Advanced Micro Devices Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al

Filing 374

ORDER DENYING AMD'S MOTION TO COMPEL LICENSE AGREEMENTS (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/16/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Contrary to AMD's assertion, the mere fact that Samsung has voluntarily produced some licenses outside the hypothetical negotiation period does not weigh in favor of compelling production of the four licenses now requested.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, et al., Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, et al., Defendants and Counterclaimants. /

No. C 08-00986 SI ORDER DENYING AMD'S MOTION TO COMPEL LICENSE AGREEMENTS

Plaintiff AMD has filed a motion to compel Samsung to produce all license agreements relating to the patents-in-suit or to technology comparable to the technology at issue in this case for the purpose of calculating damages based on a reasonable royalty. Four specific licenses are at issue in this case. The Nanya and Toshiba licenses are "broad, portfolio-level cross-licenses." The Interdigital and Rambus licenses are settlement agreements reached in connection with pending litigation. The hypothetical negotiation dates in this case range from some time in 1998 to September of 2004. The agreements AMD presently seeks were entered into from December 2007 to February 2010 ­ three to five-and-a-half years after the latest hypothetical negotiation date. In the Court's view, AMD is not entitled to discovery of agreements this far removed from the relevant time period, especially in light of the fact that Samsung has already produced 120 licenses spanning the period from 1990 to 2006.1 In addition, Samsung has explained that the two broad-level cross-licenses and the two settlement agreements are substantially different in scope and substance from the single-patent licenses

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

that will be relevant to the royalty calculations in this case. That fact further weighs against compelling discovery of the agreements. AMD's motion to compel is therefore DENIED. To the extent Samsung seeks discovery from AMD of license agreements similar to those at issue in this order, that request is also DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2010

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2