Cross & Simon
General
Cases26
Challenger50%
Patent Owner50%
NPE50%
Practice Areas
Comp. Arch. and SoftwareCommunicationsBiotech
Top Attorneys
Elite Ratings
DCTPTABCAFC
Analytics
Lawyers
Cases
Ratings Trends
Practice Areas
Recent Dockets
Entered | Case | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 08/05/24 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of LAM Research Corp.'s First Supplemental Responses and Objections to Inpria Corporation's Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 14-16) filed by Lam Research Corp..(Gorman, John) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
| 08/05/24 | ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s pending discovery dispute motion (“Motionâ€), (D.I. 128 ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. 129 ; D.I. 130 ; D.I. 134 ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to the dispute as to Defendant’s Interrogatory (“ROGâ€) No. 7, Defendant’s request is GRANTED and Plaintiff must supplement its answer to that ROG, providing a fulsome answer to the question therein, no later than 30 days from today’s date. In a matter where the Complaint was first filed back in October 2022, Plaintiff should know (and should have known for a long time now) what its view is about whether any of its products read on the asserted claims (a relevant issue in this case as to damages, validity and perhaps claim construction), and should have anticipated for months or years that this issue would raise its head in the case. Defendant is entitled to a timely answer to ROG. No. 7, for the reasons set out in its briefing. (D.I. 129 at 1-2); cf. Pers. Audio, LLC v. Google LLC, Civil Action No. 17-1751-CFC-CJB, 2018 WL 4502002, at *2 (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2018). No additional discovery is needed for Plaintiff to be able to answer the question, and Plaintiff should be required to do so in a reasonably prompt fashion. And with regard to Plaintiff’s objection to providing claim charts in response, (D.I. 130 at 2), if Plaintiff is going to take the position that its products read on the patents and that this fact is helpful to it in the case (e.g., regarding damages issues, or objective indicia-related issues), the Court does not see how Defendant could adequately evaluate the merit of that assertion without having the benefit of something like a claim-by-claim explanation as to why the product reads on the patent’s claims. That said, if Plaintiff does take the view that certain of its products read on certain of the asserted claims, and if it can think of some other narrative way to provide a detailed response to ROG No. 7 that explains why that is so (other than via a “claim chartâ€), it may do so. See PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) (requiring a party in Plaintiff’s position to provide a “full substantive response†to a similar interrogatory); see also Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., Case No.: 14cv2235-DMS (BLM), 2018 WL 733740, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2018).; (2) With regard to the dispute as to Defendant’s ROG No. 3, Defendant’s request is also GRANTED, for similar reasons. Plaintiff must supplement its answer to that ROG by no later than 30 days from today’s date, identifying (as was requested by the ROG): (a) a date certain as to conception and reduction to practice regarding the subject matter of each asserted patent (and not by listing a date, preceded by the words “no later thanâ€), see Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., Case No. 14-cv-00876-RS (JSC), 2017 WL 3888869, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2017); and (b) some narrative explanation of the facts and circumstances that relate to the conception and reduction to practice of the inventions, see Sysmex Corp. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., Civil Action No. 19-1642-GBW-CJB, D.I. 80 (D. Del. May 13, 2020). The information is relevant to the case for the reasons Defendant says, it is the type of information that Plaintiff should have long known would be required to be produced, and it is information that, to a significant degree, is in Plaintiff’s hands.; and (3) As to both of the supplemental answers, Plaintiff will be supplementing based on the knowledge and information available to it as of the date of its service of the answers. But contrary to Plaintiff’s concerns, those supplemental answers are not necessarily “final†answers. (D.I. 130 at 3) Of course if additional information comes to light that causes Plaintiff to learn that its prior responses were incomplete or incorrect, Plaintiff can (and, indeed must) further supplement the response at issue. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e); see also (D.I. 134 at 1). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 8/5/2024. (smg) (Entered: 08/05/2024) | |
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT of the following sealed documents, signed on behalf of Fish & Richardson, P.C. : D.I.#364,381,424,425,426,427,618,619,621,633,634 (lak) | ||
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT of the following sealed documents, signed on behalf of Duane Morris LLP : D.I. #397,398,645,654,677,744 (lak) |