Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Ex Parte Application of Lg Electronics Deutschland Gmbh and

May 21, 2012

IN RE EX PARTE APPLICATION OF LG ELECTRONICS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH AND
LG ELECTRONICS JAPAN, INC.,
APPLICANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782 [Doc. No. 1]

On May 16, 2012, LG Electronics Deutschland., et al., ("Applicant" or "LG") filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery from Qualcomm, Inc., ("Qualcomm") for use in Foreign Proceedings. (Doc. No. 1). The application seeks permission to serve a subpoena upon Qualcomm to obtain information for use in certain lawsuits pending in Germany and Japan brought by Mitsubishi Electric Corporation against LG alleging patent infringement. The proposed subpoena requires the production of the following:

"1. All Documents that grant or granted, or purport or purported to grant, to Qualcomm any rights, protections, or licenses in or to any Mitsubishi IPR-including without limitation Mitsubishi Wireless IPR, regardless of whether it is Essential Wireless IPR -- that provide or provided a covenant not to sue relating to any Mitsubishi IPR, or that otherwise authorize or authorized Qualcomm to practice any Mitsubishi IPR, including but not limited to all agreements, amendments, appendices, attachments, schedules, and addendums.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A district court may grant an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 where:

(1) the person from whom the discovery is sought resides or is found in the district of the district court to which the application is made; (2) the discovery is for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal; and, (3) the application is made by a foreign or internal tribunal or any interested person. See, e.g., Lazaridis v. International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, 760 F.Supp.2d 109, 112 (D.D.C. 2011).

Even if these requirements are met, a district court retains the discretion to deny the request. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004); In re Premises Located at 840 140th Avenue., N.E., Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557, 563 (9th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court, in Intel, identified several factors that a court should consider in ruling on a request under § 1782:

"(1) whether the material sought is within the foreign tribunal's jurisdictional reachand thus accessible absent Section 1782 aid;

(2) the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court jurisdictional assistance;

(3) whether the Section 1782 request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States; and,

(4) whether the subpoena contains unduly intrusive or burdensome requests." 542 U.S. at 264-65.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Authority to Issue Subpoena

Having reviewed the application and the response of LG, the Court finds that the statutory requirements have been satisfied. Qualcomm is located in the Southern District of California, there is a pending proceeding in the German and Japanese courts and LG is an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.