-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

EPISTAR CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC.,

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC, 

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 6:20-cv-00420-ADA

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Before the Court are certain discovery disputes identified by Plaintiff Epistar Corporation 

(“Epistar”) and listed in Appendix A attached to the Order of Limited Referral (D.I. 89). 

After careful consideration, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

Issue #1

Epistar’s request for permission to treat documents and deposition transcripts designated 

under the protective order in a litigation pending in the Central District of California (Epistar 

Corp. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, C.D. Cal. Case No. 2-17-cv-3219-JAK) (“California 

Litigation”) as if produced in this litigation is GRANTED-IN-PART, DENIED-IN PART.

While the Court declines to order a “blanket reproduction” of documents from the 

California litigation, documents produced in the California litigation which are relevant to this 

litigation should be reproduced with appropriate production numbers. The parties shall meet and 

confer and Epistar should identify any documents to Lowe’s that it believes to be relevant for 

Lowe’s consideration. Documents that pertain exclusively to products accused or patents 

asserted in the co-pending case do not need to be reproduced. 

With respect to the documents that were shown by Epistar to the Court during the 

hearing, the Court orders as follows:

Case 6:20-cv-00420-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 3
-2-

• With respect to the letter sent from Epistar to Defendants Lowe’s Companies, Inc. 

and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (collectively, “Lowe’s”) in 2016 that was shown 

during the hearing, the Court orders the letter to be produced. 

• With respect to a Power Point presentation that was shown during the hearing, the 

Court orders the presentation to be produced in this litigation. 

Issue #2

Epistar’s request that Lowe’s produce documents pertaining to the design of the accused 

products is GRANTED-IN-PART, DENIED-IN PART. 

Lowe’s must produce design documents pertaining to the accused products that Lowe’s

has in its possession, custody, or control, even if those documents would otherwise be publicly 

available. Lowe’s, however, does not need to embark on a search for publicly available design 

documents. 

Epistar’s request for communications with GE Lighting specifically is DENIED with 

respect to Lowe’s communications with GE Lighting after an indemnification agreement was 

reached because those communication are subject to the common-interest privilege. For 

documents Lowe’s claims to be subject to any common interest privilege, Lowe’s shall provide a 

privilege log describing the nature of the documents withheld pursuant to the requirements set 

forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Lowe’s need not log documents created after the filing of the 

Complaint. With respect to post-filing discussions between Lowe’s and GE Lighting involving 

litigation counsel, those communications are not discoverable and also do not need to be logged.

Issue #3

Epistar’s request that Lowe’s identify each LED filament bulb that Lowe’s contends 

constitutes a non-infringing alternative to the accused products is GRANTED-IN-PART, 

DENIED-IN PART. Lowe’s must identify all LED filament bulbs it contends constitute noninfringing alternatives to the accused products. In addition, Lowe’s must produce the requested 

financial information for 10 of such alleged non-infringing alternatives. With respect to those 10

Case 6:20-cv-00420-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 3
-3-

products for which Lowe’s is required to provide financial information, Lowe’s can choose five 

such products, and Epistar can choose the remaining five.

Issue #4

Epistar’s request that Lowe’s produce business plans, sales estimates, management

reports, sales projections, and Board of Directors reports for the accused products and LED bulb 

market is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN PART. Lowe’s must produce the requested 

documents if they exist for an LED bulb category that would cover any of the accused products. 

Likewise, summaries and reports that include information covering LED bulbs should be 

produced. To the extent Epistar believes that any particular document exists but was not 

produced, the Court directs Epistar to specifically identify any such documents and meet and 

confer with Lowe’s about the same.

Issue #5

Epistar’s request that Lowe’s produce physical samples of each accused product is 

GRANTED. Lowe’s is required to sell the requested physical samples to Epistar.

Lowe’s request that Epistar produce receipts for the purchase of the accused products is 

DENIED.

The Court notes that the any order requiring production is not a decision on admissibility.

SIGNED this 20th day of April, 2022.

____________________________________ 

DEREK T. GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00420-ADA Document 93 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 3