Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04426/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-04426-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Symantec Corporation
Counter-defendant
Zscaler, Inc.
Counter-claimant

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYMANTEC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZSCALER, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-04426-JST (MEJ)

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 165, 166, 174

Pending before the Court are three letter briefs filed by the parties in this patent 

infringement action. Amendment Ltr. Br., Dkt. No. 165; Symantec Chart Sufficiency Ltr., Dkt. 

No. 166; Zscaler Chart Sufficiency Ltr., Dkt. No. 174. The Court ordered supplemental briefing 

regarding the first two letters (Dkt. No. 168), and the parties complied with that Order (Symantec 

Suppl. Brs., Dkt. Nos. 175, 183; Zscaler Suppl. Brs., Dkt. No. 177, 182). The parties have met 

and conferred regarding the issues raised therein but have reached an impasse.

Zscaler’s request to amend its invalidity contentions to add claim 5 of the ‘116 patent and 

the seven claims that depend upon it is GRANTED, but the new invalidity contentions are subject 

to insufficiency challenges by Symantec. 

Zscaler argues that “Symantec offers no explanation of how or why the specific excerpts 

and cross-references disclosed by Zscaler are insufficient; or how Zscaler allegedly violates Rule 

3-3(c).” Dkt. No. 166 at 4. Symantec argues that “Zscaler appears to assert that Symantec’s 

explanations for every single claim is deficient without addressing why Zscaler contends 

Symantec’s specific explanations for each of these elements is deficient. Because Zscaler does not 

address why Symantec’s specific explanations are deficient for each claim element, Zscaler’s 

request is unreasonably vague and overbroad.” Dkt. No. 174 at 5. The undersigned will not 

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 185 Filed 04/18/18 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

analyze each of the contested claims. The attorneys who have signed the original and 

supplemental letter briefs at issue in this Order shall appear in person in the undersigned’s 

courtroom to meet and confer regarding the sufficiency of their invalidity charts and their 

compliance with Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) and 3-3(c). Within one week of the date of this Order, 

the parties shall contact Rose Maher, the undersigned’s courtroom deputy, at 415.522.4708 to 

inform her of their joint availability in the next three weeks.

During the meet and confer session, the parties shall explain to each other “how or why” 

each of the specific claim elements are deficient, and why the opposing parties believe they meet 

the Patent Local Rules’ requirements. At the conclusion of the meet and confer session, the 

parties shall create a document identifying every claim element whose sufficiency remains 

contested, and a succinct explanation of what specifically is missing or why the claim element

complies with the Patent Local Rules’ requirements. The Court shall rule based on that document.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 18, 2018

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-04426-JST Document 185 Filed 04/18/18 Page 2 of 2