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.

Meidatek, Inc v. Freescale Semiconductor

February 13, 2013

MEIDATEK, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jacqueline Scott Corley United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL (DKT. NO. 74)

Plaintiff Mediatek, Inc. ("Mediatek") filed this suit against Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. ("Freescale") alleging patent infringement. Now pending before the 20 Court is the parties' joint discovery letter regarding Mediatek's motion to compel production 21 of documents. Mediatek seeks to compel Freescale to respond to discovery related to 22 products which Mediatek did notspecifically identify as accused products in its Preliminary 23

Infringement Contentions ("PICs"). After careful review of the parties' submissions, and 24 having had the benefit of oral argument on February 12, 2013, the Court DENIES Mediatek's 25 motion. If Mediatek wishes to seek discovery of these products on the ground that they 26 infringe the patents-in-suit, it must first seek and be allowed to amend its PICs to include 27 these additional accused products. 28

3 the parties more efficient, to streamline the litigation process, and to articulate with specificity 4 the claims and theory of a plaintiff's infringement claims." Bender v. Maxim Integrated 5

(internal citation omitted). Patent Local Rule 3-1 is a discovery device that "takes the place 7 of a series of interrogatories that defendants would likely have propounded had the patent 8 local rules not provided for streamlined discovery." Network Caching Tech., LLC v. Novell, 9

DISCUSSION

"The overriding principle of the Patent Local Rules is that they are designed [to] make Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 1135762, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2010) (alteration in original) 6 Inc., 2002 WL 32126128, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2002). The Rules are also intended to 10 require the party claiming infringement "to crystallize its theories of the case early in the 11 litigation and to adhere to those theories once disclosed." Bender v. Advanced Micro 12 14 plaintiff." Infineon Technologies AG v. Volterra Semiconductor Corp., 2012 WL 6184394, at 15 separately identify for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality ("Accused Instrumentality") of each opposing party 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). This Rule requires "specific identification of particular accused products." 21 'not tolerate broad categorical identifications' or 'the use of mere representative examples.'" 23 4479305 *2). Further, if a party wishes to amend contentions to add additional accused 25 products, it may only do so "by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good cause." 26

Patent L.R. 3-6. Good cause may include the "recent discovery of nonpublic information 27 about the Accused Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before 28 the service of the Infringement Contentions." Id.

Devices, Inc., 2010 WL 363341, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2010).

The Rules "place the burden of specifically identifying all accused devices on the *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2012). To that end, they require the party claiming infringement to 16 Oracle America v. Google Inc., 2011 WL 4479305, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2011). "It does 22 Infineon Technologies, AG, 2012 WL 6184394, at *3 (quoting Oracle America, 2011 WL 24 2 that, as of the PICs' date, MediaTek had been able to identify from public sources as 3 containing one or more features" which MediaTek contend infringe. (Dkt. No. 74 at 1.) The 4 contentions also "identified" as accused products all "products that operate in the same or 5 substantially similar manner" as the named products. (Id.) 6 MediaTek's infringement contentions identified "by name all of the Freescale products

Mediatek subsequently propounded written discovery on "Freescale Accused

Products," which Mediatek defined as 8

(Dkt. No. 74 at 1.) In other words, even if MediaTek did not identify a Freescale product by 14 name in its PICs, it demands that Freescale produce ...


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.