irrigation” as given in these contentions, including 

because they are controllable at the level of sub-blocks, rows, groupings of vines, or 

individual vines. Gallo has improperly objected to and limited, and failed to provide 

discovery commensurate with, Vineyard Investigations’ requests—preventing 

Vineyard Investigations from detailing the full scope of Gallo’s infringement herein. 

Vineyard Investigations reserves all rights to add additional Accused Vineyards to 

its contentions and infringement allegations as they are revealed during discovery, 

which has barely begun.

(Doc. 127-15 at 12). Plaintiff defines “Variable Rate Irrigation” as “irrigation that is operated or 

controlled to vary the amount of water or other materials delivered to plants, such that for example, 

different ‘zones,’ ‘pixels,’ sub-blocks, rows, groupings of vines, or individual vines within a 

vineyard that may selectively receive different amounts of water or other materials in a time 

period.” (Doc. 127-11 at 4).

Plaintiff served its first set of requests for production and interrogatories on May 18, 2021. 

Defendant responded with objections on July 1, 2021, and thereafter amended its response to 

Interrogatory No. 1 on July 27, 2021. Defendant provided supplemental responses to Interrogatory 

Nos. 6-9 on December 22, 2023, and to Nos. 2-4 on January 26, 2024. Plaintiff served its second 

set of requests for production and interrogatories on March 6, 2023. Defendant objected and did 

not respond or produce new documents, on April 5, 2023. Defendant responded to Interrogatory 

Nos. 10-18, with respect to 10 vineyards, on January 26, 2024.

Plaintiff is seeking to compel Defendant to supplement its responses to the requests for 

production and interrogatories because they only include information related to the specific 

vineyards Plaintiff identified in its infringement contentions. Plaintiff states it has a “reasonable 

basis to contend” Defendant’s other vineyards operate “Variable Rate Irrigation” technologies and 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 4 of 12
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

subsequently infringe on Plaintiff’s patents. (Doc. 127-1 at 6). Plaintiff describes its request as 

“categorical” and not limited to particular interrogatory or request numbers.

III. DISCUSSION

This dispute centers on whether Defendant’s discovery obligations are limited to the 10 

“experimental” vineyards using the three specific VRDI systems that Plaintiff identified in its PICs

(namely, the IBM VRDI system, the Netafim system, and the Waterbit system), or whether 

Defendant is required to provide discovery on an additional 200,000 of acres of vineyards which 

Plaintiff alleges may be using unidentified, but nonetheless infringing, irrigation systems. As 

discussed below, Plaintiff’s broad request requires further specificity. Plaintiff is limited to the 

allegedly infringing systems identified in its PICs, and its Motion to Compel (Doc. 127) is 

DENIED.

A. Legal Standard

Under the Federal Rules, “[a] party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling 

an answer, designation, production, or inspection” when “a party fails to produce documents or 

fails to respond that inspection will be permitted — or fails to permit inspection — as requested 

under Rule 34.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). “District courts have ‘broad discretion to manage 

discovery and to control the course of litigation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.’ ” Hunt 

v. Cty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation 

Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)). Rule 37 authorizes a court to sanction parties for failing 

to attend their own depositions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(1)(A)(i). The moving party bears the 

burden to “inform the Court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel, and, 

for each disputed response, why the information sought is relevant and why the responding party's 

objections are not meritorious.” Adams v. Yates, 2013 WL 5924983, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013).

The scope and limitations of discovery are set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

and Evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) states:

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties 

may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 5 of 12
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

relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 

discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 

discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery 

need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be 

without the evidence; and . . . the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 

401. Relevancy to a subject matter is interpreted “broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, 

or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the 

case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).

B. Analysis

In the Scheduling Order (Doc. 41), the Court adopted the Local Patent Rules for the 

Northern District of California. “The overriding principle of the [Patent Local Rules for the 

Northern District of California] is that they are designed [to] make the parties more efficient, to 

streamline the litigation process, and to articulate with specificity the claims and theory of a 

plaintiff's infringement claims.” Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 01-1640, 2003 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22736, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2003). The Rules require the party claiming 

infringement “to crystallize its theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those 

theories once disclosed.” Bender v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2010 WL 363341, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 1, 2010). The rules require the party claiming patent infringement to serve a “Disclosure 

of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions” that contains “[s]eparately for each asserted 

claim, each accused . . . instrumentality (‘Accused Instrumentality’) . . . of which the party is aware. 

This identification shall be as specific as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus shall be 

identified by name or model number, if known.” Patent L.R. 3-1(b). The rules “place the burden 

of specifically identifying all accused devices on the plaintiff.” Infineon Technologies AG v. 

Volterra Semiconductor Corp., 2012 WL 6184394, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec.11, 2012). “It does ‘not 

tolerate broad categorical identifications' or ‘the use of mere representative examples.’” Infineon 

Technologies, AG, 2012 WL 6184394, at *3 (quoting Oracle America v. Google Inc., 2011 WL 

4479305, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2011)).

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s discovery is limited to the vineyards incorporating the 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 6 of 12
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

7

three accused VRDI systems (the IBM system, the Netafim system, and the Waterbit system) 

because those are the only allegedly infringing VRDI systems named in the PICs. Plaintiff counters

that Defendant’s discovery obligations are not limited to the vineyards using the systems named in 

the PICs, but rather, any system that Defendant identifies as using a type of “Variable Rate 

Irrigation” as defined in the PICs. 

Plaintiff has identified only three “accused devices” (in this case, the three VRDI systems), 

and therefore, Plaintiff is only entitled to discovery related to those VRDI systems. Mediatek, Inc. 

v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. 11-5341 YGR JSC, 2013 WL 588760, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 

13, 2013) (“In other words, even if [Plaintiff] did not identify a [Defendant] product by name in its 

PICs, it demands that [Defendant] produce discovery as to that unnamed product if [Defendant]

determines that the product contains one of the above-identified features. The Court is unpersuaded 

that [Plaintiff] is entitled to such broad discovery” because Plaintiff had failed to previously identify 

the products.). Plaintiff carries the burden to identify accused devices (Infineon Technologies AG, 

2012 WL 6184394, at *3), and “defendants should not have to guess” at which of its technologies 

are encompassed by a Plaintiff’s PICs. Kelora Systems, LLC v. Target Corp., 2011 WL 5444419, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011). By requiring Defendant to identify which of its vineyards are 

employing “Variable Rate Irrigation” systems that allegedly infringe upon Plaintiff’s patents, 

Plaintiff’s broad request has impermissibly shifted its burden to Defendant. Id. 

Patent Rule 3-1 requires “specific identification of particular accused products,” and does 

not “tolerate broad categorical identifications . . . nor . . . the use of mere representative examples.” 

Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc. 2011 WL 4479305, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011). Plaintiff’s 

request for discovery related to “Variable Rate Irrigation,” which is defined as “irrigation that is 

operated or controlled to vary the amount of water or other materials delivered to plants, such that 

for example, different ‘zones,’ ‘pixels,’ sub-blocks, rows, groupings of vines, or individual vines 

within a vineyard that may selectively receive different amounts of water or other materials in a 

time period,” (Doc. 127-11 at 4) is the type of “broad categorical identification” prohibited by the 

Rules. See Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc. 2011 WL 4479305, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011). 

Oracle is instructive. 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 7 of 12
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

8

In Oracle, Plaintiff accused the following Google devices as instrumentalities of patent 

infringement:

(i) “Android” or “the Android Platform”; (ii) Google devices running Android; and 

(iii) other mobile devices running Android. Representative examples of Google 

devices running Android include the Google Dev Phones, the Google Nexus One, 

and the Google Nexus S. Representative examples of other mobile devices running 

Android include HTC's EVO 4G, HTC's Droid Incredible, HTC's G2, Motorola's 

Droid, and Samsung's Captivate” as instrumentalities of patent infringement. 

Id. at 1. Plaintiff later named other mobile devices, such as the LG Optimus, the HTC Droid 

Incredible 2, and the Motorola Atrix, as products infringing on Plaintiff’s patents, because they also 

ran Android or the Android platform. Id. The Court found that the infringement contentions had 

not specifically identified these the HTC Droid Incredible 2 and the Motorola Atrix, and therefore, 

Plaintiff could not accuse them of infringement because “mobile devices running Android,” was 

too broad a categorial identification to adequately support infringement contentions. Id. 

In the instant case, Plaintiff’s categorization of “Variable Rate Irrigation” systems suffers a 

similar fate, as “Variable Rate Irrigation” is even more broad than the categorization in Oracle. In 

Oracle, Plaintiff’s identified the exact infringing system but failed to identify all the devices 

running the system. Here, Plaintiff has not even identified the infringing systems (like the Android 

system in Oracle or the IBM system in this case), let alone the infringing devices (like the specific 

mobile devices in Oracle or the vineyards in this case), in its PICs. For instance, the ’834 Patent 

describes and claims a “system for monitoring and managing plant growth in which [c]ombinations 

of data from sensors local to a vineyard, and from optional remote stations and sensors, is combined 

with a control system to accurately control the dispensing of water and chemicals such as 

insecticides, disease prevention fungicides and fertilizers.” A “Variable Rate Irrigation” system, 

as defined by the PICs and the interrogatories, includes any system of “irrigation that is operated 

or controlled to vary the amount of water or other materials delivered to plants, such that for 

example, different ‘zones,’ ‘pixels,’ sub-blocks, rows, groupings of vines, or individual vines 

within a vineyard that may selectively receive different amounts of water or other materials in a 

time period.” (Doc. 127-11 at 4). Under Plaintiff’s definition of “Variable Rate Irrigation,” and 

tracking Oracle, by seeking discovery related to all Variable Rate Irrigation systems, Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 8 of 12
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

categorization of the discovery it seeks is akin to Oracle seeking discovery related to “mobile 

phones”—a categorization that is even less specific than the identification of “mobile devices 

running Android,” which the Court found was too vague identify the allegedly infringing products 

in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions.

There are instances, however, where plaintiffs may be entitled to discovery related to 

allegedly infringing devices that are not named in its PICs. Namely, a Plaintiff may be entitled to 

discovery “if the plaintiff does not know of the allegedly infringing product when it serves its 

infringement contentions and could not have discovered the product absent discovery.” Infineon 

Technologies, AG, 2012 WL 6184394, at *3. “In such circumstances, the plaintiff nevertheless 

must ‘articulate how the [unknown] accused products share the same, or substantially the same, 

infringing [structure]’ with a named product.” Id. (quoting Bender v. Freescale Semiconductor, 

Inc., No. 09–1156 PHJ (MEJ), 2010 WL 1689465, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010); see, e.g., 

Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Acer Am. Corp., 655 F. Supp. 2d 650, 655 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (considering 

devices “reasonably similar” because they were structurally identical and operated in a manner 

consistent with Plaintiff's infringement theory).

Plaintiff relies on Panavision Imaging, LLC v. OmniVision Technologies, No. CV-09-1577 

DMG (CTx), 2010 WL 11507883, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 7, 2010) to support its proposition that this 

Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel in this case because the information it seeks to 

discover is publicly unavailable.3 This case is inapposite. In Panavision Imaging, Plaintiff

identified various products it alleged were infringing on their patents in its PICs. Panavision, 2010 

WL 11507883, at *4. The plaintiff in Panavision had only confirmed (via reverse engineering) that 

some of the products in its PICs actually included the patented technology. Id. Those plaintiffs, 

however, included expert testimony that the other products were likely constructed in the same 

manner as the infringing products. Id. Because the Plaintiff’s investigation provided a “reasonable 

inference that the accused products” infringed, Plaintiff’s PICs were sufficient. Id. 

Here, Plaintiff has failed to articulate how the unknown accused products share the same, 

3 Plaintiff also cites to a litany of cases to argue it can use discovery to identify other relevant vineyards, but none are 

patent cases governed by the Local Patent Rules. 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 9 of 12
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

10

or substantially the same, infringing structure as the named VRDI systems, nor has Plaintiff 

provided a “reasonable inference” that all VDRI systems infringe on Plaintiff’s patents. For 

example, in its complaint, Plaintiff alleges the VRDI system using Netafim components as a system 

“[embodied] the claimed systems and [performed] the claimed methods when used as intended 

(e.g., to variably irrigate grapevines with associated emitters in response to data or signals from infield sensors associated with grapevines). The installation is described in Knipper, et al., ‘Using 

High-Spatiotemporal Thermal Satellite ET Retrievals for Operational Water Use and Stress 

Monitoring in a California Vineyard’ (‘Operational Water Use’), Remote Sensing (2019), Vol 11, 

2124.” (Ex. 5 at 1). Plaintiff also alleges the VRDI system using WaterBit components and 

technology “[embodied] the claimed systems and [performed] the claimed methods when used as 

intended (e.g., to variably irrigate grapevines with associated emitters in response to data or signals 

from in-field sensors associated with grapevines).” (Ex. 5 at 2). Plaintiff’s interrogatories, 

however, seek discovery on a much broader set of technologies, and the VDRI systems it describes 

are not limited to systems that vary the amount of water or other materials they deliver in response 

to data or signals from in-field sensors. At most, Plaintiff’s descriptions of Variable Rate Irrigation 

systems are the kind of broad categorical identifications prohibited by the Patent Rules. Oracle 

Am., Inc. v. Google Inc. 2011 WL 4479305, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2011). 

Plaintiff has failed to provide a “reasonable basis” to demonstrate that any VDRI system 

necessarily infringes upon its patents, which generally vary the amount of water or other materials 

they deliver in response to data or signals from in-field sensors. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion 

to compel must be denied. Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. v. Matsushita Electrical Indus. Co., Ltd., VC 

05-8493 AG (SHx), 2007 WL 4302701, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2007) (denying the defendants' 

discovery where defendants did not establish a reasonable basis to suspect that additional products 

infringed the patents-in-issue); Monolithic Power Systems v. Silergy Corporation, No. 14-cv01745-VC (KAW), 2015 WL 5948159 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2015) (“Absent a clear explanation of 

the technology at issue, and the relation to the patents-in-suit, the Court declines to order Defendant 

to supplement its responses to include unaccused products.”) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff may reduce the scope of these broad categorical identifications by identifying the 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 10 of 12
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

11

infringing features the unnamed systems share with the systems named in its PICs. Monolithic 

Power Systems, 2015 WL 5948159, at *2 (“If, however, Plaintiff's representation that information 

regarding Defendant's products are not publicly available and cannot be easily obtained is accurate, 

and Plaintiff articulates how the technology concerns the patents-in-suit and the alleged 

infringement, the court is prepared to order Defendants to provide discovery on similar, unaccused 

products.”); see also Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Feit Electric Co, No.: CV 22-05097-AB (SHKx), 

20023 WL 8242156, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2023) (“Plaintiffs must, at a minimum, identify 

shared infringing features between the charted and uncharted products.”) (citing Silicon Labs. Inc. 

v. Cresta Tech. Corp., No. 5:14-cv-03227-PSG, 2015 WL 846679, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015);

Aavid Thermalloy v. Cooler Master Co., No.17-cv-05363-JSW, 2018 WL 11348437 (N.D. Cal. 

July 18, 2018) (allowing discovery into unnamed products where the discovery requests are limited 

to products that conform to the same infringing design as the accused products); see also Advanced 

Micro Devices, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. C 08-986 SI, 2009 WL 1834147, 2009 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 53942 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2009) (finding that failure to specifically accuse products is not 

dispositive where defendant had notice that plaintiff accused “what is purportedly the same process 

in a different product.”)4 Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that it may not rely on conclusory 

assertions that other infringing products exist. Mediatek, 2013 WL 588760, at *4 (“[T]he Rules do 

not require the party alleging infringement to perform the impossible. There may be circumstances 

where publicly available information does not disclose a potentially infringing product and 

therefore some directed, proportional discovery may be appropriate, but only upon a showing of a 

reasonable belief that such additional products actually exist and that they cannot be discovered 

with publicly available information.”) (emphasis added). 

4 Relatedly, Plaintiff suggests that it can now name additional vineyards using allegedly infringing technology. (Ex. 2 

at 1-2). In its letters to Defendant, Plaintiff identifies these technologies with a greater specificity than it does in its 

interrogatories and requests for production by connecting an irrigation system to specific data signals and in-field 

sensors. (“Gallo admittedly measures variability and computes irrigation schedules for this vineyard at a fine 

granularity, and installs multiple soil moisture and flow sensors per block.”). Similar specificity may be sufficient to 

narrow the scope of its interrogatories and requests for production, as this description is narrower than its current 

definition of Variable Rate Irrigation technology. 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 11 of 12
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

12

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Vineyard Investigations Motion to 

Compel Supplemental Document Production and Interrogatory Responses from Defendant E. & J. 

Gallo Winery (“Defendant”). (Doc. 123, Doc. 127).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 133 Filed 07/24/24 Page 12 of 12