ASUS Computer International v. Round Rock Research, LLC

Filing 152

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION RE DKT. NO. 145 146 147 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 12/3/13. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13

ASUS COMPUTER INT’L,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17

Case No. 12-cv-02099 JST (NC)
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

v.
ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC,

Re: Dkt. No. 145, 146, 147

Defendant.

18
19

Plaintiff seeks clarification from the Court regarding its November 20, 2013, order

20 resolving discovery disputes in this patent infringement action. Dkt. No. 146. In that order,
21 the Court required the parties to “mutually exchange infringement and non-infringement
22 contentions.” Dkt. No. 145 at 4. ASUS asks the Court to clarify that the Court’s order
23 requires the parties to supplement their responses to “outstanding contention
24 interrogatories” rather than “contentions.” Dkt. No. 146.
25

The Court’s order addressed Round Rock’s request to compel ASUS to supplement

26 its response to Round Rock Interrogatory No. 6, which asks ASUS to “identify all factual
27 and legal bases for ASUS’s contention that each such product does not infringe the Patents28 in-Suit directly … and/or indirectly.” Dkt. No. 121-4. The Court’s order granted Round
Case No. 12-cv-02099 JST (NC)
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

1 Rock’s request. But the Court also found that the exchange of information should be
2 mutual, and therefore ordered Round Rock to similarly identify the bases for its
3 infringement contentions. That information is requested in ASUS Interrogatory No. 7,
4 which asked that Round Rock identify “the basis for your contention that the asserted
5 claims are valid….” Dkt. No. 121-8. To clarify, the Court’s order required ASUS to
6 supplement its response to Round Rock Interrogatory No. 6, and required Round Rock to
7 supplement its response to ASUS Interrogatory No. 7.
8

The Court also reminds the parties of their obligation to meet and confer in an attempt

9 to resolve discovery disputes, including interpretation of discovery orders, prior to seeking
10 the Court’s intervention. See Civil L.R. 37-1(a).
11

Any party may object to this order within 14 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Date: December 3, 2013

14

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 12-cv-02099 JST (NC)
ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

2