Opinion
Case No. C 06-02595 RMW (RS).
November 19, 2007
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL
I. INTRODUCTION
In this patent infringement action, defendant Rambus, Inc. moves to compel plaintiff Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre to amend its preliminary infringement contentions ("PICs") or to respond further to certain interrogatories that Rambus propounded to obtain the information it contends the PICs lack, or both. Because the PICs served by Alberta fail to provide all of the information required by Patent Local Rule 3-1, Alberta will be compelled to serve amended PICs. The motion to compel further interrogatory responses will be denied without prejudice, in the event the amended PICs remain deficient.
Rambus originally also sought to compel the production of certain documents regarding Alberta's licensing agreements and its relationship with Samsung. By way of two stipulations, one filed prior to the hearing and one filed thereafter, the parties have advised the Court that they have resolved those issues.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Sufficiency of Alberta's PICs
As explained in Network Caching Tech, LLC v. Novell Inc., 2002 WL 32126128 (N.D. Cal. 2002), Local Patent Rule 3-1 provides for a "streamlined" mechanism to replace the "series of interrogatories that defendants would likely have propounded" in its absence. 2002 WL 32126128 at *4. As such, Rule 3-1 and the other Patent Local Rules, "provide structure to discovery and enable the parties to move efficiently toward claim construction and the eventual resolution of their dispute." American Video Graphics, L.P. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 359 F.Supp.2d 558, 560 (E.D.Tex. 2005) (applying local rules modeled on those of this District). Patent Local Rule 3-1 "require[s] parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed." Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17564, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 1998).
Here, Rambus contends that Alberta's PICs fail to identify "a common absolute time reference" or "spatially distributed application modules" in the accused "Rambus Products." Alberta insists that Rambus's contentions that PICs are deficient are based only on "unsupported, conclusory argument of its attorneys." Additionally, Alberta asserts that Patent Local Rule 3-1 does not require Alberta to produce evidence of infringement or to provide support for its assertions.
Alberta's arguments are misplaced. Nothing in Rambus's motion seeks to require Alberta to provide evidence supporting its infringement theories; rather Rambus only seeks to compel compliance with Patent Local Rule 3-1(c), which requires, among other things, "a chart identifying specifically where each element of each asserted claim is found within each Accused Instrumentality, including for each element that such party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), the identity of the structure(s), act(s), or material(s) in the Accused Instrumentality that performs the claimed function." (emphasis added). Alberta appears to acknowledge that its PICs do not fully comply with these requirements, but it suggests that Rambus failed to respond to requests for further direction as to the information it wanted. Although efforts to meet and confer regarding the discovery issues are always encouraged, even assuming Rambus did not state with specificity what additional information it wanted, that does not serve as a basis for Alberta to avoid complying with the rules. At the hearing, Alberta expressed a willingness to provide amended PICs to address the issues raised by this motion, and indicated that efforts to prepare such amended responses were already underway. In the event such amended PICs have not yet been served, Alberta is hereby ordered to serve amended PICs in compliance with Rule 3-1 within 14 calendar days of the date of this order.
B. Interrogatory Nos. 1-4
Rambus additionally moves to compel Alberta to serve amended responses to Rambus's Interrogatory Nos. 1-4. As noted above, Rambus apparently originally served these interrogatories as an alternative to moving to compel amendments to the PICs. At the hearing, Rambus conceded that further responses to Interrogatory No. 1 and 3 would be superfluous provided that Alberta's amended PICs comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1. Rambus was more equivocal as to whether adequate PICs would also moot any need for further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4, but the basis of any distinction between the interrogatories is unclear. Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 will be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion in the event Alberta's amended PIC prove insufficient.
III. CONCLUSION
The motion to compel is granted, in part. Within 14 calendar days of the date of this order, Alberta shall serve PICs that comply fully with Patent Local Rule 3-1. The motion to compel further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 is denied without prejudice.IT IS SO ORDERED.