Microchip Technology Incorporated v. Nuvoton Technology Corporation America et al
Filing
55
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE REGARDING REDUCTION OF ASSERTED CLAIMS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/3/2019)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY
INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
NUVOTON TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION AMERICA, et al.,
Case No. 19-cv-01690-SI
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE
REGARDING REDUCTION OF
ASSERTED CLAIMS
Re: Dkt. No. 53
Defendants.
12
13
14
Plaintiff Microchip Technology Incorporated (“Microchip”) and defendants Nuvoton
15
Technology Corporation America and Nuvoton Technology Corporation (collectively, “Nuvoton”)
16
have filed with the Court a discovery dispute entitled “Joint Statement Regarding the Reduction of
17
Asserted Claims.” Dkt. No. 53 (“Joint Statement”). The parties agree that it is necessary to reduce
18
the number of claims that Microchip asserts in this patent infringement case against Nuvoton but
19
disagree on the timing and number for the reduction. This is the first discovery dispute in this case.
20
BACKGROUND
21
22
On October 10, 2018, Microchip filed a complaint against Nuvoton alleging patent
23
infringement. Dkt. No. 1. In the operative complaint, served on Nuvoton on January 7, 2019,
24
Microchip alleges that Nuvoton infringes the following six patents, each of which plaintiff owns by
25
assignment:
26
(1) U.S. Patent No. 7,075,261 (the ’261 Patent), entitled Method and Apparatus for
27
Controlling a Fan;
28
(2) U.S. Patent No. 7,126,515 (the ’515 Patent), entitled Selectable Real Time Sample
1
Triggering for a Plurality of Inputs of an Analog-to-Digital Converter;
2
(3) U.S. Patent No. 7,353,417 (the ’417 Patent), entitled Microcontroller with Synchronous
3
Analog to Digital Converter;
4
(4) U.S. Patent No. 9,442,873 (the ’873 Patent), entitled Direct Memory Access Controller;
5
(5) U.S. Patent No. 9,772,970 (the ’970 Patent), entitled Multi-Protocol Serial
6
Communication Interface; and
7
(6) U.S. Patent No. 7,930,576 (the ’576 Patent), entitled Sharing Non-Sharable Devices
8
Between an Embedded Controller and a Processor in a Computer System.
9
Dkt. Nos. 5 (“FAC” ¶¶ 19–25), 6.
On July 12, 2019, at the initial case management conference, the Court set deadlines through
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
claim construction. Dkt. No. 44. In accordance with the schedule, on July 26, 2019, Microchip
12
served its infringement contentions, asserting infringement of 109 claims across the six patents.
13
Joint Statement at 1-2. On September 9, 2019, Nuvoton served its invalidity contentions. Id. at 1.
14
The parties state that they “have met and conferred regarding a schedule for reducing the number of
15
asserted claims without success.”1 Id. The claim construction hearing in this case is set for February
16
13, 2020.
17
LEGAL STANDARD
18
19
“A court may limit the number of asserted claims in a patent case for the sake of judicial
20
economy and management of a court’s docket.” Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 15-cv-
21
00262-SI, 2015 WL 6659674, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 30, 2015) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c)(2)(P);
22
Stamps.com Inc. v. Endicia, Inc., 437 Fed. App’x 897, 902 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). “In determining
23
whether to require parties limit the number of asserted claims, courts look to the number of patents
24
25
26
27
28
This Court’s Standing Order, § 3, requires that prior to filing a discovery dispute with the
Court, “[t]he parties shall meet and confer in person, or, if counsel are located outside the Bay Area,
by telephone, to attempt to resolve their dispute informally. A mere exchange of letters, e-mails,
telephone calls, or facsimile transmissions does not satisfy the requirement to meet and confer.” It
is unclear from the joint statement whether the parties here met and conferred in person or by
telephone. In any future discovery dispute statement, the parties shall specify the manner by which
they met and conferred.
2
1
1
and claims at issue . . ., the feasibility of trying the claims to a jury[,] . . . whether the patents at issue
2
have common genealogy, whether the patents contain terminal disclaimers, and whether the asserted
3
claims are duplicative.”
4
5587559, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) (citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
5
639 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). When limiting the number of claims that a patentee may
6
assert, the district court should still allow the patentee to assert additional, non-selected claims upon
7
a showing of good cause that the additional claims present unique issues of infringement or
8
invalidity. Id. at *2 (citing Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 918 F. Supp. 2d 277, 284
9
(D. Del. 2013)).
Thought, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 12-CV-05601-WHO, 2013 WL
10
DISCUSSION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
I.
Timing
13
Here, Microchip argues that it “is entitled to know the full scope of Nuvoton’s invalidity
14
position and Nuvoton’s sales data before selecting the claims on which to proceed.” Joint Statement
15
at 4. Accordingly, Microchip proposes that it make an initial reduction of claims by “the later of
16
October 19, 2019 or two weeks after Nuvoton discloses its invalidity positions by filing IPRs [inter
17
partes review] or confirming it is not filing IPRs, and fully discloses its sales data.” Id.
18
Nuvoton argues that Microchip has the burden of establishing the scope of its case and that
19
there is no legal basis for requiring Nuvoton to disclose its invalidity strategy before Microchip
20
limits the number of asserted claims. Id. at 2. Nuvoton proposes that Microchip conduct an initial
21
reduction of the number of asserted claims by October 13, 2019. Nuvoton argues that this date is
22
important because the exchange of preliminary constructions and extrinsic evidence is due October
23
14, 2019.
24
The Court agrees with Nuvoton that there is no basis for Microchip’s position regarding the
25
timing of reducing its claims. Microchip quotes from the Federal Circuit’s decision in In Re Katz,
26
639 F.3d at 1313, but that case does not support Microchip’s assertion that because any IPR
27
proceedings “may have an impact on this case, Microchip is entitled to understand Nuvoton’s
28
invalidity positions before reducing the number of claims.” See Joint Statement at 4. In re Katz
3
approved of a process by which the district court reduced the number of asserted claims while
2
allowing the patentee to later seek to add back in the non-selected claims if it “could show that the
3
additional claims presented unique issues.” 639 F.3d at 1312. The appellate court went on to state
4
that “[i]f, notwithstanding such a showing, the district court had refused to permit Katz to add those
5
specified claims, that decision would be subject to review and reversal.” Id. at 1313. Nothing in
6
the decision supports Microchip’s position that Nuvoton must disclose its strategy before Microchip
7
conducts an initial reduction of the 109 claims it presently asserts. See also Rambus, Inc. v. LSI
8
Corp., No. C 10-05446-RS, 2012 WL 13070209, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2012) (rejecting
9
patentee’s request that the Court order defendants to disclose their invalidity contentions before
10
patentee reduces its claims, where patentee “does not cite any law in support of its position that it
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
must be given the benefit of knowing defendants’ noninfringement theories in order to select its 20
12
strongest claims . . .”). Nor has Microchip pointed to any legal basis for requiring Nuvoton to fully
13
disclose its sales data prior to reducing the number of its asserted claims; the Court sees no reason
14
here to deviate from the schedule for disclosures the Court has already set, in accordance with this
15
District’s Patent Local Rules.
16
Additionally, “the weight of authority holds that claim limitation is proper prior to claim
17
construction, particularly where defendants have already served invalidity contentions[,]” as has
18
Nuvoton here. See Universal Elecs. Inc. v. Roku Inc., No. SACV 18-1580 JVS (ADx), 2019 WL
19
1878351 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019). Furthermore, according to the discovery schedule, allowing
20
Microchip to wait until after Nuvoton has filed any IPR petition could mean that Nuvoton does not
21
reduce its claims until after the parties have nearly finished briefing on claim construction. See Dkt.
22
No. 44. The Court finds the timing of Nuvoton’s proposal to be the more reasonable one.
23
24
II.
Number of Claims
25
The parties also disagree on the number of claims that should be reduced. Microchip
26
proposes an initial reduction to 60 claims and a subsequent reduction to 45 claims (presumably after
27
the claim construction order). Joint Statement at 5. Nuvoton proposes an initial reduction to 40
28
claims, a subsequent reduction after claim construction to 20 claims in no more than 4 patents, and
4
1
a final reduction 30 days before trial to 10 claims in no more than 3 patents. Id. at 2. The parties
2
have also proposed slightly competing schedules for Nuvoton to reduce the number of prior art
3
references. See id. at 4.
4
Microchip argues that the magnitude of reduction that defendants request is improper
5
because the “six asserted patents cover six distinct technologies, . . . and there is no showing that
6
the asserted claims are duplicative.” Id. at 5. However, “a defendant is not required to make a prima
7
facie showing that the asserted claims are duplicative in order to justify a limitation on the number
8
of asserted claims.” Universal Elecs., 2019 WL 1878351, at *3 (citing Masimo Corp., 918 F. Supp.
9
2d at 284; Thought, 2013 WL 5587559, at *3). Thus, Nuvoton’s proposal does not fail for that
10
reason.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
To the contrary, the reduction that Nuvoton proposes aligns with, or is more generous than,
12
what courts have ordered in other cases. In In re Katz, the Federal Circuit approved the district
13
court’s process of reducing the 1,975 claims in the multi-district litigation to 40 claims per defendant
14
group initially, and then to 16 claims per defendant group after discovery, with no more than 64
15
claims asserted total against all defendants. 639 F.3d at 1309. In this district, Judge Orrick ordered
16
a process for reducing the initial 102 asserted claims to 10 per patent and no more than 32 claims
17
total before claim construction, followed by a reduction 28 days after claim construction to 5 claims
18
per patent and 16 claims total. Thought, 2013 WL 5587559, at *4. Judge Seeborg issued an order
19
after claim construction that limited the patentee to asserting 20 claims total (after the initial 81
20
claims asserted had already been reduced to 35). Rambus, 2012 WL 13070209, at *1, 3.
21
In this case, the Court finds Nuvoton’s proposal reasonable and appropriate for the
22
management of the case at this time, and largely adopts the proposal, with the exception that the
23
Court will not require Microchip to drop entire patents, rather than claims, from the case.
24
25
CONCLUSION
26
For the foregoing reasons, the Court Orders as follows:
27
By October 13, 2019, Microchip shall identify no more than 40 asserted claims total. By
28
October 27, 2019, Nuvoton shall identify no more than 40 prior art references. Within 14 days of
5
1
the Court’s Claim Construction Order, Microchip shall identify no more than 20 asserted claims
2
total. However, before the expiration of that 14-day period, Microchip may move the Court for
3
permission to bring back unselected claims, based on a showing of good cause that unselected claims
4
present unique issues as to validity or infringement, and/or seek a Court order allowing it to increase
5
the number of claims at issue above the presumptive 20 total. Within 14 days of Microchip
6
identifying no more than 20 claims, Nuvoton shall identify no more than 20 prior art references.
Within 14 days of the Court’s Claim Construction Order, the parties shall contact the Court
8
to arrange a conference to set the remaining dates in this case, including a date for trial. At that
9
conference, the parties shall be prepared to discuss whether a further reduction before trial of
10
asserted claims and/or of prior art references is appropriate and, if so, shall propose a schedule for
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
7
such reduction.
12
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?