Acer, Inc. et al v. Technology Properties Limited et al

Filing 309

NOTICE of intent to appoint a technical advisor. Signed by Judge James Ware on December 19, 2011. (Attachments: #1 Resume of Technical Advisor, Kwan Chan)(jwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

8

Acer, Inc.,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
v.

Defendants.

16

Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/

HTC Corp.,

14
15

NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPOINT A
TECHNICAL ADVISOR

Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,

12
13

NO. C 08-00877 JW
NO. C 08-00882 JW
NO. C 08-05398 JW

/

Barco NV,
Plaintiff,
v.
Technology Properties Ltd, et al.,
Defendants.

/
I. INTRODUCTION

On October 5, 2011, the Court issued an Order in this case in which it notified the parties of
its intent to appoint a Technical Advisor. (hereafter, “October 5 Order,” Docket Item No. 297.) In
that Order, the Court notified the parties that it was reserving its right to appoint a “Technical
Advisor,” in addition to appointing a Special Master to manage discovery. In preparation for the

1

upcoming Markman, and upon review of the Patents-in-Suit as well as the parties’ contentions

2

regarding claim construction, the Court finds that due to the complexity of these related cases and

3

the Patents-in-Suit, the Court would benefit from the services of a technical advisor on this case.

4

II. STANDARDS

5

A district judge has inherent authority to appoint a technical advisor when the judge deems it

6

desirable and necessary. Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 590 (9th Cir.

7

2000) (en banc). The exercise of this authority should be used sparingly and only in highly

8

complicated cases. TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., 286 F.3d 1360, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

9

(interpreting the Ninth Circuit standard for appointing technical advisors). In those limited cases,
where the complexity of the science and technology involves something well beyond regular

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

questions of fact and law, the district court has the inherent authority to tap the outside skill and

12

expertise of a technical advisor. Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Enforma Natural Prod., Inc., 362 F.3d 1204,

13

1213 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 157 (1st Cir. 1988). The

14

technical advisor acts as educator, advising on terminology so that the district court can better

15

understand complex evidence and properly discharge its role as decisionmaker. See TechSearch,

16

286 F.3d at 1377.

17

In Reilly, while conceding that a district court has inherent authority to appoint an expert as a

18

technical advisor, the appellant argued that such power is strictly circumscribed by Fed. R. Evid.

19

706(a). 863 F.2d at 154. The First Circuit held the plain language of Rule 706(a) indicates that the

20

rule is confined to court-appointed expert witnesses and does not embrace expert advisors or

21

consultants:

22
23
24

[Rule 706(a)] establishes a procedural framework for nomination and selection of an expert
witness and for the proper performance of his role after an appointment is accepted. . . . By
and large, these modalities–though critically important in the realm customarily occupied by
an expert witness–have marginal, if any, relevance to the functioning of technical advisors.
Since an advisor, by definition, is called upon to make no findings and to supply no evidence
. . . provisions for depositions, cross-questioning, and the like are inapposite.

25
Id. at 155-56.
26
27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5

III. PROPOSED ORDER OF APPOINTMENT
Accordingly, the Court gives notice to the parties that the Court intends to appoint Mr. Kwan
Chan1 as a “Technical Advisor” under the following terms:
1. Any advice provided to the Court by Mr. Chan will not be based on any extra-record
information.

6

2. To the extent that the Court may ask Mr. Chan to provide a formal written report on

7

technical advice concerning the case, a copy of the formal written report prepared by Mr. Chan shall

8

be provided to the parties. However, the Court reserves the right to have informal verbal

9

communications with Mr. Chan which are not included in any formal written report.
3. Mr. Chan may attend all case-related court proceedings.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

4. Mr. Chan may review any pleadings, motions or documents submitted to the Court.

12

5. As a Technical Advisor, Mr. Chan will make no written findings of fact and will not

13

supply any evidence to the Court. Thus, Mr. Chan will be outside the purview of “expert witnesses”

14

under Fed. R. Evid. 706. As such, the provisions in Rule 706 for depositions and questioning of

15

expert witnesses will be inapplicable to Mr. Chan. See Reilly, 863 F.2d at 155-56.

16
17
18

6. Mr. Chan will have no contact with any of the parties or their counsel except for billing
purposes.
7. Each party shall bear the cost of the Technical Advisor on a per capita basis, payable in

19

advance. Within ten (10) days of appointment, the parties shall meet and confer with Mr. Chan and

20

develop a plan to set up a trust account whereby the parties shall deposit, initially, $15,000 each to

21

cover the anticipated fees and costs. Mr. Chan shall issue statements to the parties and draw from

22

the trust account every fifteen (15) days for his performance of the appointment. Mr. Chan will bill

23

at the rate of $450.00 per hour.

24
25

The Technical Advisor shall report to the Court on a periodic basis, every sixty (60) days,
regarding the state of his fees and expenses and make a recommendation to the Court as to whether

26
27
28

1

Attached to this Proposed Order is a courtesy copy of Mr. Chan’s resume.
3

1

the trust account needs additional deposits from the parties as the case progresses. All matters

2

pertaining to the fees of Mr. Chan are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

3

8. Mr. Chan shall file a declaration that he will adhere to the terms of his appointment.

4

On or before January 3, 2012, any party to the litigation wishing to object to Mr. Chan’s

5

appointment on any ground shall file a Notice of Objection to Appointment of Technical Advisor.

6

Among the grounds for objection, the Court specifically would wish to know of any objection based

7

on the following grounds:

8

(a) Bias on the part of Mr. Chan;

9

(b) Lack of funds to share the fees of the advisor on the part of the objecting party.
Any objection shall be lodged directly with the Magistrate Judge.2 The objection shall state

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the grounds of objection and be accompanied by a supporting declaration and legal memorandum

12

supporting the objection. The Magistrate Judge shall not advise Judge Ware of the identity of any

13

party making an objection. The Magistrate Judge may confer with the parties to determine if any

14

modification of the terms of appointment would overcome the objection. If there are objections, the

15

Court requests that on or before January 9, 2012, the Magistrate Judge submits a recommendation

16

to Judge Ware in accordance with paragraphs 1-7 or as modified, or of non-appointment due to

17

objections. Judge Ware shall determine whether to make the appointment under any modified terms

18

of appointment.

19
20

Dated: December 19, 2011
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court refers this matter to the Chief Magistrate Judge to assign the appropriate
Magistrate Judge to review potential objections and to review, post-appointment, any fees dispute
that may arise.
4

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Deepak Gupta [e-mail]
Eugene Y. Mar [e-mail]
Harold H. Davis [e-mail]
James Carl Otteson [e-mail]
Jas S Dhillon [e-mail]
Jeffrey M. Fisher [e-mail]
Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff [e-mail]
John L. Cooper [e-mail]
Kyle Dakai Chen [e-mail]
Mark R. Weinstein [e-mail]
Michelle Gail Breit [e-mail]
Nan E. Joesten [e-mail]
Paul A. Alsdorf [e-mail]
Samuel Citron O’Rourke [e-mail]
Stephanie Powers Skaff [e-mail]
Timothy Paar Walker [e-mail]
William Sloan Coats [e-mail]

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
Dated: December 19, 2011
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy